DOCSLIB.ORG

Trends in the Lithuanian Heritage Conservation of Masonry Architecture During the Soviet Period

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Trends in the Lithuanian Heritage Conservation of Masonry Architecture During the Soviet Period VYTAUTAS MAGNUS UNIVERSITY ARCHITECTURE AND CONSTRUCTION INSTITUTE Jolita Butkevi čien ÷ TRENDS IN THE LITHUANIAN HERITAGE CONSERVATION OF MASONRY ARCHITECTURE DURING THE SOVIET PERIOD Summary of Doctoral Dissertation Humanities, Art Studies ( 03 H ) Kaunas, 2009 The right of doctoral studies was granted to Vytautas Magnus University jointly with the Architecture and Construction Institute on July 15, 2003, by decision No. 926 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania. The doctoral dissertation worked out trough 2003 – 2009 at Vytautas Magnus University Scientific supervisor: Prof. habil dr. Vytautas Levandauskas (Vytautas Magnus University Humanities, Art Studies 03 H ) Council of defence of the doctoral dissertation: Chairman: Prof. dr. Nijol÷ Lukšionyt÷ (Vytautas Magnus University, Humanities, Art Studies 03 H ) Members: Prof. dr. Laima Šinkūnait÷ (Vytautas Magnus University Humanities, Art Studies 03 H ) Prof. habil. dr. Vladas Stauskas (Vytautas Magnus University, Humanities, Art Studies 03 H ) Doc. dr. Vytautas Petrušonis (Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Humanities, Art Studies 03 H ) Doc. dr. Rasa Čepaitien÷ (The Lithuanian Institute of History, Humanities, History 05 H) Opponents: Doc. dr. Mindaugas Bertašius (Kaunas University of Technology, Humanities, History 05 H) Dr. Marija Dr÷mait÷ (Vilnius University Humanities, Art Studies 03 H ) The official defence of the dissertation will be held at public meeting of the Council of scientific Field of Art Studies in the Art Institute of Vytautas Magnus University in Laisv÷s av. 53, “Art Gallery 101”, at 2 p. m. on January 29, 2010. Address:K. Donelaičio 58, LT 44248, Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: (+370 37) 323599 fax: (+370 37) 203858 The summary of doctoral dissertation was distributed on December ,2009. The dissertation is available at the National M. Mažvydas library, library of Vytautas Magnus University and library of Architecture and Construction Institute VYTAUTO DIDŽIOJO UNIVERSITETAS ARCHITEKTŪROS IR STATYBOS INSTITUTAS Jolita Butkevičien÷ LIETUVOS MŪRINöS ARCHITEKTŪROS PAVELDOTVARKOS TENDENCIJOS SOVIETMEČIU Daktaro disertacijos santrauka Humanitariniai mokslai, menotyra (03 H) KAUNAS, 2009 Doktorantūros ir daktaro mokslo laipsnių suteikimo teis÷ suteikta Vytauto Didžiojo universitetui kartu su Architektūros ir statybos institutu 2003 m. liepos 15 d. Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausyb÷s nutarimu Nr.926. Disertacija parašyta Vytauto Didžiojo universitete 2003-2009 metais. Disertacijos vadovas: Prof. habil.dr. Vytautas Levandauskas (Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, menotyra 03 H) Disertacijos gynimo taryba: Pirminink÷: Prof. dr. Nijol÷ Lukšionyt÷ (Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, menotyra 03 H) Nariai: Prof. dr. Laima Šinkūnait÷ (Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, menotyra 03 H) Prof. habil. dr. Vladas Stauskas (Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, menotyra 03 H) Doc. dr. Vytautas Petrušonis, (Vilniaus Gedimino technikos universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, menotyra 03 H) Doc. dr. Rasa Čepaitien÷ (Lietuvos Istorijos institutas humanitariniai mokslai, istorija 05 H) Oponentai Doc. dr. Mindaugas Bertašius (Kauno Technologijos universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, istorija, 05 H) Dr. Marija Dr÷mait÷ (Vilniaus universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, menotyra 03 H) Disertacija bus giname viešame Menotyros mokslo krypties tarybos pos÷dyje, kuris įvyks, 2010 m. sausio 29 d. 14 val. Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto „Menų galerijoje 101“, Laisv÷s al. 53. Adresas: Donelaičiog. 58, Kaunas 44248 Tel: (8 37) 323599, faksas (8 37) 203858 Disertacijos santrauka išsiųsta 2009 gruodžio d. Su disertacija galima susipažinti Lietuvos nacionalin÷je M. Mažvydo, Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto, Architektūros ir statybos instituto bibliotekose. INTRODUCTION Cultural heritage is a living witness of our past preserving traces of well-known or long-forgotten events. By touching riches of culture one can unveil a lot of mysteries and understand who we were, are and will be. Architectural heritage at this cognition process of history occupies an exceptional place, since our Old Towns’ buildings counting hundreds of years are open to a constant contact with public. Although building architecture of Lithuanian historical towns has been changed not once in the flow of ages, nevertheless, in most of them, at least partly, valuable fragments that are several centuries old have survived. The problem of the research. In the second half of the 20 th century in Lithuania first consistent and integrated works of