DOI article:
Turowicz, Joanna: Eve by Xawery Dunikowski: Modernist Transformation of the Biblical Type
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.18949#0138
to Gustaw Vigeland when the Polish writer stayed at his in-laws in Norway.
Probably in October 1984 Przybyszewski attended Vigeland’s first individual
exhibition in Christiania. Przybyszewski wrote an essay on the Norwegian
writer which, like his essay on Munch, was often republished, almost always
in a slightly different version.2S
Despite Przybyszewskie popularising activity, Munch’s expressionist art
did not meet with true understanding among the Polish intelligentsia. For
example the Polish writer Gabriela Zapolska, who appreciated symbolism
and impressionism as one of the very first,28 29 found it impossible to accept the
Norwegian artist’s art. In November 1898 she wrote to Ludwik Szczepański:
“I finally visited the Przybyszjewskis’] yesterday. [...] They showed me this
thing they consider a masterpiece: at the centre a hideous hag with sagging
breasts. Next to her two jars containing two embryos with huge heads. I ask:
‘What is this?’ They answer: ‘Madonna!’ I could not help myself so I say:
‘But Virgin Mary was healthy, she was pregnant with Jesus for the whole
9 months and never miscarried.’”30 31 32 Helena Pawlikowska commented
MunclTs works in a similar tonę.’1 Controversy arose especially around the
strange artistic elements: embryos and spermatozoa. The motif of a human
embryo, used by Munch for the first time in his 1893 painting Deatb and
the Maiden (Oslo, Munch Museum), later returned in many of his paintings
and graphics. According to Arne Eggum, it is possible that the artist
drew the motif from a richly illustrated book by K.G. Dobler Ein neues
Weltall, published in 1892, wherein the author juxtaposed astrology with
embryology.’2 Munch had this publication in his collection. Regardless the
immediate source of inspiration behind this motif, embryos taken out too
soon, deprived of their natural enyironment symbolised life withered away
28 In Życie, 2, 1898, 40/41 a reproduction of Into the World appeared, then łn no. 42 Young
Couple and an essay: “Na drogach duszy. Gustaw Vigeland” (the first edition of this article,
titled “Ein Unbekannter”, in Berlin Die Kritik 1896 and Viennese Die Zeit, 1896). Two
fragments of a bas-relief Heli were reproduced in Życie, 3, 1899, no. 7. One of them depicted
a central figurę of Satan. The essay devoted to Vigeland’s art was also published in the book
Na drogach duszy (see above).
29 Cf. I. Danielewicz, “The Collection of Gabriela Zapolska”, Bulletin du Musee National
de Varsovie, XXXIX, 1998, 1-4, pp. 114-135.
30 G. Zapolska, Listy, Warsaw 1970, vol. I, p. 556. For reaction to Munch’s art cf. W. Jaworska,
“Munch-Przybyszewski”, in Totenmesse..., op. cit., pp. 35-36, footnote 50.
31 Helena Pawlikowska in her letter from February 1898 written to Aniela Pająkówna, a painter
from Lwów (present-day Lviv) and futurę mother of Przybyszewskie daughter asked: “Do you
understand Przybyszewskie explication of Munche paintings? I kind of understand them but
thanks a lot for these images of soul States. Symbol is drawn incorrectly and its frames are
indecent; it is impossible to find such things in a decent home on the table as a still-born
embryo with various trappings, hideous fripperies; besides, a woman built like the one in
Symbol cannot possible be a mother. Ghost looks like a half-plucked hen. Thank you very much
for such paintings. The one sitting on the bridge is screaming like heli but it is hard to say why.
Michaś and Hania can draw such lakes and woods as well”; cited after: S. Przybyszewski, Listy,
vol. I, ed. by S. Helsztyński, Warsaw 1937, p. 212, footnote 1.
32 A. Eggum, Lwsfisen fra maleri til graffik, Oslo 1990, p. 163.
136
Probably in October 1984 Przybyszewski attended Vigeland’s first individual
exhibition in Christiania. Przybyszewski wrote an essay on the Norwegian
writer which, like his essay on Munch, was often republished, almost always
in a slightly different version.2S
Despite Przybyszewskie popularising activity, Munch’s expressionist art
did not meet with true understanding among the Polish intelligentsia. For
example the Polish writer Gabriela Zapolska, who appreciated symbolism
and impressionism as one of the very first,28 29 found it impossible to accept the
Norwegian artist’s art. In November 1898 she wrote to Ludwik Szczepański:
“I finally visited the Przybyszjewskis’] yesterday. [...] They showed me this
thing they consider a masterpiece: at the centre a hideous hag with sagging
breasts. Next to her two jars containing two embryos with huge heads. I ask:
‘What is this?’ They answer: ‘Madonna!’ I could not help myself so I say:
‘But Virgin Mary was healthy, she was pregnant with Jesus for the whole
9 months and never miscarried.’”30 31 32 Helena Pawlikowska commented
MunclTs works in a similar tonę.’1 Controversy arose especially around the
strange artistic elements: embryos and spermatozoa. The motif of a human
embryo, used by Munch for the first time in his 1893 painting Deatb and
the Maiden (Oslo, Munch Museum), later returned in many of his paintings
and graphics. According to Arne Eggum, it is possible that the artist
drew the motif from a richly illustrated book by K.G. Dobler Ein neues
Weltall, published in 1892, wherein the author juxtaposed astrology with
embryology.’2 Munch had this publication in his collection. Regardless the
immediate source of inspiration behind this motif, embryos taken out too
soon, deprived of their natural enyironment symbolised life withered away
28 In Życie, 2, 1898, 40/41 a reproduction of Into the World appeared, then łn no. 42 Young
Couple and an essay: “Na drogach duszy. Gustaw Vigeland” (the first edition of this article,
titled “Ein Unbekannter”, in Berlin Die Kritik 1896 and Viennese Die Zeit, 1896). Two
fragments of a bas-relief Heli were reproduced in Życie, 3, 1899, no. 7. One of them depicted
a central figurę of Satan. The essay devoted to Vigeland’s art was also published in the book
Na drogach duszy (see above).
29 Cf. I. Danielewicz, “The Collection of Gabriela Zapolska”, Bulletin du Musee National
de Varsovie, XXXIX, 1998, 1-4, pp. 114-135.
30 G. Zapolska, Listy, Warsaw 1970, vol. I, p. 556. For reaction to Munch’s art cf. W. Jaworska,
“Munch-Przybyszewski”, in Totenmesse..., op. cit., pp. 35-36, footnote 50.
31 Helena Pawlikowska in her letter from February 1898 written to Aniela Pająkówna, a painter
from Lwów (present-day Lviv) and futurę mother of Przybyszewskie daughter asked: “Do you
understand Przybyszewskie explication of Munche paintings? I kind of understand them but
thanks a lot for these images of soul States. Symbol is drawn incorrectly and its frames are
indecent; it is impossible to find such things in a decent home on the table as a still-born
embryo with various trappings, hideous fripperies; besides, a woman built like the one in
Symbol cannot possible be a mother. Ghost looks like a half-plucked hen. Thank you very much
for such paintings. The one sitting on the bridge is screaming like heli but it is hard to say why.
Michaś and Hania can draw such lakes and woods as well”; cited after: S. Przybyszewski, Listy,
vol. I, ed. by S. Helsztyński, Warsaw 1937, p. 212, footnote 1.
32 A. Eggum, Lwsfisen fra maleri til graffik, Oslo 1990, p. 163.
136