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 individual 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 13:59:313:59:3 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 13:59:313:59:3 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 present 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 expressionism 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 longing, 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 deve lopment of psychological construction 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. The “intellectualism” of ently developed ideas. “Proljetni Salon” At the time when A. B. ©imiÊ published Lj. BabiÊ is relative; from the retrospective had entered art history as a synonym - in the above-cited lines in “Savremenik” in of his later development, starting with his terms of development and chronology - of 1921, it seemed, and not only to him, that confession of “purely artistic” values, the those contradictory, complex, and extremely the new situation in our art was a ready fact redness of his “Building Site” (1917), the restless times, in which the generation of and that the young artists he was mention- cosmic character of his “Golgotha” (1917), our second Modernist movement, however ing — and their list could be complemented and the symbolist reduction of his “Red heterogeneous, torn, aged, inarticu la te, and with the names of Tartaglia and Varlaj, Flags” (1921) — all of them masterpieces of perhaps modest in terms of its end results or those of our frequent guests, Serbian mise-en-scene — are only a passing phase in the field of painting, emerged as one pain ters DobroviÊ and BijeliÊ, who were in the transformations of that lively and of the most talented generations in the pre sent at the Salon exhibitions from 1919 noble spirit. Nevertheless, the artistic and Croatian culture. If we view Modernism as onwards — were introducing a “new spirit” intellectual culture of Lj. BabiÊ meant — at the cyclical opening of the culture of this and raising the provincial art of sentimental the time when the conflict around artistic re gion towards European and world models anecdotes and dazzling phrases to the level ideas was mostly reduced to the basest scuf- — which has been rhythmically alternating of modern visual expression. These were fling about art as such — direct or indirect with the periods of gathering forces of the literally the words of Iljko GorenËeviÊ, who encouragement to all new efforts to shift the soil and tradition during the past 70 years has disappeared from the scene too early,4 goal further or raise it higher. — it should be merited for having estab- but can still be considered the most signifi- If looking more closely, one may notice lished creatively and profoundly, and partly cant critic of the time, from his preface to a sequence of important historical circum- overcoming it as well, the very problem of the VII Exhibition of “Proljetni Salon”, which stances that brought about almost inevitably that rhythmical repetition in its foremost took place in Osijek in 1920. the appearance of a new, young generation. re presentatives (A. B. ©imiÊ, Krleæa, UjeviÊ) Having concluded that the “new art- First of all, in the minds of the people, the — although it would reappear once more in related needs of modern man... make us war had divided like a blade the world of the last, fifth decade of our century. feel more acutely than ever the crucial need the past from the anticipations of the new, In order to define more precisely its criti- to renew our visual arts as a whole,” he that vague and exciting space of one’s own cal relationship towards various phenomena said that “the youngest generation is laying action, one’s own existential chance. Critical and accomplishments, one should keep foundations for this revolution. Whereas all distance from the compromised reality is in mind the euphoric and almost chaotic of our yesterday’s art was an art of senti- bound to take the veil off people’s eyes. situation of the previous, typically youthful mental moods and historical anecdotes, an The renewed tends to tear down the period. For example, the figure of Milan art of literary abstracts and sugary disposi- idols, see through the fallacies, change the Steiner (1894-1918) would remain, with- tions, the most recent art has placed on the 168
