DOI Heft:
Nr. 1
DOI Artikel:Bakoš, Ján: Max Dvořák's legacy after ninety years
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.31179#0007
The Italian historians of art appreciated him mostly
because of his huge contribution to the knowledge
of Italian artT
Nevertheless, three attempts were made to revive
Dvořák's legacy in the sixties and early seventies
of the 20* Century. The hrst was motivated by the
effort to search for the historical roots of mod-
em art. Not only his discovery of Mannerism as
a kind of proto-Modernism but also his idea of an
historically changing identity of art corresponding
to the permanent transformation of modem art
or "Vanity fair" principle (using E. H. Gombrich's
metaphor)* inspired many advocates and students
of modem artA
Simultaneously, Dvorak's intellectual concep-
tion of art history regained its topicality due to the
iconological method of interprétation that came to
dominate art history following World War II. At-
tempts were made to understand Dvorak's notion of
the work of art as a manifestation of AAAyy
as a forerunner of the iconological concept of the
artwork regarded as a symbolic message. Conse-
quendy, Dvorak's Áf A Áf A was
considered a kind of proto-iconologyA
Paradoxically, the third attempt at pointing out
the topicality of Dvorak's work at that time came
from the opposite, formalist, camp and was a critical
Two volumes of Dvorâk's complétée! works were devoted to
Italian art. See DVOŘÁK 1927 (see in note 3).
' ' See GOMBRICH, E. H.: The Logic of Vanity Fair. Alterna-
tives to Historicism in the Study of Fashions, Style and Taste.
In: GOMBRICH, E. H.: TAzZr <37z7 TAA. Tny)/ <77? LhAřt A
PPrAry A MA. Oxford 1979, pp. 60-92.
HAUSER, A.: ATzTMřTAwT/j. DA TAA Ar wA Ar
UnpwTTg Ar woAfT?^ řA77A. München 1964 (English trans.:
TA GAA of Ař Rř/MTr^^rč' Ař Ot^A of AioArw
Mv. London 1965); HOFMANN, W: GřwA/hgř/?
TT77A. Stuttgart 1966, pp. 28-29,141-142.
" NEUMANN 1961 (see m note 6), pp. 563-568; CHADRABA,
R.: K dnešnímu významu některých kategorií Dvořákovy
metody [On the Present Importance of Some Categories
of Dvorak's Method], In: 9, 1961, No. 6, pp. 608-
612; BIALOSTOCKI, J.: Iconography and Iconology. In:
ETzryApAA çf IFofAMr/. Vol. 7. New York 1963, p. 774;
KALINOWSKI 1974 (see in note 6), pp. 48-53. See also
HALBERTSMA, M.: IFAAA? PAAr Ař AT/AAř
rAA^A. Worms 1992, p. 44.
reaction to the hegemony of iconological method.
Criticizing the intellectual over-interpretation of
visual art, opponents of iconology emphasized
the everlasting value of a form-genetic approach
(developed by young Dvořák in such a paradigmatic
way in his Dtzí RkVW Tr/AG EýtÁ)
considering it as a model of a reliable scientihc
analysisT
Thus, Dvorak's regained renown seemed to reach
its height at that point. His réputation as an initiator
of the intellectual interprétation of art penetrated
even into the Anglo-American art historical scene.
His Í&AG? A (A/fÁAlAwas translated
into Enghsh in the sixties'" and his work was given
a prominent place within Kleinbauer's canonical
anthology of main modem art historical research
methodsA
In 1974, when T. J. Clark followed Georg Lukacs's
opinion and classihed Dvořák among 'TA A?-
porA/A ATonAT' of the past^'' in his manifesto for
the new social history of art, it seemed that Dvořák
could even be pardoned by revisionist art history,
despite his traditional academie origin. However,
that did not happen. On the contrary, with the rise
of the New Art History and art history conceived of
as the history of functions,^" Dvořák's name slipped
away not only from the gallery of key figures of the
KUTAL, A.: Padesát let od smrti Maxe Dvořáka [Fifty Ye-
ars síňce Max Dvořák's Death], ln: UwAf 19, 1971, No. 6,
p. 612; PÄCHT, Otto: Preface to DVOŘÁK, M.: Über die
dringendsten methodischen Erfordernisse der Erziehung
zur kunstgeschichtlichen Forschung. In: HZA7M7" fArAA Ar
T7777r^rAA^A, 27, 1974, p. 7.
* DVOŘÁK, M.: TGAw AUAttzAw A GAAHA. Notre
Dame 1967. See also DVOŘÁK, M.: MtfTfAAry Ař PIAAry
of TGr. London 1984.
KLEINBAUER, W E. (ed.): AHAn? PřnpřAAřt A HArAr^MA
PíhAry. o/" 2G-tť%Ary IFn'ATTgr <777 /A IIAAMAi.
New York 1971, pp. 397-412.
^ FERNIE, E.: Mr/HAAry ^7ÍA AÍAAA. H CA/AAM^AcAgy.
London — New York 1995, pp. 245, 248.
2° See REES, A. L. - BORZELLO, F. (eds.): TA JVwMA
TfhAry. London 1986; HARRIS, J.: TA ÍVwMA ITAAry. M
(AÁAA Í77A<7<AA7<777. London — New York 2001; BUSCH, W
(ed.): TwyCCoAgTTwA. TAř GřrAA^A ArKvTyAA/ RA^A/^A^
TwyÁÁwřT?. 2 Vols. München — Zürich 1987.
