Archive for: Culture and Money

There is no consensus when it comes to graffiti. The fact that we

balance between considering them art and considering their invasion

of our public space vandalism, tells mainly about our fear of inability

to control the messages they send. But whether consisting of an artist’s

name or a high quality drawing, graffiti messages carry a common

meaning. Following the trail of Monsieur Chat, a graffiti cat smiling

from Paris rooftops at the protestants during the social upheaval of

2001, the French director Chris Marker reflected on these post 9/11

events, reminding us that, just like in 1968, poetry gets born in the

streets. Graffiti initially emerged out of necessity, as a language of those

deprived of other, more conventional means of expression. They serve

a social function by expressing the society’s shared values, instead of

individual beliefs of their creators. By invading our public space they

alter our perception of reality, provoke critical thinking and awake our

social conscience. Regarding graffiti as a mean of communication, this

paper reflects on this phenomenon by analysing different segments of

communication process.

The Fritz Lang’s cult film Metropolis seen in the context of ideas

presented by Frederick Winslow Taylor, the father of scientific

management, reveals a powerful message that the modern cult of

efficiency, according to which things can be done “in one best way”,

dehumanizes labour and turns humans into machines thus preventing

their spiritual accomplishment. The paper examines the presence of

Taylor’s ideas in Germany during the 1920s, as well as their global

impact on the art and culture trends, underlying their dystopic potential.

Through intersemiotic references to other literary and cinematographic

works, primarily Yevgeny Zamyatin’s novel We and Aldous Huxley’s

Brave New World, this interdisciplinary study confirms conclusions

of certain authors about the crucial importance of Taylor’s ideas in

understanding the world we live in.

The starting point of this paper is an assumption that creation of

works of material culture requires necessary material means, but that

existence of ktetorial financial means does not in itself guarantee actual

creation of artistic works, nor their significance. The paper compares

two ktetors – the two heirs of King Stefan the First-Crowned. Prince

Vladislav, the younger son of King Stefan – one of the most prominent

persons in the Kingdom, but still not the king, had significantly different

starting position in his ktetorship in comparison with the King’s older

son Radoslav, who was destined to inherit the throne. As a son of

the concurrent king Stefan the First-Crowned, Vladislav raised his

ktetorial endowment, the Monastery of Mileševa, around the year 1220,

after which it was frescoed with assistance of his uncle, archiepiscope

Sava. This cooperation resulted in creation of the following frescoes:

Ktetorial portrait, Procession of the Nemanjić Dynasty, The Feast of

the Ascension of Jesus Christ, Harrowing of Hell. It is possible that

St. Sava also assisted in some other issues related to foundation of the

Mileševa Monastery. Radoslav was already crowned when he raised the

narthex of the Studenica monastery, and frescoes within this narthex

were also created under St. Sava’s influence. In comparison, Vladislav

founded an entirely new monastery, which was a significant financial

burden for a prince, while Radoslav, as the king, limited his ktetorial

activity on upgrading the Studenica Monastery which was endowment

of his grandfather St. Simeon. It should be noted that the Studenica

Monastery was ranked as the most important monastery in the church

hierarchy of the Serbs. After St. Sava passed away, Vladislav, who was

crowned King in the meantime, transferred the relic of St. Sava to the

Mileševa Monastery, thus effectively raising the importance of Mileševa

to the 2nd most important Serbian monastery. The legal regulation

of Mileševa was based on the Law of St. Sava, while previous regal

regulation of the Studenica Monastery became the Law of St. Simeon.