Masaryk University Faculty of Arts
Department of the History of Art
Anastasiya Chikova
Antonín Procházka “Prometheus“
Bachelor's thesis
Supervisor: PhDr. Alena Pomajzlová, PhD.
2015 I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.
……………………………………………..
Author’s signature
2 I would like to thank my supervisor, PhDr. Alena Pomajzlová, PhD. , for her kind help and valuable advice.
3 Table of contents
1. Introduction ...... 5
2. The period context ...... 7
2.1 The mental context...... 7
2.2 The art context...... 13
3. Prometheus of Antonín Procházka ...... 18
4. Prometheus painting...... 23
4.1 Painting subject - myth...... …...... 23
4.2 Description...... 25
4.3 Comparisons...... 29
4.4 interpretation...... 32
5. Conclusion...... 38
6. Image attachments ...... 42
7. Bibliography ...... 62
4 1. Introduction
In my work i will be focusing on the painting “Prometheus”, created by one of the
Czech modernist painters Antonín Procházka. He lived between the years of 1883-
1945, at the time when Czech art was going through some major changes. Procházka belonged to the young revolutionary generation of artists of the first decades of the
Twentieth century, that became known as the members of Osma [The Eight] and later
Skupina výtvarných umělců [the Group of Fine Artists]. The intention of young genera- tion was to get rid of conservatism in art and to adapt modernist trends corresponding to the “new epoch” they lived in. Numerous innovative experiments in painting eventually led artists to the decision to adapt Cubism.
The “Prometheus” is considered to be Procházka's very first cubist painting. The uniqueness of the painting is an unusual combination of its' form and subject through which the author was trying to provide the symbolic meaning, it is also an important landmark in Procházka's own art development.
The purpose of my work is an interpretation of the painting. For the most accurate interpretation i will be relying on some known facts from Procházka's biography and characteristics of his artstyle in a period before 1911. In the first part of my work i will be focusing on the development of his art, from the earliest works to Cubism. I will try to mention and describe briefly some of the mainstream tendencies at the first years of the Twentieth century, that affected the circles Procházka belonged to. I will also be focusing on the general characteristics of Cubism precisely in its' Czech variation. Next, I will take a look at a possible reason for choosing this particular myth for the painting, relying on basic literary sources for this myth and some of its
5 re-interpretations in the previous years. In the second part of my work i will retell
the original myth of Prometheus and will try to fully analyze the paiting, using
comparisons to other artworks, that might have served as a source of inspiration or a
possible prototype for this work, and also the opinions of art historians on this
subject.
The period, which primarily i am going to deal with, will be limited to the years of
1904 - 1912. Starting with the time when the artist comes to the Academy and
ending with the year when „Prometheus“ was exhibited for the first time. In the con-
clusion i will summarise the overview and the main ideology behind the painting.
Art historians did not leave Prometheus unnoticed, the most meaningful review on
the painting was given by Vojtěch Lahoda, in his opinion it was an important “mani-
festo painting”1 in the art of Procházka and he was surprised by the fact, that Albert
Kutal, who engaged in creative work of Procházka did not pay proper attention to
“Prometheus” and did not include it among important works. In the monography
„Antonín Procházka 1882-1945“, writted by the group of art historians in 2002, Alena
Krkošková briefly mentioned the painting and related its significance to the religious
dilemma of the author. The monography also gives the most comprehensive review
of information and general knowledge about Antonín Procházka's life and art.
Art historian Miroslav Lamač payed great attention to the generation of Osma and
Skupina výtvarných umělců, he mentions “Prometheus” as Procházka's first painting
that can be put into the category of an Early Cubism and relates it to „Smaller
Cubsists“, the term will be explained later in this work.