5
because of his huge contribution to the knowledge
of Italian artT
Nevertheless, three attempts were made to revive
Dvořák's legacy in the sixties and early seventies
of the 20* Century. The hrst was motivated by the
effort to search for the historical roots of mod-
em art. Not only his discovery of Mannerism as
a kind of proto-Modernism but also his idea of an
historically changing identity of art corresponding
to the permanent transformation of modem art
or "Vanity fair" principle (using E. H. Gombrich's
metaphor)* inspired many advocates and students
of modem artA
Simultaneously, Dvorak's intellectual concep-
tion of art history regained its topicality due to the
iconological method of interprétation that came to
dominate art history following World War II. At-
tempts were made to understand Dvorak's notion of
the work of art as a manifestation of AAAyy
as a forerunner of the iconological concept of the
artwork regarded as a symbolic message. Conse-
quendy, Dvorak's Áf A Áf A was
considered a kind of proto-iconologyA
Paradoxically, the third attempt at pointing out
the topicality of Dvorak's work at that time came
from the opposite, formalist, camp and was a critical
Two volumes of Dvorâk's complétée! works were devoted to
Italian art. See DVOŘÁK 1927 (see in note 3).
' ' See GOMBRICH, E. H.: The Logic of Vanity Fair. Alterna-
tives to Historicism in the Study of Fashions, Style and Taste.
In: GOMBRICH, E. H.: TAzZr <37z7 TAA. Tny)/ <77? LhAřt A
PPrAry A MA. Oxford 1979, pp. 60-92.
HAUSER, A.: ATzTMřTAwT/j. DA TAA Ar wA Ar
UnpwTTg Ar woAfT?^ řA77A. München 1964 (English trans.:
TA GAA of Ař Rř/MTr^^rč' Ař Ot^A of AioArw
Mv. London 1965); HOFMANN, W: GřwA/hgř/?
TT77A. Stuttgart 1966, pp. 28-29,141-142.
" NEUMANN 1961 (see m note 6), pp. 563-568; CHADRABA,
R.: K dnešnímu významu některých kategorií Dvořákovy
metody [On the Present Importance of Some Categories
of Dvorak's Method], In: 9, 1961, No. 6, pp. 608-
612; BIALOSTOCKI, J.: Iconography and Iconology. In:
ETzryApAA çf IFofAMr/. Vol. 7. New York 1963, p. 774;
KALINOWSKI 1974 (see in note 6), pp. 48-53. See also
HALBERTSMA, M.: IFAAA? PAAr Ař AT/AAř
rAA^A. Worms 1992, p. 44.
reaction to the hegemony of iconological method.
Criticizing the intellectual over-interpretation of
visual art, opponents of iconology emphasized
the everlasting value of a form-genetic approach
(developed by young Dvořák in such a paradigmatic
way in his Dtzí RkVW Tr/AG EýtÁ)
considering it as a model of a reliable scientihc
analysisT
Thus, Dvorak's regained renown seemed to reach
its height at that point. His réputation as an initiator
of the intellectual interprétation of art penetrated
even into the Anglo-American art historical scene.
His Í&AG? A (A/fÁAlAwas translated
into Enghsh in the sixties'" and his work was given
a prominent place within Kleinbauer's canonical
anthology of main modem art historical research
methodsA
In 1974, when T. J. Clark followed Georg Lukacs's
opinion and classihed Dvořák among 'TA A?-
porA/A ATonAT' of the past^'' in his manifesto for
the new social history of art, it seemed that Dvořák
could even be pardoned by revisionist art history,
despite his traditional academie origin. However,
that did not happen. On the contrary, with the rise
of the New Art History and art history conceived of
as the history of functions,^" Dvořák's name slipped
away not only from the gallery of key figures of the
KUTAL, A.: Padesát let od smrti Maxe Dvořáka [Fifty Ye-
ars síňce Max Dvořák's Death], ln: UwAf 19, 1971, No. 6,
p. 612; PÄCHT, Otto: Preface to DVOŘÁK, M.: Über die
dringendsten methodischen Erfordernisse der Erziehung
zur kunstgeschichtlichen Forschung. In: HZA7M7" fArAA Ar
T7777r^rAA^A, 27, 1974, p. 7.
* DVOŘÁK, M.: TGAw AUAttzAw A GAAHA. Notre
Dame 1967. See also DVOŘÁK, M.: MtfTfAAry Ař PIAAry
of TGr. London 1984.
KLEINBAUER, W E. (ed.): AHAn? PřnpřAAřt A HArAr^MA
PíhAry. o/" 2G-tť%Ary IFn'ATTgr <777 /A IIAAMAi.
New York 1971, pp. 397-412.
^ FERNIE, E.: Mr/HAAry ^7ÍA AÍAAA. H CA/AAM^AcAgy.
London — New York 1995, pp. 245, 248.
2° See REES, A. L. - BORZELLO, F. (eds.): TA JVwMA
TfhAry. London 1986; HARRIS, J.: TA ÍVwMA ITAAry. M
(AÁAA Í77A<7<AA7<777. London — New York 2001; BUSCH, W
(ed.): TwyCCoAgTTwA. TAř GřrAA^A ArKvTyAA/ RA^A/^A^
TwyÁÁwřT?. 2 Vols. München — Zürich 1987.
5