Communicative Proactivity in Architectural Initiatives Supported by the Lithuanian Council for Culture


  • Eglė Navickienė Faculty of Architecture, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Lithuania
  • Vaida Almonaitytė Navickienė Kaunas Faculty, Vilnius Academy of Arts, Lithuania



architectural communication, cultural activities in architecture, architectural education of society, financial support for culture, Arts Council


The paper aims to highlight the need, distinctive features and problematic issues of cultural and communicative activities in architecture field by using a case study of the projects in architecture funded by the Lithuanian Council for Culture (LCC). The identification of the problems in supporting non-commercial initiatives in architecture since 2014 up to 2020 is the scope of this paper, which is developed using an analytical descriptive approach. The analysis covers scientific and professional literature, legal documents, recommendations of professional architectural organisations, information from the LCC and semi-structured interviews with 7 experts. Problems regarding the funding of projects in architecture by the LCC are identified by using statistical information from the LCC database and the dissatisfaction/satisfaction with LCC activities, project approval for funding, general issues of cultural policy expressed in interviews, and by looking for correlations between them. Analysis of the statistics of project funding reveals several problems. Funding for the projects in architecture field is particularly low, compared to the projects in other fields of culture and art. Geographical distribution of architectural projects is uneven, as majority of projects were submitted by applicants from Vilnius. Funding is mostly allocated to institutions with experience, established groups of participants and time-tested ways of operation; non-standard, breakthrough initiatives are rarely supported.
The article states that problems related to the dominance of the narrowed concept of architecture, to the lack of cultural communication, and to the modest public knowledge of architecture lead to the devaluation of architecture and, consequently, to the diminishing of the quality, diversity and long-term cultural value of the surrounding environment. Architectural education of society would be the most effective way to address these problems. It is important to grow everyday users, politicians, investors, developers, activists, and preservers of local heritage able to understand and critically evaluate architecture. In order to increase the cultural significance and importance of architecture for society, architecture practitioners and theoreticians should be encouraged to make the most effective use of the opportunities offered by the LCC. Activities to be funded should be selected by the potential long-term value of their results and their impact on the public and/or the professional community. In order to balance the geographical distribution, revisions to the list of evaluation criteria and their weight should increase access to support for activities in regions, for ambitious early applicants and for innovative, out-of-the-box undertakings.

Author Biographies

Eglė Navickienė, Faculty of Architecture, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Lithuania

Architect, Doctor of Humanities (History and Theory of Arts, 2004), Associate Professor at the Faculty of Architecture, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University; Pylimo Str. 26, LT-01141, Vilnius, Lithuania.

Vaida Almonaitytė Navickienė, Kaunas Faculty, Vilnius Academy of Arts, Lithuania

Art Critic, Doctor of Humanities (History and Theory of Arts, 2006), Associate Professor at Kaunas Faculty, Vilnius Academy of Arts, Muitinės Str. 4, LT-44280 Kaunas, Lithuania.


Ahonen, P., Adams, T., Fisher, R. An International Evaluation of the Finnish System of Arts Councils. Publications of the Ministry of Education, Finland, 2004, No. 3.

Architects’ Association of Lithuania and Baltic Architects Unions Association-BAUA. Conference„Holistinė modernizmo kvartalų renovacija“, 2022-04-11 [online 20.04.2022]

Architektūros sektoriaus profesinis standartas. Kvalifikacijos tyrimo ataskaita. 2018-12-20. [online 07.07.2022].

Belfiore, E. ‘Impact’, ‘value’ and ‘bad economics’: Making sense of the problem of value in the arts and humanities. Arts & Humanities in Higher Education, 2015, No. 1(14), p. 95–110.

Čiupailaitė, D. Architektūra kaip ne/su/si/kalbėjimas. 2017-10-08 [online 07.07.2022].

Durrer, V., Gilmore, A., Stevenson, D. Arts councils, policy-making and “the local”. Cultural trends, 2019, No. 4(28), p. 317–331.

European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, (2021). Towards a shared culture of architecture: investing in a high-quality living environment for everyone: executive summary. Publications Office.

European Commission 2020. New European Bauhaus [online 07.07.2022].

European Ministers of Culture 2018. Davos Declaration „Towards a high-quality Baukultur for Europe“ [online 07.04.2022].

European Union 2005. 2005 m. rugsėjo 7 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyva 2005/36/EB dėl profesinių kvalifikacijų pripažinimo [online 07.07.2022].

Evans, G. Hard-branding the Cultural City – From Prado to Prada. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 2003, No. 27, p. 417-440.

Kvalifikacijų ir profesinio mokymo plėtros centras. Architektūros sektoriaus profesinis standartas. 2020 m. gegužės 4 d. Nr. VI-56 [online 07.07.2022].

Lithuanian Council for Culture LCC. About us [online 07.07.2022].

Lithuanian Council for Culture LCC. Finansuoti projektai [online 07.07.2022].

Lithuanian Council for Culture LCC. Stats and Figures [online 07.07.2022].

LR Architektūros įstatymas. 2017 m. birželio 8 d. Nr. XIII-425 [online 07.04.2022].

Murzyn-Kupisz, M. Cultural policy at the regional level: a decade of experiences of new regions in Poland. Cultural Trends, 2010, No. 1–2(9), p. 65-80.

O’Neill, O. Accountability, trust and professional practice. The end of Professionalism. In: Architecture and Its Ethical Dilemmas. Ray, N., Ed.; London: Taylor & Francis, 2005; p. 77–88.

Perez-Gomez, A. Attunement: Architectural Meaning after the Crisis of Modern Science. United States: The MIT Press. 2016. 287 p.

Rennix, A., Robinson, N. J. Why you hate contemporary architecture. Current Affairs. 2017 [online 07.07.2022]

Saint, A. Practical wisdom for architects: The uses of ethics. In: Architecture and Its Ethical Dilemmas; Ray, N., Ed.; London: Taylor & Francis, 2005; p. 7–22.

Samuel, F. Why Architects Matter. Evidencing and Communicating the Value of Architects; Routledge: Milton Park, UK, 2018. 268 p.

Sutton, S. E. Reinventing Professional Privilege as Inclusivity: A Proposal for an Enriched Mission of Architecture. In: The Discipline of Architecture; Piotrowski, A., Robinson, J.W., Eds.; United states: University of Minnesota Press, 2001; p. 173–207.

Symes, M.; Eley, J.; Seidel, A. D. Architects and Their Practices: A Changing Profession. Oxford: Butterworth Architecture, 1995. 229 p.

The Architects' Council of Europe ACE 2016. ACE policy position 2016. Dissemination of Architecture Culture [online 07.07.2022].

The Architects' Council of Europe ACE 2016. ACE policy position 2016. Regulation of architects [online 07.07.2022].

The International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies IFACCA. National Members [online 02.23.2023].

Till, J. ‘Angels with Dirty Faces’, Scroope, 1995, No.7. Cambridge: University of Cambridge, p. 5–12.

Upchurch, A. R. Keynes’s legacy: an intellectual’s influence reflected in arts policy. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 2011, No. 1(17), p. 69–80.

Wasserman, B.; Sullivan, P.; Palermo, G. Ethics and the Practice of Architecture. United States: John Wiley & Sons, 2000. 336 p.




How to Cite

Navickienė, E., & Almonaitytė Navickienė, V. (2022). Communicative Proactivity in Architectural Initiatives Supported by the Lithuanian Council for Culture. Landscape Architecture and Art, 21(21), 68–79.