heritage maintenance were started. The islands of Trakai and Biržai castles were rebuilt and restored buildings of the Old Towns of Vilnius, Kaunas, Klaip ÷da and K ÷dainiai revealed the past of our architectural heritage. Having removed the layers that had formed in the 19th – the beginning of the 20 th centuries, old architectural strata were uncovered and Gothic, Renaissance and Baroque architecture was raised from forgetfulness. A lot of buildings reconstructed and restored during the Soviet times have become the most important foci of our Old Towns. In the monograph History of Lithuanian Architecture they are presented as authentic Gothic and Renaissance creations. Although several decades have already passed, these objects have not been thoroughly researched and assessed from the viewpoint of restoration methodology thus far. Therefore, today two salient problems are emerging: 1) whether these paradigmatical examples of architecture indeed repeat a former look of originals; 2) unidentified past mistakes of heritage conservation create a favourable environment for the spread of the same mistakes. The object of the research. Reconstructed and restored buildings represent the Lithuanian architecture of the 15 th – 18 th centuries. The research of these objects enables a physical and spiritual touching on the past: the change of architectural forms reveals the development of creative thought; decorative elements ornamenting facades of dwelling-houses illustrate prevailing aesthetic views of the time and witness economic rises; and charred fragments of bricks remind us of wars and fires that have raged over the country. A great deal of information can be read on walls of buildings; however, whether it is objective will depend on the authenticity of the material researched. Consequently, it is very important to know whether restored buildings reveal for us primary information and to be aware of what is genuine, what is recreated or just a created imitation of the middle of the 20 th century. Thus the object of the present scientific work is the conservation of Lithuanian masonry architectural heritage during the Soviet period (1950 – 1990 m.) with the main attention being focused on the work of reconstruction and restoration, the analysis of scientific validity, the investigation of the authenticity of the form of recreated fragments and the establishment of the survival of historical material (in the sense of form and substance). The Soviet period is being defined from 1950, since that year consistent works of architectural heritage conservation were started. Relevance and novelty. As several decades have passed since first works of heritage conservation were started, it is necessary to turn back and to thoroughly analyse and assess objects that were reconstructed and restored during the Soviet times, for till now this has been done rather fragmentarily and superficially. During the Soviet period the conservation of architectural heritage was discussed in press and scientific conferences, however, at that time only the positive side of the work carried out was 5 being stated, a considerable attention was paid to statistical presentation and one did not go deep into the validity of conducted scientific work and the main problems related to the authenticity of recreated architectural composition and preservation of original substance were not realized and identified. Such an attitude towards architectural heritage conservation shows that its significance and direct influence on the spread of values lying in objects of architectural heritage were not properly perceived. Therefore, the present study attempts to fill the emerged gap hoping that the conducted analysis and conclusions provided will help to prevent a possible spread of the same and till now unidentified mistakes. The aim. The all enumerated factors have dictated the aim of the present work which is building on contemporary theories of heritage conservation to assess the reconstruction and restoration of Lithuanian masonry architectural heritage during the Soviet period. In order to reach the given aim the following main tasks have been set for the work : 1) To survey and assess the development of European heritage conservation and international documents regulating activities of heritage conservation; 2) To discuss the situation of heritage conservation in the interwar Lithuania; 3) To investigate and assess the theoretical works on heritage conservation in Lithuania published during the Soviet period (1950 – 1990); 4) To classify objects according to the types of heritage conservation work and to explore them; 5) To distinguish and assess the ways used for the recreation of parts of architectural structures and to analyse examples ascribable to them; 6) To assess the work on heritage conservation conducted during the Soviet period; 7) To ascertain and identify historical, cultural and political causes that made influence on the architectural
Load more
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...