ZZU_78_79_F.inddU_78_79_F.indd 168168 111/12/061/12/06 13:59:313:59:3 prisutna kao portretni motiv. Ljubu BabiÊa, VeÊ i sama pojava “Hrvatskog proljet- najboljem sluËaju posvetila po koji redak kad koji se suvremenim kritiËarima (LunaËek, nog salona” g. 1916, s opÊenitim i nesig- bi pisala o izloæbi aka UmjetniËke πkole), StrajniÊ) Ëini, uz Maksimilijana Vanku, urnim proslovom, s imenima sudionika koja taj uËenik UmjetniËke πkole imao je kao najveÊom darovitoπÊu, put k ekspresion- mnogo ne garantiraju,3 ipak daje naslutiti da drug Uzelca, ©umanoviÊa, Trepπea, Gecana izmu, nakon πto je platio vlastiti i ne najmanji kritiËka samosvijest dozrijeva. I upravo toj i dr. pri nastajanju tih naπih najmlaih obol meduliÊevskoj tematici, vodi preko Êe manifestaciji pripasti uloga da u trajanju slikara udjela za koji i ne slute, osim neko- Münchena. Ne preko Münchena “Plavog duljem od jednog desetljeÊa apsorbira sve liko rijetkih koji su u to upuÊeni. On ne jahaËa”; preko onog Münchena pravovjer- izrazitije teænje, traæenja i posrtanja mlaih i samo da je jedan od prvih koji su govorili nog i jugendstilskog, koji je ekspresionistiËki mladih umjetnika. Proljetni je salon u stvari o Cézanneu, ekspresionizmu, kubizmu, itd. drhat zahvatio samo izvana. lzmeu krokija i jedini oblik organiziranog i kontinuiranog nego je slikao i crtao tako da se njegovi Matoπeva lika (1913), preko “Autoportreta” kolektivnog djelovanja na podruËju plas- ondaπnji radovi mogu uporediti s najboljim (1914) do portreta Miroslava Krleæe (1919) tiËkih umjetnosti u svom vremenu, pa se danaπnjim radovima ovih slikara”. BabiÊ, istina, pokazuje naglaπen interes na taj naËin, prije svega ostalog, nameÊe U vrijeme kada je A. B. ©imiÊ u za psiholoπku introspekciju, ili — rekao svakom historijskom pristupu kao jedino “Savremeniku” g. 1921. napisao navedene bih Ëak — za psiholoπku konstrukciju lika, moguÊa sintetska jedinica. No, s druge retke Ëinilo se, i ne samo njemu, da je nova za usredsreivanje na “unutarnji æivot” strane, “Proljetni salon” ne predstavlja cjelo- situacija naπe umjetnosti gotova Ëinjenica, osobe, ali i nikakvu sklonost za slobodniju vit i odreen pojam koji gradi iz nutrine da su mladi stvaraoci koje je on citirao — a metaforiËnost; stilizatorski je napor, ondje kohezija jedinstvene i uobliËene teænje i imenima kojih bi se mogla dodati i imena gdje se pojavljuje, dodan, viπe nakalemljen dosljedno razvijane misli. “Proljetni salon” Tartaglie, Varlaja, ili pak imena Ëestih gos- po osjeÊanju kultivirana i aæurna ukusa, ulazi u povijest umjetnosti kao razvojni i tiju srpskih slikara DobroviÊa i BijeliÊa koji manje proistekao iz konflikta osjeÊaja, iz vremenski sinonim protuslovna, sloæena se javljaju na izloæbama salona poËev od poviπene temperature vlastitog uvjerenja. i nemirom nadasve bogata vremena, u 1919. — unijeli “novi duh”, podigli provin- “Intelektualizam” Lj. BabiÊa relativan je; kojem je izrastala, makar koliko neujed- cijsku umjetnost sentimentalne anegdote i iz retrospektive njegova kasnijeg razvoja, naËena, rastrgana, starmala, nedoreËena i zanosne fraze na razinu modernog likovnog polazeÊi od njegova ispovijedanja “Ëisto po krajnjim rezultatima u slikarstvu moæe izraæavanja. Doslovno tako izraæavao se i slikarskih” vrednota, crvenilo njegova biti i skromna — jedna od najtalentiranijih Iljko GorenËeviÊ, prerano nestali,4 ali joπ “Gradiliπta” (1917), kozmiËnost “Golgote” generacija hrvatske kulture — generacija uvijek najznaËajniji kritiËar toga vremena, u (1917), ili pak simbolistiËka redukcija druge naπe moderne. GledajuÊi u moder- predgovoru VIII izloæbe “Proljetnog salona” u “Crvenih zastava” (1921) — majstorska noj cikliËko otvaranje kulture ove sredine Osijeku, godine 1920. djela mizanscene — predstavljaju samo evropskim i svjetskim primjerima — koje Nakon πto je ustanovio da zbog “novih prolaznu etapu u preobraæavanjima toga se posljednjih sedamdeset godina ritmiËno umetniËkih potreba danaπnjeg Ëoveka... æivog i gospodstvenog duha. Slikarska i smjenjuje s razdobljima pribiranja snaga tla danas oseÊamo jaËe no ikada znaËajnu intelektualna kultura Lj. BabiÊa predstavljala i tradicije — njoj treba pripisati u zaslugu πto potrebu obnove celokupne naπe likovne je ipak — u vremenu kada se borba oko je u najboljim predstavnicima (A. B. ©imiÊ, umetnosti”, reÊi Êe kako “najmlaa gener- umjetniËkih poimanja najËeπÊe svodila na Krleæa, UjeviÊ) kreativno i dubokomisleno acija udara temelje ovoj revoluciji. Dok je najprizemnije guπanje za umjetnost opÊeni- postavila, a djelomiËno i prevladala sam cela naπa juËeraπnja umetnost bila umetnost to — izravno ili neizravno ohrabrenje svim problem tog ritmiËkog opetovanja — kojeg sentimentalnog raspoloæenja i historijske novim pokuπajima da se cilj pomakne dalje Êemo, inaËe, biti svjedoci joπ jednom u pro- anegdote, umetnost literarnog siæeja i sla- ili izdigne viπe. tekloj, petoj deceniji naπeg stoljeÊa. dunjavih dispozicija, najmlaa je umet- Tko god gleda, naÊi Êe niz veoma vaænih Da bi se toËnije odredile kritiËke relacije nost u prvom redu na pijedestal postavila po vijesnih okolnosti koje su na tako re Êi prema pojavama i ostvarenjima, valja imati nepovredivi princip likovnog izraæavanja”. ne izbjeæan naËin pretpostavljale pojavu mla- pred oËima euforiËnu i do kaotiËnosti pokre- Meutim, ono πto je GorenËeviÊ samo dog naraπtaja. Rat je, prije svega, oπtrinom nutu situaciju tipiËno mladalaËkog, prethod- nasluÊivao — govoreÊi kako tu mladu sjeËiva razdvojio u glavama svijet proπlosti niËkog perioda. Jer, pojava