Electronic Library of Scientific Literature Electronic Library of Scientific Literature
1-3/2002
ŠTÚDIE / STUDIES
MATERIÁLY / MATERIALS
OBHAJOBY DIZERTAČNÝCH PRÁC / PhD THESIS DISCUSSION
RECENZIE / REVIEWS
: Niekoľko poznámok ku knihe S. A. Mansbacha ”Modern Art in Eastern Europe: From the BalticŠtefan ORIŠKO
(Summary)
So far, views of the general situation in the area of Romanesque stonemasonry have considered and presented this discipline negatively and sceptically; either as a marginal, inessential and not autonomous subject, or as a no longer existing phenomenon. However, the reality seems to be just the opposite: among the Slovak monuments there are all the bsic types of stonemasonry from the Romanesque period – from architectural sculptures, to various types of stonemasons’ works forming part of church interiors. This was influenced by the fact that this region belonged to Romanesque, Christian Europe within whose framework the typological and functional extent of stonemasons’ works was created. It is also important that we do not find among Slovak artefacts only finished, the so-called “final” solutions, belonging to the context of the high Romanesque layer, but here evident traces indicating the degrees of their preparation and formation can be found. This can be seen in the development process of creating the significance and forms of the portal: its operation as a part of sacred building, starting from the emphasized and limited area of the tympanum and continuing to relief or other iconographic expression. Some of them can be studied only indirectly on the basis of fragments and the meaning in the context, particularly in the structure of the buildings, some are visible as sketches of the development process. Owing to direct evidence we are more complexly informed on the 13th century monuments, which are not only much more numerous, but can be placed among the more coherent development tendencies, as indicated by the literature dealing with this subject. Unlike these, the earlier monuments are less “sure” and lonelier and at the same time more problematic.
The oldest stonemasons’ evidence from the 11th century (fragment from Bíňa-Apáti, several fragments from Nitra) indicate gradual penetration of building sculpture – a significant innovation of the period – into building structure. In the functional typology of stonemasons’ fragments representing the first evidence of building sculpture in our country, we can assuredly find architectural components. Such are the fragments from Nitra, which were found by several researchers in various places (three lateral capital with tongue-shaped leaves, a fragment with painted impressed stripe discovered by B. Puškárová in the building of the castle church, and even today a missing palmette fragments known from an impression in a find from the beginning of the 20th century). These were connected with the division of architecture and the important building sites where they were used as column capitals or pillars etc. The small number of fragments of Nitra architectural sculpture is connected with building activity carried out probably after the renewal of the bishop’s residence at the end of the 11th century.
Another fragment, coming from Bíňa-Apáti, was a piece of small interior architecture – the choir parapet. It is among the rare evidence of so-called “palmette” style, used after the mid 11th century not only in the court environment, but also additionally to direct royal orders and funding (in Bíňa probably in the construction of the Hunt-Poznans’ monastic church). The principle of decoration was characteristic of the stonemasons’ competence in the early Romanesque period. The ornamentation whose variations can be seen in the stonemasons’ works drew on the transformed heritage of the ancient and Byzantine art and was essentially of international character and its variants in differing workshops and development phases are difficult to separate. It seems that the architecture itself of the period was influenced by stimuli from the south. We cannot say on the basis of the works preserved whether those influences were the only ones or dominant in the 11th century.
The standard of the stonemasons’ architectural tasks, which were the main if not the exclusive sculptural or plastic duties in the general artistic effort, were relatively uniform. Exclusive works are missing. We cannot speak of the sculptors’ standard in any case. The orientation and approach of the period were principally of the craftmens’ or stonemasons’ character. This statement is true not only of some of our rare preserved monuments but of the stonemasons’ production in other regions of Europe, also fragmentary only. The stonemasons’ artefacts are known only from the buildings of special importance and purpose from Nitra, which was the bishop’s residence, and from Bíňa, as there was probably there a family monastery. We do not have more palpable evidence of the general spread of stonemasons’ work in the 11th century. In this respect also our local monuments correspond with the situation in other regions in Central Europe.
Apart from fragments of the stonemasons’ works we can see mainly the parts of stone buildings which were connected with monumental decoration – such as the portal zone connected with the façade and transept. We know example of this type only from the groundplans of the western two-spire facade in Hronský Beňadik (built perhaps already in the last quarter of the 11th century).
Apart from the monastery churches it is the portals of village churches which have always maintained and preserved the forms of development coming from the higher stylistic levels. In the portals of village churches we can follow the basic degrees of the transformation of the church entrance, from its expression and the separation of the tympanum as a special field above the door frame to the first iconographic expressions above the entrance. Each of these degrees can be illustrated by examples: the entrance arrangement in Kalinčiakovo (Varšany) is among the early forms of architectural expression of the portal with tympanum, the same can be said of Klížske Hradište. In the portal in Kalinčiakovo the tympanum area is built with a relieving arch while the church entrance in Klížske Hradište has a semicircular depression instead of a tympanum. The (older) portal in Boldog is one among the oldest iconographic solutions. It has three Greek crosses cut in the lintel above the threshold, and comes perhaps from the second half of the 11th century. However, the examples mentioned representing various degrees of portal development in the broader area of village buildings are not successive chronologically: they indicate that there existed in parallel more conservative and more progressive types of the form.
The village churches form a greatly differentiated phenomenon, determined by the traditional character of building types which, however, were enriched in their decorations by more topical elements. From this aspect, if we take into consideration the absence of artefacts from important centres among the preserved monuments, the village churches yield us at least the reflection of the more demanding achievments. At the same time there is a chance to learn something about the development process which took place then, but cannot fully substitute for the losses and gaps which exist in this area. On the other hand we must say that the modest standard of the monuments from a village environment not only complements the picture of the style layers but is its integral component. The standard contains transformations and variations of stylistic expression and references to forms which have not been elsewhere preserved. The existing artefacts from the village environment cocreate this picture and also determine the variety in the standard in which individuality hierarchy and quality were not always clear. In the Romanesque architecture in Slovakia stylistic elementarism and rustic forms are characteristic, not only for “marginal” works. They can show in the works of opposite character – the difference between them varies, is not fixed and often is minimal.
Stonemasons’ work could be used also for moveable objects and at the same time they participated in providing for the needs of liturgical items (e.g. baptismal fonts). Monumental stonemasons’ work did not develop in this area and the stonemasons’ participation in the creation of the moveables still corresponded to the artistic ideals of the pre-Romanesque period: in some types of architecture they preserved the older models.
Ivan GERÁT
(Zusammenfassung)
Wieweit haben sich die mittelalterlichen Schöpfer durch Überlieferung leiten lassen? Wohin führt diese Frage im Zusammenhang mit unserem Bilderzyklus?
Die Gestalt des in den siebzigen Jahren des fünfzehnten Jahrhunderts entstandenen Kaschauer Zyklus wurde sicherlich nicht nur durch die ikonographische Tradition bestimmt. Die Möglichkeiten ikonographischer Übernahmen wurden durch die überlieferte Struktur des Altarretabels sowie durch die historisch gegebenen technischen und mimetischen Qualitäten malerischer Sprache gewissermaßen vorgegeben. Die Künstler und Auftraggeber wurden durch ein Zusammentreffen der verschiedenen Traditionen zu kreativen Lösungen motiviert. Die Ergebnisse ihrer Bemühungen, in denen auch eine Rücksicht der Schöpfer auf mannigfaltige Funktionen des jeweiligen Bildes zu spüren ist, werden im Zuge der Analyse einzelner Szenen des Kaschauer Zyklus konkret dargelegt.
Die ikonographische Vorgänger der Darstellung des Geburts der Heiligen in der Familie des ungarischen Königs Andreas II, mit der der Kaschauer Zyklus unten an der Festseite des linken inneren Flügels beginnt, findet man (ebenso wie bei einigen anderen Szenen) im sog. Krumauer Kodex und auf dem Lettner der Spitalkirche in Lübeck. Das Kaschauer Bild lässt aber einige Transformationen erkennen. Eine deutlich genauere Wiedergabe des Raumes und der Stofflichkeit der Gegenstände in der Szene ähnelt solchen Bildern, wie Geburt Mariens des Kölner Meisters des Marienlebens und wurzelt letztlich im Umkreis Jan van Eycks. Die mimetischen Qualitäten des Kaschauer Werkes sind aber nicht nur als ein Selbstzweck bzw. als eine Manifestation der künstlerischen Fähigkeiten des Malers zu verstehen: sie verraten nämlich, wie wichtig die königliche Abstammung der Heiligen für die Kaschauer Bürger war. Es ging ihnen dabei nicht nur um die Akzentuierung der sozialen und wirtschaflichen Position der Heiligen, sondern auch um eine Betonung ihrer besonderen Beziehung zum ungarischen Hof – gerade für die Zeit der Entstehung des Altars sind reiche Schenkungen des Königs Matthias für die Kaschauer Kirche archivalisch belegt.
