Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

On the one hand, we can depict man today as a social being. Living in a group and feeling home somewhere is our primary source of meaning, of sense-giving. On the other hand, we can characterize man as an individual, who had the power not to conform, not to identify with the ideas or actions within a certain group. Like a philosopher, we all have the ability not to follow the 'flock', but to criticize a certain way of thought or living. Starting from this philosophical-antropological view on the dual nature of man, I arrive at two main 'cultural competences' which I associate with being a 'culturally literated' person, or having part of a certain 'high culture'. Much broader than the ability to read and write, I characterize 'cultural literacy' as the ability of being an empathic person showing solidarity or compassion, as well as having an open-minded, critical attitude. Instead of the notion of a 'general culture' (by origin a romanticist and nationalist term equalizing being 'culturally literated' merely with sharing a language, a history and a country), being part of a 'high culture' implies the continuous cultivation of the above-mentioned 'core competences'. Despite the positive emphasis in ancient philosophies on the stimulation of a thorough (cultural) 'formation', I wanted to get rid of the elitarist approach of a 'high culture'. The possibility of being a 'culturally literated' person should be democratized as much as possible. Every citizen should be able to develop the 'cultural core competences' of which I speak. However, not only the ever-present collective (and nationalist) tendencies to homogenize culture, but a radicalizing individualism in contemporary society is endangering the cultivation of 'cultural literacy' as well. Since the end of the 'Grand Narratives', individual liberty has become the 'highest good' in our society. Focussing solely on the individual implies neglecting the fundamentally dual nature of man, thereby endangering solidarit...

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

This masterthesis investigates how contemporary and fine art go into dialogue. This phenomenon is not so new but still a hot topic in this field of study. The research started from the question: 'What is the curatorial practice of working with contemporary and fine art within the same context?'. This question was divided into subquestions that led us to our discussion and conclusion. Claire Bishop proposes that the museum of today should be more involved with her collection and temporalities. Most museums tend to concentrate on what is contemporary and 'in'. With the term 'dialectical contemporaneity' she wants to break with this -according to her- bad practice and bring a new vision into the museums. Within this context it was important to look at what contemporary art is exactly and to abstract theories on this topic. The curatorial practice of today was investigated, here we could conclude that the profession has changed over the past years. Curating has become a booming business, today everybody can be a curator. Off course this does not go unnoticed and we can observe that the profession is still pushing its boundaries. In literature we found several motifs of exhibiting contemporary and fine arts together. Museums wants to revive their collection or tell a story within a few eras. The case studies brought new insights into the topic aside the literature study. We were able to abstract motifs and theories that are used when creating a dialogue. The interviews with the curators of Ravaged. Art and Culture in Times of Conflict showed us how a certain dialogue is built. The curator should always look for specific relations between the artworks, since this is how a dialogue is made possible. We also found that the curator should keep the dialogue in mind throughout the whole creation process of the exhibition, in order for the dialogue to reach its full potential.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

This paper will aim at answering how the change in Russia’s perception of Western culture and, thus, Western contemporary art has taken place. By underlining the importance of the question of HOW, for it has an inherent potential to trigger critical analysis and, thus, shape resistance to ideological influences, this paper will attempt to decipher the actual process of how perceptions towards Western art and culture happen to take their shape in modern Russian society. In order to examine this argument, this paper will juxtapose the notions of culture, ideology, and identity formation. By providing a general overview of Russo-Western relations throughout the history, I will emphasise certain trends, where political ideology at a time and the general public’s attitudes towards what is at a time considered to be the representation of Western culture correlate. To spot these trends, an emphasis will be made on the more recent events of Russian cultural history: the 90s and the current years. The Roaring Nineties were the times when the society that was constrained and whose culture was consistently shaped by the totalitarian Communist ideology has opened up to the world of new concepts, predominantly coming from the West, when the spirit of freedom has been the overarching principle of the entire nation’s culture. This liberal spirit has not lasted for long. Since Russia’s political elite has made its efforts to re-establish control and order in the country, torn by crime, poverty, economic turbulences, the cultural realm has also started undergoing dramatic changes. Todays Russia does not have much in common with a country one could have seen just less than two decades ago. After a thorough analysis of the context of “Russia and/vs. the West”, or “Us/Them” rhetoric, the current state of affairs in Russia will be depicted through the examination of four controversial Western artists’ exhibitions in Russia, signposting and reflecting the general public’s shifting cultural preferences. Thus, the main argument of the paper is that it is not an inherent historical, social, or cultural predisposition that affects the general public’s perception of contemporary Western art and culture, but, instead, an intentionally or unintentionally constructed political agenda. The question of deliberation angle is secondary, yet this paper will analyse the events themselves, and some context that surrounded the controversies they provoked. And by looking at legal, media and political frameworks the intentionality aspect will become determined. Since the paper will be dealing with the unquantifiable notion of perceptions, a semiotic approach will provide the biggest value in analysing the current state of affairs in Russia. Semiotics can reveal the meanings and the interlinks between the notions of Signs, Generation of Meaning, Ideology, National Identity, and Otherness that are the key to answering the main research question. Thus, by employing the analysis of historical context of Russia’s complex relationships with the West, by a close examination of the media coverage of sensational Western contemporary artists’ exhibitions and the particular language used to depict the events and by putting the two previous sections into the theoretical framework of semiotics, I will try to unravel the very process of the formation of perception of Western culture and art in Russia.