DOI Artikel:
Orišková, Mária: New Grand Narratives in East-Central European Art History?
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.51725#0243
„chapters“ with inscriptions on the walls deplo-
ying the key ideas of the historical narrative.
When the first reading of the exhibition is
historical, within particular chapters we can read
the particular thèmes (Signs of the homeland),
styles/formal approaches (From abstract to the
figurative painting), tendencies (Art of the ac-
tion, Fluxus and Conceptual art), techniques or
media (From the environments to the installa-
tion, The metamorphosis of the object, Archi-
tecture 1950-1970). Under the historical ,,um-
brella“ two different paradigms could be found:
national/regional uniqueness combined with
modemist formalism ( 1930s) or neo-modemism
(1960s and 1970s). The mixture of both para-
digms is typical for the territory of the East-Cen-
tral Europe where ,, what is national in the art
often turns ont to be the content of the painting
(folk motifs, depictions of particular places in
the country) and what is international turns out
to be the style “d However, both paradigms may
be understood as convenient for producing a his-
torical narrative because the historical circum-
stances seem to be unavoidable and „responsib-
le“ for the closeness or the openess of the socie-
ty (in the arts understood as keeping the track
with Westem-European development or styles
or not). Of course, this kind of method (because
we are actually speaking about methodology)
reminds us of Marxist social history of art with
its supplementary backdrop of „context“ which
comprehends the art work as mirroring and syn-
thetizing the social and cultural circumstances
in which it was produced. Here we corne to cer-
tain perpétuation (probably unconsciously) of
previous official Marxist method of art history,
even if it doesn’t concem the social-realist art
but the avant-garde. Surprisingly, the remuants
of the Marxist sociology of art is still present in
our millieu. The siplicist method combining the
art work with its background/circumstances,
even if it is an abstract painting, acknowledges
the lack of theory, not only in the period of so-
cialistu but nowadays, as well. And in my view
there are certain normative methods in the art
historical and museological practice where the
historical account of styles as a kind of genealo-
gy is dominantly used. Here must be emphasi-
zed that the same is practiced in art historical
writing (in particular within exhibition catalo-
gues) and displaying.
Paradoxically, the similar type of problém is
encountered, if we look for second half of the
Century (after WWII) within the exhibition of 20th
Century Slovák art. This is the period of socia-
listu with the dichotomy of official and unoffi-
cial art production. To restitute the ideal past thro-
ugh the art where the art was both art object and
the instrument, is not easy. Moreover, here was
the challenge to re-construct or re-define the re-
cent history of art.
III. New Grand Narrative
and the New Heroes
The expected „new reading“ did not happen
despite of its best efforts. The chapter entitled
„Utopia and tricks of socialist realism“ was not
only the smallest one but located in the corridor
( 1950s) and under the stairs of the main building
(1970s), as well. The location and the mode of
installation were clearly designative: the socia-
list realism was something what almost did not
exist. On the contrary the neo-modemist tenden-
cies or so-called alternative unofficial art produ-
ced outside of official institutions became a lot
of space. The reason was that unofficial art pro-
duction „was unknown to public“ and now it
must be legitimized. It means that the crucial aim
to redefme recent history of art has tumed into
a new grand narrative (as formerly the marxist
one) positioning unofficial art into the center and
replacing the former official version. The pro-
portions and the new ordering were clearly sho-
wing the political change. But what actually hap-
pened was the tum of the previous „unofficial“
art into nowadays „officiai“ which is now cano-
nized by the institution. Moreover, the „musei-
237
ying the key ideas of the historical narrative.
When the first reading of the exhibition is
historical, within particular chapters we can read
the particular thèmes (Signs of the homeland),
styles/formal approaches (From abstract to the
figurative painting), tendencies (Art of the ac-
tion, Fluxus and Conceptual art), techniques or
media (From the environments to the installa-
tion, The metamorphosis of the object, Archi-
tecture 1950-1970). Under the historical ,,um-
brella“ two different paradigms could be found:
national/regional uniqueness combined with
modemist formalism ( 1930s) or neo-modemism
(1960s and 1970s). The mixture of both para-
digms is typical for the territory of the East-Cen-
tral Europe where ,, what is national in the art
often turns ont to be the content of the painting
(folk motifs, depictions of particular places in
the country) and what is international turns out
to be the style “d However, both paradigms may
be understood as convenient for producing a his-
torical narrative because the historical circum-
stances seem to be unavoidable and „responsib-
le“ for the closeness or the openess of the socie-
ty (in the arts understood as keeping the track
with Westem-European development or styles
or not). Of course, this kind of method (because
we are actually speaking about methodology)
reminds us of Marxist social history of art with
its supplementary backdrop of „context“ which
comprehends the art work as mirroring and syn-
thetizing the social and cultural circumstances
in which it was produced. Here we corne to cer-
tain perpétuation (probably unconsciously) of
previous official Marxist method of art history,
even if it doesn’t concem the social-realist art
but the avant-garde. Surprisingly, the remuants
of the Marxist sociology of art is still present in
our millieu. The siplicist method combining the
art work with its background/circumstances,
even if it is an abstract painting, acknowledges
the lack of theory, not only in the period of so-
cialistu but nowadays, as well. And in my view
there are certain normative methods in the art
historical and museological practice where the
historical account of styles as a kind of genealo-
gy is dominantly used. Here must be emphasi-
zed that the same is practiced in art historical
writing (in particular within exhibition catalo-
gues) and displaying.
Paradoxically, the similar type of problém is
encountered, if we look for second half of the
Century (after WWII) within the exhibition of 20th
Century Slovák art. This is the period of socia-
listu with the dichotomy of official and unoffi-
cial art production. To restitute the ideal past thro-
ugh the art where the art was both art object and
the instrument, is not easy. Moreover, here was
the challenge to re-construct or re-define the re-
cent history of art.
III. New Grand Narrative
and the New Heroes
The expected „new reading“ did not happen
despite of its best efforts. The chapter entitled
„Utopia and tricks of socialist realism“ was not
only the smallest one but located in the corridor
( 1950s) and under the stairs of the main building
(1970s), as well. The location and the mode of
installation were clearly designative: the socia-
list realism was something what almost did not
exist. On the contrary the neo-modemist tenden-
cies or so-called alternative unofficial art produ-
ced outside of official institutions became a lot
of space. The reason was that unofficial art pro-
duction „was unknown to public“ and now it
must be legitimized. It means that the crucial aim
to redefme recent history of art has tumed into
a new grand narrative (as formerly the marxist
one) positioning unofficial art into the center and
replacing the former official version. The pro-
portions and the new ordering were clearly sho-
wing the political change. But what actually hap-
pened was the tum of the previous „unofficial“
art into nowadays „officiai“ which is now cano-
nized by the institution. Moreover, the „musei-
237