Milana Steinera umjetnost “u njenom borbenom vrenju ne od predosjeÊanja novog, od onog nejasnog (1894-1918) npr., bez vlastite prostorne i moæemo u celosti da vidimo”, jer ipak i uzbuujuÊeg prostora vlastitog djelo vanja, vremenske odredbe, ostaje samo nejasan “æivimo isuviπe u vremenu koje je i njeno vlas tite egzistencijalne πanse. KritiËki raz- trag nerazvijene darovitosti, kojeg nekoliko vreme” — mi danas, prilazeÊi analitiËki mak od kompromitirane stvarnosti skida ulja i crteæa svjedoËi kako je brzo i sret- Ëitavom tom kompleksu pobuda koje se mre ne s oËiju. no intuirao poruku RaËiÊeva i KraljeviÊeva pletu, nerijetko u potpunoj protuslovnosti i Obnovljeni pogled obara fetiπe, prozire minhenskog poËetka, kako se, gledajuÊi s koje do opÊeg cilja — novosti modernosti patvorine, izmjenjuje odnose vrijednosti. razvojne perspektive, postavio najbolje za — nastoje doprijeti i napreËac sagledanim Nenaviklim oËima zagleda se u drugo, u jedno buduÊe, ali, na æalost, neostvareno, putovima,5 i bezmalo nepomirljivim sred- razliËito. Rezultat je neka vrsta prividne kretanje naprijed. Za utvrivanje znaËenja stvima, vidimo neπto jasnije. PokuπavajuÊi dekoncentracije, gubitak sistematske disci- liËnosti valja znati i to s koliko je autoriteta i se dræati onog πto ipak gradi razvojnu liniju, pline — “komeπanje”, reËe netko; u stvari, s kakvim poletom Steiner ispoljavao vlastitu a ne zapliÊe je na sporednim zalijetanjima, to je najdragocjenija, pripremna, poËetna raspoloæivost: “Taj mladi Ëovjek potpuno morat Êemo utvrditi, u cjelini, da se jezgro raspoloæivost duhova i talenata, organska nepoznat ne samo tzv. publici nego gotovo ove mlade generacije, s izuzetkom Tartaglie disponibilnost zametka. i svekolikoj naπoj kritici (koja mu je u koji Êe ostati do kraja samo “tangenta” 169
ZZU_78_79_F.inddU_78_79_F.indd 169169 111/12/061/12/06 13:59:313:59:3 pedestal the unassailable principle of visual fact that irreducibility can mean something to KraljeviÊ, visible in a number of other expression before anything else.” initially positive in the new constellation paintings, but also of the provisory character However, what GorenËeviÊ was only of ideas! Even the art of KraljeviÊ himself of his orientation; although it did not pre- anti ci pating — saying that this young art — for which it is difficult to prove that it is vent him from creating a few complete and was “impossible to see in its entirety,” since anything else than “good painting” — does significant paintings, which speak of the we were, after all, “still living too much not fit easily in the synthetic blocks of complexity of the times we are discussing, in the time that is its time also” — we -isms. Leaning upon KraljeviÊ and con- he considered it inevitable and urgent to find can today, by approaching analytically this tinuing his ideas about painting, which a way out. After moving to Paris in 1923, whole complex of intertwined motivations, was in young painters sometimes taking Uzelac developed into a trendy painter of which are often contradictory and seek to the form of awareness about their roots, masterful ability. KraljeviÊ was also well reach the general goal — the novelty of meant in fact the continuity of an attitude, received by Marijan Trepπe, who was, one modernity — even on ill-considered paths5 an attempt to construct one’s own view at could say, under his influence more than and with the help of practically relentless an equal distance from opposite concep- any other painter in the group. His “Self- means, see the whole thing somewhat more tions. Cézannism, or even mere Cézannist Portrait with a Pipe,” which is very solid in clearly. Nevertheless, if we remain with stylisation, was the most conspicuous com- terms of tone, imposes another comparison, what constructs the line of development mon feature of another, perhaps the most that with RaËiÊ. Later, around 1925, Trepπe rather than muddling it up with marginal important period of “Proljetni Salon”, that discovered his talent for decorative arts and digressions, we must conclude that, all in between 1919 and 1922. Regardless of engaged in that new interest with joy and all, the core of this young generation, with how foreign that manner would appear to without reserve. the exception of Tartaglia, who will always Uzelac, Gecan, Varlaj, or Trepπe later on, The year of 1921 was perhaps the remain just a “tangent” to “Proljetni Salon”, it is undeniable that their early beginnings most significant year for the generation of was formed on the basis of paintings by — as well as the early work of ©umanoviÊ “Proljetni Salon”. Rather than indicating Miroslav KraljeviÊ on the one side and by and BijeliÊ and the contemporary (Blaæuj) its beginning or end, it marks a breaking assimilating a series of mixed stylis tic ten- phase of Vladimir BeciÊ - were oriented, point in the period, a pinnacle or “zenith” dencies on the other, in which Cézanne’s be it