DOI Artikel:
Sosnowska, Joanna: Naturalizm nie do przezwyciężenia
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49352#0306
292
Joanna Sosnowska
discernible in art history right down to the present day.
European art at the beginning of the 20th century
is marked by an aversion to naturalism, which at that
time was essentially synonymous with impression-
ism. In Poland the impressionist manner was adopted
by artists depicting so-called national themes; i.e.
landscapes, peasants in the Cracow regional costume,
uhlans and so on, which underwent complete
degrcdation and failed to provide any possibilities
for further development. Criticism of this way of
painting did not begin to make any impact until dur-
ing the years of the first world war, to bear fruit just
after 1918 in the art of the formiści („formists”). In
the 1920s antinaturalism became a characteristic fea-
ture both of literaturę and art. When the colourist
painters belonging to the group known as the Paris
Committee {Komitet Paryski} returned from the
French Capital to Poland at the beginning of the 1930s
the aversion towards impressionism, now regarded
as a dead-end, was as strong as ever, which is why
their programmatic study of naturę provoked aver-
sion. The criticism aimed at the so-called kapiści
(a name for the group derived from the initials of
Komitet Paryski}, however, rapidly altered in its linę
of attack, recognizing that the ąuestion was not one
of impression, but rather of the picture’s form. This
change coincided with an overall shift of emphasis
in the discussions on modern art from the struggle
with impressionism to confrontation with formalism,
which was understood at the same time as the out-
come of an impressionistic option born out of natu-
ralism, acceptance of the artisfs absolute freedom,
as well as the relinąuishing of tradition and thus
breaking of contact with recipients.
The colourists were placed next to the avant-garde
and accused of deforming the image of the world as
depicted in art for the sake of deforming; in other
words, a form of art for art’s sake. Alternatively, they
were accused of practising a form of decorative art
deprived of any ideals. Such reproaches resulted, on
the whole, from a failure to understand the basie
principles of the avant-garde, as much as those for-
mulated by the kapiści themselves. Both artistic
orientations represented two opposite extremes to the
studying of naturę. The avant-garde understood them
as being nothing morę than an introductory phase in
the academic preparation for artistic creation, while
the colourists submitted their art in total to natural-
ism. Theorists of the avant-garde, even while failing
to agree amongst themselves on numerous issues, in
their attack on naturalism criticised its propagators
above all for regarding the world as a completed crea-
tion, which might be described in numerous ways,
but did not provide anything new, going no further
than reereating it in various, subtle ways. The avant-
gardists sought to create a new world, their slogan
being „the building of life”, and thus a new order.
In the 1930s the conflict focussing on naturalism
unfolded not only between the kapiści and
constructivists, but a third position was taken up by
artists emphasising the importance of content in the
work of art. Content in art, the compositional figurę,
the relinąuishing of deformation arising from an
individualistic image of naturę, or the putting into
order of shapes in the picture’s overall construction,
and also the intelligibilty of art among the wider
audience of recipients, with a return to so-called
humanistic art and the human figure’s predominance,
were all slogans heard throughout the whole of
Europę from Moscow to Paris, which disturbed the
Paris Committee members and forced them to define
a renewed formulation of their position. For this they
drew support from those opposed to abstract art who
considered content to be an element of form which
cannot exist without content, sińce it becomes the
content itself. For them a work of art was an autono-
mous creation, to be regarded as a work in itself,
without any reference to social theory or comparison
with reality. The latter factor must, nevertheless, ex-
ist in art as an object permitting the building up of an
autonomous work. The kapiści remained faithful to
the notion of an object being in harmony with natu-
ralism, but at the same time it should oppose it, even
while retaining an awareness that naturalism can
never be conąuered. in art. The struggle with it, and
thus with naturę in itself, introduced to art a meta-
physical element, protecting the artists of the Paris
Committee from a materialistic interpretation of the
world. This is why their naturalism did not lead to
the self-doubt and nihilism, of which 19th-century
artists are freąuently accused, but, on the contrary,
to an affirmation of life.
