10. Back in Budapest Introduction Mihály Munkácsy, Endre Ady, Hungarian Symbolism, and the City at the Danube ...... 399

11. The “Jewish Question” – and the National One Preliminary Conclusions ...... 457 Essentially this book encompasses questions about nationalism, syntheticism and Bibliography ...... 517 messianism in Eastern Central Euopean Modernism and Avant-Gardism around the turn of the last century. It ends with discussing the so-called “Jewish ques- tion” and the impact of 19th century nationalism. Cross your heart. Are we not all tarred with the same brush? How much do we actually know of the visual arts – and literature – of Central and Eastern Europe? Who were Lajos Kassák and Ljubomir Micić? Who was Witkacy, or Karel Teige? What did and Jan Matejko do in Kraków? August Strindberg´s most significant rival, the “Satanist” Stanisław Przybyszewski – did he really murder his mistress while one of his most ardent disciples shot his wife Dagny Juel, the famous Norwegian artist Edvard Munch´s beloved? Who were in charge of the “subtropical soirée organized by white Negroes” in Warsaw immediately after ? Did Sarah Bernhard really find the Czech painter Alfons Mu- cha in an Hungarian gypsy camp? Why did Jaroslav Hašek work as a communist agitator in Samara in the Soviet Union before he was appointed commissar and chairman of the fifth Soviet army only to write his world-famous book about the brave soldier Švejk in a small godforsaken Czech village in total loneliness and gravely ill as a compulsive drinker? And who was the “barbarogenius” in Bel- grade who wished to “balkanize” the whole of Europe? Most of our common textbooks in the history of art and literature are, like most of more qualified studies, expressions of an almost massive Western Euro- pean ethno-centrism regarding the region of Central and Eastern Europe at the turn of the last century. It is true, names like Alfons Mucha, František Kupka, and László Moholy-Nagy are mentioned now and then in the textbooks on art history, but nevertheless these artists are mentioned almost without exception as participating in Western European formations without ever being linked to their own biographical or cultural-historical points of departure. In the history of literature things are slightly better off as Franz Kafka and Jaroslav Hašek, among a few others, are at least credited with a few lines telling of the specific context out of which their literature emerged. But at the same time there are at- tempts to “de-Judaize” Kafka, thereby lifting his literature to a supposedly more universal level “liberated” from the “annoying” complications of the Central and

8 9 Eastern European Jewish discourse.1 It is true that the art and exhibition hall of the Federal Republic of Germany in Bonn organized in 1994 a gigantic exhibi- tion covering the century´s Central and Eastern European artistic Avant-Garde, at the same time the organizers also issued an exhibition catalog of four volumes edited by Ryszard Stanisławski and Christoph Brockhaus,2 but nevertheless this in every respect epoch-making achievement was restricted by the fact that the focus was directed toward only the specifically vanguard movements in the same way as the Los Angeles County Museum of Art did eight years later when it was organizing an equally impressive traveling exhibition of the Central European Avant-Garde movements covering the years of 1910-1930, with an exceptionally valuable catalog edited by Timothy O. Benson.3 The catalog was completed by an equally valuable source book edited by Benson together with Éva Forgács containing other contributions and almost every essential text and manifesto, and other contributions produced by the different Avant-Gardists and vanguard groups active in cities such as Warsaw and Łódź, Poznań and , Kraków and Budapest, Vienna, Ljubljana, Zagreb, Belgrade, and Bucharest, besides cities such as Berlin, Weimar, and Dessau.4 One more or less “wall-to-wall” survey of Eastern Central European modern art “from the Baltic to the Balkans” during the period of 1890-1939 is the Mod- ern Art in Eastern Europe, published in 1999 and written by the American art historian Steven Mansbach.5 However, the book is a fairly conventional survey of art history not paying much attention to those complications that more inter- disciplinary and at the same time specifically ideo-historical approaches might bring forth. At the same time, Mansbach treats the subject more or less dutifully and chronologically from country to country seemingly without ever seriously re- flecting upon the fact that he actually creates the impression of the artistic idioms being restricted to territories of the national states of today, when in fact most of the currents in question up to the end of World War I took place and were for-

