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#0176
RECENZJE
and technological "framework" that both allowed and encou-
raged increasing interdependence during the last pre-war de-
cades. It is equally unfortunate that allusions to the various
organizational components of "art life" should be divorced
from consideration of its products - the paintings themselves.
Abreathless recital ofthebetter known galleries, publications
and artists’ groups is hastily accommodated within a short
sub-section (pp. 19-25) inserted between the introduction and
the main text. The discussion that follows treats the art of
central Europę largely without reference to its poi itical, social
and cultural context - a formalist bias remarkable in a study
ostensibly informed by admiration for the currently prevailing
(i.e. anti-formalist) western approach to arthistory.
The claims advanced for the predominant influence of
Germanie culture within "central Europę" in the period 1900
to 1914 seem to epitomize the author’s eagerness to stress the
recent westward shift of his own point of view. The undeniable
vigour of both political and cultural Pan- Germanism in the
early 20th century is surely the best proof of the equal vitality
of its Slavic counterpart. (No cultural study of "central Euro-
pę" can afford to ignore either element in this enduringrival-
ry). The emphasis on Germanie culture sits rather oddly,
moreover, with insistence on the art historical novelty of
includingboth "Germany" and "Austria" (in the modern sen-
se) within "central Europę". From a western European per-
spective, this move appears a rather obvious one; but it is also
apparent that the inclusion of German and Austrian artists
offers Gryglewicz several practical advantages. He is able, for
example, to devote whole sub-sections of his main text to
themes morę likely to be familiar to a wider Internationa]
audience, and on which much secondary literaturę in German
would have been to hand. Section 11.7 (pp. 47-52) on the
"apocalyptic city" is almost entirely concerned with the now
very widely studied subject of Ludwig Meidner and Berlin.
Section 11.9 (pp. 60-66) on the "Expressionistportrait" discus-
ses only Austrian Expressionism. The Czech, Hungarian and
Polish artists eminently worthy of examination under such
headings receive no acknowledgement here.
A particularly troubling aspect of this volume is the
author’s reluctance to address the problems posed by the
mutability of art historical terms. Having madę a point of
alerting the reader to the slipperiness of the notion of "central
Europę" and ofurgingelose attentionto definitionsprevailing
in the early 20th century, Gryglewicz does not adequately
accommodate the fact that terms such as "Cubism", "Futurism"
and "Expressionism" (along with their various cognates) were
used quite differently - and, above all, far morę interchangeably
- before 1914 than they are now. Discussion of the central
European" reception of "Futurism" (pp. 45-47) is thereby com-
promised, while much of the force is sapped from the author’s
conclusion (pp. 83-84) that there was anatural affinity between
"central European" painting and "Expressionism".
In view of the relative brevity of Gryglewicz’s text, it
would be unreasonable to criticize the absence of specific
figures (though there are some surprising omissions) or the
silence on issues of morę limited appeal. There are, however,
a number of points that might have been treated to great
advantage in a comparative study of this sort. Two examples
will suffice, one relating to the geography and the other to the
chronology of Gryglewicz’s subject. The first is the question
of the "central European" identity of a number of leading
figures whose true affiliation is surely rather morę ambiguous
than Gryglewicz allows. If Wassily Kandinsky (a Russian) is
granted honorary "central European" status because he was
based, from 1896 to 1914, in Munich, can Frantiśek Kupka (a
Czech) be granted "central European" status in spite of his
residence, from 1895, in Paris? There is, of course, no easy
answer to such questions of definition; but it seems important
to acknowledge how exceptional both Kandinsky and Kupka
were and also how much their exceptional achievementsowed
to their contact, respectively, with the St. Petersburg/Moscow
and with the Parisian avant-garde - with entities, that is to say,
outside even the most generous definition of "central Europę".
The second point is the question of the significant delay
before the emergence of a Polish "avant-garde" comparable
to that flourishing in Prague or Budapest well before 1914. On
several occasions Gryglewicz seems to imply that the "inde-
pendent" exhibitions held in Kraków in 1911-13 were com-
parable in the extent and character of their "avant-garde"
component to the shows put on by the Hungarian Nyolcak
group or the Czech Skupina. The (admittedly scant) surviving
evidence suggests that this was not the case. Gryglewicz also
refrains from emphasizing and thus also from seeking to
explain, the relatively late emergence of the Polish Formi-
ści(in 1917 rather than in 1911 or 1912). An attempt at
explanation here might have served as a salutary reminder of
the marked cultural differences still to be found between one
part of "central Europę" and another on the eve of the Great
War, so providing this study with a thought-provoking coda.
A tendency to downplay variety is, perhaps, inherent in
Gryglewicz’s approach; and some readers may find this dis-
couraging. To expect the painting of "central Europę", ho-
wever this region is defined, to possess a "distinctive charac-
ter" as a whole is, in effect, to discount its diversity and comple-
xity, and thus a great deal of its interest and validity as a subject
of study. As in political life, so too in the realm of culture, a
"central Europę" of a unified character is all the easier for
outsiders (and even the morę disheartened of insiders) to
dismiss as little morę than a conveniently elastic "space".
The intemational perception of the culture of "central
Europę" will ultimately derive from the way this culture is
explored and discussed by central European commentators
themselves. It is true that the art historians among them are
now engaging with each others’ subjects in a spirit of morę
geniune interest than at any time sińce the advent of mutual
estrangement. Nonetheless, they are still at the beginning of
what will necessarily prove a long and not always smooth
processs of (re-)familiarization. One measure of how far along
the road they have come will be the degree to which a study
of the art of the whole of "central Europę" will seem asbizarre
an undertaking as a study of the painting of the whole of
"western Europę" might seem today.
