Sculptures by Matas Menčinskas and their changing interpretations

The strong influence of the theories of the image anthropology, visual perception and reception could be noticed in Lithuanian art criticism of the recent decade. This article examines (in)appropriate wording of visually experienced work of art and its impact on the formation of the canon of Lithuanian art. It is a case study of Matas Menčinskas’ (1897-1941) sculptures and their interpretations in the interwar, soviet period and the first decade of the restored independence. The article shows that by travelling in time the image interpretations change and form their own “biography”, but the image reception and verbal expression are not always adequate. The noticed “inadequacies” between the image and the text enable the better understanding of the formation process of canonical Lithuanian art discourse, the agents and circumstances that developed this discourse. The entries on Matas Menčinskas are included in encyclopaedias, art histories and other important publications forming the art canon, his works are present in the collections of three national museums. But all this seems not enough for the artist to be named one of the core figures of the national sculpture. He is perceived as quite a significant artist in the history of Lithuanian sculpture, but what precisely makes his heritage valuable and important still has to be named. The case study reveals that as the Neo-traditionalist school of sculpture has entrenched in the historiography of the Lithuanian art, the sculpture that is close to the trends of Expressionism and Symbolism has become marginal. The meta-narrative with its dominant public commissions of monumental art failed to notice the sculptures created by Menčinskas for private interiors, without which the view of the interwar Lithuanian art would never be full. The article also discloses that every interpretation of Menčinskas’ sculptures is an eloquent sign of time, witnessing the social expectations and needs prevalent in different epochs. It also highlights the power of art criticism to perform the functions of psychological compensation, manifestation of social position, etc