Talk:History of Lithuanian culture

= Views =

Attributing and classifying of personalities
Invitation. Your input to Culture of Lithuania is welcomed. Some problems of defining personalities or attributing them to certain well-known ideological systems may raise here. I propose a quite liberal variant of it, where definition may not be connected with one certain word. Necessity however to follow certain classifying remains.


 * My initial ideas on this branch, the ones, concerning period of Lithuanian national Renaissance period: Some artists, writers or other cultural workers of this period are often described as modernists. This definition is not false, but some more concrete things should be added, some specifics of Lithuania.
 * We should distinguish leading ideas of the Nat. Renaissance from later modernism, which is more known for us. Cultural aspirations of the later Nat. Ren. may be defined as modernism in a cultural context of Lithuania. But they accented also expression of Lithuanian cultural heritage, and their expression may be seen as something simply typically  Lithuanian. I mean, that such authors in as  &#268;iurlionis is seen as modernist in Lithuanian context, but it also (and even more) is a representative of Lithuanian culture, when in European or World-wide context. A parallel  example may be taken from literature of India. Poet  Tagore, well known Nobel price winner is known for us as a representative of culture of India. Making India more understandable and closer for western people is concerned as main his input to Western culture. But in his own country, he was seen as a modernist too, who was changing traditional cultural forms, especially stagnated ones. This way also Lithuanian cultural leaders of the N. Ren. could be seen as modernists, which were broadening cultural forms and changing stagnated ones, in Lithuanian context. They also can be seen as modernists in a wider context, but more for acquainting Western people with Lithuanian culture than for their direct input into Western culture. &#268;iurlionis is the best example here.
 * In other way, the later Lithuanian modernists (they depended mostly to later generation, approximately from 4th decade of the 20th century) concerned themselves part of Western modernistic movement and their main purpose (looking generally) was  to introduce Western European ideas into Lithuanian cultural life (see the table below).
 * We see two different movements and two different world outlooks here. The problem is, that both movements collaborated, especially their political wings did, and interchange of ideas between them is well seen. So, many researchers don't pay attention to this difference. Especially in the Soviet period, when national ideas were officially forbidden, mixture in description of these movements was allowed. E. g. philosopher Ram&#363;nas Bytautas, who clearly depends to the first generation, is often described as liberal. And it may be understood in a sense of the second generation (as idea of liberalism).

Note: Lists of personalities isn't complete here, nor it's made precisely by prominence. Linas 07:51, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)

= Minor changes needed =

These two seems doubtfull for me
* Lithuanian-speaking people make great jump of literacy, from minimal in the end of 18th century to approx. 80% in the end of 19th century. * Lithuanians, Poles and Belaruses declare themselves as different ethnic groups.


 * Please give your sources for that rate of literacy, seems unbelievable.

Now one could think that, say, lithuanian nation(nation in the modern sense of that word) was "extinct" for a while and now reappeared.
 * That would be right, but all that happened in a time when a definition of a nation changed to include all those ,havent changed nationality, secured language all that time, peasants. Thanks to those who reconverted the converted upper strata of the society and incited national thinking.

Could be the upper strata of the ??? declared themselves the ... But i'm not sure.

ee --Vytautas 08:31, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC) unsigned again, still new here, forget things

[The question is moved from my user talk page]

Thank You. You are right. These percents were incorrect, put inadvertently however. To be precise, their interpretation was wrong. The 20th century had been meant. I've already revised. - The statement about self-declaration also needed some precision. I have done it too.

I put more detail explanation in your talk page in Lithuanian. Linas 09:10, 2004 Jun 19 (UTC)

EI, ŽMONĖS. LIETUVIŠKAI mokantys, nors sakinį parašykite lietuviškai. Kam vargti verčiant ir tikslinant kalbą, jeigu jums teks verstis viską atgal? Linas 09:10, 2004 Jun 19 (UTC)

The same
That would be right, but all that happened in a time when a definition of a nation changed to include all those ,havent changed nationality, secured language all that time, peasants. Thanks to those who reconverted the converted upper strata of the society and incited national thinking.

