DOI article:
Michalski, Sergiusz: The concept of national art, problems of artistic periphery and questions of artistic exchange in Early Modern Europe
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.52534#0213
periphery and of border- régions. He did not clearly
differentiate between the two and it is obvions that
he was more interested in régions where dynamic élé-
ments — also resulting from warfare and ethnie strug-
gles — prevailed.
Though the différentiation seems quite simple
nowadays Pinder was the first art historian who on a
theoretical level differentiated between art works sent
abroad — or in other words exported — and the mi-
grations of artists as such. As regards great complex
undertakings, like the building and décoration of the
great cathedrals he tended to stress the fact that re-
gardless of the national or stylistic roots of the artists
taking part the results obtained always constituted a
novel synthesis and could as such — despite its partly
foreign origins — enter the realm of a nations artistic
and religious mythology.
Pinder’s writings seem to hâve influenced an am-
bitious attempt (1963) by the Croatian scholar Ljubo
Karaman6 to differentiate — sub specie the artistic sta-
tus but also the mechanisms of artistic exchange —
between three types of territories outside the central
one: these would be the border régions, the provin-
cial régions and the peripheral régions. Ail these terms
are used often in an imprécise and confused way and
some sort of clarification was long overdue.
The first of these concepts — that of the border
region — was the one, which originally fascinated Pin-
der. Borders possess a special dialectic, which seems
to hâve escaped the attention of most nationally mind-
ed art historians. Borders are seldom defined by ge-
ography alone; mostly they are delimited by men in
an act of political will. Usually art historians start
with centres, though a thorough, unbiased study of
the border might provide us with interesting insights
into the mechanisms of the migration of forms and
into the processes of national inclusion and sépara-
tion as expressed by the respective patriotic imag-
eries, but this refers to the 19th and 2O‘h centuries.
While border régions seldom attract better or top-
6 KARAMAN, L.: 0 djelovaju domdce sredine u umjetnosti hrvat-
skib krajeva [On the Impact of the Local Milieu on the Art of
Croatian Région). Zagreb 1963; BIALOSTOCKI, J.: Some
Values of Artistic Periphery. In: LAVIN, I. (ed.): World Art.
Thèmes of Unity in Diversity. Acts of the XXVlth International
Congress of the History of Art. University Park and London :
The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1989, Vol. 2, pp.
49-59. See also the interesting remarks — BAKOS, J.: Pe-
level personalities among the migrating artists — these
usually move directly on to the centres — they pro-
vide a focal point for middle- and short range cross-
border movements, for meetings and for occasional
fusions of art and of handicraft types.
A provincial area’s artistic life is on the other hand
almost exclusively dépendent on the model provided
by the domineering centre. Its artistic exchange with
the centre is one-sided; it does not accept other sources
of inspiration. The influence it receives from the cen-
tre is absorbed without much change, but on a much
lower artistic level of execution. It is only in the prov-
ince that we can observe phenomena where higher
art forms are transmogrified — by a steady process of
primitivization - into folk- and populär art forms (ab-
gesunkenes Kulturgut).
The third and last category of Karaman’s scheme,
námely the term periphery, would thus designate an
area far away from the powerful centre and not dé-
pendent on influences coming from one place, a ter-
ritory where various influences merge and where none
of them gains — as regards the longer course of histo-
ry — a décisive superiority. That allows the periphery
to create out of indigenous éléments but also from a
whole range of influences, which originated outside
its confines an art with a distinctively autonomous,
and sometimes even strikingly original, character. The
periphery allows for greater artistic freedom than the
centre, which is dominated by institutionalised orga-
nizations of artistic life and subjected to the strictures
of political life. The only really negative aspect in the
periphery’s artistic situation is the fact that its works
of art hardly ever provide a model for artists working
in the centre. In recent times some art historians un-
derline the fact that peripheral territories might oc-
casionally play a mediating role as regards the trans-
mission of art works and forms. However the pro-
posed term “transperiphery" ,7 though enriching Kara-
man’s scheme, has a somewhat clumsy ring. A related
problém is highlighted by the fact, that between major
ripherie und künstlerische Entwicklung. In: Ars, 24, 1991,
No. 1, pp. 1-11.
7 BONSDORFF, J. von: Art Transfer in the Medieval Baltic
Sea Area. In: GAETHGENS, T. W. (ed.): Künstlerischer Aus-
tausch-Artistic Exchange. Akten des XXVll Internationalen Kon-
gresses für Kunstgeschichte,! 5. — 20.Juli 1992. Berlin 1993, Vol.
