DOI Heft:
Nr. 1
DOI Artikel:Bałus, Wojciech: Jan Białostocki and George Kubler: in an attempt to catch up with the system
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.31178#0128
yZZzA AzZZOryZ/A/Z. 7/? /Ar/ /Ayry yZZT ZZO ZZZZyZgyy, zzz zrAAA yOZW
yArzz^ o/ Aozzogz*yzpAA /ztzzzy/Arzzzyz/Azz Am zzo/ A/Ayzz T^4
yzvyyp^ /Ayyy ryry ^Ary/ zzzzyzgyy JzroA/^yy^ /Ayz/ rozzy/Azz/y /Ay
^Ary/ zzzyz/zzry zmzzyz/AryyyzzA/Azz o/ yozzzy z'Ayyz. Jmi m /Ayry
yvA/h]AAyz/Azzyzgyy, AozzogryzpAA 7%byy) /Ayry yzAo yzvz'y//Ar%?yz/
y^yy", yzzzA ozzy z^A/ yy%y /Ay?/ yzzz yzzzyz/ogom JzAyzzozzzyzzozz
ryzh/Azg /o /ryzzzy/orzzzyz/Azzy yyzzz yzAo Ay oAyyrryA zzz /Ay ^Ay/A
o/ /oz*zzzyz/ Ayry/yjzzzzyzz/. O/z/y /Ay Jzro/o/tp^'- /Ay y^AA/A
ArrAy^T^ ) yzzrA m /Ay Go/AA rAozr zzz 7A-Ay-7Ay?zzyy /ozryzrA
/Ay yzzA gf /Ay /2^' yyzz/zzry, AAy /Ay TAoryzz/Azy ^zzAry yAz/zzzg
AyzrA /o /Ay yztz o/ ^zzrz//roryzz/o, AAy Ry?pAyzy/y A7y?Aozzzzyz, yz
Pyz/AAzAzz rAA or yz Rozzzyzzz Byzro^zzy rAzzrrA, /Ary rozzy/Azz/y
^zzzry, hpTyz/yzzzA JzAzzzy^ y/yA'y/A yz"yyz/Azzy."'" The above
treatise was published only once in ThoAyz F /zrory^oyy
(Theory and Creativity). It appeared about a year
before the publication of Kublerh book. Yet, in the
treatise, we can corne actoss categories which are
very similar to the ones introduced by the American
scholar. Biaiostocki wrote about the pure "hrst"
créations, from which sériés of subséquent works are
descended; he wrote about iconographie types which
are subject to transformations and in which one can
discover traces of former decisions; he also wrote
about the continuai struggle between tradition and
innovation throughout history. While dealing with
iconography, he also mentioned similar phenomena
which occurred within the formal structure of works
of art. In this way, he was fully prepared to accept
such terms as "pz-Azzy 0^7'yy/y yzzzA rypzAm", "z'zzryzz/Azz yzzzA
/ryzzzy/orzzzyz/Azz", "rypzAyz/Azz'', 'JArzzzyy^zzyzzyyy", "ry/yy/Azz
yzzzApryyyrryz/Azz" or "^zzA/A yzzzA y/ozr yryzz/y"T
III.
Thus we can say that Jan Biaiostocki thought m
a systemic way which allowed him to become fasci-
nated with TAy TAyzpy 0/^ TzAzy. In Ms reviexy he empha-
sized the systemic character of ITubler's rehections,
stating that his book had grown out of a tendency to
" BIALOSTOCKI, J.: Tradycje i przeksztalcema ikonograhezne
[Traditions and Iconographie Transformadons]. In: TiT, pp.
139-140.
^ KUBLER 1962 (see in note 1), passim.
^ Review of Kubier, p. 135.
