DOI Heft:
Nr. 1-2
DOI Artikel:Clegg, Elizabeth: Tomasz Gryglewicz, Malarstwo Europy Środkowej 1900-1914: tendencje modernistyczne i wczenoawangardowe. Kraków 1992-oprac.
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.48917#0175
J E
Biuletyn Historii Sztuki
R.LVI, 1994, Nr 1-2
PL ISSN 0006-3967
ELIZABETH CLEGG
Londyn
Tomasz Gryglewicz, Malarstwo Europy Środkowej 1900-1914: Tendencje modernistyczne
i wczesnoawangardowe (The Painting of Central Europę 1900-1914: Modernist and Early
Avant-garde Tendencies). Kraków: Jagiellonian University Press 1992 pp. 117 (including
10 pp. German summary) + 66 black & white illustrations.
This volume, the author’sHabilitationsschrift, is intended
for an academic readership - above all in Poland, but poten-
tially also in those neighbouring countries (Germany, Austria,
the Czech Republic and Hungary) where scholars have been
vigorously, and fruitfully, engaged in the study of the artists
whose work and significance Gryglewicz assesses. In accor-
dance with the scope ofhis subject, and the ostensiblebreadth
of its appeal, Gryglewicz is eager to insist on his endeavour
to exchange the "limitations" ofhis inherited Polish perspec-
tive for the supposed objectivity of view from the West. By
the author’s own account, this is largely a view from the
renowned library of the Zentralinstitut fur Kunstgeschichte in
Munich (to which a Humboldt Fellowship in 1988-89 allowed
prolonged access). While the ambition iscertainly commendab-
le, the result is somewhat disappointing: the Polish inheritance
has been largely jettisoned, but nothing of real integrity has yet
taken its place. This is a surprisingly "second-hand" account of
early 20th-century painting in central Europę to come from a
scholar with all the advantages (linguistic, geographical and
institutional) that would lead one to expect much morę, be it in
terms of intimacy of knowledge or originality of observation.
It would be fair to assume that Gryglewicz has a deep
familiarity with the museums, private collections, libraries
and archives of Kraków, Warsa w, Poznań and Wrocław, and
perhaps also those of the once Polish cities of Lvov and Vilnius.
Nonetheless, his text offers little evidence of time spent in
comparable institutions in, say, Prague or Budapest, not to men-
tion the other centres of art historical scholarship of some impor-
tance to the concems of his study. The paucity of reference to
primary art historical sourcesisremarkable, and it is disappoin-
ting to finc that the secondary sources cited in their stead are
so often "popularizing", rather than scholary, accounts.
Ironically, it isthe far greater "scholarliness" of the short,
non-art historical sections of Gryglewicz’s book that first
draws attention to the very different character of the rest. The
introductory survey of the history of the idea of central Europę
(p. 7-19) and the concluding remarks (pp. 81-87) provide
evidence of much morę thorough research and sophistication
of thought than seems to have been devoted to the art histo-
rical investigation reported in the intervening pages. The
German summary (translated by Tadeusz Zatorski, pp. 99-108),
which in fact departs from the arrangement of the Polish text, is
also suggestive of a later, deeper stage of reflection, thus raising
hopes for a stronger study than this in fact proves to be.
Gryglewicz is certainly right to claim that the few earlier
attempts at scholarly discussion of painting in "central Euro-
pę" as a whole have been fatally flawed by a tendency to
"regionalism" and "nationalism". A desire to remedy the
situation conditioned the aims of Gryglewicz’s own research:
to establish what may be understood by "central Europę" in
the context of a study of painting; to look at artistic develop-
ments in this region in the period 1900 to 1914; to ask, in
particular, what "modernist" and "early avant-garde" tenden-
cies were to be found in "central Europę" at this time; and to
establish whether these had a distinctive character when com-
pared with parallel developments outside the region. While
this combination of approaches certainly promises to "cover
the ground", it leaves the reader in no doubt as to the scalę,
and likely difficulties, of the enterprise.
Even the stimulating initial discussion of how central
Europę has been conceived from the late 17th to the late 20th
century fails to lead us to a secure "working definition" with
which to embark on a study of the art of this elusive territory.
Particular concem with two accounts bracketing the period under
review - those of Joseph Partsch (1903/04) and of Friedrich
Naumann (1915) - proves ultimately inconsequential in as far as
the parameters of both are exceeded or underexploited as in
convenient. Partscłfs map of Mitteleuropa serve as Gryglewicz’s
first illustration; but its inclusion of Belgium and Holland in the
North-west and of Serbia and Bułgaria in the South-east prompts
the expectation that Gryglewicz will refer to a far wider rangę of
artists than i s even mentioned in passing.
In his attempt to treat central Europę as a single unit,
Gryglewicz is perhaps most disappointing in his failure to
convey any real sens of the internal dynamics of this entity.
