DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.38678#0014
The most important years in the history of Polish neoclassicism came in the periods of the
Enlightenment and the Kingdom of Poland (1815-1831).
In the art of the Polish Enlightenment two periods can be discerned: one between 1760 and
1780 and the other between 1780 and 1795. Another division has alsobeen proposed: namely,
1760-1775, 1775-1789 and 1789-1795. The last period has been distinguished because of the
themes of independence, patriotism and revolution at the time of the Four-Year Parliament
and the Kościuszko Insurrection. It has also been proposed that the year 1800 should be taken
as the finał datę, in view of the traditions of the intellectual and artistic trends of the
Enlightenment, which were also continued after the loss of independence. This view does not
seem to be justified, sińce the loss of independence was doubtless of extreme significance.
A successful development of culture in a great number of fundamental fields, including
planning and public architecture, was broken. There was no longer court patronage, which
had gradually been taking on the features of state patronage. Warsaw, the main centre of
political and intellectual life in the Enlightenment, was degraded to the rank of a provincial
town. Certainly, the cultural traditions of the Enlightenment persisted, not only until 1800,
however, but much longer, as in some fields they extended as late as the time of the Kingdom
of Poland. This connection was Consolidated by artists who were educated and created in the
18th century and who were active until the twenties of the 19th century.
Over the last decades there has been freąuent reference to the Enlightenment art. This term
is, however, not equivalent to the “neoclassicism of the Age of Enlightenment”, sińce the
term “Enlightenment art” covers all art productions, a variety of trends and not only
neoclassicism. Of these trends, a few can be distinguished. The intellectual life of the
Enlightenment had room for rationalism, sentimentalism and romanticism; in the arts, apart
from the decadent baroąue and rococo forms, there were parallel developments in the various
versions of the neoclassical trend, in the sentimental trend, and in the romanticist one, in
which exotic and neo-gothic currents could be distinguished. Neoclassicism was the leading
trend, particularly in architecture; it had baroąue and rococo versions; it could be Palladian,
antiąuating and also avant-garde. In turn, in the artof gardening, which in 1770-1831 played
such an important role in the artistic culture of the country, the leading trend was related to
landscape, so-called English, gardening, with sentimental and romanticist overtones. In the
architecture of the first thirty years of the 19th century, neoclassical trends also dominated;
monumental forms arose, particularly in some versions of public building. In those years the
pseudo-classical trend was accompanied by the increasingly strong pseudo-gothic current.
The present book is concerned with neoclassical art, but this does not signify that an attempt
is madę here to distinguish it artificially from the whole of the artistic events of the epoch. It is
impossible to separate the landscape garden, with its numerous neoclassical pavilions, from
the neoclassical pałace. It is impossible to distinguish with complete accuracy between that
which in painting and sculpture is neoclassical and that which is an echo of the baroąue or
rococo, or that which is so conventional that it is sometimes called academic. Therefore, the
title of this book should be understood morę broadly, as referring to both neoclassicism
proper and related developments.
Enlightenment and the Kingdom of Poland (1815-1831).
In the art of the Polish Enlightenment two periods can be discerned: one between 1760 and
1780 and the other between 1780 and 1795. Another division has alsobeen proposed: namely,
1760-1775, 1775-1789 and 1789-1795. The last period has been distinguished because of the
themes of independence, patriotism and revolution at the time of the Four-Year Parliament
and the Kościuszko Insurrection. It has also been proposed that the year 1800 should be taken
as the finał datę, in view of the traditions of the intellectual and artistic trends of the
Enlightenment, which were also continued after the loss of independence. This view does not
seem to be justified, sińce the loss of independence was doubtless of extreme significance.
A successful development of culture in a great number of fundamental fields, including
planning and public architecture, was broken. There was no longer court patronage, which
had gradually been taking on the features of state patronage. Warsaw, the main centre of
political and intellectual life in the Enlightenment, was degraded to the rank of a provincial
town. Certainly, the cultural traditions of the Enlightenment persisted, not only until 1800,
however, but much longer, as in some fields they extended as late as the time of the Kingdom
of Poland. This connection was Consolidated by artists who were educated and created in the
18th century and who were active until the twenties of the 19th century.
Over the last decades there has been freąuent reference to the Enlightenment art. This term
is, however, not equivalent to the “neoclassicism of the Age of Enlightenment”, sińce the
term “Enlightenment art” covers all art productions, a variety of trends and not only
neoclassicism. Of these trends, a few can be distinguished. The intellectual life of the
Enlightenment had room for rationalism, sentimentalism and romanticism; in the arts, apart
from the decadent baroąue and rococo forms, there were parallel developments in the various
versions of the neoclassical trend, in the sentimental trend, and in the romanticist one, in
which exotic and neo-gothic currents could be distinguished. Neoclassicism was the leading
trend, particularly in architecture; it had baroąue and rococo versions; it could be Palladian,
antiąuating and also avant-garde. In turn, in the artof gardening, which in 1770-1831 played
such an important role in the artistic culture of the country, the leading trend was related to
landscape, so-called English, gardening, with sentimental and romanticist overtones. In the
architecture of the first thirty years of the 19th century, neoclassical trends also dominated;
monumental forms arose, particularly in some versions of public building. In those years the
pseudo-classical trend was accompanied by the increasingly strong pseudo-gothic current.
The present book is concerned with neoclassical art, but this does not signify that an attempt
is madę here to distinguish it artificially from the whole of the artistic events of the epoch. It is
impossible to separate the landscape garden, with its numerous neoclassical pavilions, from
the neoclassical pałace. It is impossible to distinguish with complete accuracy between that
which in painting and sculpture is neoclassical and that which is an echo of the baroąue or
rococo, or that which is so conventional that it is sometimes called academic. Therefore, the
title of this book should be understood morę broadly, as referring to both neoclassicism
proper and related developments.