Practice-Based Film Education in Lithuania: Main Actors and Sites of Struggle

1Citations
Citations of this article
2Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

The aims of this chapter are to identify the main Lithuanian agents operating in the field of practice-oriented film education, and to analyze their position and positional shifts in the field of culture and art education in general from the perspective of recent history. I will regard the respective field as a “site of struggles” and “power,” as Pierre Bourdieu puts it, in which operating agents use different “activities and specific strategies”1 in order to transform or maintain traditional relations in a given area. In so doing, I hope to identify the key stages of practice-based film education in Lithuania and to reveal the importance of different forms of training or tutoring: those linked to a conservatoire-style model of the film school, and those driven by a search for alternatives and a commitment to “learning by doing.” I further argue that Lithuania is quite distinctive as a country when it comes to the “tolerance” it exhibits toward self-trained filmmakers and their ideas. There appears, I contend, to be a kind of intuitive appreciation of the sorts of “molecular” structures that Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari have identified in a quite different context,2 and of the ways in which such structures contribute to a vital kind of creativity that can be crucial for a given milieu.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Šukaitytė, R. (2013). Practice-Based Film Education in Lithuania: Main Actors and Sites of Struggle. In Global Cinema (pp. 25–43). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137070388_2

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free