2, pp. 39-50, esp. p. 40.
209
differentiate between the two and it is obvions that
he was more interested in régions where dynamic élé-
ments — also resulting from warfare and ethnie strug-
gles — prevailed.
Though the différentiation seems quite simple
nowadays Pinder was the first art historian who on a
theoretical level differentiated between art works sent
abroad — or in other words exported — and the mi-
grations of artists as such. As regards great complex
undertakings, like the building and décoration of the
great cathedrals he tended to stress the fact that re-
gardless of the national or stylistic roots of the artists
taking part the results obtained always constituted a
novel synthesis and could as such — despite its partly
foreign origins — enter the realm of a nations artistic
and religious mythology.
Pinder’s writings seem to hâve influenced an am-
bitious attempt (1963) by the Croatian scholar Ljubo
Karaman6 to differentiate — sub specie the artistic sta-
tus but also the mechanisms of artistic exchange —
between three types of territories outside the central
one: these would be the border régions, the provin-
cial régions and the peripheral régions. Ail these terms
are used often in an imprécise and confused way and
some sort of clarification was long overdue.
The first of these concepts — that of the border
region — was the one, which originally fascinated Pin-
der. Borders possess a special dialectic, which seems
to hâve escaped the attention of most nationally mind-
ed art historians. Borders are seldom defined by ge-
ography alone; mostly they are delimited by men in
an act of political will. Usually art historians start
with centres, though a thorough, unbiased study of
the border might provide us with interesting insights
into the mechanisms of the migration of forms and
into the processes of national inclusion and sépara-
tion as expressed by the respective patriotic imag-
eries, but this refers to the 19th and 2O‘h centuries.
While border régions seldom attract better or top-
6 KARAMAN, L.: 0 djelovaju domdce sredine u umjetnosti hrvat-
skib krajeva [On the Impact of the Local Milieu on the Art of
Croatian Région). Zagreb 1963; BIALOSTOCKI, J.: Some
Values of Artistic Periphery. In: LAVIN, I. (ed.): World Art.
Thèmes of Unity in Diversity. Acts of the XXVlth International
Congress of the History of Art. University Park and London :
The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1989, Vol. 2, pp.
49-59. See also the interesting remarks — BAKOS, J.: Pe-
level personalities among the migrating artists — these
usually move directly on to the centres — they pro-
vide a focal point for middle- and short range cross-
border movements, for meetings and for occasional
fusions of art and of handicraft types.
A provincial area’s artistic life is on the other hand
almost exclusively dépendent on the model provided
by the domineering centre. Its artistic exchange with
the centre is one-sided; it does not accept other sources
of inspiration. The influence it receives from the cen-
tre is absorbed without much change, but on a much
lower artistic level of execution. It is only in the prov-
ince that we can observe phenomena where higher
art forms are transmogrified — by a steady process of
primitivization - into folk- and populär art forms (ab-
gesunkenes Kulturgut).
The third and last category of Karaman’s scheme,
námely the term periphery, would thus designate an
area far away from the powerful centre and not dé-
pendent on influences coming from one place, a ter-
ritory where various influences merge and where none
of them gains — as regards the longer course of histo-
ry — a décisive superiority. That allows the periphery
to create out of indigenous éléments but also from a
whole range of influences, which originated outside
its confines an art with a distinctively autonomous,
and sometimes even strikingly original, character. The
periphery allows for greater artistic freedom than the
centre, which is dominated by institutionalised orga-
nizations of artistic life and subjected to the strictures
of political life. The only really negative aspect in the
periphery’s artistic situation is the fact that its works
of art hardly ever provide a model for artists working
in the centre. In recent times some art historians un-
derline the fact that peripheral territories might oc-
casionally play a mediating role as regards the trans-
mission of art works and forms. However the pro-
posed term “transperiphery" ,7 though enriching Kara-
man’s scheme, has a somewhat clumsy ring. A related
problém is highlighted by the fact, that between major
ripherie und künstlerische Entwicklung. In: Ars, 24, 1991,
No. 1, pp. 1-11.
7 BONSDORFF, J. von: Art Transfer in the Medieval Baltic
Sea Area. In: GAETHGENS, T. W. (ed.): Künstlerischer Aus-
tausch-Artistic Exchange. Akten des XXVll Internationalen Kon-
gresses für Kunstgeschichte,! 5. — 20.Juli 1992. Berlin 1993, Vol.
2, pp. 39-50, esp. p. 40.
209