DOI issue:
Nr. 1
DOI article:Blower, Jonathan: Max Dvořák, Wilhelm von Bode and "The Monuments of German Art"
DOI Page / Citation link: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.31179#0097
sources show that Dvořák's involvement behind the
scenes, initiaüy at the level of planning and organi-
sation, then in driving the project forward, was far
more substantial than these rather self-effacing docu-
ments suggest. If anything, Hans Tietze understated
the point when he recalled his former coüeague's
<9/? ffňVÁw ob /bo THíw
After Wilhelm von Bode (and
perhaps even more than him), no other memher of
the DVfK was quite so insistent on the necessity of
Publishing a comprehensive and systematic survey
of the monuments of German art.
The following institutional history will begin with
the prehistory and founding aims of the DVfK,
tracing its origins back to the hrst congress of art
history in 1873. Here, in the context of the Vienna
World Exhibition, a proposai for an international
art historical association was put before delegates
and accepted in principle, although little came of it
until thirty-hve years later, when the political and
intellectual climate in Europe was decidedly less con-
ducive to internationalist cultural collaboration. In
1907, Bode's plan for the DVfK was announced, and
hotly debated, at the eighth international congress
of art history in Darmstadt; a crucial moment that
can justihably be seen as a turning point in German
art historiography. Heinrich Dilly has remarked that
the discipline of art history around this time was a
predominantly German affair, as indeed it had been
ever since the hrst professorial chairs were set up at
mid-centuryV But around 1907 there was a marked
shift, in some circles at least, away from an outward-
looking, internationalist art history and towards an
introverted and explicitly German-nationalist one.
While Dvořák htmself was not party to the ini-
tial planning of the DVfK, he was present durtng
the hnal consultations and constituent assembly at
Frankfurt in March 1908, where, according to his
AVryWwd? Ar Æ ü 3, 1909, Beiblatt für
Denkmalpflege, p. 173; DVORAK, M.: D/7 Vr
Kor/tMg, Aw y% Ar
WiAr yřTVTnYVYř/? GřH/-
V lUYw. Berlin 1913. For the standard
bibliography, see DVORAK, M: Ay/rVyř
München 1929, pp. 371-381.
^ TIETZE, H.: Max Dvořák f. In:
56, 4. 3. 1921, No. 23, p. 443.
2. IhAV/ky BoA G- DOT)- HíVo.' ZHÍAfB,
own account, he brought the rigorous scholarly
principles of the Vienna School to bear on the oth-
erwise rather diffuse Statutes of the nascent Ger-
man society.^ His voice was heard for good reason.
As a discerning critic of the existing German art
inventories, one-time contributor to the provincial
Bohemian art topography, and editor of the far
more ambitious and critically acclaimed ŮVorrAHUHo
(Austrian Art Topography), Dvořák
already had a wealth of expérience behind him in the
held of monument inventories. Insofar as they hâve
a bearing on the DVfK and its sériés of publications,
then, Dvořák's work on these inventories will also
be considered here.
With the DVfK established, Bode asked three
men to draw up separate programs for the proposed
monument publication: Georg Dehio, Max Dvořák
and Adolph Goldschmidt. Dvořák's expérience
stood him in good stead here. A comparison of the
^ DU LY, H.: Ar HYÁAA. WAA yw G&fdAV<?
YwrDřryýV/?. Frankfurt a. M. 1979, pp. 33-35.
^ DVOŘÁK, M.: Über den Deutschen Verein für Kunstwis-
senschaft. Vortrag, gehalten vor Historikern, 1909. Institut
für Kunstgeschichte, Universität Wien (thereinafter IKUW),
Nachlass Dvořák, Box 12, Versch. Vorträge u. Rezensionen.
Many thanks to Georg Vasold for his help and hospitality.
95
scenes, initiaüy at the level of planning and organi-
sation, then in driving the project forward, was far
more substantial than these rather self-effacing docu-
ments suggest. If anything, Hans Tietze understated
the point when he recalled his former coüeague's
<9/? ffňVÁw ob /bo THíw
After Wilhelm von Bode (and
perhaps even more than him), no other memher of
the DVfK was quite so insistent on the necessity of
Publishing a comprehensive and systematic survey
of the monuments of German art.
The following institutional history will begin with
the prehistory and founding aims of the DVfK,
tracing its origins back to the hrst congress of art
history in 1873. Here, in the context of the Vienna
World Exhibition, a proposai for an international
art historical association was put before delegates
and accepted in principle, although little came of it
until thirty-hve years later, when the political and
intellectual climate in Europe was decidedly less con-
ducive to internationalist cultural collaboration. In
1907, Bode's plan for the DVfK was announced, and
hotly debated, at the eighth international congress
of art history in Darmstadt; a crucial moment that
can justihably be seen as a turning point in German
art historiography. Heinrich Dilly has remarked that
the discipline of art history around this time was a
predominantly German affair, as indeed it had been
ever since the hrst professorial chairs were set up at
mid-centuryV But around 1907 there was a marked
shift, in some circles at least, away from an outward-
looking, internationalist art history and towards an
introverted and explicitly German-nationalist one.
While Dvořák htmself was not party to the ini-
tial planning of the DVfK, he was present durtng
the hnal consultations and constituent assembly at
Frankfurt in March 1908, where, according to his
AVryWwd? Ar Æ ü 3, 1909, Beiblatt für
Denkmalpflege, p. 173; DVORAK, M.: D/7 Vr
Kor/tMg, Aw y% Ar
WiAr yřTVTnYVYř/? GřH/-
V lUYw. Berlin 1913. For the standard
bibliography, see DVORAK, M: Ay/rVyř
München 1929, pp. 371-381.
^ TIETZE, H.: Max Dvořák f. In:
56, 4. 3. 1921, No. 23, p. 443.
2. IhAV/ky BoA G- DOT)- HíVo.' ZHÍAfB,
own account, he brought the rigorous scholarly
principles of the Vienna School to bear on the oth-
erwise rather diffuse Statutes of the nascent Ger-
man society.^ His voice was heard for good reason.
As a discerning critic of the existing German art
inventories, one-time contributor to the provincial
Bohemian art topography, and editor of the far
more ambitious and critically acclaimed ŮVorrAHUHo
(Austrian Art Topography), Dvořák
already had a wealth of expérience behind him in the
held of monument inventories. Insofar as they hâve
a bearing on the DVfK and its sériés of publications,
then, Dvořák's work on these inventories will also
be considered here.
With the DVfK established, Bode asked three
men to draw up separate programs for the proposed
monument publication: Georg Dehio, Max Dvořák
and Adolph Goldschmidt. Dvořák's expérience
stood him in good stead here. A comparison of the
^ DU LY, H.: Ar HYÁAA. WAA yw G&fdAV<?
YwrDřryýV/?. Frankfurt a. M. 1979, pp. 33-35.
^ DVOŘÁK, M.: Über den Deutschen Verein für Kunstwis-
senschaft. Vortrag, gehalten vor Historikern, 1909. Institut
für Kunstgeschichte, Universität Wien (thereinafter IKUW),
Nachlass Dvořák, Box 12, Versch. Vorträge u. Rezensionen.
Many thanks to Georg Vasold for his help and hospitality.
95