1 MACHARÁČKOVÁ, Marcela, KRKOŠKOVÁ, Alena, SLAVÍČEK, Lubomír (eds.) (2002). Antonín Procházka 1882-1945: Muzeum města Brna, Moravská galerie v Brně, 6.6.-29.9.2002 : Obecní dům, Praha, 11.12.2002- 22.3.2003. Brno: Muzeum města Brna, 2002, p. 55. 6 2. The period context
2.1 The mental context
Antonín Procházka's beginnings in art were associated with the artistic group Osma
[The Eight], that emerged in 1907 as a reaction to the current situation of the art
world in Prague. Young artists felt that Prague was lagging behind of the rest of
cultural centers in Europe, academic teachings were too conservative and in their
opinion, it was necessary to seek out new forms and discover new horizons. The fu-
ture members of Osma were all young, ambitious art students, who met each other at
the Academy of Fine arts in Prague in 1904, they soon realized that they wanted
more than academy could offer and joined together for promoting new ideologies.
They felt able to alter the artistic life in Prague and finally get even with the rest of
Europe. The main orientation for them was France.
However, they were not the first, who tried to enforce foreign modernist concepts in
Czech art. In the eighteen-nineties, the group of artists united under the name of
Spolek výtvarných umělců Mánes [The Manes Association of Fine Artists] were the first
to promote foreign Avant-garde concepts in Prague and to bring foreign art closer to
the Czech society. Thanks to an art review Volné směry [The Free Tendencies] and ex-
hibitions held by Mánes, they made the people of Prague acquainted with all of the
current European art, in French art foremost.1
1 MATĚJČEK, Antonín a Zdeněk WIRTH. Modern and contemporary Czech art. London: Routledge, 1924, p. 29. The Free Tendencies published reproductions of many french artists such as Willette, Manet, Degas etc. Already in 1902 in Národní Galerie in Prague was organized an exhibition of Auguste Rodin, where the artists himself was present. Later in 1905 was organized an exhibition of Edvard Munch and exhibition of impression- ists in 1907. 7 Artists of Osma wanted to go further than their „older and calmer companions from
Mánes“2, as Emil Filla, the co-founder of Osma, described them.
„We wanted to be more free in expression and most importantly insensitive to the
requirements of adaptation to the provincial, delayed Prague”3 commemorated Filla
about the state of the year 1905.
Changing the art concepts became a serious challenge and they were looking forward
to fulfilling their ambitions, which seem to have been suppressed by the academic
regulations during the years of studying and that was the impetus for their
revolutionary moods. Exactly at that time, in 1905, the exhibition of collected works
of Edvard Munch took place in Prague. The provocative expressionistic art of Munch
shocked the public, it also shocked the young artists, but in a different way. In Munch
they saw a soul mate, who’s art they could fully understand and later decided to de-
velop in a similar, impudent way. Expressionism for them became a perfect way to
break with traditional art, and to proclaim their intentions to the public.
In 1907, Osma started as an expressionist-oriented group, but despite of a strong
desire of breaking away from traditional concepts, nevertheless, young artists relied
on the heritage of the past. Just to break with conventional traditions would be too
presumptuous, besides, the intention was not to start the whole history of fine art
from the beginning, but to find the perfect way of its further development and
keeping up with a progress. The denial of traditional art seem to be more about the
disagreement with the conservatism of the older generation, rather than the
negation of the inheritance of the past. In relation to the past it was even easier to
show how much the current art has progressed, otherwise, it would be hard to indi-
2 FILLA, Emil. O umělcích. Vyd. 1. Editor Stanislav Kolíbal. Praha: Arbor vitae, 2005, p. 50. 3 Ibidem. 8 cate any changes in art without its' prehistory and even the word progress would be
inappropriate. Alongside with impressive exhibition of Munch, there was another
significant event, which is a study trip to Italy, France and Germany, where the
artists had a chance to see the works of such masters as Rembrandt, Rubens, Titian
and Tintoretto, and of course, this experience could have not gone unnoticed. Per-
sonally for Procházka the old art was a long-life inspiration.
Among the participants of Osma and later Skupina výtvarných umělců it was a quite
common occurence, that they were copying or simply relying on some features bor-
rowed from the old masters.