profundly or superficially, for a shorter of inventive restlessness; it is only in the manner, at one moment certainly the most or longer period of time, towards the tonal 1950s, the years of the just completed cycle outstanding common feature, was combined construction and the colourism of Cézanne’s of modernization fever, that one could find with hints of expressionism or even second- painting. Certainly, one could rarely speak an appropriate parallel. Apart from the fact hand cubism. While studying at Zagreb Art of pure patterns of adopted style. That that it was a year of numerous important School enabled Uzelac and his companions common denominator denotes a relatively art exhibitions, both individual and collec- to get into a closer contact with the unfin- brief interim period, which is most easily tive — which helped promote a close and ished style (in terms of process) of Miroslav definable as common in the vocabulary of planned cooperation of Yugoslav centres KraljeviÊ, with his topics and his colourism, modern artistic phenomena. Although it — it was the year of Krleæa’s “Marginal studying at the Prague Academy gave them did not leave any direct or obvious traces Remarks on Paintings by Petar DobroviÊ”; an opportunity to get a glimpse of the broad in the later development of Croatian art, it the essay was published in the afore-men- field of stylistic orientations in contemporary remained a basis of experience (even in the tioned “Savremenik” annual — in the most art through the paintings of Czech vanguard- negative sense), localized in its own time important year in the history of all Croatian ists, inspired by the most recent currents and space and carried by a few attested journals — which included contributions by of the Paris school.6 It is a fact that their talents, for what would follow in the near A. B. ©imiÊ, I. GorenËeviÊ, J. MatasoviÊ, convictions were not always based on the future and later on. R. PetroviÊ, and S. ©umanoviÊ, as well as most stable grounds: being a “Cézannist” in With his temperament, manner, light- topical texts in translation (Loos, “Ornament landscape, painting portraits on the border- ness of improvisation, and his masterful and Crime”); it was the year of the “Zenit line between RaËiÊ and the expressionists, ability to slide along the surface of things, Manifesto” and Vinaver’s “Lightning Rod of and always running the risk of that damned Milivoj Uzelac could easily impose himself the Universe”... sinking into the decorative fashion of the as the central figure of the group; between It was the year of speaking about expres- nameless, but tangible bourgeois taste, of Bukovac and MurtiÊ, he continued the sionism. And still, verbal exaltation was not certain “local” phrases, always raises that line of gifted improvisers in the history of equally present in the actual works of art. frequent and well-known question related Croatian painting. His facilities, naturally, Expressionism may also be considered as to the development of Croatian art: to what did not help him to appropriate or overcome merely one of the factors in shaping the extent can it be reduced to the uniform and, more deeply or permanently the teachings physiognomies of individual artists, as a sort whether we want it or not, affirmative labels of Cézanne and the expressionists. His of atmosphere in which their hybrid expres- of various -isms? “Landscape with a Bridge” (1919) can be sion was formed, so that the features of When asking that question, we should considered the most absolute confirmation their style were only partially, sporadically, be ware of neglecting - because of that ana- of Cézannism. However, in his “Self-Portrait and almost regularly insufficiently covered ly tical meticulousness, which necessarily in a Bar” (1921), which is in all respects by the term “expressionism” as referring to makes us commit certain violence over a valuable and beautiful piece of art, one some well-known phenomena in German artistic phenomena, for they resist it practi- encounters elements of cubism. This fact and Central-European art. To what extent cally in proportion to their authenticity - the testifies not only of his intimate references are Uzelac’s “Lovers” or his “Suburban 170