43 pages remaining, click to load more.

Recommended publications
  • EAA Meeting 2016 Vilnius
    www.eaavilnius2016.lt PROGRAMME www.eaavilnius2016.lt PROGRAMME Organisers CONTENTS President Words .................................................................................... 5 Welcome Message ................................................................................ 9 Symbol of the Annual Meeting .............................................................. 13 Commitees of EAA Vilnius 2016 ............................................................ 14 Sponsors and Partners European Association of Archaeologists................................................ 15 GENERAL PROGRAMME Opening Ceremony and Welcome Reception ................................. 27 General Programme for the EAA Vilnius 2016 Meeting.................... 30 Annual Membership Business Meeting Agenda ............................. 33 Opening Ceremony of the Archaelogical Exhibition ....................... 35 Special Offers ............................................................................... 36 Excursions Programme ................................................................. 43 Visiting Vilnius ............................................................................... 57 Venue Maps .................................................................................. 64 Exhibition ...................................................................................... 80 Exhibitors ...................................................................................... 82 Poster Presentations and Programme ...........................................
    [Show full text]
  • National Reports 2005-2010
    REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1954 HAGUE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY IN THE EVENT OF ARMED CONFLICT AND ITS TWO (1954 AND 1999) PROTOCOLS 2005 – 2010 2 CONTENTS Page Introduction 3 I. Historical Background 4 II. Secretariat’s Activities with respect to the implementation of the Convention and its two (1954 and 1999) Protocols (2005 – 2010) 5 III. Cooperation with International Institutions 13 III. (i) Cooperation with the United Nations and NATO 13 III. (ii) Cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) 14 IV. Specific Country Activities 19 V. Customary Humanitarian International Law (ICRC Study) 23 VI. List of Issues used for the Preparation of National Reports 24 VII. Summary of National Reports 26 VII. (i) National Reports on the Implementation of the Convention, the 1954 (First) Protocol and Resolution II of the Hague Conference 26 VII. (ii) National Reports on the Implementation of the 1999 Second Protocol 98 Annex I: The Danish National Report on the Implementation of the 1954 Hague Convention 122 Annex II: Reports on the Implementation of the Second Protocol submitted by States not party to the Second Protocol 124 3 INTRODUCTION Article 26, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, adopted at The Hague in 1954 (hereafter “Convention”), stipulates that at least every four years the High Contracting Parties “shall forward to the Director-General a report giving whatever information they think suitable concerning any measures being taken, prepared or contemplated by their respective administrations in fulfilment of the present Convention and of the Regulations for its execution”.
    [Show full text]
  • 2011-2012 Secretariat's Overall Report
    8 COM CLT-13/8.COM/CONF.203/9 Paris, 4 December 2013 Original: English/French SECOND PROTOCOL TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION OF 1954 FOR THE PROTECTION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY IN THE EVENT OF ARMED CONFLICT COMMITTEE FOR THE PROTECTION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY IN THE EVENT OF ARMED CONFLICT Eighth meeting UNESCO Headquarters, Paris 18 to 19 December 2013 Item 12 of the Provisional Agenda: Consideration of national reports on the implementation of the Second Protocol 2012-2013 CLT-13/8.COM/CONF.203/9 – page 2 I. ASSESSMENT OF ISSUES COVERED 1. Article 27 (1)(d) of the Second Protocol provides for the Committee “to consider and comment on reports of the Parties, to seek clarifications as required, and prepare its own report on the implementation of this Protocol for the Meeting of the Parties”. As of 28 October 2013, the Secretariat had received twenty national reports on the implementation of the Second Protocol (from Belgium, Canada, the Republic of Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Japan, the Kingdom of Jordan, the Republic of Lithuania, Mexico, the Netherlands, Oman, Peru, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Switzerland). By way of comparison, as of that same date, sixty-four States in total were party to the Second Protocol.1 2. As the national implementation of the Second Protocol is closely linked to the national implementation of the Hague Convention and its 1954 Protocol, it is proposed that the Committee consider both the national reports on the implementation of the Second Protocol and those on the implementation of the Hague Convention and the 1954 Protocol submitted by the Parties.