1 See for instance Ekbom, Torsten: Den osynliga domstolen. En bok om Franz Kafka. Stock- holm: Natur och kultur, 2004. 2 Stanisławski, Ryszard – Brockhaus, Christoph (Hrsg): Europa, Europa. Das Jahrhundert der Avantgarde in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Band 1-4 Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der Bundesre- publik Deutschland Bonn, 27. Mai – 16. Oktober 1994. Bonn: Stiftung Kunst und Kultur des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, 1994. 3 Benson, Timothy O. (ed.): central european avant-gardes: exchange and transformation, 1910- 1930. Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Los Angeles – Cambridge – London: The MIT Press, 2002. 4 Benson, Timothy O. – Forgács, Éva (ed.): between worlds: a sourcebook of central european avant-gardes, 1910-1930. Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Los Angeles – Cambridge – London: The MIT Press, 2002. 5 Mansbach, S. A.: Modern Art in Eastern Europe: From the Baltic to the Balkans, ca. 1890- 1939. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

10 Eastern European Jewish discourse.1 It is true that the art and exhibition hall of mulated within the Tsarist, Habsburg and Ottoman empires. The fact that art and the Federal Republic of Germany in Bonn organized in 1994 a gigantic exhibi- literature often were interwoven with each other in a mutual dependence, includ- tion covering the century´s Central and Eastern European artistic Avant-Garde, ing also various both political and philosophical considerations, is also more or at the same time the organizers also issued an exhibition catalog of four volumes less totally neglected by Mansbach, with the exceptions of those passages where edited by Ryszard Stanisławski and Christoph Brockhaus,2 but nevertheless this these mutual relationships are too obvious to be left without proper attention. in every respect epoch-making achievement was restricted by the fact that the This applies not to the hitherto best survey, the art historian Elizabeth Clegg´s focus was directed toward only the specifically vanguard movements in the same big Art, Design and Architecture in Central Europe 1890-1920,6 an extraordinary way as the Los Angeles County Museum of Art did eight years later when it was work of scholarship. In this wide-ranging account concentrated on the Habsburg organizing an equally impressive traveling exhibition of the Central European empire and its last decades, Clegg integrates crucial political and cultural devel- Avant-Garde movements covering the years of 1910-1930, with an exceptionally opments, embracing all the visual arts. However, her approach of pointing at the valuable catalog edited by Timothy O. Benson.3 The catalog was completed by empire as a political and cultural entity results in not paying particular attention an equally valuable source book edited by Benson together with Éva Forgács to the national movements in the individual countries. Thus, she is able to explain containing other contributions and almost every essential text and manifesto, that, for instance, the coincidence of preparations for the Imperial Jubilee of 1898, and other contributions produced by the different Avant-Gardists and vanguard marking the fiftieth anniversary of the accession of Franz Joseph, with those for groups active in cities such as Warsaw and Łódź, Poznań and Prague, Kraków the Paris exhibition of 1900 was, in all probability, the single most important and Budapest, Vienna, Ljubljana, Zagreb, Belgrade, and Bucharest, besides cities factor accounting for the concentration of Secessionist exhibiting débuts in 1897- such as Berlin, Weimar, and Dessau.4 1898.7 Additionally the internationalism and the interest in current developments One more or less “wall-to-wall” survey of Eastern Central European modern in Paris, Moscow, and Berlin expressed by the first true representatives of the art “from the Baltic to the Balkans” during the period of 1890-1939 is the Mod- Avant-Garde8 does not automatically need to involve the disposing of the underly- ern Art in Eastern Europe, published in 1999 and written by the American art ing nationalist ideological foundation, as we shall see. historian Steven Mansbach.5 However, the book is a fairly conventional survey Clegg does not acknowledge either the broad presence of historically retro- of art history not paying much attention to those complications that more inter- spective currents in all of the crown lands of the empire towards the end of the disciplinary and at the same time specifically ideo-historical approaches might 1900s as especially tied to the conscious efforts of the national movements to bring forth. At the same time, Mansbach treats the subject more or less dutifully construct a great historical past for the countries directed against Austrian pre- and chronologically from country to country seemingly without ever seriously re- dominance but rather as an expression of a kind of an imperial restitution politi- flecting upon the fact that he actually creates the impression of the artistic idioms cally manifested in both the big historical processions of the imperial jubilee in being restricted to territories of the national states of today, when in fact most of Vienna in 1908 marking the sixtieth year of Emperor Franz Joseph´s reign and the currents in question up to the end of World War I took place and were for- the subsequent political conservatism directed against, for instance, the franchise reform of 1907. At the same she connects the simultaneous presence of aggres- 1 See for instance Ekbom, Torsten: Den osynliga domstolen. En bok om Franz Kafka. Stock- sively progressive artistic idioms to the more and more obvious political polarities holm: Natur och kultur, 2004. within the empire between, for instance, Austrian centralism and pan-Slavism 2 Stanisławski, Ryszard – Brockhaus, Christoph (Hrsg): Europa, Europa. Das Jahrhundert der Avantgarde in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Band 1-4 Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der Bundesre- rather than considering the simultaneous presence of both historically retrospec- publik Deutschland Bonn, 27. Mai – 16. Oktober 1994. Bonn: Stiftung Kunst und Kultur des tive and progressive idioms as an expression of a syncretism expressed in the arts Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, 1994. for decades. Moreover, in regard to works by the Czech so-called Cubo-Expres- 3 Benson, Timothy O. (ed.): central european avant-gardes: exchange and transformation, 1910- sionists of the 1910s Clegg maintains that it would be less misleading to consider 1930. Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Los Angeles – Cambridge – London: The MIT such works not so much in terms of an attempt to fuse aspects of emerging inter- Press, 2002. 4 Benson, Timothy O. – Forgács, Éva (ed.): between worlds: a sourcebook of central european avant-gardes, 1910-1930. Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Los Angeles – Cambridge – 6 Clegg, Elizabeth: Art, Design and Architecture in Central Europe 1890-1920. New Haven and London: The MIT Press, 2002. London: Yale University Press, Pelican History of Art, 2006. 5 Mansbach, S. A.: Modern Art in Eastern Europe: From the Baltic to the Balkans, ca. 1890- 7 Ibid., p. 50-51. 1939. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. 8 Ibid., p. 225.