ZZU_78_79_F.inddU_78_79_F.indd 170170 111/12/061/12/06 13:59:413:59:4 “Proljetnog salona”, formiralo oslanjajuÊi se cima usvojenog stila. Taj zajedniËki nazivnik veÊ spomenutom godiπtu “Savremenika” na slikarstvo Miroslava KraljeviÊa s jedne oznaËava relativno kratku, rjeËnikom suvre- — najvaænijem godiπtu u historiji svih naπih strane, a s druge strane asimilirajuÊi niz menih razvojnih pojava u slikarstvu najlakπe Ëasopisa — koje je donijelo i priloge A. B. pomijeπanih stilskih tendencija, u kojima odredivu zajedniËku meufazu, koja neÊe ©imiÊa, I. GorenËeviÊa, J. MatasoviÊa, R. Êe se Cézanneov naËin, u jednom trenutku ostaviti izravnog, neposrednog traga u kas- PetroviÊa, S. ©umanoviÊa, zatim aktuelne svakako najizrazitije zajedniËko obiljeæje, nijem razvoju slikarstva u naπoj sredini, prevode (Loos, “Ornament i zloËin”); godi- dodirivati s natruhama ekspresionizma, ili ali Êe zato, lokalizirana u svom vlastitom na “ZenitistiËkog manifesta” i Vinaverova Ëak kubizma iz druge ruke. Dok je studij na vremenu, u vlastitom prostoru, noπena od “Gromobrana svemira”... zagrebaËkoj UmjetniËkoj πkoli pruæio Uzelcu nekoliko osvjedoËenih nadarenosti, ostati Godina govorenja o ekspresionizmu. i drugovima priliku da se prisnije poveæu s iskustvenim temeljem (dapaËe i u nega- Pa ipak verbalna egzaltacija nije u jedna- nedovrπenim stilom (u razvojnom smislu) tivnom smislu) onoga πto Êe nadoÊi u bliæoj koj mjeri prisutna i u stvorenim djelima. Miroslava KraljeviÊa, s njegovim temama i i daljoj buduÊnosti. Ekspresionizam se moæe uzeti, isto tako, tek njegovim koloritom, studij na praπkoj aka- Temperamentom, manirom, lakoÊom kao jedan od faktora u oblikovanju fizion- demiji omoguÊit Êe im da kroz djela Ëeπkih improvizacije, suverenom sposobnoπÊu da omija pojedinih umjetnika, kao odreena avangardista, inspiriranih najnovijim strujan- klizi po povrπini stvari — Milivoj Uzelac se atmosfera u kojoj sazrijeva hibridan izraz jima pariske πkole, naslute πiroko podruËje lako nametao kao srediπnja toËka skupine; umjetnika, tako da su oznake stila samo dje- stilskih orijentacija suvremene umjetnosti.6 izmeu Bukovca i MurtiÊa on u povijesti limiËne, samo sporadiËne i gotovo u pravilu “injenica je i to da njihova uvjerenja nisu hrvatskog slikarstva odræava vezu darovitih nepotpuno pokrivene pojmom ekspresion- uvijek bila sazdana na najËvrπÊoj osnovi: improvizatora. Te mu njegove sklonosti nisu, izma koji se odnosi na dobro poznate pojave biti “sezanist” u pejzaæu, slikati portrete na razumljivo, potpomagale da dublje i trajnije njemaËkog i srednjoevropskog slikarstva. granici izmeu RaËiÊa i ekspresionista, s usvoji i prevlada bilo pouku Cézannea, bilo Koliko su UzelËevi “Ljubavnici”, ili “Venera tom uvijek prokletom opasnoπÊu potonuÊa ekspresionista. Njegov “Pejzaæ s mostom” iz predgraa” od istog slikara, ekspresion- u dekorativnost bezimenog ali opipljivog (1919) moæemo uzeti kao najpotpuniju pot- istiËki? “ak kada bi se i uklapali — po graanskog ukusa, nekih “domaÊih” fraza, vrdu sezanizma. Meutim u “Autoportretu odreenoj napetosti odnosa likova, po otvara pitanje tako Ëesto i tako nam poznato u baru” (1921), koji inaËe predstavija ironiËno-melankoliËnoj situaciji u drugom iz razvoja naπe umjetnosti: koliko je to vrijedno i lijepo djelo, nailazimo na ele- primjeru — ili da se posluæimo primjerom svodivo pod jednoznaËne, tê, i ne hoteÊi, mente kubizma. To Êe nam, uz intimno joπ izrazitijim, “Crvenom kuÊom” V. Varlaja afirmativne etikete izama? obaziranje za KraljeviÊem vidljivo na nizu (1923), gdje je namjera ekspresivizacije PostavljajuÊi to pitanje, ne bi nam se drugih slika, posvjedoËiti o provizornosti bojom napadna — one nemaju jasne i smjelo dogoditi da radi analitiËke akribije, slikareve orijentacije; koliko ga ona i nije trajne povezanosti u cjelokupnoj strukturi koja nas nuæno navodi na odreeno nasilje spreËavala da stvori nekoliko dovrπenih i izraza, onoga, znaËi, πto bi nam dalo pravo nad umjetniËkim pojavama — jer one se znaËajnih slika, koje govore o sloæenosti da pojedine oznake poopÊimo u punovrijed- upravo srazmjerno vlastitoj autentiËnosti trenutka πto ga promatramo, uËinit Êe mu nom pojmu dotiËnog stila. tome opiru, izgubimo iz vida da i ta nes- neizbjeænim i æurnim traæenje izlaza. Nakon U ranom ciklusu motiva “iz suæan- vodivost u novoj konstelaciji pojmova moæe odlaska u Pariz g. 1923. Uzelac se raz- jstva” Vilka Gecana ekspresionizam Êemo znaËiti poËetni plus! I slikarstvo samog vio u mondenog slikara virtuoznih sposob- uglavnom protumaËiti kao ekspresionistiËki KraljeviÊa — za koje je teπko kazati da nosti. KraljeviÊa je razumio veoma dobro literarni sadræaj, kojeg lica glume, ponekad nije “dobro slikarstvo” — ne ulazi lako i Marijan Trepπe, tako da bi se moglo reÊi Ëak i uz pomoÊ grimasa ili nasumiËnih u sintetske cjeline izama. Oslanjanje na da je u cijeloj grupi bio najjaËe pod nje- stilizacija; paleta je, doduπe, stegnuta na KraljeviÊa, kontinuitet njegovih slikarskih govim utjecajem. U tonski Ëvrsto graenom zelenkaste i olovne tonove sa svijetlim ideja, koji se kod mladih slikara javlja i kao “Autoportretu s lulom” nameÊe se i uspored- akcentima, crteæ pojednostavljen i nemiran, svijest o ukorijenjenosti, oznaËava u stvari i ba s RaËiÊem. Kada je kasnije, oko 1925, a faktura na mahove sloæena. Kad se Gecan, kontinuitet jednog stava, pokuπaj da se na Trepπe otkrio u sebi dekoraterske sposob- naprotiv, nae pred intimnijim zadatkom, jednakoj udaljenosti od opreËnih koncepcija nosti, odao im se s radoπÊu i bez ustezanja. pokazat Êe znatno bogatiju paletu, a miran izgradi vlastito gledanje. Sezanizam ili u Godina 1921, moæda je najvaænija