    [Show full text]
  • National Report on Implementation of the 1954
    NATIONAL REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1954 HAGUE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY IN THE EVENT OF ARMED CONFLICT AND ITS TWO 1954 AND 1999 PROTOCOLS REPORTING COUNTRY: The Republic of Lithuania REPORTING PERIOD: 2003-2007 National point of contact: Chief Specialist of Cultural Heritage Protection in the Lithuanian Armed Forces Auksė Ūsienė Šv. Ignoto str. 8/29, LT-01121 Vilnius, Lithuania Tel. +370 5 278 5057 Fax. +370 5 210 3872 E-mail: aukse.usiene@mil.lt Chief Specialist of Cultural Heritage Protection in the Lithuanian Armed Forces (at interim from 2008 to 2010) Vilda Čelnaitė Šv. Ignoto str. 8/29, LT-01121 Vilnius, Lithuania Tel. +370 5 278 5057 Fax. +370 5 210 3872 E-mail: vilda.celnaite@mil.lt The 1954 Hague Convention for the protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (hereinafter – the Convention) was ratified by the Lithuanian Seimas on 17 March 1998 by the Law No. VIII-664 on the Ratification of the 1954 UNESCO Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and its Protocol“ („Dėl 1954 metų UNESCO kultūros vertybių apsaugos ginkluoto konflikto metu konvencijos ir jos Protokolo ratifikavimo“)1 (entered into force on 27 October 1998). The 1999 Second Protocol of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (hereinafter – the Second Protocol) was ratified by the Lithuanian Seimas on 13 November 2001 by the Law No. IX-594 on the Ratification of the 1999 Second Protocol of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict“ („Dėl 1954 metų Hagos konvencijos dėl kultūros vertybių apsaugos ginkluoto konflikto metu 1999 metų Antrojo protokolo ratifikavimo“)2 (entered into force on 9 March 2004).
    [Show full text]
  • Lithuanian Old Brick Size Variations Over Time 131
    Vytautas LevANDAUSKAS, Nijolė TALUNTYTĖ Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania LITHUANIAN OLD BRICK SIZE VARIATIONS OVER TIME 131 Keywords: brick sizes, architectural heritage, dating, chronology A III. rtifacts of Brick sizes are among the most important (if not the a dating system based on the entire evolution of THE main) indications of the ancient masonry, the com- architectural masonry, nor attempting to explain bination of which can be used for dating architec- the historical reasons for brick size variations. In L tural heritage. On the other hand, the examination addition, in their published writings or surviving ithuanian and comparison of brick sizes in different countries manuscripts, these architects-restorers focused on make it possible to reveal the ways building ceram- the brick formats of the medieval architectural heri- ics developed, show its specificity and even the attri- tage, often bypassing the early modern period and butes of the Lithuanian mentality. contemporary history. C Yet in the 6th decade of the 20th c., Lithuanian The aim of this paper is to determine the character- ultural architectural historians drew attention to the dif- istic brick formats and evolution of those formats ferent brick sizes in the medieval construction, in different periods. The research used a complex and soon after, followed the architects-restorers to method of comparing the measured brick sizes to M whom the brick size was important in identifying those specified in the historical documents. More emory the construction phases. In the research report1 on than 150 buildings of various epochs (as close to the Gothic house in Kaunas, Vilnius St., architect the known time of construction as possible) were Dalija Zareckienė has classified brick sizes of the selected for measurement.