“in the times of great artistic upheavals are often being recalled the long-gone mas-
ters, whose work for the pioneers is a palladium, which refreshes, adds strength and
courage for them to fight".4
The knowledge about art was expanded also by reading and exchanging the publica-
tions. Among publications should be noted articles from a German art critic Julius
Meier-Graefe, his Entwicklungsgeschichte der modernen Kunst (1904) helped to get
acquainted closer with current trends, providing full information about French art.
His later work Spanische Reise (1910) recalled the interest in the art of El Greco5,
who became one of the most influential artists of the past for the modernists. It is not
surprising, that such an extraordinary artist like El Greco, gained interest among rev-
olutionary-minded artists of the Twentieth century. El Greco's art might even serve
as a good example of how the innovative ideas are necessary, El Greco himself went
down in history as one of the most famous artists and later even as an ancestor of
4 KUBIŠTA, Bohumil. Nicolas Poussin. In: Volné směry. 1912, 16, p. 201. 5 MACHARÁČKOVÁ, Marcela and a group of authors, Antonín Procházka 1882-1945, p. 55. 9 modern art. El Greco's influence among Czech artists was especially evident in the
period of 1909 – 1912, “Prometheus” belongs to that period as well.
So, young artists studied both, new and selectively old art, it helped them to form
their own unique style. They were frequently called synthetics, as they “created a
new synthesis of current and past trends of fine arts in the world”.6 They only chose
what they thought was important and suited to their individual interest, it
corresponded to the idea of subjectivity, that was becoming dominant at that period.
Modern art puts individuals in the forefront, the basis of an artwork is the reflection
of one’s feelings and emotions.7 This ideology corresponded well with philosophical
tendencies of that period. The main focus was on intuition, human will, sensitivity
and self-expression of a single individual. Schopenhauer’s Human Will Procházka un-
derstood as “the will of one’s freedom of decision, as the correct path which he had
found with the aid of his intuition and knowledge”8
The background of modernism started to form already in the Nineteenth century in
philosophy before its’ appearance in fine arts.9 Along with Schopenhauer, similar
ideas were reflected in philosophy of a single individual of Søren Kierkegaard, ni-
hilism of Friedrich Nietzsche and Henri Bergson's intuitionism. Their philosophy was
based on the importance of the individual, which was even endowed with excess
power.10
In the era of the cult of individuality, the limitation of an individual freedom in art of
young painters caused all these radical changes. The ideas, Osma came with, seemed
6 HALASOVÁ, Libuše. Antonín Procházka. 1. vyd. Praha: Min. inf., 1949, p. 13. 7 KUTAL, Albert. Antonín Procházka. Praha, 1959. p. 8. 8 MACHARÁČKOVÁ, Marcela and a group of authors, Antonín Procházka 1882-1945, p. 22. 9 KULIKOVA, Irina Sergejevna. Filozofia a umenie modernizmu. 1. vyd. Bratislava: Pallas, 1976, p. 8. 10 Nietzsche's idea of the Overhuman. 10 to be too abrupt and radical for that period of time in Prague, the public was not
ready to accept all these radical changes, as a result reviews of their exhibitions were
mostly negative. To freely develop new ideas it was necessary to overcome the
negative criticism, which apparently had an influence on young artists, Bohumil
Kubišta even collected the reviews and kept it in a separate textbook.11 The problem
of rejection by public and critics started to be reflected in some of their artworks,
and Procházka's “Prometheus” is one of the examples. The criticism towards Osma
was strengthened even more in 1908, when few members of Osma managed to join
Mánes and to take a part in the membership exhibition in 1909, here the difference
between the two generations became especially evident. Čapek brothers desrcribed
Filla’s and Beneš’s works as “absurd paintings”12 and also claimed that they have “a
brain infected by pale chimeras of unproductive doctrines”13 Karel B. Mádl described
their technique as “a dull smudges and caricature forms“.14 Those are just few
examples of what they had to endure.