zahvat (“Portret æene”, “Autoportret”, 1922). krajnjoj liniji samo sezanistiËka stilizacija godina generacije “Proljetnog salona”. Prije Pokuπaji ostvarenja cjelovitije plastiËke najuoËljivije je zajedniËko obiljeæje drugoga, nego πto bi oznaËavala poËetak ili kraj, ona sinteze, joπ uvijek uz pomoÊ mimiËkog moæda najvaænijeg razdoblja “Proljetnog oznaËava prelomnu toËku jednog vremena, komponiranja figura (“Kod stola”, 1923), salona”, od 1919. do 1922. g. Bez obzira kulminaciju, “zenit” otkrivalaËkih nemira; ili putem kubistiËke stilizacije (“U krËmi”, na to koliko Êe se taj naËin u buduÊnosti jedino u godinama pedesetim, u netom 1922), lijepe ilustracije njegovih napora, pokazati stranim i Uzelcu, i Gecanu, i zavrπenom ciklusu modernizatorske gro- ostali su za njega samog, a i za sredinu bez Varlaju, i Trepπeu, nepobitno je da su svi znice, mogli bismo potraæiti odgovarajuÊu znaËajnijih posljedica. Pod konac 3. deceni- njihovi poËeci — kao i rani radovi ©uma- usporedbu. Pored toga πto je to godina niza ja, smiren dugim putovanjima, Gecan Êe noviÊa i BijeliÊa — i istovremena (blaæujska) znaËajnih likovnih priredbi, individualnih i stvoriti drugi niz zaokruæenih djela, uzbudlji- faza Vladimira BeciÊa, dublje ili povrπnije, skupnih — kroz koje se poËinje provoditi vo jednostavnih i svjeæih (“Tuπika”, 1929). kraÊe ili trajnije, usmjereni tonskoj kon- prisna i planirana suradnja jugoslavenskih Na XVIII izloæbi “Proljetnog salona”, godine strukciji i koloritu Cézanneova slikarstva. srediπta — to je godina Krleæinih “Marginalija 1923, zapaæa se promjena. “Opet strasno Naravno, rijetko je kada rijeË o Ëistim obras- uz slike Petra DobroviÊa”; esej se pojavio u posizanje za odreenom formom, za kon- 171
ZZU_78_79_F.inddU_78_79_F.indd 171171 111/12/061/12/06 13:59:413:59:4 Venus” expressionist paintings? Even if they tion; Derain’s and Picasso’s classicism on offered him a base that suited him best. fitted — in their specific tension between the one hand, and the somewhat later The landscapes that he painted after 1924, the characters or the ironically melancholy “Neue Sachlichkeit” on the other, worked as characterized by the acrid sharpness of situation in the latter case — let us also a sudden blow of contrary wind into the still metal constructions, but still softened in fine mention a more outspoken example, the undeveloped sails of our modernism. Both dispersion of light, remain the most valuable “Red House” by V. Varlaj (1923), where the Croatian and Serbian painters began at once part of his entire opus. The significance of intent of expressivization by colour is strik- to close the contours, accentuate the full this last phase of “Proljetni Salon” in terms ing — they are not clearly or permanently line, and emphasize the three-dimensional of artistic development was mostly indirect: linked in their overall structure of expression compactness of objects and space; imitat- it neither started nor finished anything. In or in anything else that might authorize us ing the sketchy “cubicity” and “constructiv- fact, it was a product of misunderstanding to generalize their specific features as fully ity”, they reduced their colours to dim and — a misunderstanding as to the letter and belonging to that particular style. diffuse, earthly, dark green, and dark blue the spirit of artistic events from Cézanne In the early cycle of motifs “from the tones, seeking to underline as strongly as until after cubism. In principle, the possible slavery” by Vilko Gecan, expressionism can possible the tectonic quality of volume and “fertility of misunderstanding” in the sense mostly be interpreted as an expressionist space as such, brittle and crystallic. Krleæa of naïve poeticism — since learning from literary content enacted by the characters, would wittily named this kind of painting Cézanne in such a way that his famous sometimes with the help of grimaces or “Euclidic”. saying about the need of reducing all forms random stylisations; to be sure, the spec- Judging from the speed with which it to elementary geometric bodies was appro- trum of colours is here reduced to greenish was spreading and the depth and power priated as taking a normal, Euclidic space, and leaden hues with pale accents, the line with which it was permeating the proce- unanalysed in Cézannic terms, and to begin of drawing is simple and restless, and the dures of individual painters, with almost coning, cylindrizing, and cubizing it all over structure occasionally complex. However, no exception — from BeciÊ to Tartaglia, certainly did not mean being a Cézannist, but when Gecan faces a more personal task, he from Miπe to Varlaj, from DobroviÊ to it still gave birth to something new and even tends to use a far richer palette and paint StanojeviÊ — the “Euclidic” painting of offered a short-lived sparkle of independent with a steady hand (“Portrait of a Woman”, the third decade marked the recurrence vision — was, after all, not strong enough to “Self-Portrait”, 1922). Attempts at real- of traditionalist subconsciousness in our mark any individual line more permanently. izing a more thorough plasticist synthesis, painting and showed that the artistic and When observing with what relief the still with the help of mimic composition of cognitive experiences with European move- best among our artists — such as Job, figures (“At the Table”, 1923) or by means ments in the first quarter of the century Tartaglia, BeciÊ, and others — did cast off of cubist stylisation (“At the Inn”, 1922), could not permanently or definitively shat- that manner and with what directness the all of them fine illustrations of his efforts, ter the faith in the relevance of the past. youngest generation — Junek, PlanËiÊ, remained without much consequence for This development was in full swing HegeduπiÊ — was finding its expression in a him or his surrounding. Towards the end of around 1925 and one could say that it broad range of orientations, it may occur to the third decade, weary of his long travels, lasted precisely as long as “Proljetni Salon”, us that the greatest importance of this stage Gecan created a long series of well-round- even though some began to emancipate of development was precisely in its catartic ed paintings, excitingly simple and fresh themselves a year earlier, while others significance: the quarantine, extremely nar- (“Tuπika”, 1929). At the XVIII Exhibition of persisted as long as 1929. As for this last row and unexpectedly all-encompassing in “Proljetni Salon” in 1923, one can observe phase of “Proljetni Salon”, its characteristic terms of artistic issues, allowed the spirits to a change. “He is again reaching for a form, feature was the joint orientation of most sig- calm down and the forces to gather, in order a construction; returning to the old Italian, nificant artists of younger generation, with that the dark background of cylindric forms, German, and French neo-Classicist school” no individuals or groups that would stick stiff as a bone, should prepare for the Orphic — as J. Miπe wrote in “Savremenik” in out from the crowd. Among the »etvorica” or intimistic tones in the years to come. × 1923. In fact, what was happening was (Group of Four) from the beginning of the that, immediately after the war, European decade, Vladimir Varlaj was inclined from prijevod: Marina Miladinov painting was experiencing an early reaction the first towards solid constructions of land- after its euphoria of analysis and destruc- scape volumes, so that this new situation
172
ZZU_78_79_F.inddU_78_79_F.indd 172172 111/12/061/12/06 13:59:413:59:4 strukcijom. Opet vraÊanje staroj talijanskoj, spoznajna iskustva evropskih pokreta prve u smislu naivne poetike — jer nauËiti se u njemaËkoj i neoklasiËnoj francuskoj πkoli.” Ëetvrtine stoljeÊa nisu uspjela ni trajno ni Cézannea na taj naËin πto se poznata nje- — biljeæi J. Miπe u “Savremeniku” 1923. definitivno poljuljati vjeru u primjerenost gova izreka o potrebi svoenja svih oblika na g. U stvari, dogodilo se to da je evropsko proπlosti. elementarna geometrijska tijela usvoji tako slikarstvo, nakon analitiËke i destruktivne U punom je jeku oko 1925. g., a moglo da se u normalnom euklidovskom, sezanovs- euforije, neposredno iza rata zabiljeæilo prve bi se kazati da traje upravo do onda do kada ki neizanaliziranom prostoru, sve poËinje reakcije; Derainov i Picassoov klasicizam s traje i “Proljetni salon”, iako se neki poËinju stoæiti, valjkati, kubusiti, nikako ne znaËi biti jedne strane, a s druge neπto kasnije, “Neue oslobaati godinu dana ranije, dok Êe kod sezanist, ali moæe roditi neπto novo, moæe Sachlichkeit”, djeluje kao nagao udarac drugih trajati i do 1929. Za ovo posljednje dati makar i kratkotrajnu iskru samosvojnog suprotnog vjetra u joπ nerazvijena jedra razdoblje “Proljetnog salona” karakteristiËno gledanja — nije ipak bila takva da bi trajnije naπeg modernizma. I hrvatski i srpski slikari je, s obzirom na zajedniËku usmjerenost biljegovala bilo koju individualnu liniju. listom Êe poËeti sa zatvaranjem obrisa, s veÊine znaËajnijih mlaih stvaralaca, da PromatrajuÊi s kakvim se olakπanjem isticanjem pune linije, s naglaπavanjem nema pojedinaca, niti skupina, koji bi se oslobaaju ove manire ponajbolji stvara- trodimenzionalne zbitosti predmeta i pro- posebno izdvajali. Od “»etvorice” s poËetka oci — poput Joba, Tartaglie, BeciÊa i dr. stora, podraæavajuÊi ovlaπnu “kubiËnost” i decenija Vladimir Varlaj od poËetka je gajio — s kakvom se neposrednoπÊu najmlai “konstruktivnost”, svodit Êe boju na mukle sklonost ka ËvrπÊim konstrukcijama pejza- opredjeljuju u πirokom rasponu usmjerenja zemljane, tamnozelene i tamnoplave ænih masa, pa Êe on, zapravo, tek u novoj — Junek, PlanËiÊ, HegeduπiÊ — dolazimo ugaπene tonove, u æelji da πto izravni- situaciji doÊi na tlo koje mu je najviπe i na pomisao da je najveÊe znaËenje ovog raz- je istaknu