DOI Artikel:
Milena Bartlová: Cultivating its Own Roots: Czech Art History in the 1980s in Search of its Own Beginnings
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.73804#0095
94
Moreover, it remains unnamed; it emerges from the who-
le of both volumes and is compromised by their unfor-
tunate disarray. As we have seen, objective scientism and
international relevance of the art historians discussed not
only do not contradict radical nationalism but may ea-
sily integrate with it. True openness and pluralism would
be, of course, also difficult to reconcile with the authori-
tative positioning of Max Dvorak and the Vienna School.
A nice example of the postmodern orientation is when
the theorist, architectural historian, and co-editor of the
volumes Svacha compares the so-called law of convergen-
ce promoted by Tyrs with Robert Venturis contemporary
texts, noting that they are essentially the same'.17 Tyrs con-
ceived this 'law' as an adaptation of all the components
of an artwork to the main idea, arriving at a stylistically
uniform Gesamtkunstwerk as the highest artistic achieve-
ment. Also unnamed remains the conflict that appears in
Chapters between the incipient, unreflected interpretive
tool of constructivism and the desire to suppress noetic
relativity and restore normativity.
Another moment we get from our reading is recogni-
tion that German-speaking art history was still the signif-
icant Other' for Czech art history in the 1980s, one hun-
dred years after division of the Prague university and four
decades after the forced displacement of the Czechoslovak
German minority. We can see this clearly in the way the
Germans are represented in the book: from the mid-nine-
teenth to the mid-twentieth century, German-language
authors are singled out and collectively marginalized. If
they are mentioned, it is only in overview; they are not
given biographical medallions. The fact that the Prague
University was one of the first ten universities to estab-
lish a regular professorship of art history in 1862 is there-
fore completely lost.18 The sole and very unsystematic ex-
ception is Anton Springer, to whom Andela Horova, the
fourth co-editor of Chapters, devoted a rather long indi-
vidual contribution. A native of Prague, Springer lectured
on art history at the Academy of Arts and at the still undi-
vided Prague university in 1848. He had to leave for Ger-
many for political reasons after the defeat of the revolu-
tion. Johann Erazim Wocel, who took over the post, was,
on the other hand, a political conservative and it was this
reason, not the national dimension of the confrontation,
that was decisive at the time. It is noteworthy that the sig-
nificant criterion used to differentiate between 'us', i.e. the
Czechs, and 'the others', i.e. the Germans, in the concep-
tion of Chapters, is place of birth according to the bound-
aries of today's modern states, not the self-identification
of the scholars concerned. Thus, alongside Dvorak, Josef
Daniel Bohm, the 'forerunner' of the Vienna School, and
the personalities of its first generation, Rudolf Eitelberg-
er and Moritz Thaussing, are included in Czech art his-
tory.19 Due to the identification of Czech art history with
Czech-language art history and the consequent exclusion
of German-language art historians from its framework it
was - and remains - difficult to address the question of an
international relevance for Czech art history.
The conception of art history formulated in Chapters
failed to achieve its goal in the last years of the really ex-
isting socialism in Czechoslovakia, but it became an ef-
fective foundation for the decades after its fall - if only
because the publication became a compulsory university
textbook. We can check this up by comparison with the
recently published monumental work Centenary of the In-
stitute of Art History at the Faculty of Arts, Charles Uni-
versity. Here, the German speaking art history is includ-
ed, and the methodological plurality of Czech art history
is emphasized and praised. The claim of methodological
pluralism, however, remains unanalyzed and undefined,
in contrast to the programmatic and normative inclusion,
once again, of the tradition of the Vienna School of art
history. I understand it to denote the relationship between
a more theoretical conception of art history and its de-
scriptive, perhaps positivist concept. Chapters clearly le-
gitimizes patriotic and inventory writing as a full-fledged
form of art history because it brings a crucial contribution
to the construction and maintenance of national identity.
