DOI Heft:
Nr. 1
DOI Artikel:Blower, Jonathan: Max Dvořák, Wilhelm von Bode and "The Monuments of German Art"
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.31179#0096
He evidently did. Dvořáků response was pub-
lished as the leading article of the řw/pVy/?ro/yřÁ in June
1917. Echoing Bode, he called for a strict séparation
of art scholarship and art market — ITTüAryf^
The position of art history as an independent
academie discipline, he argued, had been hard-won by
the previous génération thirty years earlier, and now
a small minority (read Biermann) was threatenmg to
undermine its scientihc credibility by creaming off
percentages for themselves and using positions in the
public museum sector as a springboard for lucrative
careers in the gallery business. Bode's professional
associaüon, Dvořák concurred, would be the ideal
way to stamp out these instances of materialistic
malpractice. He merely urged that the association^
sphere of jurisdiction be extended beyond the Ger-
man Reich to include Austria as well. '
All this has to strike the cultural historian as rather
ironie on a number of counts. For one, Hicking
through the pages of the D//%VyDtwřÁ, the amount
of space it dedicates to art sales and auctions pro-
vides eloquent witness, contra Dvořák, to the vital
links between base material interests and the loftier
realms of art. Also ironie: that the acquisitive Bode
- who was later dubbed the Bismarck of the German
Museums by Karl Schefher - should have been the
one to call for a regulahon of the market he so deftly
exploited on behalf of the Berlin collectionsV But
the main point here is a simple one: Dvořák was a
great admirer of Bode, and the two men had more
DVORAK, M.: Sollen die deutschen Kunsthistoriker sich zu
einer Fachgenossenschaft zusammenschließen? In: BAnVAw-
rA, 28,1. 6. 1917, No. 35, pp. 369-371.
HOFMANN, W: Bode und Schlosser. In: JnVGT Ar AA-
ryr 38, 1996, supplément, p. 177; WAETZOLD, S.:
Wilhelm von Bode — Bauherr? In: WESENBERG, A. (ed.):
1F7VAA? WH ByA Ar ZA^ryrv ArBAyV. Berlin 1995, p. 56.
'* In this regard, see Dvorak's public defence of Bode in the
wake of the "Flora" controversy — DVOŘÁK, M.: Gehe-
imrat Bode und die Leonardo da Vinci Büste. In: HA
Pmrv, 24. 11. 1909, pp. 8-9. Dvořák here puts the dubious
provenance of the forged bust aside, arguing instead that it
is absurd "A pA AwA'w cw n HtA Ar An<? vA/AAp
vrwA. By w&AAg A B<?r/A, Arů/AJ tw/ gf %<yAAg, /A
/wV ArAnAw A Ař yHcr/g Bnr nAPyA jw-wAAg cry
yrcnV i^ďw/y Aw /A%gApcvAA TBë A^y nrt BhAry nrü
ynr wvnrA AnAR/A^ AP rnn
ArAy A ywr/AAA'
than just kidney stones in common." Cultural ties
between Vienna and Berlin remained close as late as
1917, and while the Sixtus affair foundered behind
closed doors, signalling Austria's fatigue vis-à-vis its
military obligations to Germany, Dvořák and Bode
were negotiating favourable bilateral terms for art
export laws in their respective empires.
These concerns aside, though, the majority of
Dvofâk's communications to Bode revolve around
one project in particular: a monumental sériés of
publications entitled DA Dy%Á/%VÁr Ar KvvV
(TA ATwp/wHy o/ Gyrw^Mn), which was instigated
and funded by Bode's Deutscher Verein für Kunstwis-
senschaft (DVfK - German Society for Art Scholar-
ship, est. 1908). The word "monumental" is not used
ftippantly here either — the projected séries would have
stretched to an estimatedyoy/r folio volumes and
printing costs of some six million Marks, the present
day équivalent of around 100 million EuroV
The principal object of the present study will
be Dvořák's involvement with the DVfK and his
contribution to Bode's highly ambitious, not to say
utopian project in pan-German art scholarship. At
hrst glance, this would appear to have been minimal.
None of the major publications bear his name on
anything but their acknowledgement pages, Bode
nowhere mentions Dvořák in his autobiography,
and there are only three references to the D<?%C-
Ar A-VryA?? ÁAvV in the standard bibliography
of Dvofâk's published writings." But the archivai
^ This ball-park figure is based on a present-day salary of
around € 16 000 and the average salary of a German prole-
tarian in 1913, which, according to DESAI, A. V: R<?A
A Gř77%Myy. Oxford 1968, p. 112, was about 1 000 Marks.
The figure of six million Marks was a conservative estimate
that excluded intellectual labour: "HrwAAg A
řAA?Aef, AřpwAtfÁw wrP A A .. AA A
HH nwfHgy T M 000 Af; 40yO^y wAwyr A^ wAr yrynV
Ant A 400 000 Ai. Bn/rA^ AyvpHAcApHt A// cr/y
Aw wwnA HWHrà PrR GV/zM/ryr ďAbřA Ay
řryrnycHt A A jw/wybr AřpHMA/Ar wrP A A & efPAnPà A
vA Hyy'AÜH AínAr." — BODE, W von: DfnÆfAA/? ^Ary-
ybV Tr DěArAer GwABAHAAtvrtAVt ^4 A? DřHÁwnAr
TrDřArAyH BAnV. Berlin 1914, p. 7.
" DVOŘÁK, M.: Notiz: Denkmäler der deutschen Kunst,
ln: BAHi^řtAiAAAří JW%A Tr Á. Á.