10 11 national styles, but as manifestations of a readiness to employ innovative formal devices in order to accommodate exciting insights into art historical tradition.9 Writing about Polish turn of the century art, the art historian Jan Cavanaugh points at an important fact when accusing Western and particularly Anglo-Amer- ican art history of treating the terms “Avant-Garde” and “Modernism” as equiva- lents. Western studies have been based to a large extent on the evolutionary theo- ry of modern art, from which the model of the Avant-Garde derives; modern art is defined by the sequences of collective styles, or “isms”, that led from 19th century French Realism to 20th century abstraction. Cavanaugh is quite right when say- ing that equating Modernism solely with the concept of Avant-Garde gives only a partial view of a complex social process. In fact, the Avant-Garde model applies to only a small percentage of the art produced since mid-19th century, excluding the vast majority of works made by artists living throughout Europe who have been regarded as neither Avant-Garde nor academic. Yet, these same artists ex- pressed various “modern” values in their works and saw themselves as contribut- ing to the progressive currents of the time.10 These remarks can – of course – be extended to literature as well. As Cavanaugh says, a truly representative view of European Modernism must take into account every part of Europe as well as the complex relationship between Modernism and the Avant-Garde movements, in Eastern and Central Europe often interwoven into each other without clear distinctions. As more pieces of this picture puzzle are filled in, one will be able to discern certain crucial patterns and better comprehend the intricate relationships that existed between the large cosmopolitan centers and peripheral areas.11 The centers and the margins were not as obvious as we often imagine. In fact we must altogether question the notion of Central Europe and its Eastern parts as border areas of the West.12 This study tries to bring to light three crucial, interwoven themes in Central and Eastern European art and culture around the turn of the last century, namely nationalism, the striving for synthesized entireties, as well as the presence and importance of the Jewish culture. Geographically the attention is focused on mainly those areas, countries, or provinces which once belonged to the Habsburg dual monarchy with the exception of Austria, which, certainly, must be defined as Central European in the same way as Germany, but which nevertheless has been excluded, like Germany, since both Austria and Germany may be included in the

9 Ibid., p. 164. 10 Cavanaugh, Jan: Out Looking In. Early Modern , 1890-1918. Berkeley-Los Angeles – London: University of California Press 2000, p. 2. 11 Ibid., p. 3. 12 See for instance Gryglewicz, Tomasz: Malarstwo Europy Srodkowej 1900-1914. Kraków: Nak. Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego, 1992.