There are only the most cursory ofreferencesto the art market,
to patronage or to the emergence of key exhibiting networks
across the region; and there isvirtually nothing on the political
165
Biuletyn Historii Sztuki
R.LVI, 1994, Nr 1-2
PL ISSN 0006-3967
ELIZABETH CLEGG
Londyn
Tomasz Gryglewicz, Malarstwo Europy Środkowej 1900-1914: Tendencje modernistyczne
i wczesnoawangardowe (The Painting of Central Europę 1900-1914: Modernist and Early
Avant-garde Tendencies). Kraków: Jagiellonian University Press 1992 pp. 117 (including
10 pp. German summary) + 66 black & white illustrations.
This volume, the author’sHabilitationsschrift, is intended
for an academic readership - above all in Poland, but poten-
tially also in those neighbouring countries (Germany, Austria,
the Czech Republic and Hungary) where scholars have been
vigorously, and fruitfully, engaged in the study of the artists
whose work and significance Gryglewicz assesses. In accor-
dance with the scope ofhis subject, and the ostensiblebreadth
of its appeal, Gryglewicz is eager to insist on his endeavour
to exchange the "limitations" ofhis inherited Polish perspec-
tive for the supposed objectivity of view from the West. By
the author’s own account, this is largely a view from the
renowned library of the Zentralinstitut fur Kunstgeschichte in
Munich (to which a Humboldt Fellowship in 1988-89 allowed
prolonged access). While the ambition iscertainly commendab-
le, the result is somewhat disappointing: the Polish inheritance
has been largely jettisoned, but nothing of real integrity has yet
taken its place. This is a surprisingly "second-hand" account of
early 20th-century painting in central Europę to come from a
scholar with all the advantages (linguistic, geographical and
institutional) that would lead one to expect much morę, be it in
terms of intimacy of knowledge or originality of observation.
It would be fair to assume that Gryglewicz has a deep
familiarity with the museums, private collections, libraries
and archives of Kraków, Warsa w, Poznań and Wrocław, and
perhaps also those of the once Polish cities of Lvov and Vilnius.
Nonetheless, his text offers little evidence of time spent in
comparable institutions in, say, Prague or Budapest, not to men-
tion the other centres of art historical scholarship of some impor-
tance to the concems of his study. The paucity of reference to
primary art historical sourcesisremarkable, and it is disappoin-
ting to finc that the secondary sources cited in their stead are
so often "popularizing", rather than scholary, accounts.
Ironically, it isthe far greater "scholarliness" of the short,
non-art historical sections of Gryglewicz’s book that first
draws attention to the very different character of the rest. The
introductory survey of the history of the idea of central Europę
(p. 7-19) and the concluding remarks (pp. 81-87) provide
evidence of much morę thorough research and sophistication
of thought than seems to have been devoted to the art histo-
rical investigation reported in the intervening pages. The
German summary (translated by Tadeusz Zatorski, pp. 99-108),
which in fact departs from the arrangement of the Polish text, is
also suggestive of a later, deeper stage of reflection, thus raising
hopes for a stronger study than this in fact proves to be.
Gryglewicz is certainly right to claim that the few earlier
attempts at scholarly discussion of painting in "central Euro-
pę" as a whole have been fatally flawed by a tendency to
"regionalism" and "nationalism". A desire to remedy the
situation conditioned the aims of Gryglewicz’s own research:
to establish what may be understood by "central Europę" in
the context of a study of painting; to look at artistic develop-
ments in this region in the period 1900 to 1914; to ask, in
particular, what "modernist" and "early avant-garde" tenden-
cies were to be found in "central Europę" at this time; and to
establish whether these had a distinctive character when com-
pared with parallel developments outside the region. While
this combination of approaches certainly promises to "cover
the ground", it leaves the reader in no doubt as to the scalę,
and likely difficulties, of the enterprise.
Even the stimulating initial discussion of how central
Europę has been conceived from the late 17th to the late 20th
century fails to lead us to a secure "working definition" with
which to embark on a study of the art of this elusive territory.
Particular concem with two accounts bracketing the period under
review - those of Joseph Partsch (1903/04) and of Friedrich
Naumann (1915) - proves ultimately inconsequential in as far as
the parameters of both are exceeded or underexploited as in
convenient. Partscłfs map of Mitteleuropa serve as Gryglewicz’s
first illustration; but its inclusion of Belgium and Holland in the
North-west and of Serbia and Bułgaria in the South-east prompts
the expectation that Gryglewicz will refer to a far wider rangę of
artists than i s even mentioned in passing.
In his attempt to treat central Europę as a single unit,
Gryglewicz is perhaps most disappointing in his failure to
convey any real sens of the internal dynamics of this entity.
There are only the most cursory ofreferencesto the art market,
to patronage or to the emergence of key exhibiting networks
across the region; and there isvirtually nothing on the political
165