"JMApoAz/y o/" rAzr^A'ozzz zrAAA /Ay zrAoA zrorzA o/ Azzzzzyzzz yzr/
yyzzz Ay^rmpyA m yz rAzzyz/ zzzyzzzjyy/yz/Azz o/ Azzzzzyzzz AA/ozy/".^
However, Biaiostocki himself was the author of the
article entitled "W pogoni za schématem. Usiiowama
systematycznej historii sztuki" (In Pursuit of a Para-
digme An Attempt to Present a Systemic Art History)
which had appeared a few years earlier. Already the
very use of the words '(bzzzrzzA" and "y7//yz%p/" in the
title of the article betrayed its critical and polemic
tone. The young author opposed the attempts aimed
at the discovery of a simple, "yzyAzr Ayyz/ zTy/Azzz 0/ yzr/
AA/ory", and presenting the foundations of art in the
form of binary oppositions of the type: classical
- non-classical or classical — primitiver^ Whereas
in his article he did not oppose attempts to create a
comprehensive, systemic vision of art history. "7y A
zzo/ zi^A/," he asked, "/oJzzzA hpyr o/* yzAA/A yzybryyyz'ozz /Ayz/
yzry jpyy^Ar yzzzA yozzzzzzozz A ryzhozzy yzr/A/y A^/y A A?yA yy'wy'Af
wy77/y%/ yy^y/A^/A;? ywA y? y^AFA^* 7777'A'y^ 7//7Ay7rAyA A /Ay
AAyy/Ji^AAA ^'y?yf PAr A A o/Ay /Ay ^AA o/ Ay JiyrmMyr
/Ay?/ Am y? A7?Ay/7rt A ro/w 7^ i^AA yAyyý)/A7y hAyfpfyAAAm
— /Ay mAA gf /Ay m/A/ A y?Ao A77777y777 y?%A /Am, /Ay yry^/yA
yAywA/ Ay yom/^y^yT/r^/y 17ÁA yAyyý)/A7g hAy/pmA/Am
i^AAA i^y ^77/A ATy A /AA M A/^^ The author rejected
exclusively simplihed and schematic interprétations;
he stated that a characteristic feature of art Mstory is
"yz J)yf.wyZ77y7A yyyjvA/y/zry 0/ ^yzAym y/ArA^yy yzzzA /y/zAy/^Ayy
zA/A mz 7777^7/yy/A/7yApryAcwA^yy o/ yowy ^A /Ayw M yyAmh
A?y/AAf', and that yzAyA JiyAoA M yzr/ AAArt oA/mAy
mz yzAyoA//y yz/zA zzzzyzAyzzzzyzAA Aowoyy/zyz'A zA yzA Ay y?r/A/A
y?zAyy7Zwy"r Therefore already in the 1940s of the
20^ Century, he observed a need for a pluralist view
of the history of the art process and he postulated
that such a systém should be built in the future. "7/
A yzAzzzAy/y?/Az'zzgA^^A^ concluded, "yz/zA yz ozzy zzAAA
Aoyy zzo/JvvAmy yzzrA Ayzy^A'zzg er yzAAzhzzg y^ArA m /Ay ozzyy
zz^AA zztAAA /Ay /zzv or /Aryy-Ayyz/ yyr/rwy ^/zpy^r A Ayz^A m.
TAy zzzzmAyr oA yA/zzyzz/y zzv'A Ay Azggyr Ayry; /Ayry zrz'A Ay zzzory
rozzzAzzzyz/Azzy yzzzA A'zzAy yz/zA yry/z zzzory ryyzzAyzzz/JAz^y — Azz/
^ BIALOSTOCKI, J.: W pogoni za schématem. Usiiowania
systematyeznej historii sztuki [In Pursuit of a Paradigm. An
Attempt to Present a Systemic Art History]. In: BA/Atw HzAyAz
AyZz/A', 9, 1947, pp. 225-239.
^ Ibidem, p. 238.
" Ibidem, p. 238.
122
yArzz^ o/ Aozzogz*yzpAA /ztzzzy/Arzzzyz/Azz Am zzo/ A/Ayzz T^4
yzvyyp^ /Ayyy ryry ^Ary/ zzzzyzgyy JzroA/^yy^ /Ayz/ rozzy/Azz/y /Ay
^Ary/ zzzyz/zzry zmzzyz/AryyyzzA/Azz o/ yozzzy z'Ayyz. Jmi m /Ayry
yvA/h]AAyz/Azzyzgyy, AozzogryzpAA 7%byy) /Ayry yzAo yzvz'y//Ar%?yz/
y^yy", yzzzA ozzy z^A/ yy%y /Ay?/ yzzz yzzzyz/ogom JzAyzzozzzyzzozz
ryzh/Azg /o /ryzzzy/orzzzyz/Azzy yyzzz yzAo Ay oAyyrryA zzz /Ay ^Ay/A
o/ /oz*zzzyz/ Ayry/yjzzzzyzz/. O/z/y /Ay Jzro/o/tp^'- /Ay y^AA/A
ArrAy^T^ ) yzzrA m /Ay Go/AA rAozr zzz 7A-Ay-7Ay?zzyy /ozryzrA
/Ay yzzA gf /Ay /2^' yyzz/zzry, AAy /Ay TAoryzz/Azy ^zzAry yAz/zzzg
AyzrA /o /Ay yztz o/ ^zzrz//roryzz/o, AAy Ry?pAyzy/y A7y?Aozzzzyz, yz
Pyz/AAzAzz rAA or yz Rozzzyzzz Byzro^zzy rAzzrrA, /Ary rozzy/Azz/y
^zzzry, hpTyz/yzzzA JzAzzzy^ y/yA'y/A yz"yyz/Azzy."'" The above
treatise was published only once in ThoAyz F /zrory^oyy
(Theory and Creativity). It appeared about a year
before the publication of Kublerh book. Yet, in the
treatise, we can corne actoss categories which are
very similar to the ones introduced by the American
scholar. Biaiostocki wrote about the pure "hrst"
créations, from which sériés of subséquent works are
descended; he wrote about iconographie types which
are subject to transformations and in which one can
discover traces of former decisions; he also wrote
about the continuai struggle between tradition and
innovation throughout history. While dealing with
iconography, he also mentioned similar phenomena
which occurred within the formal structure of works
of art. In this way, he was fully prepared to accept
such terms as "pz-Azzy 0^7'yy/y yzzzA rypzAm", "z'zzryzz/Azz yzzzA
/ryzzzy/orzzzyz/Azz", "rypzAyz/Azz'', 'JArzzzyy^zzyzzyyy", "ry/yy/Azz
yzzzApryyyrryz/Azz" or "^zzA/A yzzzA y/ozr yryzz/y"T
III.