The value of such a descriptive but nationalist concept of
art history is confirmed by the identification of Wocel -
and not Woltmann, Tyrs or Springer - as the central le-
gitimizing figure of the field before Dvorak. We can even
read in the current volume that the mistake of Miroslav
Tyrs was 'theorizing too much'.20
Koran spoke about love in his introductory chapter,
and so did Svacha in his final paragraphs of the two vol-
umes: 'The loving look at art is not the main task of art
historians. It is, rather, to bring it about that readers of
their writing would look at art with same, or even bet-
ter love'.21 Perhaps a fitting summary would be St Augus-
tine's dictum 'Love and do whatever you will.' The precari-
ous balancing on the edge of rationalism, the willingness
to readily admit the emotionally simplified Einfuhlung as
its substitute, as well as the recognized status of inventory
and descriptive writing, are a legacy that too large a por-
tion of Czech art history continues to cherish.
17 R. Svacha, 'Historikove kultury', p. 149 (as in note 15).
18 A proper elaboration of the Institute of Art History at the Ger-
man Prague University is given only in J. Koukal, 'Katedra "tech
druhych"? Dejiny umeni na Nemecke univerzite v Praze 1882-
1945', in Stoleti ustavu pro dejiny umeni, pp. 234-299 (as in note 4).
In my opinion, the inclusion of the German institute in the his-
tory of the Czech one is, to say the least, insensitive towards the
identity of Bohemian Germans.
19 R. Chadraba, 'Max Dvorak a videnska skola dejin umeni', in
Kapitoly z ceskeho dejepisu II., pp. 9-56 (as in note 1).
20 R. Prahl, J. Horaćek, 'Od umeleckohistoricke praxe k univer-
zitni vyuce. Emancipace dejepisu umeni od poloviny 19. stoleti
do roku 1894', in Stoleti ustavu pro dejiny umeni, pp. 20-71, quote
p. 58 (as in note 4).
21 R. Svacha, 'Dejepis umeni v soućasnosti', in Kapitoly z ceskeho
dejepisu II., pp. 349-370, quote p. 370 (as in note 1).
Moreover, it remains unnamed; it emerges from the who-
le of both volumes and is compromised by their unfor-
tunate disarray. As we have seen, objective scientism and
international relevance of the art historians discussed not
only do not contradict radical nationalism but may ea-
sily integrate with it. True openness and pluralism would
be, of course, also difficult to reconcile with the authori-
tative positioning of Max Dvorak and the Vienna School.
A nice example of the postmodern orientation is when
the theorist, architectural historian, and co-editor of the
volumes Svacha compares the so-called law of convergen-
ce promoted by Tyrs with Robert Venturis contemporary
texts, noting that they are essentially the same'.17 Tyrs con-
ceived this 'law' as an adaptation of all the components
of an artwork to the main idea, arriving at a stylistically
uniform Gesamtkunstwerk as the highest artistic achieve-
ment. Also unnamed remains the conflict that appears in
Chapters between the incipient, unreflected interpretive
tool of constructivism and the desire to suppress noetic
relativity and restore normativity.