    [Show full text]
  • Vilnius Region
    CULTURAL TOURISM ROUTES VILNIUS REGION IN THE STEPS OF RING OF LITHUANIA’S VILNIJA CREATIVITY RULERS AND OF THE EAST NOBLES This publication presents three cultural tourism routes, which invite to tour the Vilnius region. These routes are intended for individual region exploration, where Vilnius is the start and finish point of a tour. It is recommended to travel by car, however some of the attractions can be reached by train or bus. The routes offered are intended for the two-day trip, their distance varies from 185 to 340 km. Attractions that are possible to visit in one day are marked with conventional signs, distance of the routes varies from 125 to 170 km. Travellers are also able to design their own route or to pick interesting attractions themselves. The publication also provides tourists with additional information about accommodation, entertainment and events. Before starting a tour it’s recommended to check the visiting places working hours in the given Internet sites or by phones. Get to know the routes through the virtual presentation on the website www.vilnius-tourism.lt. SYMBOLS AND THEIR MEANINGS Tourist Information Contacts Arrival by Car Centre One Day Route Object Education Arrival by Bus Additional Object Guided Tours Arrival by Train Paid Admission Bike Rental Accommodation Important Information Beach Catering Water Entertainment Tree climbing Fishery SPA services EXPRESIONS USED IN PUBLICATION g. (gatvė) – St. (street) kaimas – village pr. (prospektas) – Ave. (avenue) rajonas – district kelias – road seniūnija – eldership
    [Show full text]
  • Lietuviškos Kolekcinės Ir Proginės Monetos Lithuanian Collector and Commemorative Coins
    Lietuviškos kolekcinės ir proginės monetos Lithuanian Collector and Commemorative Coins 1993–2020 VILNIUS 2020 Lietuviškos kolekcinės ir proginės monetos Lithuanian Collector and Commemorative Coins Leidinio bibliografinė informacija pateikiama Lietuvos nacionalinės Martyno Mažvydo bibliotekos Nacionalinės bibliografijos duomenų banke (NBDB). Bibliographic information is available 1993–2020 in the National Bibliographic Data Bank (NBDB) of the Martynas Mažvydas National Library of Lithuania. VILNIUS 2020 ISBN 978-609-8204-41-4 (online) © Lietuvos bankas, 2020 2020 5 eurų moneta, skirta žemės ūkio mokslams (iš serijos „Lietuvos mokslas“) Monetos briauna lygi Monetos dailininkas Rytas Jonas Belevičius 10 eurų moneta, skirta Vilniaus Gaono 5 euro coin dedicated to Agricultural Sciences (Elijo ben Saliamono Zalmano) 300-osioms gimimo metinėms (from the series “Lithuanian Science”) Monetos briaunoje užrašas „Jei norėsi, ir tu tapsi genijum“ lietuvių ir jidiš kalbomis Edge of the coin: plain Monetos dailininkai Viktorija Sideraitė Alon, Jūratė Juozėnienė, Albinas Šimanauskas Designed by Rytas Jonas Belevičius 10 euro coin dedicated to the 300th birth anniversary of the Vilna Gaon Metalas Kokybė Skersmuo mm Masė g Tiražas vnt. Išleista (Elijah ben Solomon Zalman) Auksas Au 999 „proof“ 13,92 1,244 2 500 2020 On the edge of the coin: JEI NORĖSI, IR TU TAPSI GENIJUM (IF YOU WILL IT, YOU TOO CAN BE A GENIUS) and the Yiddish translation of the phrase Metal Quality Diameter mm Weight g Mintage pcs Issued in Designed by Viktorija Sideraitė Alon, Jūratė
    [Show full text]
  • Gintautas Rackevicius
    FASCICULI ARCHAEOLOGIAE HISTORICAE FASC. XX, PL ISSN 0860-0007 GINTAUTAS RACKEVICIUS THE CROSSBOW — THE WEAPON OF THE INVADERS AND THE DEFENDERS OF VILNIUS CASTLE (THE LATE 14TH EARLY 15th CENTURIES) Missile weapons were despised by knights in Germany as well as in northern territories, the and widely deemed dishonourable. Therefore horn crossbow reflex bow, which appeared in the while recording the deeds of their clients, the 14th century, was subsequently replaced with a chroniclers, who directly described fights in steel one. However, steel bows would break in Lithuania, paid little attention to the virtues of winter time, whereas those made from birch bark shooters of humble origin. More comprehensive and horn plates glued together were substantially information about the crossbow used in wars more cold-proof. Like weapons with steel bows, against the Lithuanians can be derived from in- crossbows with strong horn (component) bows, ventories of Teutonic Knights' castles, which con- were windlass-driven (Fig. 1). Operation of the tain a number of peculiarities of the historical de- crossbow with a steel bow was slower. The re- velopment of Lithuania as well of other outlying placement of the crossbows with horn (compo- areas of this European cultural region. Here the nent) bows by devices with steel bows was due to data from written sources are complementary to the simplification of production. Finally, before the information obtained during archaeological the mid — 15th century, the steel crossbow "won" excavations. at the grand master's headquarters, as it started to 1 In the Western European wars of the 14th-15 th be used for awarding guests .
