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#0108
As the causes of this sterility Dvořák identihed a
long list of shortcomings in the topographies. Due to
a desire for consistent coverage, coupled with a lack
of critical judgement, significant artistic monuments
were often treated as summarily as the insignifiant.
An important cycle of sixteenth-century frescos, for
instance, might be given as little space as a relatively
unimportant group of gravestones. At the same time,
whole periods were being neglected as a resuit of
the Compilers' personal stylistic preferences, which
more often than not meant the marginalisation of
antique and baroque art. The descriptions of the
monuments themselves were often vague to the point
of non-statement and lacking in even the most basic
provenance data. This last point, for Dvořák, was
the indispensable precondition of any further art
historical investigation. A basic requirement of the
topographies had to be the provision of accurate in-
formation "077 A?/<? o/ OTTgA, Ai* tZTTÂ/, <%T7<7 A<?g^7?<?7*A
^77t/ Tigftw A gf A^ ty/T^čV/G 7777Ar A'r<?7/rrA77, A^
g7^07g<j* A^y Ci%77 DA t?77Á Ať ^7/ft/A77r
Ag)/And if such information was
not immediately to hand, it was to be ascertained
by thorough research of archivai sources: "...yD/
r^77 yAA AA t? y)7/M7AA77 o/ ^A/oA-
<?A Ac^^/r A077/A Ai 777^/f nh/ D?77
At7Á77g DA D/A^/ ^77^/077^, Í0 077ř 7Z777 í77Í*0 A? à'A
/D^yp^At, ^ ^ ^ ^AwAA/r^/A^ A-
7W77ArAy A 7^)077 772DAAA roT/rrř, ^/ A<gy/ A A<?
gx/?77/ 77<?^n*77ry /07" Ai?AfwA7777g /D A7^<?77<9/ogy <%7?A 7/
Al? A^/OTAA V7<9777/777^77/ ^rr777H7/?/}7 ^
In short, Dvořák drew two lessons from the fail-
ings of the German topographies. If the planned
D77AnA? AA/ 7ig)<?g7gpA)7 was to be of any use to art
^ Ibidem, p. 62.
'' Ibidem, p. 63.
53 DVOŘÁK, M.: Einleitung. In: TIETZE, H. et al.: ÓUřf-
AAhA<? B<?D E D/7
BDAřtDt^i A ADi?DArAA. Wien 1907, pp. xiii-xxii. Fot
the secondary literatuře, see KUBEN, H.: TAx* DwAC A
Dg%A^DDA7% R/řgA ÜA BAr^gÁAr
AAyzAy Ziř/ř /ArrAADtr Dt;A/^i%A7t7A^77g %D
B^7777 20. [Dipl.-Arb.] Wien,
1993, pp. 41-58; FRODL-KRAFT, E.: Die Österreichische
Kunsttopographie: Betrachtungen D jpAř yDA/oA. In:
ZADDD/A 28, 1974,
No. 3, pp. 114-130; HAjÓS, G.: Riegls Gedankengut in
historians — and thus more than merely an admin-
istrative list for conservation purposes — it would
háve to be, hrstly, more critical and objective in its
sélection of monuments, secondly, far more rigorous
in its scientific treatment of them. And according
to the ideal demands of the historical method that
Dvořák inherited from his tutor Wickhoff, rigorous
scholarly treatment meant the exploitation of every
available archivai source, every relevant document,
and every related monument.
The ambitious program of the AÍT/rADT? Dr/
laid out along these lineš and fully
articulated in Dvořákh introduction to the first
volume, which appeared in 1907A It was reviewed
favourably on the whole, even with a degree of
admiring envy on the part of the German art histo-
rians. Paul Clemen, conservator for the Rhineland,
ranked it above every other German art topography
in terms of its broad scope and scientific précision,
astonisbed at the seemingly limitless finances of the
Central Commission.^ Even Georg Dehio — whose
concise 0/ öf7Wt777 Aio7777777^/rwas a distant
competitor in the inventory market — eventually gave
his seal of approval to the undertakingA There were
of course criticisms and réservations too, not least
regarding the feasibility and incalculable duration
of the enormous project, but sufhce it to say here,
Dvofâk's critique of the German topographies and
his program for their Austrian équivalent essentially
served to consolidate his position as one of the
leadmg German art historians of his génération.
It was in this capacity that he was invited to attend
the constitutive assembly of the DVfK on 7 March
1908.
Dvořáks Einleitung zur Österreichischen Kunsttopographie.
In: Ibidem, pp. 138-143.
54 Clemen to Dvořák, Bonn, 28. 7. 1908. IKUW, Nachlass
Dvořák 15, Monumenta artis Germaniae; CLEMEN, P.: Vom
Deutschen Verein für Kunstwissenschaft. In: AD<? DA Pmcv,
27. 10. 1919, p. 2.
55 At hrst his reviews were highly critical, principaliy of Tietze's
text and the lack of architectural drawings. See DEHIO,
G: Österreichische Kunsttopographie & Berichtigung? In:
RyVAtAwAAD^r/Arv^rAD 32-34, 1909 — 1911, pp. 192-
197, 293-294, 276-277, 470A71; DEHIO, G: PHDDA Ar
DíwTvA?? D/AAD/AD. 5 vols. Berlin 1905 - 1912.