It's an interesting thing. Lithuanian nation didn't appear from anywhere in the 19th century. Roots of it also existed till this time. I described it in the article, defining it Lithuanian speaking Lithuanians. But they paid more attention to their state nationality (pavaldinybė) than to ethnic accessories (language, manners). But when Poles began to understand nationality in romantic and more ethnic way, Lithuanians had two choices: to put off their ethnic basis and became pure Poles, or to separate from Polish nation (what was done subsequently). - This way, how Lithuanians became a separate nation must be described in the chapter about 19th century in the article. - It was impossible, that all nobles spoke Polish. It didn't take place even in the beg. of the 20 century. It's a fact that nobles, speaking Lithuanian, were slightly segregated by ruling aristocrats, so it wasn't popular among them, to defend Lithuanian culture. - Lithuanian culture included many elements, not only rural, lacking maybe the higher aristocracy only. - We also shouldn't reduce the culture to something ephemeral (as if ones were different Lithuanians, Polish speaking, became Lithuanian speaking), especially one of nation, having such archaic language. Not concealing that nation has had different understanding, we should say, that one Lithuanian culture exists, being continued in time. And we explain it all in modern terms. Additionally, we speak about cultural succeeding here, and do in History of Lithuania about political one. Definition of the culture is based on persistent definition of our language, which always (at least since the 16th century) have been called Lithuanian language. A state with its accessories is political thing, having also different cultural faces in different times. And the fact, that Lithuanians were divided under two nationalities before WWI (Polish with later Russian, and Prussian-German) also prompts to keep proposed direction in defining Lithuanian culture. Linas 11:21, 2004 Jun 19 (UTC)

= What is this article about? = I wonder if there shouldn't be a more interesting and concise article about Lithuanian culture. I'll admit I didn't read this sprawling article, but it doesn't seem like there's much information that would be interesting to most people wishing to learn some facts about the culture of Lithuania. When I think of the culture of a people, I think about the music they listen to, the clothes they wear, the food they eat, the festivals they celebrate, the games and sports they play, the people's great artists (poets, composers, painters, etc.) who have emergered... shouldn't a "Culture of Lithuania" article have at least some information about this stuff instead of just a boring history of the concept of the Lithuanian people or nation?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 20:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In principle, I agree with you, but You should concead, that we know that, what You insist on (see my note just below). The other part of the idea You proposed, that it's almost impossible to write about all this in a single article, if not superficially. Linas Lituanus 12:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * P. S. I may disagree too with that conception of culture, where the most attention is paid to customs and life-styles, not paying any attention to that, what culture really is or what it, at least should be. But it have become something like Wikipedia standard, and we should regard it at least as a standard.-- So, let's consider the article a stub. And i'm sorry if You haven't found anything usefull for You. The only my comfort is, that if the article were empty, one would find nothing there anyway. Linas Lituanus 12:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I somewhat agree with The Fat Man. There seems to be A LOT of history about how their culture was developed in the past, but it says almost nothing about what their culture is now (however you want to define it in wikipedia terms). Perhaps create a separate History of Lithuanian Culture article and give this article more info on what the actual culture is. It seems to stick out from the other "Cultures of ______" articles.
 * I also removed the cleanup tag because I don't think it needs cleaning up in terms of Manual of Style, but it definitely needs attention (and references) - Barkeep  17:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

history
This article seems to be the History of Lithuanian culture, rather than the Culture of Lithuania...? ;) heqs 12:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I should agree with You. However we should consider the following: I'm sorry if You didn't find a necessary information or wasted Your time. I think, the article should be considered a stub, although  quite expanded. Linas Lituanus 17:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Cultural specifics of Lithuania is deeply connected with the history of Lithuanian culture. It means, that any improved version of the article would contain  a big portion of historical information.
 * 2) Description of any subject depends on its sources. Meanwhile I don't know a good source, describing culture of Lithuania from a different angle than the historical one.
 * 3) I often  thought, that giving the article a more suitable title will be necessary in the future. But it means, that the Culture of Lithuania would remain empty now, when a new contents for the article isn't written.

Rewrite?
I've collected some stuff to add about more modern Lithuanian culture. After that's done, perhaps we could reduce the historical text into a more summarized form and have a fuller treatment at, say, History of Lithuanian Culture? I agree with Linas Lituanus' above statement that we should include historical information on this page, but I think there is currently too much. -- tiny plastic Grey Knight  ⊖  13:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

=Polonization= Did polonization really begin only in the 2nd part of the 18th century? I was under the impression Polish culture had been influcing Lithuania at least since the 16th century (Union of Lublin) and such. I also cannot understand how the article can fail to mention Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Certainly much of the historical Polish culture during the times of PLC (from renaissance to enlightment) is applicable to this article...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

History of Lithuanian culture
It was stated in 2006 that this article is rather History of Lithuanian culture. In fact it's History of Lithuanian language culture. History of Lithuanian culture should include Polish, Jewish and Belarusian literature of the region.Xx236 10:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Lithuanian culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070211004844/http://www.visitlithuania.net/travelportal/cgi/dir.cgi?dir=89 to http://www.visitlithuania.net/travelportal/cgi/dir.cgi?dir=89

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)