Translated by Peter Martyn
Joanna Sosnowska
discernible in art history right down to the present day.
European art at the beginning of the 20th century
is marked by an aversion to naturalism, which at that
time was essentially synonymous with impression-
ism. In Poland the impressionist manner was adopted
by artists depicting so-called national themes; i.e.
landscapes, peasants in the Cracow regional costume,
uhlans and so on, which underwent complete
degrcdation and failed to provide any possibilities
for further development. Criticism of this way of
painting did not begin to make any impact until dur-
ing the years of the first world war, to bear fruit just
after 1918 in the art of the formiści („formists”). In
the 1920s antinaturalism became a characteristic fea-
ture both of literaturę and art. When the colourist
painters belonging to the group known as the Paris
Committee {Komitet Paryski} returned from the
French Capital to Poland at the beginning of the 1930s
the aversion towards impressionism, now regarded
as a dead-end, was as strong as ever, which is why
their programmatic study of naturę provoked aver-
sion. The criticism aimed at the so-called kapiści
(a name for the group derived from the initials of
Komitet Paryski}, however, rapidly altered in its linę
of attack, recognizing that the ąuestion was not one
of impression, but rather of the picture’s form. This
change coincided with an overall shift of emphasis
in the discussions on modern art from the struggle
with impressionism to confrontation with formalism,
which was understood at the same time as the out-
come of an impressionistic option born out of natu-
ralism, acceptance of the artisfs absolute freedom,
as well as the relinąuishing of tradition and thus
breaking of contact with recipients.
The colourists were placed next to the avant-garde
and accused of deforming the image of the world as
depicted in art for the sake of deforming; in other
words, a form of art for art’s sake. Alternatively, they
were accused of practising a form of decorative art
deprived of any ideals. Such reproaches resulted, on
the whole, from a failure to understand the basie
principles of the avant-garde, as much as those for-
mulated by the kapiści themselves. Both artistic
orientations represented two opposite extremes to the
studying of naturę. The avant-garde understood them
as being nothing morę than an introductory phase in
the academic preparation for artistic creation, while
the colourists submitted their art in total to natural-
ism. Theorists of the avant-garde, even while failing
to agree amongst themselves on numerous issues, in
their attack on naturalism criticised its propagators
above all for regarding the world as a completed crea-
tion, which might be described in numerous ways,
but did not provide anything new, going no further
than reereating it in various, subtle ways. The avant-
gardists sought to create a new world, their slogan
being „the building of life”, and thus a new order.
In the 1930s the conflict focussing on naturalism
unfolded not only between the kapiści and
constructivists, but a third position was taken up by
artists emphasising the importance of content in the
work of art. Content in art, the compositional figurę,
the relinąuishing of deformation arising from an
individualistic image of naturę, or the putting into
order of shapes in the picture’s overall construction,
and also the intelligibilty of art among the wider
audience of recipients, with a return to so-called
humanistic art and the human figure’s predominance,
were all slogans heard throughout the whole of
Europę from Moscow to Paris, which disturbed the
Paris Committee members and forced them to define
a renewed formulation of their position. For this they
drew support from those opposed to abstract art who
considered content to be an element of form which
cannot exist without content, sińce it becomes the
content itself. For them a work of art was an autono-
mous creation, to be regarded as a work in itself,
without any reference to social theory or comparison
with reality. The latter factor must, nevertheless, ex-
ist in art as an object permitting the building up of an
autonomous work. The kapiści remained faithful to
the notion of an object being in harmony with natu-
ralism, but at the same time it should oppose it, even
while retaining an awareness that naturalism can
never be conąuered. in art. The struggle with it, and
thus with naturę in itself, introduced to art a meta-
physical element, protecting the artists of the Paris
Committee from a materialistic interpretation of the
world. This is why their naturalism did not lead to
the self-doubt and nihilism, of which 19th-century
artists are freąuently accused, but, on the contrary,
to an affirmation of life.
Translated by Peter Martyn