Das Zusammentreffen Elisabeths mit ihrem künftigen Ehemann Ludwig am thüringischen Hof wurde erstmals auch im Lübecker Zyklus dargestellt. Den unmittelbar zusammenhängenden Ereignissen widmete man dort (ebenso wie bei dem Geburt) mehrere Szenen. Die ikonographischen und formalen Unterschiede sind aber auch im Bilde selbst festzustellen. In Kaschau begrüsst das Mädchen Elisabeth nicht Ludwig selbst, sondern seinen Vater, womit der heiratspolitische Aspekt der Verlobung deutlicher hervorgehoben wird. Die genau dargestellte Kleidung der Figuren, die die Kaschauer Händler und Handwerker sicherlich gut zu schätzen wussten, unterstreicht wiederum den Reichtum, mit dem Elisabeth in den ersten Etappen ihres Lebens umgeben wurde. In der Erzählstrategie des Zyklus wurde mit diesem Mittel ein Kontrast gebildet, der den Wert aller späteren freiwilligen und unfreiwilligen Erniedrigungen der Heiligen wirksam unterstreicht.
Das mittlere Register der beiden Altarflügel wurde der Mildtätigkeit der Heiligen gewidmet. Ursprünglich begann es mit er Szene der Schneidung der Haare eines Aufsätzigen, die im Laufe späterer Restaurierungen irrtümlich auf den gegenüberliegenden Flügel versetzt wurde. Von ihren ikonographischen Vorgängern unterscheidet sich die Kaschauer Szene vor allem durch eine bessere Ausnützung der narrativen Potenz des Bildraumes: in den Hintergrund des Bildes wurde der beobachtende Ludwig eingegliedert, dessen libertas – wie uns Dietrich von Apolda sagt – die Mildtätigkeit der Heiligen eigentlich ermöglichte. Die Gartenszene bot dem Maler auch eine Gelegenheit zu realistischer Naturwiedergabe. Die Möglichkeiten des neuen Realismus dienten aber wiederum auch einer Verdichtung der Bilderzählung. Das aus der literarischen Vorlage geschöpfte Nebenmotiv des Ehemanns führt den Betrachter logisch zur weiteren Szene.
Das Kreuzwunder stellt eine Vision Ludwigs dar. Der Kranke, den Elisabeth zuvor in ihr Ehebett legte, verwandelte sich vor seinen innerlichen Augen (interiores oculos) in den Gekreuzigten. Diese Szene wurde im Mittelalter sehr häufig dargestellt. In der Legendenerzählung sowie in den Bildwerken diente sie als ein Argument zugunsten der ungewöhnlichen Opferbereitschaft der Heiligen. Im Vergleich mit den anderen Elisabethzyklen zeigt sich wiederum die erzählerische Potenz des Kaschauer Malers. Obwohl eine genauere Identifikation der beteiligten Personen und ihrer Wahrnehmungsinhalte umstritten bleiben mag, die Erzählung des Bildes stellt sicherlich ein komplexes Modell der Laienfrömmigkeit dar. Das entscheidende Motiv der Christusähnlichkeit der Armen und Kranken wurzelt theologisch und ikonographisch in der Tradition der Barmherzigkeitswerke. Der ungewöhnlich kleine Kruzifixus im Ehebett der Heiligen ordnet sich in die ikonographische Tradition des arbor vitae, und läßt deswegen auch an Visionen denken, die durch ein bereits vorliegendes Bild provoziert wurden. Das Visionserlebnis des Landgrafen beschränkt sich nicht auf seine einsame Kontemplation, sondern zeichnet sich durch ganz konkrete Auswirkungen auf seine Stellungsnahme in der dargestellten dramatischen Situation. Die weitere Szene des Kaschauer Zyklus zeigt uns auch ein Wunder, der mit der Barmhrezigkeit Elisabeths verbunden wurde. Sie kommt zu einem Festmahl in dem prächtigen Mantel, den sie zuvor einem Armen gegeben hatte, dann aber wurde ihr das vermisste Kleidungsstück aus dem Himmel zurückgegeben. Man sieht noch die Engel, die den Mantel tragen. Die Geschichte stellte man zunächst in den Nebenmotiven dar – z.B. am Altarflügel aus Altenberg. Weitere indirekte ikonographische Vorgänger der Szene sind in der Viten der Heiligen Franz und Martin zu finden. Im Vergleich mit den früheren (Neapel) und späteren (Marburger Altar) Elisabethzyklen sieht man die Absenz des eigentlichen Gebens als ein besonders auffälliger Zug des Kaschauer Bildes. Die Auftraggeber wollten offensichtlich mehr Luxus als Askese sehen. Durch eine ikonographische Modifikation wurde das christliche Ideal der Barmherzigkeit in eine zeitlich und lokal akzeptable Form transformiert.
Elisabeths Abschied vom Ehemann, mit dem die Sequenz des linken Flüges des Kaschauer Hauptalters abgeschlossen wird, wurde sehr früh – bereits vor 1250 in den ältesten Marburger Zyklen – zum bildkünstlerischen Thema. Im Vergleich mit den älteren Versionen des Themas zeigt es sich, daß man in Kaschau die nicht mehr aktuellen Hinweise auf die Kreuzzugideologie ausgelassen hat. Ludwig wird nicht mehr als ein harter Krieger, sondern eher als ein eleganter Höflig aufgefasst. Die Komposition wurde um mehrere Gestalten und um das Landschaftbild bereichert. Dieses aber bleibt – soweit es um die Rezeption der aktuellen niederländischen Errungenschaften geht – hinter anderen Werken aus der Zeit.
Am rechten Flügel des Kaschauer Altars wird der harte Witwenschicksal der Heiligen gezeigt. Unten sieht man die Erniedrigungen – erstens die Austreibung aus Wartburg, dann die Begegnung mit der undankbaren Bettlerin. Eine ähnliche Szenenfolge ist im Lübecker Zyklus zu finden. Der Kaschauer Maler arbeitete aber wiederum realistischer und mit mehreren Gestalten. Die Schilderung der Stadt in der zweiten Szene dürfte von den Werken wie der Breslauer Barbaraaltar inspiriert worden sein. Sie machte die Ereignisse dem zeitgenössischen Betrachter viel näher und appelierte damit auf sein Mitleid. Man sollte die Geduld bewundern, mit der die christusähnliche Heilige ihre Erniedrigungen angenommen hatte. Zugleich aber sah man, daß die Armen mitunter sehr undankbar sein können, womit den Stadtbürger auch ein Argument gegen ein grenzenloses Geben geliefert wurde.
