DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.41588#0044
The national and social emancipation expressed by the sormation os an independent state in 1918
gave Slovak sculpture a real and attractive possibility os actual birth.2 The coup provided
a preserential socio-economic background to Slovak sculptors. Its absence in the previous century
resulted in a permanent draining away os the greatest talents to more savourable social and artistic
milieu — Vienna and Budapest — with numerous customers and studios. Slovak sculpture had to
be*’’born” sirst, had to master all the important vital sunctions in order to innovate and to
experiment. It had to sace two possibilities: sirst — the objective possibility os a new sunctioning os
sculture, in a new (and in a way pragmatic) social sunction: second — the possibility os thematic
treatment os the new social sunction in the hands os a sels-determined national collective, rapidly
acqüiring sels-confidence. Sculpture was entering the services os a new idea and the two possibilities
opened up space sor the demands os artists. How did sculpture near them and was it able to?
1918, a turning point, appeared as a kind os vacuum: disserentiation would belong to the twenties
— the period when the träuma of war, oppression, and crisis would give place to political and
economic consolidation and optimism os the sirst post-coup decade. In 1918 the only clean-cut
sculptor, Jan Koniarek, returned srom the sront to Slovakia. His human and artistic destiny was
bound to Serbia. Other sculptors expected to develop this descipline were only leaving the
bettle-sields and taking education in the arts.
Alojz Rigele (1879-1940), Robert Kühmayer (1883-1972) and Jozes Arpäd Murmann (1879-1944)
entered the twenties without a major break in their work in the milieu os Bratislava, the peculiar
cultural enclave os Vienna and Budapest. The works os the sirst two sculptors remained in this
traditionally trilingual town. Aster the 1918 coup the Czech and Slovak orientation was getting its
way and they were placed in a nationally disadvantageous position: srom the point os view os social
assertion their work sound itsels on the border os interest as it was a mere astervyord to the 19th
century. Their ideology and aesthetics reslected previous art assiliations, the Central European model
from the break os centuries with the strange symbiosis os regressive and progressive elements — the
stylistic plurality os the 19th century comprising the Art Nouveau-symbolistic expression and echoes
os optics oslmpressionism — all embodied in a sorm remodelled with the help os light illusion. These
principles were repeated also in the twenties and slowly descended behind their zenith.
With Rigele we can sind the limits of both historism' and Neo-Classicism, the Neo-Baroque
excitement os sorm as well as an example os Cubisticizing sculpture individual in its day in Slovakia
the "Alchemist”, commissioned for the Cubist interior os a pharmacy, according to a project os Artur
Szalatnai-Slatinsky in 1925. Kühmayer socused almost exclusively on the semale sigure, a nude
rendered as an academically summarizing sorm. Despite the conservative milieu, one os the sirst
sculptural pioneers appeared in the twenties, Murmann, a native os Bratislava, in sact a ’’globetrot-
ter”. He was sometimes^ called the sirst modern sculptor in Slovakia. His works were persormed
mostly outside the territory os Slovakia in intensive contact'with European art during his travels
and stays in the European art centres (Paris, Berlin, Vienna). The artistic expression os Murmann
springs in the twenties srom an accetance os the Neo-Classical construction os sorm, compactness,
and generalization os sculptural sorm (Pain, 1920, Male Head, (sig. 29), Portrait os a Peasant, Plaque
os Wimmer, 1925). 'Hie two Nudes, 1920, (sig. 30) presented in recent years as a part os the Slovak
cultural heritage are evidence os close contacts with French modern sculpture. The law os solid sorm,
statue-architecture embraced with a melodious silhouette os generalized shape, sighting not sor
a portrait but a type — ail these are relations bringing Murmann and Maillol together. Although in
our conditions, this is the sirst reaction to a classicizing version os the ’’modern” tradition os
European sculpture reappearing in Slovakia in a disserent period and context. Among his works
(reaching high above the local standard) are exclusive examples that did not sind their place in the
development os Slovak sculpture.