    [Show full text]
  • Use of Architectural Heritage: Challenges of Preservation and Adaptation Edita Riaubienė, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University
    Architecture and Urban Planning 2012 / 6 Use of Architectural Heritage: Challenges of Preservation and Adaptation Edita Riaubienė, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University ABSTRACT. The problem of the 21st century heritage preservation development”. In the current legislation [9], the aim of heritage is to raise the heritage to modern life. The study object is the protection is supplemented with aspiration of “public awareness adaptation of architectural heritage and ways of using it. The review of heritage and use of it”. There is indicated that “cultural and of international and Lithuanian legislation and scientists’ insights educational tourism is one of the public uses of heritage, but it formed a controversial equation: maximum preservation, minimum is necessary to maintain the authentic heritage form”. Therefore, changes, appropriate adaptation. The analysis of medieval castles detected prevailing adaptation conception in Lithuania (“ruins’ the provisions of heritage use in Lithuania developed from rather park”, “anemic”) and recent signs of technological interpretation. pragmatic to culturally adaptive, creating stronger links with the modern society. KEYWORDS: adaptation, architectural heritage, authenticity, Contemporary heritage management emphasizes active heritage legislation, heritage use, interpretation, medieval castles. and different use of heritage resources. Scientists state that heritage use can be diverse, depending on the users’ objectives The study focuses on the protection of architectural heritage and expectations. While heritage objects are usually applied to at the beginning of the 21st century, when the main objective museums, the modern society is already willing to build more of heritage preservation in post-modern consumer society is to innovation and stronger relationship with heritage. Public can no “raise heritage to contemporary life”.
    [Show full text]
  • ERDVĖS IR LAIKO REPREZENTACIJOS Mene
    VYTAUTO DIDŽIOJO UNIVERSITETAS / VYTAUTAS MAGNUS UNIVERSITY MENŲ FAKULTETAS / FACULTY OF ARTS ISSN 1822-4555 Meno istorija ir kritika Art History & Criticism 8 ERDVĖS IR LAIKO REPREZENTACIJOS MENE. PASAULĖVAIZDŽIAI, DISKURSAI, ARTEFAKTAI REPRESENTATIONS OF SPACE AND TIME IN THE ART. WORLDVIEWS, DISCOURSES, ARTIFACTS VYTAUTO DIDžiOJO UNIVERSITETO LEIDYKLA Kaunas, 2012 UDK 7(05) Mi 121 REDAKCINĖ KOLEGIJA / EDITORIAL BOARD Pirmininkas / Editor-in-chief: Prof. habil. dr. Vytautas Levandauskas (Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, Lietuva / Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania) Redakcijos taryba / Editorial Council Prof. Ph. D. Joakim Hansson (Gotlando universitetas, Švedija / University of Gotland, Sweden) Dr. Rūta Kaminska (Latvijos dailės akademija / Art Academy of Latvia) Prof. dr. Vojtěch Lahoda (Čekijos mokslų akademijos Meno istorijos institutas / Institute of Art History of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic) Prof. dr. Aliaksandr I. Lakotka (Baltarusijos nacionalinės mokslų akademijos K. Krapivos meno, etnografijos ir folkloro institutas / The K. Krapiva Institute of Study of Arts, Ethnography and Folklore of the National Academy of Sciences of the Belarus) Prof. dr. Małgorzata Sugera (Jogailaičių universitetas, Lenkija / Jagiellonian University, Poland) Prof. Ph. D. Bronius Vaškelis (Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, Lietuva / Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania) Prof. Ph. D. Kęstutis Paulius Žygas (Arizonos valstijos universitetas, JAV / Arizona State University, USA) Redakcijos valdyba / Publisher Board Dr. Linara Dovydaitytė
    [Show full text]