Im mittleren Register folgt dann wiederum die Barmherzigkeit der Heiligen. Eine besondere Bedeutung der beiden Szenen beruht darin, daß sie sich in dem von Elisabeth gegründeten Spital abspielen – in Kaschau könnte diese indirekte Argumentation zugunsten des städtischen Spitals gut verstanden werden. Man sah, wie die vornehme Heilige selbst an der unangenehmen Spitalarbeit teilnimmt – im Marburger Fensterbild eines Krankenbesuchs der Heiligen, das von der ikonographischen Tradition der Barmherzigkeitswerke abgeleitet wurde, war dies noch nicht der Fall. Das Thema des Spitalbesuchs der Heiligen wurde in Kaschau bereits um 1400 am nördlichen Portal der Elisabethkirche aufgegriffen. Am Altar sieht man aber auch eine Vision des Heiligen während des Gottesdienstes im Spital. Die Legenden erwähnen mehrere Ereignisse dieser Art. Obwohl keine der Textpassagen unserem Bild in allen Einzelheiten entspricht, die wichtigsten Motive sind aufgrund dieser Texte trotzdem erklärbar. Die Heilige wird als sponsa Christi vorgestellt, die durch mysthische Verbindung mit ihrem himmlischen Verlobten bei der Spitalarbeit getrostet wird. Die Kranken bleiben aber im Hintergrund des Bildes. Die Basis der Kompositionspyramide, deren Spitze die himmlische Vision bildet, beruht auf einer Gegenüberstellung der persönlichen Frömmigkeit der Heiligen und der sakramentalen Handlung eines Priesters. Im Bilde herrscht kein Zweifel darüber, welche dieser zwei Religiositätsformen zu bevorzugen ist. Der außerordentliche religiöse Status der Heiligen wird durch die Blickrichtungen bestätigt – nur sie kann Himmlisches sehen. Obwohl keine Vorlage für eine derartige Komposition in der Elisabethikonographie bekannt ist, die gefundene Lösung ist bis zu den kleinsten Details gut durchgedacht. Ähnliche ikonographische Themen – wie die Brünner Gregorsmesse, Matzdorfer Emmerichsvision oder die Martinsmesse aus Čerín dürften unserem Maler gewisse Stützpunkte anbieten, die Aussage des Kaschauer Bildes bleibt aber in ihrer Komplexität vollkommen einzigartig. Durch die beiden oberen Szenen des rechten Flügels wird der Elisabethzyklus abgeschlossen: zunächst werden die Wunder gezeigt, die das Ende ihres irdischen Lebens begleiteten, dann das Erhebungsfest, welches den Beginn ihres zukünftigen Kultes markiert. Bereits die ältesten Nachrichten über den Tod der Heiligen erwähnten ungewöhnliche Erscheinungen, die ihr Sterben begleiteten. Diese waren nicht visueller, sondern akustischer Art – die Sterbende singte süß mit den himmlischen Scharen, ohne Lippen zu bewegen. Am Kaschauer Altar wurden diese Phänomene visualisiert – der Himmel wird geöffnet und Engel stehen am Sterbebett. Zugleich aber sieht man trauernde Frauen und singende Kleriker. Die Komposition hat zwar Paralellen in der Ikonographie des Marientodes, diese sind aber anderer Art, als diejenigen im Relief des Marburger Mausoleums der Heiligen. Das Kaschauer Bild wurde wohl auch durch die Illustrationen des Traktates Ars bene moriendi beeinflußt, nur die Dämonen fehlen beim Sterben der Heiligen. Ebenso fehlen die Kranken und Bedürftigen, die nicht nur im erwähnten Relief, sondern in mehreren anderen spätmittelalterlichen Bildern zu den sterbenden bzw. toten Heiligenkörpern in der Hoffnung auf wundervolles Genesen strömen. Das Kaschauer Bild unterstützte keine Hoffnungen dieser Art. Elisabeth zeigte zwar den Christen, mit welcher Freude sie den Tod (bei den christlichen Heiligen bekanntlich als dies natalis gedeutet) erwarten sollten. Durch das Bild ihrer Visionen in den letzten Stunden wurde es aber klar angedeutet, wie sehr sie doch über alle einfachen Menschen erhoben wurde.
Eine besondere Bedeutung des Erhebungsfestes für spätmittelalterliche Kaschau bestätigte bereits 1402 die Bulle des Papstes Bonifatius IX, die den an diesem Tag kommenden Pilgern einen Ablaß gewährte. Die Komposition des Bildes, die sich ikonographisch durch andere Darstellungen des Erhebungsfestes (z.B. die der Heiligen Hedwig) inspirieren lassen konnte, beinhaltet auch eine klare Aussage über die Beziehungen zwischen der geistlichen und der weltlichen Macht: der Kaiser bekam zwar den ersten Platz unter den zuschauernden Gläubigen, alle bedeutungsreiche Manipulationen mit dem Körper der Heiligen bleiben aber ausschließlich in den Händen der kirchlichen Wurdenträger.
Zusammenfassend kann man feststellen, daß der Kaschauer Zyklus trotz seiner mannigfaltigen Beziehungen zur ikonographischen Tradition viele bedeutende Neuerungen beinhaltete. Mehrere dieser Innovationen wurden durch den Willen verursacht, wichtige gesellschaftliche Bedeutungen bildhaft zu vermitteln. Die künstlerisch-formale bzw. psychologisch-expressive Termine reichen daher für ihre historisch treue Beschreibung nicht aus.
Mária NOVOTNÁ – Anna SVETKOVÁ
(Zusammenfassung)
Im restauratorischen Atelier des Denkmalamtes in Leutschau/Levoča erfolgte im Jahr 1999 die Restaurierung der Tafelmalerei aus dem Altar der sogenannten Zapolya-Kapelle in Donnersmark/Spišský Štvrtok. Die bei dieser Gelegenheit unternommene restauratorische Untersuchung sowie eine kunsthistorische Analyse brachten einige neue Erkenntnisse, die unter anderem nach einer Revision der bisherigen Forschung verlangen, vor allem hinsichtlich der Gründung der sog. Zapolya-Kapelle samt ihrer ursprünglichen Ausstattung. Das neugotische Altarretabel mit dem Zentralbild des Todes Mariens dominiert die auf die südliche Seite der hl. Ladislauskirche hinzugefügte Grabkapelle. Ihr Bau ist ein wichtiges Beispiel eines spezifischen Typus der mittelalterlichen Architektur, abgeleitet von dem Muster der Sainte Chapelle in Paris. Die Kapelle in Donnersmark ist nach den Plänen des Wiener Baumeisters Hans Puchsbaum erbaut worden, laut bisheriger Kenntnisse erst nach seinem Tod, wobei die genaue Zeit des Baus zwischen Historikern und Kunsthistorikern als umstritten gilt. Am häufigsten wird das Jahr 1473 angegeben, jedoch aber ohne Stütze auf archivalischer Basis. Selbst die Umstände der Entstehung der Kapelle sind bisher nicht ganz geklärt, ihr Bau dafür nahezu einstimmig mit verschiedenen Mitgliedern der Zapolya-Familie in Verbindung gebracht.
Sowohl die überlieferte Tradition als auch einige ältere Dokumente weisen darauf hin, daß die Tafel mit der Tod-Mariens-Darstellung sehr wahrscheinlich Mittelpunkt des bereits ursprünglich für die Kapelle bestimmten gotischen Altarretabels war. Für ein weiteres noch erhaltenes Bestandteil des Tod-Mariens-Altars kann man die Skulptur des Christus mit der Seele Mariens halten, die heute in der Sammlung der Ostslowakischen Galerie in Kaschau aufbewahrt wird (Východoslovenská galéria Košice). Die gotische Altararchitektur wurde 1751 durch ein barockes Retabel, dieses wiederum 1901 durch das heutige monumentale neugotische Retabel ersetzt.
Die Restaurierung hat gezeigt, daß die Tafelmalerei besonders unter zwei Reparaturen gelitten hat: im Barock im 18. Jahrhundert und in einer historisierenden Fassung an der Wende zum 20. Jahrhundert. Neben dem natürlichen Alterungsprozeß wurde die Tafel während des 16. bzw. 17. Jahrhunderts, wohl aus konfessionellen Gründen, bewußt mechanisch beschädigt. Den Zustand der Tafel vor der letzten Restaurierung bestimmte vor allem die Erneuerung und darauffolgende Eingliederung in das neugotische Altarensemble, an das sie sich – dank der umfangreichen Übermalung – stilistisch angepaßt hat. Die restauratorische Untersuchung und die eigentliche Restaurierung haben die ursprüngliche Maltechnologie stufenweise erhellt. Man hat die gotischen Inschriften auf den Heiligenscheinen der Apostel und dem von Christus sowie an der Borte des Tuch-Baldachins und des Marienmantels freigelegt. Die Inschriften tragen den Namen der jeweiligen Person mit Bezeichnung Sanctus, bzw. Abostol.
Die Ergebnisse der letzten Restaurierung untermauern die Vermutung eines direkten Imports aus dem Kreis der Nürnberger Maler. Sie bestätigen, daß die Malerei mit der dazugehörigen Zeichnung der Universitätsbibliothek in Erlangen Werk eines anonymen Künstlers sind – Meisters des Tucher-Altars.
Die Erkenntnisse der historischen und archivalischen Forschung, unterstützt durch die der Restaurierung, deuten darauf hin, daß sowohl der Bau der Kapelle als auch ihre Ausstattung in einem gemeinsamen zeitlichen Rahmen erfolgten, nämlich um die Mitte des 15. Jahrhunderts. Ihr Stifter war wahrscheinlich der reiche Leutschauer Bürger Georg Thurzo. Diese Ergebnisse widerlegen somit die bisherige Annahme, laut deren die Entstehung des Komplexes in den 70er Jahren die Adelsfamilie Zapolya initiiert hatte.
