English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

On 18 June 2015, Tonis Tatar successfully defended his thesis The Third Way in Soviet Estonian Art: Between the Avant-garde and the Power-minded”.1 Based on three significant authors in Estonian art history – Juri Arrak, Olev Maran and Kaljo Pollu – Tatar proposes a new interpretation for a period in our art history that was filled with abundant changes but was also complicated and contradictory. The author’s proposition starts in the second half of the 1960s and ends with 1987. The given period has been a focus of attention for our art historians and theoreticians since the last decades of the past century and it seems that the issues related thereto, which cause passionate disputes and often contrary interpretations, have not lost their topicality today. The purpose of this article is to highlight some significant aspects based on which – to use Sirje Helme’s words – Tonis Tatar’s research paper is a work that cannot be ignored by any other forthcoming treatments related to the art history and theory of Estonian art. The entire voluminous work proceeds from the author’s deep conviction that art as such is a self-fulfilling phenomenon, the purpose of which

On Tõnis Tatar’s PhD thesis The Third Way in Soviet Estonian Art: Between the Avant-garde and the Power-minded