12 national styles, but as manifestations of a readiness to employ innovative formal Western European cultural sphere as well, if the dividing line is identified with devices in order to accommodate exciting insights into art historical tradition.9 the Iron Curtain before the emergence of the “New Europe” in the 1990s. Writing about Polish turn of the century art, the art historian Jan Cavanaugh is regarded as an integrated cultural territory including parts of Lithuania too in points at an important fact when accusing Western and particularly Anglo-Amer- spite of the fact that the Polish state was wiped out through the partitions at the ican art history of treating the terms “Avant-Garde” and “Modernism” as equiva- end of the 18th century, as the Eastern parts went to Russia while the Western lents. Western studies have been based to a large extent on the evolutionary theo- parts were incorporated into and the Southern parts into Habsburg. When ry of modern art, from which the model of the Avant-Garde derives; modern art is it comes to the Balkan Peninsula, the attention is focused first of all on Croatia defined by the sequences of collective styles, or “isms”, that led from 19th century and Slovenia as parts of the Habsburg empire, even though Serbia is also noticed French Realism to 20th century abstraction. Cavanaugh is quite right when say- in connection with the Zenitist Avant-Garde movement, since the leading Zenit - ing that equating Modernism solely with the concept of Avant-Garde gives only a ists lived and worked in both Zagreb and Belgrade. Chronologically the study is partial view of a complex social process. In fact, the Avant-Garde model applies restricted to the turn of the century up to 1924, when several important exhibi- to only a small percentage of the art produced since mid-19th century, excluding tions were organized in both Prague and Warsaw, Ljubljana, Bucharest, and Bel- the vast majority of works made by artists living throughout Europe who have grade, of which most of them at the same time must be characterized as a kind of been regarded as neither Avant-Garde nor academic. Yet, these same artists ex- a culmination of trends and ideas preceding World War I. pressed various “modern” values in their works and saw themselves as contribut- Already Voltaire, who had acquainted himself with the conditions in the East- ing to the progressive currents of the time.10 These remarks can – of course – be ern parts of Central Europe and Russia, noticed that there existed a most tangible extended to literature as well. As Cavanaugh says, a truly representative view proof of another Europe than known in the leading European countries, and, like of European Modernism must take into account every part of Europe as well as other philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment, he made use of the notion of a the complex relationship between Modernism and the Avant-Garde movements, more backward Eastern than Western Europe in order to establish his notion of in Eastern and Central Europe often interwoven into each other without clear the Enlightenment in confrontation with the “Asian barbars” of the East.13 The distinctions. As more pieces of this picture puzzle are filled in, one will be able to Swedish historian of ideas Mats Andrén has observed how this notion of Eastern discern certain crucial patterns and better comprehend the intricate relationships Europe still prevails in, for instance, Philip Longworth´s attempts to understand that existed between the large cosmopolitan centers and peripheral areas.11 The the disintegration of communist Europe in his widely discussed The Making of centers and the margins were not as obvious as we often imagine. In fact we must Eastern Europe, published in 1992.14 This is a survey in which Eastern Europe al- altogether question the notion of Central Europe and its Eastern parts as border most throughout the discourse is defined in terms of its deficiencies and imperfec- areas of the West.12 tions compared with Western Europe according to a well-known pattern, which, This study tries to bring to light three crucial, interwoven themes in Central for that matter, also brings to mind how Western European imperialists once and Eastern European art and culture around the turn of the last century, namely described the Orient and the Orientals15 and at the same time the way in which nationalism, the striving for synthesized entireties, as well as the presence and the Polish or Hungarian ethno-nationalists at the turn of the century defined the importance of the Jewish culture. Geographically the attention is focused on Russian or Asian “barbarians” or the “half-Asian” Jews of Eastern European mainly those areas, countries, or provinces which once belonged to the Habsburg settlements and small towns. Longworth explains that the lack of an independent dual monarchy with the exception of Austria, which, certainly, must be defined as administration of justice was the indirect result of the Mongolian dominance over Central European in the same way as Germany, but which nevertheless has been the region, at the same time he characterizes the lack of a functioning economic excluded, like Germany, since both Austria and Germany may be included in the life as a general feature of Eastern European history. Moreover, Eastern Europe is short of ideals such as equality and democracy, ideals dominant in Western Europe ever since the French revolution besides the fact that Eastern Europe had 9 Ibid., p. 164. 10 Cavanaugh, Jan: Out Looking In. Early Modern Polish Art, 1890-1918. Berkeley-Los Angeles – London: University of California Press 2000, p. 2. 13 See for instance Andrén, Mats: Att frambringa det uthärdliga. Studier till idén om Centraleu- 11 Ibid., p. 3. ropa. Uppsala: Gidlunds, 2001, p. 36. 12 See for instance Gryglewicz, Tomasz: Malarstwo Europy Srodkowej 1900-1914. Kraków: Nak. 14 Longworth, Philip: The Making of Eastern Europe. London: St. Martin´s Press, 1992. Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego, 1992. 15 Said, Edward W.: Orientalism. New York: Vintage, 1979.