(Deutsch von Dušan Buran)
Ivo HLOBIL
(Zusammenfassung)
Die hussitische Revolution hat in Böhmen und Mähren für lange Jahre die Gestaltung von figuralen Grabmalskulpturen zum Erliegen gebracht. In Mähren kam es kürzlich zur lange erwarteten Veröffentlichung der erhaltenen Bestände dieser wieder auflebenden Art von Kunstwerken aus der einsetzenden Neuzeit, also vom Übergang zwischen Spätgotik und Renaissance (um 1500-1550). Ein Vergleich mit den Sepulchralien der Nachbarländer erlaubt, auf ihre Eigenständigkeit zu schließen. In der Slowakei, d.h. auf dem Gebiet des einstigen Oberungarns, konkret in der Zips, ist bekanntlich eine Gruppe prunkvoller Ritter-Grabmäler aus den ersten Anfängen der mitteleuropäischen Frührenaissance erhalten geblieben, die ikonographisch an die Palatinengrabmäler von Emerich Zapolya († 1487) und Stephan Zapolya († 1499) im Zipser Kapitel/Spišská Kapitula anknüpfen. Der Verfasser des Aufsatzes vertritt die Ansicht, dass dies Arbeiten von zwei Bildhauern sind. Der ältere und stilistisch weniger weit entwickelte Grabstein ist erst nach dem Tode des kinderlosen Emerich Zapolya entstanden, höchstwahrscheinlich unter der Aufsicht von Stephan Zapolya, ein Umstand, dem er wohl die sekundär übernommenen Einflüsse der italienischen Renaissance zu verdanken hat – vergl. Verwandtschaft und gleichzeitigen Qualitätsunterschied in der Ausführung der Engeldraperien an beiden Grabsteinen, wie man anhand der spezifischen, formal ähnlichen, jedoch qualitativ stark differierenden Ausführung des Faltenwurfs an den zwei Renaissance-Engeln schließen kann, der im Fall des Grabmals von Stephan Zapolya unmittelbar von den italienischen Wandmalereien in Ofen/Buda inspiriert war.
Ikonografisch waren die Grabmäler beider Zapolya und weiterer Edelleute in der Ostslowakei von der Tradition der Salzburger Sepulchralskulptur geprägt, insbesondere von der Tumba des Erzherzogs Ernst des Eisernen († 1424) in Rein. Die stolze Symbolik der Salzburger und oberösterreichischen Grabmäler, ungeniert durch die Anwesenheit von Engeln für die verstorbene Feudalherren das ewige Leben proklamierend, fand in den böhmischen Ländern der nachhussitischen Zeit weder Anklang noch Fortsetzung.
Eine Gruppe der slowakischen Grabmäler konzentrierte sich auf die Darstellung der persönlichen Rüstung und Waffen des Verstorbenen. In dieser Hinsicht sticht insbesondere das Grabmal des Stephan Zapolya hervor, einschließlich des in Feinarbeit ausgeführten Paladinenbanners, auf dem eine rätselhafte (kumanische?) Inschrift erscheint. Mährische Sepulchralreliefs bilden nur wiederholte Rüstungen ab, d.h. Werkstattrequisiten. Im Gegensatz dazu zeichnen sie sich durch Interesse an einer porträtartigen Darstellung der Gesichter von Verstorbenen, deren Häupter nicht mehr hinter den abgenommenen Helmen verborgen sind. Im Hinblick auf das völlige Fehlen zeitgenössischer Malereiporträts stellen sie so die älteste Porträtgalerie des mährischen Adels jener Epoche vor.
(Deutsch von Jürgen Ostermayer)
Zuzana LAPITKOVÁ
(Summary)
In the archive of the town Banská Štiavnica there is a town chronicle recording the 1751 visit of emperor Franz I. Lothringen to the Central Slovak mining towns. It deals in detail with the triumphal arches built as decorations for his entries. The iconographical content of the arches is focused on this particular occasion, combining representations of the Habsburg-Lothringen sovereigns and the local mining industry. Amongst the preserved preparatory drawings for arch designs, we can identify five which were actually used for this entry based on the evidence of the descriptions of the arches given in the town chronicle. These preparatory designs of arches are definitely unique art works in the context of Slovak art. Their iconography and artistic character connect them with similar ephemeral decorations commissioned for the court in Vienna. The artist responsible for the designs and arches is the Austrian painter Anton Schmidt. He settled in Banská Štiavnica, the most important central Slovak mining town, after being educated at Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna. He also occasionaly worked with the architect and theatre designer Giuseppe Galli-Bibiena. According to the periodical Wienerisches Diarium, which issued regular report of the emperor’s visit, the author of the librettos for the arches was a local Jesuit, padre Matz. The iconography of ephemeral architecture of the second half of the 18th century retains many features of the decorations used for court and public festivities by Habsburg absolutist sovereigns of the previous epoch. Although a new interest in Enlightement philosophy emerges in the course of the reign of Maria Teresia, fastering rationalism and moderation, nevertheless, festivities, while decreased in number, still exhibit some of the grandeur of decorations from the previous era, often considered to have reached a highpoint of dynastic display.
Barbara Balážová
(Summary)
The Baroque Plague Column of the Holy Trinity in Kremnica – the focus of the main square in Kremnica – was the subject of many studies of Slovak historians of art during the whole 20th Century. Despite this it is still the most relevant and also the most important small book of József Hlatky from 1898 – A körmöczbányai Szt.-Háromszág-oszlop – which became at the beginning also the basic source for my study and research.
The basic archival material is situated in the Town’s Archive in Kremnica and also in the Central Mining Archive in Banská Štiavnica. In the first one now exists a huge archival material which very deeply documents all history of the designing, process of creation, and every connected problem during the building of the Plague Column in Kremnica in the period 1765-1772. The Plague Column is the work of two main sculptors and their workshops – a sculptor from Kremnica Dionysius Staneti and his workshop, and a sculptor from the Austrian town Bruck an der Leitha – Martin Vögerle and his workshop, especially Teodor Mayer whom the previously published literature registered as Anton Mayer. The technical question of the column’s building was entrusted to the building constructor and master – Ignatius Peter Götz. In the archival material from the Central Mining Archive in Banská Štiavnica is known the design of the Plague Column from Kremnica which was created by the town’s painter Stephan Völcsey in 1765-1766 and not by Dionysius Staneti or Martin Vögerle as until the present time supposed every historian of art in Slovakia.
The first restoration of the Plague Column in Kremnica started not so long after its completion in 1772. At the beginning of the 19th Century the column was covered by a layer of hot wax and this process very deeply destroyed a structure of the used stones. In the second half of the 19th Century it was absolutely necessary to try to repair the Plague Column and this work was managed by two Hungarian restaurateurs. The next restorations followed very quickly – in 1905, 1920-1921, 1953-1959, and the last one, which was began in the 8th decade of the 20th Century, and is not yet finished. On the basis of the relating archival materials and restoration’s analyses it is now possible to identify every sculpture and relief on the Plague Column of the Holy Trinity in Kremnica and also to ascribe them to Dionysius Staneti or to Martin Vögerle. But in the present we have a problem of how to interpret now the result of so many restorations because only a few parts of the column exist in the original condition. During the last restoration all sculptures were substituted by copies from the artificial stone and only the original sculptures from the 18th Century (St. Clement, St. Charles Boromeus, St. Xavier, St. Rosalie, St. Sebastian and two putts carrying the Jesus Heart) will be presented in the exposition of the Museum of Coins and Medals in Kremnica.
The basic prototype for the Plague Column of the Holy Trinity in Kremnica, like every plague column of the Holy Trinity dressed in clouds in the former Habsburg Empire, is the Plague Column of the Holy Trinity – Pestsäule am Graben – in Vienna, a very famous work of Johann Bernhard Fischer von Erlach, Ludovico Ottavio Burnacini and Paul Strudel from the years 1680-1694. This commemorative column, devoted to the big plague epidemic between 1678-1681, is described and analysed in so many articles and studies, but it is necessary to make a note about a very interesting study from Christine Boeckl: Vienna’s Pestsäule: The Analysis of a seicento plague monuments, which is a very important movement in the interpretation of traditional plague iconography against the previous Austrian art historical view. In her study she very deeply analysed and introduced a program of the column’s iconography and his individual formal influences.
Finally, Vienna’s Plague Column of the Holy Trinity itself became an example for every plague column dressed in clouds in the former Habsburg Empire during the 17th and especially 18th Century. Little by little the Viennese prototype absorbed and developed its primary structure by another iconographic and formal components and variations – a presentation of the Immaculate, St. Rosalie laying in the small grotto in the lower part of columns, an emplacement of the local, plague, or in the Baroque art prefer anti-reformation Saints, sometimes we can observe a combination of the Holy Trinity’s iconography with the iconography of the Holy Virgin or Jesus Christ.
At this point it is very necessary to remark that the building of plague columns didn’t follow directly after the plague epidemic. Their construction had a specific purpose and specific function as a memorial appendix to a tragic time and in this meaning columns worked as a “post scriptum“. On the other side, columns operated as commemorative places in other negative cases, which was in the life of the Baroque people an illness, war, hunger and these demands were formulated as an inscription on the body of plague columns. Of course, they became also a question of the social prestige of a town’s community and town’s inhabitants.
Probably it could also be the reason why the town’s magistracy of Kremnica decided to replace the Plague Column in the main square from 1710 – a memorial for a plague epidemic of the same year. A very important function had the aspiration of the magistracy to have a fashionable trend of the temporary Baroque art in the former Habsburg Empire, also important was the urban conception of the main square after the renovation the Parish Church of Blessed Virgin from the years 1755-1767, and finally, of course, to be better than Banská Štiavnica because for Kremnica this town represented the norm in every cases.
