Proljetni Salon” 1916-1928
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
boæidar painting of gagro “proljetni salon” 1916-1928 From the death of Miroslav KraljeviÊ different treatment of the visual theme, in — in 1913 until the very end of that which that visual, plasticist element would war-ridden second decade, there are very become the true and only subject of inter- few strongholds for a developmental and est — just like in the matrix of development historical reconstruction of Croatian art in the of Western-European art, beginning with diluted cultural existence of the provincial Manet. However, two things are barely vis- milieu that belonged “neither to Europe nor ible: that “MeduliÊ” had used up its potential to the Balkans”. In the physical and spiritual chances before the war: all that occurred dissipation of the epoch, it is impossible to later, all those things painted or sculpted by discern anything like a generation, a frontal MeπtroviÊ’s emulators — used abundantly range of individuals characterized by certain at a number of international exhibitions for convictions and linked by some elemen- predetermined purposes of propaganda — tary affinity. There are only individuals, sur- might be of interest for a general analysis in rounded by a bunch of aged dilettantes and terms of cultural history, but not for that con- routiners, who adhered like leeches to that cerning art development. The second issue thin layer of bourgeois supply of insecure regards the development of M. KraljeviÊ: in taste and which, at that moment, did not his Poæega and Paris phases, he twice made give any of the pioneers of Bukovac’s era in a clear step forward, towards his own, post- terms of true creativity.1 Fauvian interpretation of Cézannism; paint- Even without too much effort, one can ings from his last phase should be observed distinguish several lines of art-related issues, as a further, richer, and more complex stage mostly continuing from the immediately pre- within the current that had formed around ceding years. Towards the end of the first RaËiÊ. Even though the role of Vladimir BeciÊ decade and the beginning of the second, the was far more modest, one should keep in ideology of “MeduliÊ” and the stylistics of the mind that he had also evolved on the basis “Munich Circle” were clearly opposed. With of Cézanne’s method during his stay in the former, the notion of the creative subject Paris and also after that. Certainly, all that as an active and ideologically, i.e. national- has nothing to do with impressionism, and istically, and politically conscious indivi dual neither does the basic stylistic problem of the resulted in the circumstance that the bound- first, Munich phase, indefatigably chewed ary between true and self-reliant artistic effort over by the older generation of our art critics. and programmed, ideological stylisation had Since the Central-European stylistic currency become too thin, often even imperceptible. was still in circulation, the expressionist con- With the latter, the relative isolation made tinuations of the Secession (with Klimt and it possible for the group led by RaËiÊ to Hodler, Kokoschka and Schiele) were finding direct their forces and talents towards a a considerable echo; the examples of Jerolim 166 ZZU_78_79_F.inddU_78_79_F.indd 166166 111/12/061/12/06 113:59:33:59:3 slikarstvo “proljetnog salona” 1916-1928. Od smrti Miroslava KraljeviÊa godine poËev od Maneta — postati pravi i jedini — 1913. do pod sam kraj toga ratnog predmet zanimanja. Meutim, premalo se drugog desetljeÊa, u razrijeenosti kulturnog zapaæaju dvije stvari: da je “MeduliÊ” svoju bivstvovanja provincijske sredine “ni u Evropi potencijalnu πansu iskoristio joπ prije rata; ni na Balkanu”, naÊi Êe se veoma malo sve πto se dogaalo kasnije, πto su slikali uporiπnih toËaka za razvojno-historijsku i vajali MeπtroviÊevi oponaπatelji — i πto je rekonstrukciju hrvatske umjetnosti. U fiziËkoj obilato iskoriπtavano na brojnim inozem- i duhovnoj razbijenosti epohe ne razabiremo nim izloæbama u reæirane propagandistiËke niπta nalik na generaciju, na frontalnu πirinu svrhe — moæe biti od interesa za opÊu skupine pojedinaca, istaknutih po uvjerenju, kulturno-historijsku, ali ne i za razvojno- povezanih elementarnim afinitetom. Postoje umjetniËku analizu. Drugo predstavlja razvoj samo pojedinci, a oko njih πaka starmalih M. KraljeviÊa: on je u poæeπkom i pariskom diletanata i rutinera, krpeljski prionula uz razdoblju dvaput vrlo jasno zakoraËio napri- tanak sloj graanske narudæbe nesigurna jed, u pravcu slobodne, svoje, post-fovistiËke ukusa i iz koje se, u tom Ëasu, na planu interpretacije sezanizma; djela iz posljed- istinskog stvaranja ne izdvaja nijedan od nje faze njegova stvaranja valja gledati kao pionira BukovËeva vremena.1 daljnju, bogatiju i sloæeniju etapu onoga I bez prevelike paæljivosti moguÊe je pravca koji se uobliËio oko RaËiÊa. Iako je povuÊi nekolike niti stvaralaËkih problema uloga Vladimira BeciÊa znatno skromnija, koji se uglavnom nastavljaju iz godina koje ne zaboravimo da je i on za vrijeme