This article explores the making of a practice-based research exhibition as a case study in curating recent architectural heritage. Set against the backdrop of 1980s postmodern private house architecture in Estonia, it investigates how exhibitions can serve as tools for research and heritage-making. The article unpacks the research context of the exhibition, examines the iterative curatorial process and methodologies, and introduces the exhibition’s design, content with a selection of exhibits. A significant aspect of the project was its touring function, which took the exhibition to multiple Estonian cities, gathering visitor survey responses, identifying potential interviewees, and subtly reshaping the public image of postmodern residential architecture. Initial results from questionnaires, curatorial tours, and interview film material indicate the exhibition’s effectiveness as a research tool. Drawing on the author’s dual position as curator and researcher, the article reflects on curatorial work as a form of self-reflective practice-based research, situated between the roles of creative practitioner, architectural historian, and heritage specialist.
During the Soviet era, government and political authorities supervised and directed all artistic activities. The regime actively used what is often described as soft power to establish influence in the territories it occupied. To achieve this, it turned to the fine and applied arts by creating a state-controlled institution known as the art production factory. These enterprises combined professional and folk art, large-scale projects, and mass production. Art factories were able to produce the entire visual identity of an institution or event—from monumental works to small-scale graphic design. This article examines the origins and genesis of art production factories in the Baltic countries that operated during the Soviet era. To date, the art production factories of all three Baltic states have not been studied collectively. Thus, the aim of the paper is to reveal the general strategies the regime applied in establishing art production factories in the occupied territories.
While the design economies of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania had been closely interconnected under the Soviet occupation, the collapse of the Soviet empire also brought new conditions and possibilities. As mass production declined, art design and design exhibitions became increasingly important. This article analyses and compares two exhibitions, Neon–88 (Klaipėda, 1988) and Ruum ja Vorm V (Space and Form V, Tallinn, 1989–1990). Although they emerged within a similar period and included designers from all three Baltic countries, their organisational structures and outcomes differed fundamentally. Neon–88 exemplified a new type of exhibition operating outside institutional frameworks and comprising largely avant-garde objects, whereas Ruum ja Vorm V, organised by the Estonian Art Fund, reflected an attempt to remodel existing structures. Through a close examination of these two exhibitions, the authors identify broader developments in Baltic design during the final years of the Soviet Union and critically analyse them from a contemporary perspective. The article explores the nature of the encounters that took place between individuals and organisations in these two case studies in order to analyse the changing conceptions of “Baltic design.” During the 1990s, the reconstruction of national narratives became a central concern in all three Baltic countries. The two exhibitions examined here already reveal this emerging tendency, raising the question of how design practices and designers responded to the need to reposition themselves and their cultures within these shifting paradigms.
Riga’s Art Nouveau architecture has been extensively explored in Latvian art-historical literature. By the late twentieth century, a certain canon had emerged in the interpretation of the subject, shaped by the research, publications, and authority of Jānis Krastiņš. However, the early twenty-first century has introduced new aspects and additions in terms of terminology, contextual understanding, factual material, and interpretation. In recent years, the digitisation of periodicals by the National Library of Latvia has significantly expanded the available body of factual information. Knowledge derived from the periodical press has been further enriched by archival research, including studies by younger art historians. Contributions from scholars not only in Latvia but also from Lithuania (Dalia Klajumienė), Estonia (Karin Hallas), and the United Kingdom ( Jeremy Howard) have greatly enhanced this field. The perspective of Eduards Kļaviņš serves as an intriguing and complementary element in the interpretation of Riga’s Art Nouveau architecture.
The article examines Lithuanian painting from 1965, the year in which the exhibition of Baltic art was held in Moscow. In all likelihood, this prompted the idea of organising joint exhibitions of Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian art independently of Moscow. In Estonia, this contributed to the establishment of the Tallinn Graphic Art Triennial (1968); in Lithuania, the Vilnius Painting Triennial (1969); and in Latvia, the Baltic Watercolour Triennial (1968) and the Riga Sculpture Quadriennial (1972). The period covered extends to 1987, the year of the 7th Vilnius Painting Triennial. The article examines the presentation of official Lithuanian art within the context of Baltic art, particularly at the Vilnius Painting Triennials, and the canon of Lithuanian painting. An elite of official painters emerged during this period, and their roles, artistic aspirations, and achievements are discussed. Among the representatives of official art were talented artists whose overall creative trajectories include works of considerable artistic value. Although the ideology associated with some of these works is unacceptable today, their artistic contribution cannot simply be dismissed. The article draws attention to important works of the second half of the twentieth century that were exhibited at the Vilnius Painting Triennials—works that are significant to the history of Lithuanian painting but received little attention from critics at the time and were largely overlooked in reviews and other critical texts.