Despite the Plague Column in Kremnica being created one Century later than its prototype – Vienna’s Pestsäule, in archival material it still figured as its model and paradigm, but its final structure was very different and retracted. The original design, which offered Dionysius Staneti to the discussion and final sanction to the town’s magistracy in 1765, introduced a pyramidal composition with, in the top, placed the Holy Trinity carried by an angel. On the body of the column was introduced Immaculate, then the three town’s and mining patrons St. Catharine, St. Clement, St. Barbara, a ternary of anti-reformation saints St. Joseph, St. Anton de Padua, St. Xavier and the specific but also classic plague saints St. Charles Boromeus, St. Sebastian, St. Rochus and in the small grotto lay St. Rosalie. Against the original design the iconographic program of reliefs definitely changed and there were three reliefs – Plague, War and Hunger and the cycle with the Holy Virgin thematic – the Annunciation, Marriage of the Virgin, Visitation, Nativity, Adoration of the Magi, Circumcision of Christ and Assumption. Despite there being in the separated parts of the column some iconographic relations and the simple program – ternaries of Saints and also the Holy Virgin iconography and plague iconography – the Plague Column of the Holy Trinity missed in its contents such a large and integrated iconographic program like we know from Vienna and which was very deeply interpreted by Christine Boeckl in her study. In spite of the fact that during the forewent rebuilding of the former Parish Church in Kremnica was created the special „concetto“ explaining the iconographic program of frescoes, in the case of the Plague Column we haven’t found in the archival material anything similar yet. As if the Plague Column of the Holy Trinity in Kremnica was only the reduced citation of its model without any apocalypse, desperation, uselessness or submission, on the other side also joyfulness and thanksgiving for the end of the plague epidemic readable on Vienna’s Pestsäule.
The iconographic program of the Plague Column in Kremnica is so simple and locally adapted that if we don’t recognise its forerunner in Vienna, we should find very difficult its every historical, iconographic and formal relations and connections. This is probably the most important moment in the enlistment of the Plague Column in Kremnica into the context of the plague columns in the former Habsburg Empire. More than as a commemorative and votive monument of the plague epidemic was for the town’s magistracy important the self-representation and self-celebration as so much that the Royal Chamber Office had to admonish the town’s magistracy of Kremnica and advised to present the high religiousness by building the town’s orphanage.
Against all these conclusions thanks to the aspiration of the town’s magistracy in Kremnica in the highest self-represent we are better off for having one of the most beautiful external Baroque monuments, despite it is missing so much from its original meaning and sense from the fundamental function of its model Vienna’s Pestsäule.
Sonja ŽITKO
(Resumé)
Urbánne cintoríny 19. storočia boli tak vo Francúzsku, obzvlášť cintorín Pčre-Lachaise v Paríži, ako aj kdekoľvek inde v Európe tým privilegovaným priestorom, kde bolo možné náhrobkami si uctiť spomienku na veľké osobnosti národa. V 19. storočí, v dobe spomienkového kultu, za najdôležitejšiu verejnú prezentáciu a afirmáciu zaslúžilej osobnosti sa považoval verejný pamätník, nie náhrobný kameň, pretože cintorín bol iba sčasti verejným priestorom. Potom, čo sa po roku 1850 sebavedomie meštianstva začalo prejavovať na európskych cintorínoch a všetko ovládajúci spomienkový kult sa presadil aj tu, náhrobky viac alebo menej významných osobností si nárokovali na funkciu pamätníkov. Vo Francúzku sa presadila prax – keďže pamätníky na verejnom priestranstve nemohli postaviť preto, lebo vybraná osobnosť bola menej významná, alebo preto, lebo bola politicky neprimeraná – že náhrobok prevzal význam verejného pamätníka. V prvej polovici 19. storočia habsburgská monarchia s hlavným mestom Viedeň a jej územiami nasledovala s určitým časovým posunom tak francúzske príklady v umení cintorínov, ako aj nemecké príklady v pamätníkovej tvorbe. Monarchiu už vtedy, no najmä po roku 1848 určovalo aktuálne špecifikum jazykových nacionalizmov, emancipácie národov, medzi nimi aj Slovincov, a ich problémy národnostnej a kultúrnej identity. Roku 1848 Slovinci vytvorili národne politický program Zjednoteného Slovinska. Predovšetkým v 60. rokoch vďaka aktívnemu národno-politickému hnutiu Slovinci dosiahli aj politické uplatnenie v monarchii. Po celý čas až do I. svetovej vojny sa museli vyrovnávať s viac alebo menej stálymi ťažkosťami – hospodárskymi a sociálnymi problémami počnúc, cez problémy, ktoré prinášala jazyková nerovnoprávnosť, cez národnostnú diferenciáciu, pálčivý nemecký nacionalizmus, až po zdĺhavú urbanizáciu a industrializáciu. Od roku 1850 sa zasadzovali o postavenie meštiackych verejných pamätníkov Slovincom dôležitým pre národ, predovšetkým v oblasti Kranjska a jeho strediska Ľubľane. Básnici Valentin Vodnik a najmä France Prešeren, ktorý sa ku koncu storočia stal národným básnikom, nacionálnym mýtom, boli identifikačnými osobnosťami pre postupne už aj liberálne vzdelané meštianstvo. Až do neskorých 80. rokov 19. storočia v dôsledku nedobrých politických, hospodárskych a kultúrnych pomerov sa Slovincom nepodarilo realizovať väčšiu časť významnejších pamätníkových projektov. Národne (aj vzdelanostne) uvedomené meštiactvo začalo stavať náhrobky, ktoré mali funkciu verejného pamätníka, s cieľom národnostne a kultúrne identifikovať a národne politicky afirmovať vybrané osobnosti. Medzi nimi nájdeme aj národných politických vodcov (A. Tomšič), no – tak ako pri umení pamätníkov – prevažne básnikov (F. Prešeren, S. Jenko), prípadne spisovateľov (J. Jurčič). Podpora na postavenie takýchto náhrobkov prišla z tých istých kruhov ako pri pamätníkoch. Ustanovovali sa odbory, najmä v rámci kultúrnych a literárnych spolkov, zbieranie príspevkov bolo široko koncipovaným verejným podujatím, pomníky odhaľovali na primeraných národných oslavách. Takto sa výrazne prezentovalo slovinské národné politické a kultúrne vedomie i sebavedomie. Tvarom, portrétom zosnulého alebo veľkosťou vtisli náhrobným kameňom pečať pamätníka nápismi v slovinčine, ako aj ich deklaratívnym obsahom spojeným s ideou národnej emancipácie zase národného ducha. Ako budovatelia sú všade uvedení slovinskí patrioti, prípadne slovinský národ. Jenkovi, Juršičovi a Tomšičovi v danom období verejný pamätník nepostavili. Ku koncu 19. storočia a v čase pred I. svetovou vojnou už boli Slovinci rozvinutým národom s vedou a umením na vysokom stupni. Uskutočnili väčšinu znemožnených pamiatkových projektov. Predovšetkým v hospodársky rozvinutých väčších mestách (Ľubľana, Maribor, Celje, Terst) rozkvitlo umenie cintorínov a s ním aj sepulkrálne sochárstvo. Vzrástol počet pamätníkových náhrobkov, ktorými prejavili česť rôznym osobnostiam. Na postavenie niektorých náhrobkov založili tiež odbory, najčastejšie v užšom kruhu priateľov a príbuzných.
Tvarový repertoár zahŕňal obelisk alebo obeliskovú stélu, edikulu v neorenesančnom, neorománskom a neoklasicistickom slohu, a asi od roku 1900 aj moderný typ stély v podobe prírodnej skaly. Najčastejšie ich dopĺňal portrétny medailón, poprsia boli zriedkavé, celofigurálne portréty nenájdeme vôbec. Portréty objednávali od vybraných sochárov, medzi nimi uznávaných z cudziny (napríklad náhrobok K. Dežmana od autora V. Tilgnera, náhrobok R. Mahorčiča od autora G. Marina – obr. 1), ako aj slovinských. Okolo roku 1900 už totižto pôsobil značný počet slovinských akademických sochárov, ktorí sa obvykle vyškolili vo Viedni. Pri vytváraní sepulkrálnych plastík sa inšpirovali náhrobkami na Wiener Zentralfriedhof, prijímali však aj novinky zo súčasného európskeho umenia cintorínov. V štúdii predstavujeme náhrobky J. Cimpermana od sochára A. Gangla (obr. 2), M. Malenška od sochára I. Zajca, I. Dečka od sochára F. Bernekera (obr. 3) a náhrobok A. Medveda od sochára S. Peruzziho (obr. 4).