gave Slovak sculpture a real and attractive possibility os actual birth.2 The coup provided
a preserential socio-economic background to Slovak sculptors. Its absence in the previous century
resulted in a permanent draining away os the greatest talents to more savourable social and artistic
milieu — Vienna and Budapest — with numerous customers and studios. Slovak sculpture had to
be*’’born” sirst, had to master all the important vital sunctions in order to innovate and to
experiment. It had to sace two possibilities: sirst — the objective possibility os a new sunctioning os
sculture, in a new (and in a way pragmatic) social sunction: second — the possibility os thematic
treatment os the new social sunction in the hands os a sels-determined national collective, rapidly
acqüiring sels-confidence. Sculpture was entering the services os a new idea and the two possibilities
opened up space sor the demands os artists. How did sculpture near them and was it able to?
1918, a turning point, appeared as a kind os vacuum: disserentiation would belong to the twenties
— the period when the träuma of war, oppression, and crisis would give place to political and
economic consolidation and optimism os the sirst post-coup decade. In 1918 the only clean-cut
sculptor, Jan Koniarek, returned srom the sront to Slovakia. His human and artistic destiny was
bound to Serbia. Other sculptors expected to develop this descipline were only leaving the
bettle-sields and taking education in the arts.
Alojz Rigele (1879-1940), Robert Kühmayer (1883-1972) and Jozes Arpäd Murmann (1879-1944)
entered the twenties without a major break in their work in the milieu os Bratislava, the peculiar
cultural enclave os Vienna and Budapest. The works os the sirst two sculptors remained in this
traditionally trilingual town. Aster the 1918 coup the Czech and Slovak orientation was getting its
way and they were placed in a nationally disadvantageous position: srom the point os view os social
assertion their work sound itsels on the border os interest as it was a mere astervyord to the 19th
century. Their ideology and aesthetics reslected previous art assiliations, the Central European model
from the break os centuries with the strange symbiosis os regressive and progressive elements — the
stylistic plurality os the 19th century comprising the Art Nouveau-symbolistic expression and echoes
os optics oslmpressionism — all embodied in a sorm remodelled with the help os light illusion. These
principles were repeated also in the twenties and slowly descended behind their zenith.
With Rigele we can sind the limits of both historism' and Neo-Classicism, the Neo-Baroque
excitement os sorm as well as an example os Cubisticizing sculpture individual in its day in Slovakia
the "Alchemist”, commissioned for the Cubist interior os a pharmacy, according to a project os Artur
Szalatnai-Slatinsky in 1925. Kühmayer socused almost exclusively on the semale sigure, a nude
rendered as an academically summarizing sorm. Despite the conservative milieu, one os the sirst
sculptural pioneers appeared in the twenties, Murmann, a native os Bratislava, in sact a ’’globetrot-
ter”. He was sometimes^ called the sirst modern sculptor in Slovakia. His works were persormed
mostly outside the territory os Slovakia in intensive contact'with European art during his travels
and stays in the European art centres (Paris, Berlin, Vienna). The artistic expression os Murmann
springs in the twenties srom an accetance os the Neo-Classical construction os sorm, compactness,
and generalization os sculptural sorm (Pain, 1920, Male Head, (sig. 29), Portrait os a Peasant, Plaque
os Wimmer, 1925). 'Hie two Nudes, 1920, (sig. 30) presented in recent years as a part os the Slovak
cultural heritage are evidence os close contacts with French modern sculpture. The law os solid sorm,
statue-architecture embraced with a melodious silhouette os generalized shape, sighting not sor
a portrait but a type — ail these are relations bringing Murmann and Maillol together. Although in
our conditions, this is the sirst reaction to a classicizing version os the ’’modern” tradition os
European sculpture reappearing in Slovakia in a disserent period and context. Among his works
(reaching high above the local standard) are exclusive examples that did not sind their place in the
development os Slovak sculpture.