166
and technological "framework" that both allowed and encou-
raged increasing interdependence during the last pre-war de-
cades. It is equally unfortunate that allusions to the various
organizational components of "art life" should be divorced
from consideration of its products - the paintings themselves.
Abreathless recital ofthebetter known galleries, publications
and artists’ groups is hastily accommodated within a short
sub-section (pp. 19-25) inserted between the introduction and
the main text. The discussion that follows treats the art of
central Europę largely without reference to its poi itical, social
and cultural context - a formalist bias remarkable in a study
ostensibly informed by admiration for the currently prevailing
(i.e. anti-formalist) western approach to arthistory.
The claims advanced for the predominant influence of
Germanie culture within "central Europę" in the period 1900
to 1914 seem to epitomize the author’s eagerness to stress the
recent westward shift of his own point of view. The undeniable
vigour of both political and cultural Pan- Germanism in the
early 20th century is surely the best proof of the equal vitality
of its Slavic counterpart. (No cultural study of "central Euro-
pę" can afford to ignore either element in this enduringrival-
ry). The emphasis on Germanie culture sits rather oddly,
moreover, with insistence on the art historical novelty of
includingboth "Germany" and "Austria" (in the modern sen-
se) within "central Europę". From a western European per-
spective, this move appears a rather obvious one; but it is also
apparent that the inclusion of German and Austrian artists
offers Gryglewicz several practical advantages. He is able, for
example, to devote whole sub-sections of his main text to
themes morę likely to be familiar to a wider Internationa]
audience, and on which much secondary literaturę in German
would have been to hand. Section 11.7 (pp. 47-52) on the
"apocalyptic city" is almost entirely concerned with the now
very widely studied subject of Ludwig Meidner and Berlin.
Section 11.9 (pp. 60-66) on the "Expressionistportrait" discus-
ses only Austrian Expressionism. The Czech, Hungarian and
Polish artists eminently worthy of examination under such
headings receive no acknowledgement here.
A particularly troubling aspect of this volume is the
author’s reluctance to address the problems posed by the
mutability of art historical terms. Having madę a point of
alerting the reader to the slipperiness of the notion of "central
Europę" and ofurgingelose attentionto definitionsprevailing
in the early 20th century, Gryglewicz does not adequately
accommodate the fact that terms such as "Cubism", "Futurism"
and "Expressionism" (along with their various cognates) were
used quite differently - and, above all, far morę interchangeably
- before 1914 than they are now. Discussion of the central
European" reception of "Futurism" (pp. 45-47) is thereby com-
promised, while much of the force is sapped from the author’s
conclusion (pp. 83-84) that there was anatural affinity between
"central European" painting and "Expressionism".
In view of the relative brevity of Gryglewicz’s text, it
would be unreasonable to criticize the absence of specific
figures (though there are some surprising omissions) or the
silence on issues of morę limited appeal. There are, however,
a number of points that might have been treated to great
advantage in a comparative study of this sort. Two examples
will suffice, one relating to the geography and the other to the
chronology of Gryglewicz’s subject. The first is the question
of the "central European" identity of a number of leading
figures whose true affiliation is surely rather morę ambiguous
than Gryglewicz allows. If Wassily Kandinsky (a Russian) is
granted honorary "central European" status because he was
based, from 1896 to 1914, in Munich, can Frantiśek Kupka (a
Czech) be granted "central European" status in spite of his
residence, from 1895, in Paris? There is, of course, no easy
answer to such questions of definition; but it seems important
to acknowledge how exceptional both Kandinsky and Kupka
were and also how much their exceptional achievementsowed
to their contact, respectively, with the St. Petersburg/Moscow
and with the Parisian avant-garde - with entities, that is to say,
outside even the most generous definition of "central Europę".
The second point is the question of the significant delay
before the emergence of a Polish "avant-garde" comparable
to that flourishing in Prague or Budapest well before 1914. On
several occasions Gryglewicz seems to imply that the "inde-
pendent" exhibitions held in Kraków in 1911-13 were com-
parable in the extent and character of their "avant-garde"
component to the shows put on by the Hungarian Nyolcak
group or the Czech Skupina. The (admittedly scant) surviving
evidence suggests that this was not the case. Gryglewicz also
refrains from emphasizing and thus also from seeking to
explain, the relatively late emergence of the Polish Formi-
ści(in 1917 rather than in 1911 or 1912). An attempt at
explanation here might have served as a salutary reminder of
the marked cultural differences still to be found between one
part of "central Europę" and another on the eve of the Great
War, so providing this study with a thought-provoking coda.
A tendency to downplay variety is, perhaps, inherent in
Gryglewicz’s approach; and some readers may find this dis-
couraging. To expect the painting of "central Europę", ho-
wever this region is defined, to possess a "distinctive charac-
ter" as a whole is, in effect, to discount its diversity and comple-
xity, and thus a great deal of its interest and validity as a subject
of study. As in political life, so too in the realm of culture, a
"central Europę" of a unified character is all the easier for
outsiders (and even the morę disheartened of insiders) to
dismiss as little morę than a conveniently elastic "space".
The intemational perception of the culture of "central
Europę" will ultimately derive from the way this culture is
explored and discussed by central European commentators
themselves. It is true that the art historians among them are
now engaging with each others’ subjects in a spirit of morę
geniune interest than at any time sińce the advent of mutual
estrangement. Nonetheless, they are still at the beginning of
what will necessarily prove a long and not always smooth
processs of (re-)familiarization. One measure of how far along
the road they have come will be the degree to which a study
of the art of the whole of "central Europę" will seem asbizarre
an undertaking as a study of the painting of the whole of
"western Europę" might seem today.
166