Význam verejného pamätníka tu mali predovšetkým náhrobky postavené takým osobnostiam, ktoré boli považované za národne-politicky sporné (náhrobok básnikovi S. Gregorčičovi z roku 1908: návrhy od sochárov F. Bernekera a I. Sojča – obr. 5, autor náhrobku sochár A. Bitežnik – obr. 6). Postavenie náhrobku ako verejného pamätníka dvom mládencom, ktorí padli v protinemeckých demonštráciách v Ľubľane v septembri 1908, nebolo v monarchii z dôvodu mimoriadneho národno-politického významu tohto podujatia vôbec možné. Sochár Peruzzi vytvoril mramorovú ženskú postavu a bronzový portrétny medailón mládencov už roku 1910. Sochu smútiacej ženy však na hrob oboch obetí na miestnom cintoríne v Ľubľane postavili až v roku 1933 (obr. 7).
Udo KULTERMANN
(Resumé)
Čím by dnes, v súčasnej spoločnosti, malo a chcelo byť múzeum umenia – kladie si hneď v úvodnej kapitole otázku Kultermannova štúdia. Prostredníctvom odvolávky na Goetheho, jeho charakteristiku múzea ako “ein Unendliches in Bewegung” autor evokuje duchovnú atmosféru obdobia rozkvetu inštitúcie múzea umenia. Cez poznanie dejín (múzea) snaží sa pochopiť jeho súčasnosť.
Kapitola Zbieranie a vystavovanie sústreďuje sa napríklad na reálnu skutočnosť pojmu “verejné múzeum”. Prostredníctvom príkladov sociálneho či ekonomického vydeľovania v rámci kategórie publikum v minulosti i súčasnosti poukazuje na neudržateľnosť tejto kategórie.
Úlohu múzea ako prostredníka rôznych kultúrnych ideológií v minulosti i dnes všíma si na konkrétnych príkladoch tretia kapitola štúdie, Múzeum a moc. Ak vhodnou ilustráciou vzťahu múzea a moci bolo v minulosti hoci preoblečenie Denonovho Louvru za dekoráciu Napoleonovej svatby v roku 1810, či neskôr zneužitie etnografického múzea ako “osvieteneckého” prostriedku kolonizácie krajín tretieho sveta, v súčasnosti má tento vzťah oveľa rafinovanejšiu podobu. Na pozadí postrehu Craiga Owensa, podľa ktorého “ochrana kultúry je ideologickým alibi imperialistických úmyslov”, stávajú sa priehladnejšími záujmy niektorých mocnejších kultúr, ako aj ich investície napr. do súčasného umenia.
Nasledujúca kapitola sa venuje vzťahu architekta a kunsthistorika. Autor sa v nej, i prostredníctvom “historických” evokácií starších stavieb, napr. od von Klenzeho či Schinkela, sústreďuje na – v súčasnosti stále vyhranenejší – vzťah architektúry múzea umenia (obálky) a umenia (obsahu), ktoré uchováva. Spolu s J. C. Taylorom je toho názoru, že je dnes stále “ťažšie rozhodnúť, či grandiózne paláce, postavené pre umenie, vznikli pre umenie ktoré obsahujú, alebo pre prestíž tých, ktorí za ne zaplatili”. Stále výraznejšie je tiež zviditeľňovanie umenia (a mena) architektov (ako napr. James Stirling, Hans Hollein, Arata Isozaki či Frank O. Gehry), zatieňujúce umenie (a mená) umelcov. Má byť muzeálna architektúra pozadím, alebo popredím svojho obsahu? – kladie si autor otázku a prostredníctvom polemických citátov, dáva na ňu odpovedať niektorým súčasným umelcom.
Múzeum ako Platónova jaskyňa – Nové médiá je názov ďalšej kapitoly, ktorá sa, spochybňujúc realizovateľnosť Malrauxovej myšlienky Musée imaginaire (múzeum bez stien) ako púheho “múzea na papieri” (Edgar Wind), venuje hlavne hľadaniu adekvátnej (architektonickej) podoby múzea pre nové formy umenia, ako aj otázke prefiltrovávania súčasného umenia do múzeí umenia. Na ilustráciu tohto problému (akými selekčnými procesmi a cestami vstupuje súčasné umenie do “večnosti” prostredníctvom múzea) uvádza niekoľko historických príkladov (Musée du Luxembourg, slúžiace ako akási antichambre Louvru či Dornerov tzv. Three-Museum-Agreement, zabezpečujúci v polovici 20. storočia “historizujúci” prietok diel medzi trojicou najmocnejších newyorských múzeí – Metropolitným múzeom, MoMA a Whitney múzeom).
Záverečná, šiesta kapitola Čím by mohlo byť múzeum – Realistické perspektívy je potom autorovou úvahou, či dnes má vôbec zmysel izolovať, ohraničovať umenie múrami múzea, navyše, keď tieto stále viac, hoci pod maskou dobročinnosti, reprezentujú ideológiu mocných privilegovaných menšín. Bodkou článku, “vystuženou” rozsiahlym citátom z Heideggera je konštatovanie, že redefinícia toho, čím by dnes malo byť múzeum umenia, tesne súvisí s redefiníciou samotného súčasného umenia. Podobne je otázka životnosti múzea umenia priamo úmerná otázke životnosti súčasného umenia.
(Zost. Petra Hanáková)
Petra HANÁKOVÁ
(Summary)
The essay sets a goal to mediate a reader some current trends of the interdisciplinary studies in the western cultural world known as critical museology.
The essay’s starting point is the consideration: Slovak ausstellungsmacherei has only partially registered that the change of conceptual frame and paradigm, mentioned in a connection of postmodernism, has a great influence on the museology.
Talking about the museology I mean mainly: different ways works of art are structured in a permanent exhibition, different writing and story-telling strategies presented by show exhibits. In short, I think about some of the new trends within museum aussellungsmacherei.
For instance, one of these trends is a continual replacement of a permanent exhibition (or collection presentation - grand récit in Lyotard’s sense) by temporary exhibitions (in favour of more partial and less authoritative small regional ”stories”).
Another example of these trends is a certain resignation on linear and chronologically structured exhibitions in favour of a-historical, mostly thematic exhibitions and also a move from formalistic ”pure” presentations towards evocation within broader cultural context of art.
Despite the museum and exhibition making are nowadays hot topics in the western cultural world with a lot of literature collected, in Slovakia, they are discussed only rarely. At the same time the museum of art is one of the most crucial expressions of art history and their most significant representative. In the special way of thinking it is also a creator of art history. Furthermore, if we accept the Donald Preziosi’s opinion, who is talking about the reciprocal dependence on invention of art by invention of museum of art, also the creator of art itself, art of art history.
The same relation of reciprocity does exist between the critique of museum as a representative institution (or the institution of representation) and the critique of art history itself. Imaginary discourse field of the museum’s critique thus becomes so-called champ de bataille - a battlefield of new ideas within art history.
This discourse field, mentioned earlier, either on the ground of so called critical exhibitions or on the pages of critical texts is too broad to be covered by a limited number of this article’s pages. For that reason I rather narrow the selected frame and focus my attention only on one museum, an exemplary and illustrative example, through its model history I try to demonstrate some of dominant characteristic features not only of post-modern museum’s critique but also of modernistic museology.
The analysed example is the Museum on Modern Art (MoMA) in New York, one of the greatest authority among museums of art. The main reason for choosing this institution originates in the fact that MoMA is the only institution that can offer so many possibilities of de-constructive reading and learning about characteristic, ”structural” features of museum’s history of modern art.
The essay briefly surveys the establishment of the institution and the activities of its first director Mr. A. H. Barr Jr. It also pays attention to the first great MoMa exhibitions under which the profile of institution is formed and later has become one of the most powerful museum institution in the world. After mentioning the first period of early modernism the essay focuses on the so-called Rubin period characterised by institutionalising of avant-garde. Afterwards, the topic is related to the more recent history (under Varnedoe leadership), already expressing features of post-modern institutional critiques.
Eventually, the essay deals with critical history of the institution, ”read” through the filter of the most important critical texts on this powerful institution in the last decades of the 20th century (feminist MoMA critique written by Carol Duncan and Allan Wallach, O’Doherty’s critique of museum as so-called white cube, postmodern critique of framing stereotypes by Reesa Greenberg etc.…).
The text follows continuity of building extensions and re-installations. In the end, special attention is given to the current activities of this institution which in the past served as a trendsetter within modern art and its museology and also helped to construct its modernist history. The aim of this text is to articulate (and on the example of MoMA to illustrate) a narrow and reciprocal connection between a museum and the history of art (and between the changes in the framework of the museum and the changes in the framework of art history).