12 13 been short of homogeneous national states. This is, Andrén says, the typical way to define a region as the negative contrast of the West, a late example of the per- spective which may be said to hand over the creation of a specific half barbarian and uncivilized Eastern Europe at the time of the Age of Enlightenment. However, if defining and describing by way of shortages or absences at the same time is a way of pointing at specific Central and Eastern European his- torical and cultural discourses as binary oppositions in relation to corresponding discourses in the West, then the reverse strategy may be equally devastating, because one then runs the risk of ignoring the factual differences in the certainly well-meaning, but nevertheless strangulating embrace of similarities. This is also something which Steven A. Mansbach16 indirectly observes, when saying that European 20th century culture has been presented and defined in the West almost without exception as a successive series of styles developed in Paris, Mu- nich, New York or Berlin. This has been possible by the fact that historiography simply has accepted formal styles as the normative standard without considering other aspects than those defined by Mansbach as “the universality of Modern- ism”, a concept revealing the “imperialist” grip of Western European ethnocen- trism on other parts of Europe, by many considered as marginal. By looking at classical modern art from a broader perspective than to regard its development only as a progressive succession of aesthetically independent styles and at the same time by adapting more nuanced and varied methods one may, according to Mansbach, not only understand better than before those unique forms of creativ- ity that took place on the periphery of Europe, but also reclaim the rich founda- tion of modern art in general. And does not Mansbach also say that, undeni- ably, much of modernism was born on the Eastern margins of industrial Europe, Dadaism in royal Romania, Constructivism in the tsarist empire and uniquely creative forms of Cubo-Expressionism in Habsburg Bohemia,17 though he at the same time seems to be guilty of the cardinal sin of Western – or American – ethnocentrism by, at least indirectly, labeling great parts of Central and Eastern Europe as both peripheral and marginalized? The prevailing paradigm must be set aside. If for instance the classical Avant-Garde in the West recommended and fought for aesthetic uniformity aimed to transcend national borders and his- torical references, the Avant-Gardists of the East on the contrary embraced the multiplicity of progressive styles at the same time they, so to speak, gave shelter to exactly those literary, political, and historical connotations which their col- leagues in France, Germany and elsewhere in the West despised and repudiated as obsolete and out of date.

16 Mansbach, S. A.: “Methodology and Meaning in the Modern Art of Eastern Europe”. Benson 2002, p. 289-303. 17 Ibid., p. 289. See also Mansbach 1999, p. 2.