106
long list of shortcomings in the topographies. Due to
a desire for consistent coverage, coupled with a lack
of critical judgement, significant artistic monuments
were often treated as summarily as the insignifiant.
An important cycle of sixteenth-century frescos, for
instance, might be given as little space as a relatively
unimportant group of gravestones. At the same time,
whole periods were being neglected as a resuit of
the Compilers' personal stylistic preferences, which
more often than not meant the marginalisation of
antique and baroque art. The descriptions of the
monuments themselves were often vague to the point
of non-statement and lacking in even the most basic
provenance data. This last point, for Dvořák, was
the indispensable precondition of any further art
historical investigation. A basic requirement of the
topographies had to be the provision of accurate in-
formation "077 A?/<? o/ OTTgA, Ai* tZTTÂ/, <%T7<7 A<?g^7?<?7*A
^77t/ Tigftw A gf A^ ty/T^čV/G 7777Ar A'r<?7/rrA77, A^
g7^07g<j* A^y Ci%77 DA t?77Á Ať ^7/ft/A77r
Ag)/And if such information was
not immediately to hand, it was to be ascertained
by thorough research of archivai sources: "...yD/
r^77 yAA AA t? y)7/M7AA77 o/ ^A/oA-
<?A Ac^^/r A077/A Ai 777^/f nh/ D?77
At7Á77g DA D/A^/ ^77^/077^, Í0 077ř 7Z777 í77Í*0 A? à'A
/D^yp^At, ^ ^ ^ ^AwAA/r^/A^ A-
7W77ArAy A 7^)077 772DAAA roT/rrř, ^/ A<gy/ A A<?
gx/?77/ 77<?^n*77ry /07" Ai?AfwA7777g /D A7^<?77<9/ogy <%7?A 7/
Al? A^/OTAA V7<9777/777^77/ ^rr777H7/?/}7 ^
In short, Dvořák drew two lessons from the fail-
ings of the German topographies. If the planned
D77AnA? AA/ 7ig)<?g7gpA)7 was to be of any use to art
^ Ibidem, p. 62.
'' Ibidem, p. 63.
53 DVOŘÁK, M.: Einleitung. In: TIETZE, H. et al.: ÓUřf-
AAhA<? B<?D E D/7
BDAřtDt^i A ADi?DArAA. Wien 1907, pp. xiii-xxii. Fot
the secondary literatuře, see KUBEN, H.: TAx* DwAC A
Dg%A^DDA7% R/řgA ÜA BAr^gÁAr
AAyzAy Ziř/ř /ArrAADtr Dt;A/^i%A7t7A^77g %D
B^7777 20. [Dipl.-Arb.] Wien,
1993, pp. 41-58; FRODL-KRAFT, E.: Die Österreichische
Kunsttopographie: Betrachtungen D jpAř yDA/oA. In:
ZADDD/A 28, 1974,
No. 3, pp. 114-130; HAjÓS, G.: Riegls Gedankengut in
historians — and thus more than merely an admin-
istrative list for conservation purposes — it would
háve to be, hrstly, more critical and objective in its
sélection of monuments, secondly, far more rigorous
in its scientific treatment of them. And according
to the ideal demands of the historical method that
Dvořák inherited from his tutor Wickhoff, rigorous
scholarly treatment meant the exploitation of every
available archivai source, every relevant document,
and every related monument.
The ambitious program of the AÍT/rADT? Dr/
laid out along these lineš and fully
articulated in Dvořákh introduction to the first
volume, which appeared in 1907A It was reviewed
favourably on the whole, even with a degree of
admiring envy on the part of the German art histo-
rians. Paul Clemen, conservator for the Rhineland,
ranked it above every other German art topography
in terms of its broad scope and scientific précision,
astonisbed at the seemingly limitless finances of the
Central Commission.^ Even Georg Dehio — whose
concise 0/ öf7Wt777 Aio7777777^/rwas a distant
competitor in the inventory market — eventually gave
his seal of approval to the undertakingA There were
of course criticisms and réservations too, not least
regarding the feasibility and incalculable duration
of the enormous project, but sufhce it to say here,
Dvofâk's critique of the German topographies and
his program for their Austrian équivalent essentially
served to consolidate his position as one of the
leadmg German art historians of his génération.
It was in this capacity that he was invited to attend
the constitutive assembly of the DVfK on 7 March
1908.
Dvořáks Einleitung zur Österreichischen Kunsttopographie.
In: Ibidem, pp. 138-143.
54 Clemen to Dvořák, Bonn, 28. 7. 1908. IKUW, Nachlass
Dvořák 15, Monumenta artis Germaniae; CLEMEN, P.: Vom
Deutschen Verein für Kunstwissenschaft. In: AD<? DA Pmcv,
27. 10. 1919, p. 2.
55 At hrst his reviews were highly critical, principaliy of Tietze's
text and the lack of architectural drawings. See DEHIO,
G: Österreichische Kunsttopographie & Berichtigung? In:
RyVAtAwAAD^r/Arv^rAD 32-34, 1909 — 1911, pp. 192-
197, 293-294, 276-277, 470A71; DEHIO, G: PHDDA Ar
DíwTvA?? D/AAD/AD. 5 vols. Berlin 1905 - 1912.
106