The similar mirror-like relation can be identified between writing (and current re-writing) of art history through texts of art historians and art history writing by means of exhibitions and revisionist arrangement of objects in the exposition. In other words, the exhibition making has also its phase of new art history, and the end of (traditional and teleological) history of art has its exhibition parallel. This parallel in the context of current museums of art is the end of the permanent exhibition. New Grand Narratives in East-Central European Art History?
Mária ORIŠKOVÁ
(Resumé)
Štúdia (referát prednesený na XXXV. kongrese AICA v Záhrebe, 2001) sa zapodieva vzťahom disciplíny dejín umenia a inštitúcie múzea, ktoré sa podieľajú na inštitucionalizácii umenia. Obe formy sa vzájomne podporujú, dopĺňajú a fungujú prostredníctvom celého radu praktík a mechanizmov, ako je napríklad usporadúvanie heterogénnych predmetov do skupín na základe štýlu, školy, obdobia či epochy. Otázkou je, či je vôbec možné utiecť pred touto (normatívnou) praxou, pred princípmi zoraďovania a klasifikácie, keďže tieto patria dlhodobo k najzákladnejším postupom v práci historika umenia a kurátora. Omnoho dôležitejšou je však otázka – či je niektoré usporiadanie, klasifikácia, prezentácia vedeckou, pravdivou alebo objektívnou, alebo sa jedná o konštrukciu, ktorá niekomu/niečomu slúži. V súvislosti s Preziosiho charakteristikou múzea ako “jednoho z najmocnejších žánrov v rámci modernistických fikcií”, sa štúdia zameriava na problém “adekvátnosti znázornenia” prostredníctvom dvoch výstav: výstavy “Dejiny slovenského výtvarného umenia – 20. storočie” v Slovenskej národnej galérii v Bratislave (2000) a stálej expozície umenia 19. a 20. storočia vo Veľtržnom paláci v Prahe (2000). Obe výstavy, usporiadané v najvýznamnejších muzeálnych inštitúciách bývalého Československa, sa po roku 1989 pokúsili “zrekonštruovať” svoju umeleckú minulosť. Prostredníctvom muzeálneho exponovania (s použitím klasických muzeálnych postupov ako je napríklad lineárny chronologický koncept, národné školy, štýly a pod.) došlo vytvoreniu “nových veľkých príbehov” a k legitimizácii toho, čo bolo v predchádzajúcom režime ilegitímne. Múzeum tak pomohlo utvoriť novú hierarchiu hodnôt a vyrozprávať v historickej dramaturgii nový príbeh umenia. Aj napriek tomu, že všetky genealogické spojitosti sa v novom historickom rozprávaní javia ako odôvodnené, nevyhnutné a doložiteľné, treba si položiť pochybovačnú otázku, či nie práve modernistické muzeálne technológie vytvárajú záruky objektívnosti a pravdivosti a udržujú tak mýtus “pravdivej”, “adekvátnej reprezentácie”.
Mária Orišková
(Summary)
In 1999, Modern Art in Eastern Europe: From the Baltic to the Balkans, ca. 1890-1939 was published by Cambridge University Press. The author of this book Stephen A. Mansbach has been a professor of Art History at universities in Europe and in the United States and the former Associate Dean of the Center for Advanced Study in Visual Arts, at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. The book was completed after several stages of his research in Eastern Europe with the support of numerous American and European institutions. The acknowledgments in the book express gratitude not only to the western research and grant institutions, but also to the network of the Soros Centers and dozens of museums and galleries in the East.
The book has to be appreciated first of all, because of the lack of this kind of publication written in western languages in general. Despite the recent publication of several books about modern art in Eastern Europe, there is still a lack of information about art in this region. Mansbach’s book, for the first time, provides Western readers with access to Eastern European modern art and tries to make a revisionist interpretation of Modernism. At the same time it raises many questions and doubts. One of the reviews of this book, written by James Elkins, (Art Bulletin 82, December 2000) is highly critical and raises objections against the terminology and comparisons of “Western” and “Eastern” works of art.
Our review was motivated by the question of the author’s decidedly “western” position. In any case, a view from outside could be highly interesting or unexpected and force a decisive shift in the research of a particular issue. At the same time, the history of an unknown territory could be rewritten according to an author’s application of his own principles, different norms or methods on the new subject. This approach could be considered a kind of cultural colonialism.
Mansbach’s book is a survey divided into six chapters: 1. The Czech Lands, 2. Poland and Lithuania, 3. The Baltic States of Latvia and Estonia, 4. The Southern Balkans of the Former Yugoslavia, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, and Macedonia, 5. Romania and 6. Hungary. This geographical division forms the basic concept of the book and, according to Mansbach, it enables access to “terra incognita” for many Western readers. In fact, this concept of the book is not satisfactory because of the period explored here. Actually, this period of Eastern European history involved constant disintegration, the rise of new states and instability which resulted in the people of a certain territory or ethnic group separating from and being attached to different neighboring states or empires. For instance, after the Austro-Hungarian compromise, the Czech lands remained subject to Vienna and Slovakia (called Upper Hungary) was part of the Hungarian Empire. But, from 1918-1939 the Czech lands and Slovakia formed a new independent state, Czechoslovakia. With the exception of two notes, Slovakia does not exist in Mansbach’s book, either within a state or as an “artistic region” (Künstlerlandschaft). Poland with its complicated history connected with Prussia, the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, Russia and Lithuania, was coupled only with Lithuania. The Balkan states look insoluble and Bulgaria is completely god-forsaken. Moreover, different Soviet republics (e.g. The Ukraine, Russia) except for Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are completely left out of the book; the author claims that there are “numerous excellent studies readily available in Western languages” (p. 5). In the beginning of each chapter there is a short historical overview but it doesn’t help much because it is obvious that the history of a state, nation or ethnic group and the history of art can sometimes be completely different. That’s why the geographical concept of the book is insufficient. The basic question of the influence of history on art should have been answered before composing the chapters. Even if survey books in general do not have the ambition to theorize on the history of art, Mansbach’s book results in simplifications and an a priori approach towards the artistic production of the region and period in question. Binding historical processes with art production is as difficult as provide the cultural map of Europe with a simple pattern. The history of European national cultures is a long-term process beginning in the early 19th century. National histories do not only represent the struggle for territory but also for the passionate search for national identity and national culture. European culture means the system of national cultures with its conflict between state and nation (within multicultural states). The rise of Modernism in Eastern Europe is definitely linked with the constitution of nation states and with economic backwardness compared to Western Europe. However, on both sides of Europe the issue of modernity (and of Modernism) is connected with industrial society, communication and urban structures. In Eastern Europe conflicts between the modern and the national (which in some cases means the traditional) produced a complicated symbiosis. Modern art here is a product of different circumstances and the term Modernism can take on different meanings.
However, for the reviewed book this should be a crucial approach because methodological uncertainty cannot be compensated for by its “geographical concept”. The concept of Mansbach’s book might be compared with the concept of the book Relations of Avant-gardes from Prague to Bucharest 1907-1930 written by Hungarian art historian Krisztina Passuth. Because of the breadth of the issue, Passuth consciously decided to focus on avant-garde groups with an emphasis on art journals. It enabled her to articulate the very specific character of the avant-garde movement in the Eastern/Central European metropolises of Prague, Budapest, Warsaw, Zagreb, Belgrade, etc. Namely, in the 19th century, the modern city was the environment where the avant-garde group movement was born/integrated. Passuth reasonably avoided the state geographical divisions framing the art production of this territory by cities, groups, art journals and collaborative projects.
The geography of art history or art history and distant geographical spaces seems to be one of the most important issues (also for Mansbach’s book). However, his flexible use of terminology or essential terms – notably modern, Modernism, and avant-garde – is problematic. Especially, if the prevailing part of every chapter in the book consists of descriptions of works of art of Eastern artists followed by a comparative analysis of very well known works of Western artists. On one hand, Mansbach tries to make it more understandable for Western readers; but on the other hand everything becomes too dependent on Western art. Paradoxically, and in a considerable schematization, he notes the progressiveness and creativity of Czech Modernism. As already remarked by Elkins, Mansbach uses several principal models for East-West relations without naming them as such – at the same time East and West are equal and unequal partners in Modernism. When he explains how Eastern artists adopted Western Modernist principles there is also a controversy with the term avant-garde in the sense of the first/original/new. In this respect Eastern avant-garde cannot be “new” or even avant-garde.
The term “new” is central for Modernist doctrine and the condition of modernity exists in symbiotic relation with Modernism which is literally the representation of the new. The phenomenon of the new is a part of avant-garde thinking in a sense of permanent change brought by the modern condition. But here, it must be taken in account that the new is spreading very fast in modern times and the avant-garde became international very early. Next to Paris, there were centers like Berlin, Munich, Vienna and Prague before World War I. Then, there is the question of why Modernism in Vienna is considered “Western” and in Prague it is “Eastern” when both cities belonged to the Habsburg monarchy?