Thus we can say that Jan Biaiostocki thought m
a systemic way which allowed him to become fasci-
nated with TAy TAyzpy 0/^ TzAzy. In Ms reviexy he empha-
sized the systemic character of ITubler's rehections,
stating that his book had grown out of a tendency to
" BIALOSTOCKI, J.: Tradycje i przeksztalcema ikonograhezne
[Traditions and Iconographie Transformadons]. In: TiT, pp.
139-140.
^ KUBLER 1962 (see in note 1), passim.
^ Review of Kubier, p. 135.
"JMApoAz/y o/" rAzr^A'ozzz zrAAA /Ay zrAoA zrorzA o/ Azzzzzyzzz yzr/
yyzzz Ay^rmpyA m yz rAzzyz/ zzzyzzzjyy/yz/Azz o/ Azzzzzyzzz AA/ozy/".^
However, Biaiostocki himself was the author of the
article entitled "W pogoni za schématem. Usiiowama
systematycznej historii sztuki" (In Pursuit of a Para-
digme An Attempt to Present a Systemic Art History)
which had appeared a few years earlier. Already the
very use of the words '(bzzzrzzA" and "y7//yz%p/" in the
title of the article betrayed its critical and polemic
tone. The young author opposed the attempts aimed
at the discovery of a simple, "yzyAzr Ayyz/ zTy/Azzz 0/ yzr/
AA/ory", and presenting the foundations of art in the
form of binary oppositions of the type: classical
- non-classical or classical — primitiver^ Whereas
in his article he did not oppose attempts to create a
comprehensive, systemic vision of art history. "7y A
zzo/ zi^A/," he asked, "/oJzzzA hpyr o/* yzAA/A yzybryyyz'ozz /Ayz/
yzry jpyy^Ar yzzzA yozzzzzzozz A ryzhozzy yzr/A/y A^/y A A?yA yy'wy'Af
wy77/y%/ yy^y/A^/A;? ywA y? y^AFA^* 7777'A'y^ 7//7Ay7rAyA A /Ay
AAyy/Ji^AAA ^'y?yf PAr A A o/Ay /Ay ^AA o/ Ay JiyrmMyr
/Ay?/ Am y? A7?Ay/7rt A ro/w 7^ i^AA yAyyý)/A7y hAyfpfyAAAm
— /Ay mAA gf /Ay m/A/ A y?Ao A77777y777 y?%A /Am, /Ay yry^/yA
yAywA/ Ay yom/^y^yT/r^/y 17ÁA yAyyý)/A7g hAy/pmA/Am
i^AAA i^y ^77/A ATy A /AA M A/^^ The author rejected
exclusively simplihed and schematic interprétations;
he stated that a characteristic feature of art Mstory is
"yz J)yf.wyZ77y7A yyyjvA/y/zry 0/ ^yzAym y/ArA^yy yzzzA /y/zAy/^Ayy
zA/A mz 7777^7/yy/A/7yApryAcwA^yy o/ yowy ^A /Ayw M yyAmh
A?y/AAf', and that yzAyA JiyAoA M yzr/ AAArt oA/mAy
mz yzAyoA//y yz/zA zzzzyzAyzzzzyzAA Aowoyy/zyz'A zA yzA Ay y?r/A/A
y?zAyy7Zwy"r Therefore already in the 1940s of the
20^ Century, he observed a need for a pluralist view
of the history of the art process and he postulated
that such a systém should be built in the future. "7/
A yzAzzzAy/y?/Az'zzgA^^A^ concluded, "yz/zA yz ozzy zzAAA
Aoyy zzo/JvvAmy yzzrA Ayzy^A'zzg er yzAAzhzzg y^ArA m /Ay ozzyy
zz^AA zztAAA /Ay /zzv or /Aryy-Ayyz/ yyr/rwy ^/zpy^r A Ayz^A m.
TAy zzzzmAyr oA yA/zzyzz/y zzv'A Ay Azggyr Ayry; /Ayry zrz'A Ay zzzory
rozzzAzzzyz/Azzy yzzzA A'zzAy yz/zA yry/z zzzory ryyzzAyzzz/JAz^y — Azz/
^ BIALOSTOCKI, J.: W pogoni za schématem. Usiiowania
systematyeznej historii sztuki [In Pursuit of a Paradigm. An
Attempt to Present a Systemic Art History]. In: BA/Atw HzAyAz
AyZz/A', 9, 1947, pp. 225-239.
^ Ibidem, p. 238.
" Ibidem, p. 238.
122