14 been short of homogeneous national states. This is, Andrén says, the typical way On the one hand, a distinguishing feature was the fact that the first impor- to define a region as the negative contrast of the West, a late example of the per- tant survey of international Constructivism ever was written by the Hungarian spective which may be said to hand over the creation of a specific half barbarian theoretician and art critic Ernö Kállai, published in the Jahrbuch der Jungen and uncivilized Eastern Europe at the time of the Age of Enlightenment. Kunst in Leipzig in 1924.18 On the other hand, Kállai was eager to present the However, if defining and describing by way of shortages or absences at the new trends in the Soviet Union, Holland, Germany, and Hungary by setting out same time is a way of pointing at specific Central and Eastern European his- from the different national traditions. According to Kállai, Constructivism was torical and cultural discourses as binary oppositions in relation to corresponding equally impossible to separate from the constant, fundamental differences con- discourses in the West, then the reverse strategy may be equally devastating, cerning “race and intellectual traditions” as every other artistic current. With its because one then runs the risk of ignoring the factual differences in the certainly “socio-historically confirmed subjectivity” every nationality contributed to the well-meaning, but nevertheless strangulating embrace of similarities. This is Constructivist movement with different sentiments. One year later Kállai paid also something which Steven A. Mansbach16 indirectly observes, when saying special attention to the Hungarian Constructivists László Moholy-Nagy, Sándor that European 20th century culture has been presented and defined in the West Bortnyik, Alfréd Forbat, and László Péri in his book Neue Malerei in Ungarn,19 almost without exception as a successive series of styles developed in Paris, Mu- in which he tied the formal element even tighter to the “national temperament” nich, New York or Berlin. This has been possible by the fact that historiography than before. According to him, the dynamics of this temperament strived for a simply has accepted formal styles as the normative standard without considering spatial extension and rejected instinctively, for instance, the demands of strict other aspects than those defined by Mansbach as “the universality of Modern- order, clarity and decorative effects of de Stijl aesthetics only to treat the image ism”, a concept revealing the “imperialist” grip of Western European ethnocen- surface as an independent activity of the total flow of life, not as a passive scene trism on other parts of Europe, by many considered as marginal. By looking at of the play between only formal forces. classical modern art from a broader perspective than to regard its development The historical and socio-political preconditions were in the East also totally only as a progressive succession of aesthetically independent styles and at the different compared to those of the West. The romantic conception of the artist same time by adapting more nuanced and varied methods one may, according to was very much stronger in the East than in the West. The original role of the art- Mansbach, not only understand better than before those unique forms of creativ- ist was accentuated as well as his – more seldom her – chosen position within the ity that took place on the periphery of Europe, but also reclaim the rich founda- social context. The links to German romantic tradition were not seldom specifi- tion of modern art in general. And does not Mansbach also say that, undeni- cally strong stressing the importance of the arts relating to both the concepts of ably, much of modernism was born on the Eastern margins of industrial Europe, the nation and patriotism in combination with an almost pantheistic religiosity, Dadaism in royal Romania, Constructivism in the tsarist empire and uniquely which, moreover, often approached various esoteric traditions and mysticism. At creative forms of Cubo-Expressionism in Habsburg Bohemia,17 though he at the the same time, the different vanguard movements of Central and Eastern Europe same time seems to be guilty of the cardinal sin of Western – or American – evolved into or carried inside themselves a distinct kind of a political messianism. ethnocentrism by, at least indirectly, labeling great parts of Central and Eastern In the West, Cubism, Expressionism and even Futurism were to a great extent Europe as both peripheral and marginalized? The prevailing paradigm must be variations of an all-embracing, intellectual and artistic adventure, while similar set aside. If for instance the classical Avant-Garde in the West recommended ideas would be treated as matters of life and death in the Central and Eastern and fought for aesthetic uniformity aimed to transcend national borders and his- European context, within which, according to the historian Éva torical references, the Avant-Gardists of the East on the contrary embraced the Forgács,20 the artists were put in jail, persecuted, and even killed, because of multiplicity of progressive styles at the same time they, so to speak, gave shelter to exactly those literary, political, and historical connotations which their col- 18 Kállai, Ernö (Ernst): Konstruktivismus. Jahrbuch der jungen Kunst, Leipzig 1924, p. 374-384. leagues in France, Germany and elsewhere in the West despised and repudiated See also Gassner, Hubertus (Hrsg): WechselWirkungen: ungarische Avantgarde in der Weimar Republik. Marburg 1986, dok. 43, 164 and Benson, Timothy O.: “Exchange and Transforma- as obsolete and out of date. tion: The Internationalization of the Avant-Garde(s) in Central Europe”. Benson 2002, p. 38-41. 19 Kallai, Ernst (Ernö): Neue Malerei in Ungarn 1900-1925. Leipzig 1925. See also Benson 2002, 16 Mansbach, S. A.: “Methodology and Meaning in the Modern Art of Eastern Europe”. Benson p. 41. 2002, p. 289-303. 20 Forgács, Éva: “Between Cultures: Hungarian Concepts of Constructivism”. Benson 2002, p. 17 Ibid., p. 289. See also Mansbach 1999, p. 2. 147-148.

14 15