It is as clear as a day that for Mansbach (and for many other authors) what is actually original is the formal invention/innovation. In the moment when Mansbach looks for originality in the East it could not be a new form but the content of the work. On one hand, comparative formal analysis has forced him to use terms like “creative adaptation”, “inspiration”, “transformation” or “influence”. On the other hand, he discovers local/regional traditions, themes and peculiarities as the “spiritual content” or “baroqueness” of Czech Cubo-expressionism, a ”commitment to an art of proletarian culture” in Hungarian Modernism and in Poland the “patriotic and nationalist subjects”.
Western theory of Modernism based on the originality/innovation of the stylistic principle evidently enables one to discriminate everything that is not formally new. Critical theories of Modernism (e.g. Peter Bürger: Theorie der Avantgarde, 1974, or Rosalind Krauss: The Originality of the Avant-garde and the Other Modernist Myths, 1985) have been questioning constant innovation and the authority of originality. Recently, not only the Modernist project has been relativized, but also the ideas of its universality and complexity. The post-modern paradigm disclosed Modernism with its myth of stylistic purity and raised the question of whether “impure” forms, pastiche and discontinuity were settled in the very center of Modernism,(e.g. in the works of such personalities as Picasso). The terms of “appropriation” or “recycling” used by Post Modernism seem to be new, but the principle of “borrowing” in art history was actually common a long ago. The concept of the “influence” was criticized by Michel Foucault and Michael Baxandall arguing that “... influence occludes actor and agency. In contrast, the term appropriation is located both in the person of the maker and receiver”.
Still, art production outside of Western Europe seen as peripheral is often considered passive, adopting original elements/forms from center/centers (within a hierarchical model “center-periphery”). Western Modernist formalism with its emphasis on formal purity and linear development towards formal reduction and de-materialization of the form, do not admit impure deviations or non-linear development. A kind of creativity where the artist is not the innovator of the form but innovator of a sense is not presupposed. However, this is the strategy accepted by Post Modernism and new critical theories of Poststructuralism. In spite of this, “any understanding of contemporary art and criticism is necessarily bound up with a consideration of Modernism, for Modernism is the cultural standard which even today governs our conception of what art is” (Brian Wallis: Art After Modernism: Rethinking Representation, 1984). Today Modernism is an institution. And as an institution, it means the official culture, contemporary classics, mainstream Modernist canon, an overextended market and so on. However, Eastern Modernism does not fit into the Modernist institution. Even if the construction of the Modernist institution is finished it seems to be one-sided building containing many invisible elements. Moreover, Brian Wallis claims that “Modernism marginalized the issue of artistic motivation or interest outside the art system, denying that artworks were themselves bound by a web of connections to specific historical and social contexts.”
The issue of context is probably the key problem or at least one of the possibilities for approaching Eastern Modernism and many other non-western forms of Modernism. Context is a frame for the functioning of a work of art as well as the meaning comprehended within a work of art. Except for its “internal” context, every work of art is a part of a particular historical, social, political or institutional context. Besides esthetics there are also circumstances and functions of a work which could be revealed by studying the texts or documents around it. For S. A. Mansbach there were many limitations in this respect because of the lack of English or German text materials. As a result, he had to rely on “visible” material in different museums or books. That’s why his approach is primarily esthetic, considering artworks for autonomous esthetic objects. These objects are subsequently placed into “his” standard western system of Modernism.
Of course, it is possible to interpret a work autonomously. But at the same time it is evident that the Modernist notion of autonomy was only a new function and the work of art designated as autonomous was functioning in a particular context, as well. Within Modernism, the idea of autonomy masked the context of art as social practice. In Mansbach’s book the historical context is highly reduced to historical “facts” as granted (but the sources are not usually revealed except for references to Polish history). The bibliography of the publication consists of numerous exhibition catalogues offering basic information and texts of regional authors with a typical effort to introduce the local art scene or to reconstruct the development in a region. While “eastern” authors in many cases emphasize the relevance of the local tradition, the roots of culture (with a kind of glorification) and its connection to western Modernism, a ”western” author cannot have the same motivation. He is looking at the East from within the West and its products. His interpretation is mostly limited to a description of a work of art and its affiliation to the West. For instance, Czech Cubism is reduced to “a vocabulary drawn from international styles: German expressionism, French fauvism, analytic Cubism. Luminous colors, implied movement, dynamic forms and other innovations from the West were blended and adapted to the local needs and tradition (especially Bohemian baroque).” (p. 54). Instead of emphasizing differences between French and Czech Cubism (and the reception of French Cubism throughout Europe, all the way to Moscow), the role of the Czech art historian and Cubist collector of Vincenc Kramář and highly authentic Czech Cubist architecture and design, there are only similarities and adaptations. The reasons could be seen in understanding cultural context and social functions instead of looking through western esthetic norms at distant cultures. Considering artwork as autonomous, removed from a particular social, political or economic circumstance means utopia, for a long time preserved by Modernist writing (and many “eastern” art historians), as well. Taking into account architecture, design (graphic design, typography, posters...), including photography and film in the 20s and 30s, there is a new world of reproductive/mass media, mobility and international communication which cannot be taken as an autonomous world of art objects.
In Mansbach’s book there is a shift to modern urban and proletarian culture in Eastern Europe in the 1920s and 1930s. The dynamics and the functionality of this kind of art are now unavoidable and Mansbach admits that in Constructivist-Functionalist concept there is a new progressive base serving for social changes. Communication and transmission of ideas is obvious, art journals, posters, exhibitions or typography are “international”, as well as the “international style” of Bauhaus.
However, this “international style” is for Mansbach again adopted in Eastern Europe, even if numerous Eastern European emigrants contributed to its “internationalism”. Moreover, the author of this book decided to exclude (e.g. in the chapter on Hungary) famous emigrants such as László Moholy-Nagy, because he conducted “his career almost entirely in the West...” (p. 355). The question of a dividing line between the local, regional, international and even co-production of “eastern” artists must be raised. Comparing the book of Krisztina Passuth again, she found necessary to introduce the Hungarian avant-garde in emigration, even if nationalist authors consider the avant garde outside of Hungary to be non-Hungarian. The issue of nationality is surely relevant, but according to Passuth and her analysis of functioning the art journal “Ma”, she goes beyond “national”. The international network and collaboration among artists and critics, and the new theory of art published in “Ma” did not care about “nationality”. Divisions and differentiation (Moholy-Nagy as “western” and Kassák as “eastern”) were not decisive and this kind of approach is probably more appropriate for the period of the Cold War.
These questions will be surely raised by many “Eastern” readers even if the book is not addressed first of all to them. We don’t mean to suggest the “impossibility” of writing about a distant or “unknown” art territory, but to reveal the position of the author. Mansbach’s book could be considered the single comprehensive survey published in the West to date. We don’t know why Professor Mansbach decided to write about Eastern Modernism (the bibliography indicates his several books on Hungarian Modernism), still his introductory questions ask about art of this region and why it is “almost totally forgotten and overlooked?” (p. 1). On one hand such a question could be highly challenging for every scholar and could lead to new discoveries, but it could mean also expansion. The cultural or academic expansion (or colonization) is often accompanied by an application of norms and patterns (of the colonizer’s subject) on the (colonized) object which is the object of the research and appropriation as well. However, Eastern Europe was not considered a colony but a cultural region erased from the cultural map of Europe. Contemporary post colonial discourse demands the deconstruction of Western stereotypes imposed on non-western cultures, but Eastern Europe is mostly designated as the “Eastern periphery of Europe” or “terra incognita”. To articulate more precisely what this means and if the long term model “center-periphery” is an acceptable approach, will be the task for art history or cultural studies in the East and in the West. In this respect, the re-examination of the discipline of art history (as an academic discipline) with its universalist claims will be necessary because the history of other artistic work which did not fit into the universal framework of (western) Art History has been marginalized or excluded. Paradoxically, even if Poststructuralist theory (and many other approaches) started the redefinition of borders of the discipline, art historians in the East have not noticed the possibilities of new approaches. Usually, local histories of art are simply inserted into the framework of the Western art historical narrative.
Mansbach’s book can be seen as the survey of the art production of a region which has been insufficiently examined in the West. The author found one of the objects of his academic research. But what remains questionable is his approach. His approach, or better to say, his style of writing, is very impersonal. He attempts to remain “objective”, supporting his narrative with numerous facts, events, dates, names, and “universal” usage of general (western) norms, classifications and notions. With this kind of art history approach he only continues in one of the fictions of the historiography of art and does his business of an art historian using powerful universal agendas instead “of questioning the normative subjectivity of Western epistemology” (Keith Moxey: Art History Today: Problems and Possibilities, unpublished lecture at Central European University Budapest) as well as articulating very different stories outside of Western norms.