DOI Heft:
Nr. 1
DOI Artikel:Bažant, Jan: Nation and art: from Miroslav Tyrš to Max Dvořák, and back
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.31179#0017
ŠTÚDIE / ARTICLES
ARS 44, 2011, 1
Nation and Art.
From Miroslav Tyrš to Max Dvorak, and back
Jan BAŽANT
The beginning of Czech History of Art is con-
nected with Miroslav Tyrš (1832 — 1884) and Max
Dvořák (1874 - 1921), two scholars, whose life and
work stand in sharp contrast, which is why they are
so typical of the intellectual agitation in late 19^-
century Central Europef
Friedrich Tiersch, the hrst professor of Art His-
tory at a Czech university, was born and brought
up as a Bohemian German, only declaring himself
as Czech after completing his university studies. In
the 1860s, he adopted the name, Miroslav Tyrš, and
decided to devote all his energy and skills to the
Czech national renaissance.
Max Dvořák was born in the next génération
during which Czechness was taken for granted. His
thinking and attitudes already belonged to the era
of a culturally integrated Europe, which had started
to form itself at that very time. Dvořák strived to
achieve a professorial chair at a Czech university in
Prague, but when he was unsuccessful, he settled in
the capital city of the Danube Empire. He became
the foremost member of the Vienna School of Art
History and today is considered as an Austrian Art
Historian. While nobody in the Czech Republic even
reads Tyrš's works on the History of Art, Dvořák's
writing belongs among the canon of Art historical
literatuře and has been translated into many lan-
guages, including Czech.
' This study was supported by the grant No. IAA800090902
HD/ACJ AjpAare y AAeA A?ye/GA? of the Grant Agency
of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.
SCHWARZER, M.: Cosmopolitan Différence in Max Dvorâk's
Art Historiography. In: TAMy/B%A/z'%, 74,1992, pp. 669-678,
Tyrš's and Dvořák's approaches to the Art of
past epochs could not be any more different. Tyrš
understands the History of Art as inséparable from
nationhood, which is its inspirational source and sole
recipient. According to him, the History of Art must
provide a theoretical basis for the development of
national Art. He condemns Baroque Art which, to
him, is an attribute of Czech national oppression by
the Habsburgs after the Battle of White Mountain.
Dvořák is not mterested in the Art of his time and
ignores Czech national Art; according to him, the
History of Art only makes sense in a pan-European
dimension. He strives to liberate Art History from
a narrow topographical, temporary frame; he wants
to give it universal and timeless validity. As is to be
expected, he is a pioneer in the réhabilitation of
Baroque Art, which he présents as a way out of the
spiritual crisis which Europe went through during
the 15^ and 16*'' centuries.
Tyrš and Dvořák lived in a nationally, politically,
socially and denominationally divided Europe. The
former used this division as a base for his conception
of Art History, while the latter sought unity in this
disparity, systematically belittling, in his writing on
Art History, the role of patrons and ail other factors
which had contributed to fragmentation in Europe.'
It may be argued that the present day interest in
Dvořák is due to the fact that, in the 2(A Century,
esp. p. 677: "[Dvořák] MwAVAfp^/e/y te
A ^4
eGwytť /Az/ yyžyr /e My/ zaweyzg e/Ay t&Tgy, re/7.M%w/M-
íM/ře%, zzTV7VA77/A72A /V/ ZH/eywkr V TTM/eAA y/zAzye,
/y<2%yey.W;2/ze7Zí, íxV Azv zzw? V -^%4%ry Apoy-
/zzwe /e zzy/AA rya%Ae% Agy A<%gA zpA
15
ARS 44, 2011, 1
Nation and Art.
From Miroslav Tyrš to Max Dvorak, and back
Jan BAŽANT
The beginning of Czech History of Art is con-
nected with Miroslav Tyrš (1832 — 1884) and Max
Dvořák (1874 - 1921), two scholars, whose life and
work stand in sharp contrast, which is why they are
so typical of the intellectual agitation in late 19^-
century Central Europef
Friedrich Tiersch, the hrst professor of Art His-
tory at a Czech university, was born and brought
up as a Bohemian German, only declaring himself
as Czech after completing his university studies. In
the 1860s, he adopted the name, Miroslav Tyrš, and
decided to devote all his energy and skills to the
Czech national renaissance.
Max Dvořák was born in the next génération
during which Czechness was taken for granted. His
thinking and attitudes already belonged to the era
of a culturally integrated Europe, which had started
to form itself at that very time. Dvořák strived to
achieve a professorial chair at a Czech university in
Prague, but when he was unsuccessful, he settled in
the capital city of the Danube Empire. He became
the foremost member of the Vienna School of Art
History and today is considered as an Austrian Art
Historian. While nobody in the Czech Republic even
reads Tyrš's works on the History of Art, Dvořák's
writing belongs among the canon of Art historical
literatuře and has been translated into many lan-
guages, including Czech.
' This study was supported by the grant No. IAA800090902
HD/ACJ AjpAare y AAeA A?ye/GA? of the Grant Agency
of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.
SCHWARZER, M.: Cosmopolitan Différence in Max Dvorâk's
Art Historiography. In: TAMy/B%A/z'%, 74,1992, pp. 669-678,
Tyrš's and Dvořák's approaches to the Art of
past epochs could not be any more different. Tyrš
understands the History of Art as inséparable from
nationhood, which is its inspirational source and sole
recipient. According to him, the History of Art must
provide a theoretical basis for the development of
national Art. He condemns Baroque Art which, to
him, is an attribute of Czech national oppression by
the Habsburgs after the Battle of White Mountain.
Dvořák is not mterested in the Art of his time and
ignores Czech national Art; according to him, the
History of Art only makes sense in a pan-European
dimension. He strives to liberate Art History from
a narrow topographical, temporary frame; he wants
to give it universal and timeless validity. As is to be
expected, he is a pioneer in the réhabilitation of
Baroque Art, which he présents as a way out of the
spiritual crisis which Europe went through during
the 15^ and 16*'' centuries.
Tyrš and Dvořák lived in a nationally, politically,
socially and denominationally divided Europe. The
former used this division as a base for his conception
of Art History, while the latter sought unity in this
disparity, systematically belittling, in his writing on
Art History, the role of patrons and ail other factors
which had contributed to fragmentation in Europe.'
It may be argued that the present day interest in
Dvořák is due to the fact that, in the 2(A Century,
esp. p. 677: "[Dvořák] MwAVAfp^/e/y te
A ^4
eGwytť /Az/ yyžyr /e My/ zaweyzg e/Ay t&Tgy, re/7.M%w/M-
íM/ře%, zzTV7VA77/A72A /V/ ZH/eywkr V TTM/eAA y/zAzye,
/y<2%yey.W;2/ze7Zí, íxV Azv zzw? V -^%4%ry Apoy-
/zzwe /e zzy/AA rya%Ae% Agy A<%gA zpA
15