Another moment we get from our reading is recogni-
tion that German-speaking art history was still the signif-
icant Other' for Czech art history in the 1980s, one hun-
dred years after division of the Prague university and four
decades after the forced displacement of the Czechoslovak
German minority. We can see this clearly in the way the
Germans are represented in the book: from the mid-nine-
teenth to the mid-twentieth century, German-language
authors are singled out and collectively marginalized. If
they are mentioned, it is only in overview; they are not
given biographical medallions. The fact that the Prague
University was one of the first ten universities to estab-
lish a regular professorship of art history in 1862 is there-
fore completely lost.18 The sole and very unsystematic ex-
ception is Anton Springer, to whom Andela Horova, the
fourth co-editor of Chapters, devoted a rather long indi-
vidual contribution. A native of Prague, Springer lectured
on art history at the Academy of Arts and at the still undi-
vided Prague university in 1848. He had to leave for Ger-
many for political reasons after the defeat of the revolu-
tion. Johann Erazim Wocel, who took over the post, was,
on the other hand, a political conservative and it was this
reason, not the national dimension of the confrontation,
that was decisive at the time. It is noteworthy that the sig-
nificant criterion used to differentiate between 'us', i.e. the
Czechs, and 'the others', i.e. the Germans, in the concep-
tion of Chapters, is place of birth according to the bound-
aries of today's modern states, not the self-identification
of the scholars concerned. Thus, alongside Dvorak, Josef
Daniel Bohm, the 'forerunner' of the Vienna School, and
the personalities of its first generation, Rudolf Eitelberg-
er and Moritz Thaussing, are included in Czech art his-
tory.19 Due to the identification of Czech art history with
Czech-language art history and the consequent exclusion
of German-language art historians from its framework it
was - and remains - difficult to address the question of an
international relevance for Czech art history.
The conception of art history formulated in Chapters
failed to achieve its goal in the last years of the really ex-
isting socialism in Czechoslovakia, but it became an ef-
fective foundation for the decades after its fall - if only
because the publication became a compulsory university
textbook. We can check this up by comparison with the
recently published monumental work Centenary of the In-
stitute of Art History at the Faculty of Arts, Charles Uni-
versity. Here, the German speaking art history is includ-
ed, and the methodological plurality of Czech art history
is emphasized and praised. The claim of methodological
pluralism, however, remains unanalyzed and undefined,
in contrast to the programmatic and normative inclusion,
once again, of the tradition of the Vienna School of art
history. I understand it to denote the relationship between
a more theoretical conception of art history and its de-
scriptive, perhaps positivist concept. Chapters clearly le-
gitimizes patriotic and inventory writing as a full-fledged
form of art history because it brings a crucial contribution
to the construction and maintenance of national identity.
The value of such a descriptive but nationalist concept of
art history is confirmed by the identification of Wocel -
and not Woltmann, Tyrs or Springer - as the central le-
gitimizing figure of the field before Dvorak. We can even
read in the current volume that the mistake of Miroslav
Tyrs was 'theorizing too much'.20
Koran spoke about love in his introductory chapter,
and so did Svacha in his final paragraphs of the two vol-
umes: 'The loving look at art is not the main task of art
historians. It is, rather, to bring it about that readers of
their writing would look at art with same, or even bet-
ter love'.21 Perhaps a fitting summary would be St Augus-
tine's dictum 'Love and do whatever you will.' The precari-
ous balancing on the edge of rationalism, the willingness
to readily admit the emotionally simplified Einfuhlung as
its substitute, as well as the recognized status of inventory
and descriptive writing, are a legacy that too large a por-
tion of Czech art history continues to cherish.
17 R. Svacha, 'Historikove kultury', p. 149 (as in note 15).
18 A proper elaboration of the Institute of Art History at the Ger-
man Prague University is given only in J. Koukal, 'Katedra "tech
druhych"? Dejiny umeni na Nemecke univerzite v Praze 1882-
1945', in Stoleti ustavu pro dejiny umeni, pp. 234-299 (as in note 4).
In my opinion, the inclusion of the German institute in the his-
tory of the Czech one is, to say the least, insensitive towards the
identity of Bohemian Germans.
19 R. Chadraba, 'Max Dvorak a videnska skola dejin umeni', in
Kapitoly z ceskeho dejepisu II., pp. 9-56 (as in note 1).
20 R. Prahl, J. Horaćek, 'Od umeleckohistoricke praxe k univer-
zitni vyuce. Emancipace dejepisu umeni od poloviny 19. stoleti
do roku 1894', in Stoleti ustavu pro dejiny umeni, pp. 20-71, quote
p. 58 (as in note 4).
21 R. Svacha, 'Dejepis umeni v soućasnosti', in Kapitoly z ceskeho
dejepisu II., pp. 349-370, quote p. 370 (as in note 1).