boravka su neposredno prethodile. Pod konac prvog u Parizu, i nakon toga, doæivio evoluciju na desetljeÊa i na poËetku drugog ideologija osnovi Cézanneova naËina. Sve to zajedno, “MeduliÊa” i stilistika “Minhenskog kruga” naravno, neÊe imati nikakve veze s impre- jasno su suprostavljene. Poimanje umjet- sionizmom, kao πto s impresionizmom nije niËkog subjekta kao djelatne i ideoloπki, povezan ni temeljni stilski problem prve, tj. nacionalistiËki, politiËki svjesne jedinke, minhenske faze, Ëime se nabacivala naπa kod prvih imalo je posljedicu da je granica starija kritika. Kako se i dalje nastavlja izmeu iskrenog i sebesvjesnog umjetniËkog opticanje srednjoevropske stilske monete, napora i programiranog i propagandnog ekspresionistiËka produæenja secesije (uz stiliziranja postala pretanka i, nerijetko, Klimta i Hodlera, Kokoschka i Schiele) nezamjetljiva. Na drugoj strani relativna pobuuju odreen odjek; primjeri Jerolima izoliranost omoguÊuje grupi koju je pred- Miπe i Zlatka ©ulentiÊa2 najbolje Êe pokazati vodio RaËiÊ da snage i talente usmjeri ka koliko je uvjereno i koliko uvjerljivo bio prih- drugaËijem tretmanu likovnog predmeta, u vaÊen taj rani i mjestimiËni ekspresionistiËki kojem Êe to likovno, plastiËko — kao i u poticaj. RijeË je uglavnom o portretima i joπ matici razvoja zapadnoevropske umjetnosti je uvijek ona secesionistiËka “snaga duπe” 167 ZZU_78_79_F.inddU_78_79_F.indd 167167 111/12/061/12/06 113:59:33:59:3 Miπa and Zlatko ©ulentiÊ2 demonstrate well value relations. The unaccustomed eyes now out its spatial and temporal context, just a that this early and sporadic expressionist desires to see something else, something vague trace of an undeveloped talent, with impulse was accepted with conviction. It different. The result is some sort of apparent a few oils on canvas and drawings that most ly consisted of portraits, while that Sece- lack of concentration, the loss of systematic testify of the fact that he had quickly and s sio nist “power of the soul” was still pre sent discipline — a “stir”, as someone has called aptly grasped the message of RaËiÊ’s and as a motif. Ljubo BabiÊ, whom the contem- it; in fact, it is the most precious, the first KraljeviÊ’s Munich beginnings, and that porary critics (LunaËek, StrajniÊ) consider preparation for the availability of minds and he had, in terms of development, found the greatest talent of all beside Maksimilijan talents, the organic disponibility of a germ. the best position for a future step forward, Vanka, was led to embrace expres sionism The very appearance of “Hrvatski Proljet- which unfortunately remained unrealised. through Munich, after he had made his own ni Salon” (Croatian Spring Salon) in 1916, In order to determine Steiner’s significance, considerable contribution to the themes of with its general and insecure prologue and a one should also know with what authority “MeduliÊ”. Not through the Munich of the list of participants that was not too promis- and enthusiasm he was expressing his own “Blue Rider” though, but rather the ortho- ing,3 nevertheless announced the maturing disponibility: “That young man, completely dox, Jugendstil one, which was affected of critical self-awareness. And precisely that unknown not only to the so-called public, only externally by a flicker of expressionism. ma nifestation would become the one to but also to all our critics (which dedicated Between his sketches of Matoπ (1913) over ab sor b for more than a decade all outspo- a few lines to him at most when writing the “Self-Portrait” (1914) to the portrait ken lo nging, searching, and stumbling of on the exhibitions of Art School students), of Miroslav Krleæa (1919), BabiÊ certainly youn ger and young artists. In fact, Proljetni that student of Art School has played, along revealed great interest in psychological intro- Sa lon was the only form of organized and with Uzelac, ©umanoviÊ, Trepπe, Gecan, spection, or rather — I should say — in the conti nued collective activity in the field and others, a role in the de ve lopment of psychological cons truction of characters, of visual arts in its time, which was the our youngest painters that these critics do concentrating on the “inner life” of the per- first and the most important reason why it not even dream of, with the exception of a son, though he felt no inclination whatsoever imposed itself upon all historical approaches few initiated. He was not only among the towards more liberal metaphors; wherever as the only possible unit of synthesis. On first who spoke of Cézanne, expressionism, one can notice an effort of stylisation, it is the other hand, “Proljetni Salon” was not cubism, etc., but also painted in such a a mere addition, attached out of feeling for a unified and defined notion, constructed way that his pieces from those times can be culti vated and fashionable taste rather than on the internally coherent basis of unified compared to the best contemporary achieve- a result of emotional conflict or his own and consistent aspirations and consist- ments of those painters.” agitated conviction.