EyôriAwyg EAnAnng Tr BAnV- nzV AfAnfAřH DřHÁtHH/k,
2, 1908, Beiblatt für Denkmalpflege, pp. 95-98; DVOŘÁK,
M.: Notiz: Denkmäler der deutschen Kunst. In: BAnr^rAiA/-
94
lished as the leading article of the řw/pVy/?ro/yřÁ in June
1917. Echoing Bode, he called for a strict séparation
of art scholarship and art market — ITTüAryf^
The position of art history as an independent
academie discipline, he argued, had been hard-won by
the previous génération thirty years earlier, and now
a small minority (read Biermann) was threatenmg to
undermine its scientihc credibility by creaming off
percentages for themselves and using positions in the
public museum sector as a springboard for lucrative
careers in the gallery business. Bode's professional
associaüon, Dvořák concurred, would be the ideal
way to stamp out these instances of materialistic
malpractice. He merely urged that the association^
sphere of jurisdiction be extended beyond the Ger-
man Reich to include Austria as well. '
All this has to strike the cultural historian as rather
ironie on a number of counts. For one, Hicking
through the pages of the D//%VyDtwřÁ, the amount
of space it dedicates to art sales and auctions pro-
vides eloquent witness, contra Dvořák, to the vital
links between base material interests and the loftier
realms of art. Also ironie: that the acquisitive Bode
- who was later dubbed the Bismarck of the German
Museums by Karl Schefher - should have been the
one to call for a regulahon of the market he so deftly
exploited on behalf of the Berlin collectionsV But
the main point here is a simple one: Dvořák was a
great admirer of Bode, and the two men had more
DVORAK, M.: Sollen die deutschen Kunsthistoriker sich zu
einer Fachgenossenschaft zusammenschließen? In: BAnVAw-
rA, 28,1. 6. 1917, No. 35, pp. 369-371.
HOFMANN, W: Bode und Schlosser. In: JnVGT Ar AA-
ryr 38, 1996, supplément, p. 177; WAETZOLD, S.:
Wilhelm von Bode — Bauherr? In: WESENBERG, A. (ed.):
1F7VAA? WH ByA Ar ZA^ryrv ArBAyV. Berlin 1995, p. 56.
'* In this regard, see Dvorak's public defence of Bode in the
wake of the "Flora" controversy — DVOŘÁK, M.: Gehe-
imrat Bode und die Leonardo da Vinci Büste. In: HA
Pmrv, 24. 11. 1909, pp. 8-9. Dvořák here puts the dubious
provenance of the forged bust aside, arguing instead that it
is absurd "A pA AwA'w cw n HtA Ar An<? vA/AAp
vrwA. By w&AAg A B<?r/A, Arů/AJ tw/ gf %<yAAg, /A
/wV ArAnAw A Ař yHcr/g Bnr nAPyA jw-wAAg cry
yrcnV i^ďw/y Aw /A%gApcvAA TBë A^y nrt BhAry nrü
ynr wvnrA AnAR/A^ AP rnn
ArAy A ywr/AAA'
than just kidney stones in common." Cultural ties
between Vienna and Berlin remained close as late as
1917, and while the Sixtus affair foundered behind
closed doors, signalling Austria's fatigue vis-à-vis its
military obligations to Germany, Dvořák and Bode
were negotiating favourable bilateral terms for art
export laws in their respective empires.
These concerns aside, though, the majority of
Dvofâk's communications to Bode revolve around
one project in particular: a monumental sériés of
publications entitled DA Dy%Á/%VÁr Ar KvvV
(TA ATwp/wHy o/ Gyrw^Mn), which was instigated
and funded by Bode's Deutscher Verein für Kunstwis-
senschaft (DVfK - German Society for Art Scholar-
ship, est. 1908). The word "monumental" is not used
ftippantly here either — the projected séries would have
stretched to an estimatedyoy/r folio volumes and
printing costs of some six million Marks, the present
day équivalent of around 100 million EuroV
The principal object of the present study will
be Dvořák's involvement with the DVfK and his
contribution to Bode's highly ambitious, not to say
utopian project in pan-German art scholarship. At
hrst glance, this would appear to have been minimal.
None of the major publications bear his name on
anything but their acknowledgement pages, Bode
nowhere mentions Dvořák in his autobiography,
and there are only three references to the D<?%C-
Ar A-VryA?? ÁAvV in the standard bibliography
of Dvofâk's published writings." But the archivai
^ This ball-park figure is based on a present-day salary of
around € 16 000 and the average salary of a German prole-
tarian in 1913, which, according to DESAI, A. V: R<?A
A Gř77%Myy. Oxford 1968, p. 112, was about 1 000 Marks.
The figure of six million Marks was a conservative estimate
that excluded intellectual labour: "HrwAAg A
řAA?Aef, AřpwAtfÁw wrP A A .. AA A
HH nwfHgy T M 000 Af; 40yO^y wAwyr A^ wAr yrynV
Ant A 400 000 Ai. Bn/rA^ AyvpHAcApHt A// cr/y
Aw wwnA HWHrà PrR GV/zM/ryr ďAbřA Ay
řryrnycHt A A jw/wybr AřpHMA/Ar wrP A A & efPAnPà A
vA Hyy'AÜH AínAr." — BODE, W von: DfnÆfAA/? ^Ary-
ybV Tr DěArAer GwABAHAAtvrtAVt ^4 A? DřHÁwnAr
TrDřArAyH BAnV. Berlin 1914, p. 7.
" DVOŘÁK, M.: Notiz: Denkmäler der deutschen Kunst,
ln: BAHi^řtAiAAAří JW%A Tr Á. Á.
EyôriAwyg EAnAnng Tr BAnV- nzV AfAnfAřH DřHÁtHH/k,
2, 1908, Beiblatt für Denkmalpflege, pp. 95-98; DVOŘÁK,
M.: Notiz: Denkmäler der deutschen Kunst. In: BAnr^rAiA/-
94