tektoniku volumena i prostora odgovaralo. Pejzaæi koje je slikao poËev od vojnog trenutka njegovo katarktiËko znaËen- samog, krtog i kristaliniËnog. Krleæa Êe ovo 1924, s reskom oπtrinom metalnih kon- je: po rasponu slikarskog problema veoma slikarstvo duhovito nazvati “euklidovskim”. strukcija, ublaæenih ipak finim razastiran- uska i neoËekivano sveobuhvatna karantena SudeÊi po brzini kojom se proπirilo, po jem svjetla, ostaju najvrednije πto je uopÊe dozvolila je da se primire duhovi i staloæe dubini i snazi kojom je proæelo slikarske naslikao. Razvojno znaËenje ove posljed- snage, da se s tom tamnom pozadinom postupke pojedinaca gotovo ne ostavljajuÊi nje faze “Proljetnog salona” uglavnom je koπtano tvrdih cilindriËnih oblika pripremi izuzetka — od BeciÊa do Tartaglie, od Miπea posredno: niti se πto u njoj zapoËelo, niti orfiËki ili intimistiËki nastup boje godina koje do Varlaja, od DobroviÊa do StanojeviÊa dovrπilo. Ona je u biti proizvod nesporazuma Êe uslijediti. × — “euklidovsko” slikarstvo 3. decenija pred- — nesporazuma sa slovom i duhom likovnih stavlja recidiv tradicionalistiËke podsvijesti dogaaja od Cézannea do iza kubizma. Æivot umjetnosti, 2, 1966. naπeg slikarskog razvoja, kojem slikarska i MoguÊa naËelno “plodnost nesporazuma”
173
ZZU_78_79_F.inddU_78_79_F.indd 173173 111/12/061/12/06 13:59:413:59:4 1 Their merit is in the fact that they were sustaining institutions; 4 The real name of Iljko GorenËeviÊ was Lav Grün (1896-1924). »ikoπ, CrnËiÊ, IvekoviÊ, Krizman, Frangeπ, Valdec, and others He studied law in Budapest and for a year art history in lectured at the School of Arts and Crafts. Vienna. He wrote a number of essays: on Studin, MeπtroviÊ, 2 With Miπe, expressionist stylisation appeared on portraits KraljeviÊ, DobroviÊ, on the predetermination of experience in exhibited in Zagreb as early as 1914. With ©ulentiÊ, it was visual arts, etc., in which he revealed that he was well- somewhat later, around 1917, as can be observed on the informed and inclined towards critical interpretation, as well famous portrait of Doctor Peltz. as that he was — maturing fast. 3 Ulrich Salon, 26 March — 15 April; the following artists 5 This circumstance moved M. Krleæa to distance himself from participated: Lj. BabiÊ, Z. Borelli-Vranska, F. Δus, H. Juhn, these latest developments in“Plamen” as early as 1919, I. KerdiÊ, D. KokotoviÊ, T. Krizman, A. KrizmaniÊ, J. Miπe, perhaps somewhat too quickly, by proclaiming them plagiary B. PetroviÊ, I. SimonoviÊ, M. Strozzi, Z. ©ulentiÊ, and J. Turkalj. and superfluous. — “We do not come forth with any slogans... but our eyes are 6 The exhibition entitled Paris—Prague, which took place in turned towards the future and we shall not stop... that is why the same year at the Museum of Modern Art in Paris, showed we want to support those who see the curse of art in peaceful that Prague was the most powerful relay of French modern art enjoyment of what has been achieved, we want to put an end in Europe. to the isolation of the individual..., to tear down the wall, at least for ourselves, which divides even our generation from those that are coming or are yet to come...”
174
ZZU_78_79_F.inddU_78_79_F.indd 174174 111/12/061/12/06 13:59:513:59:5 1 Njihova pak zasluga leÊi u odræavanju institucija; na Viπoj πkoli sebe barem, ukinemo zid kojim je veÊ i naπa generacija za umjetnost i umjetni obrt predaju: »ikoπ, CrnËiÊ, IvekoviÊ, odijeljena od onih πto dolaze i πto joπ imaju doÊi...” Krizman, Frangeπ, Valdec, i dr. 4 Pravo ime Iljka GorenËeviÊa je Lav Grün (1896-1924). Studirao 2 U Miπea se ekspresionistiËka stilizacija pojavljuje na portretima je pravo u Budimpeπti, a jednu godinu i povijest umjetnosti izlaganim veÊ 1914. u Zagrebu. U ©ulentiÊa neπto kasnije, oko u BeËu. Napisao je niz eseja: o Studinu, MeπtroviÊu, KraljeviÊu, 1917, kako se vidi na poznatom portretu dra Peltza. DobroviÊu, o predodreenju doæivljaja likovne umjetnosti i dr., 3 Salon Ullrich, 26. III — 15. IV; sudjeluju: Lj. BabiÊ, Z. Borelli- u kojima je pokazivao obavijeπtenost, sklonost ka problemat - Vranska, F. Δus, H. Juhn, I. KerdiÊ, D. KokotoviÊ, T. Krizman, skom interpretiranju i — brzo dozrijevanje. A. KrizmaniÊ, J. Miπe, B. PetroviÊ, I. SimonoviÊ, M. Strozzi, 5 ©to Êe M. Krleæu navesti da se joπ g. 1919. u “Plamenu” Z. ©ulentiÊ i J. Turkalj. — “Ne nastupamo ni s kakvim moæda ipak neπto prebrzo ogradi od tih najnovijih pojava, lozinkama... ali naπ pogled gleda u buduÊnost, jer neÊemo proglaπavajuÊi ih plagijatskim i suviπnim. da stanemo... zato æelimo da uzdræimo vezu svih onih koji 6 IzIoæba Pariz—Prag odræana poËetkom ove godine u Muzeju kletvu umjetnosti vide u spokojnom uæivanju onog πto je moderne umjetnosti u Parizu pokazala je da je Prag predstav - postignuto, da uËinimo kraj osamljenosti pojedinca..., da, za ljao najsnaæniji relej moderne francuske umjetnosti u Evropi.
175
ZZU_78_79_F.inddU_78_79_F.indd 175175 111/12/061/12/06 13:59:513:59:5