Osma, as an expressionist-oriented group existed until 1910, when geometric princi-
pals, that took place in Paris, started to attract young Czech artists as well. In 1911
Skupina výtvarných umělců [The group of fine artists] was founded, it evolved the
ideas of Osma, with the exception, that the group was focusing on Cubism. Among its
members were not only painters, but also sculptors, architects and other artists.
They started to print their own art journal Umělecký měsíčník [Arts monthly], that al-
lowed them to spread the word. The painting „Prometheus“ was finished at the same
11 BENEŠ Vincenc: Úryvky z pamětí, in: Výtvarné umění V, 1970, p. 232. 12 Horkého týdeník I, 1909, č.8 ( 7.5.), s.11-12; č.9 (14.5.), s,6 published in: WINTER, Tomáš. Zajatec kubis- mu: dílo Emila Filly v zrcadle výtvarné kritiky (1907-1953). Vyd. 1. Praha: Artefactum, 2004, p. 116. 13 Ibidem, p.115. 14 Národní listy XLIX, 1909, příl. K č.120 (1.5.), s.17 published in: WINTER, 2004, p. 116. 11 year, and printed in Umělecký měsíčník in 1912.15 The period starting from 1910 can
be described as a turning point in Procházka’s artistic and personal life. Together
with his wife they moved to Moravian Ostrava, because they were struggling with a
difficult life situation. Thus he was separated from the cultural center of the country
and his art was developing outside of Prague. He returns to the periphery, where he
originally came from, as in Prague he actually just spent the years of studying and the
period from February 1908 until September 1910.16 He remained in a close contact
with his friends from Skupina výtvarných umělců, especially Emil Filla. In Moravian
Ostrava Procházka remains alone with himself and begins to implement his own
ideas in the artwork, based on the experience that he received in Prague.
15 Umělecký měsíčník: časopis Skupiny výtvarných umělců. Praha: Tiskové družstvo skupiny výtvarných umělců v Praze, 1912, roč. 1. 16 WINTER, Tomáš. Marcela Macharáčková - Lubomír Slavíček - Alena Krkošková (ed.): Antonín Procházka 1882-1945. Umění: časopis Ústavu dějin umění. 2003, roč. 51, č. 5, s. 447. 12 2.2 The art context
On the way to creating a new art forms young artists had a big interest in the experi-
mentation with colors, shapes and different techniques. Their art development goes
through various stages from Expressionism, for Procházka also french Fauvism,
gradually moving into Cubism. Libuše Halásová noted17 that according to Procházka’s
personal notes his early work was developing in these stages: The beginnings: until
spring of 1907, Color: spring 1907 – 1908, Modulation of light, dark and color: spring
1908 – 1909.18 In all the mentioned above years the focus was put primarily on color,
later the attention was switched to form. This transition was connected, of course,
with changes in Parisian art, where appeared the new tendency in stereotomization
of forms. In 1909 Bohumil Kubišta wrote “color is already overcome, it is all primarily
about form and it will take about two years to catch up with France“.19 Antonín
Procházka came up with the same conclusion after his trip to Paris in the same year,
he realized there, that the constructive tendencies are taking over the “color princi-
ple” and it was already obvious from Derain’s, Picasso’s and Braque’s paintings. 20 He
supposedly had a chance to see Picasso’s paintings in Paris, or most likely, in Vincenc
Kramář’s collection in Prague. Procházka accepted this new style as a next step in his
art, so did all the other artists of his circles.
At that time in Paris, Cubism was already fully flourished. Cubism in France started
developing in 1907 and was built on the legacy of Paul Cézanne’s artwork, primitive
17 L. Halasová does not refer to any source that provide this information. Perhaps, the information was taken from a random notes of Antonín Procházka from the Moravian Gallery in Brno. 18 HALASOVÁ, Antonín Procházka. 1949, p. 24. 19 BENEŠ Vincenc: Úryvky z pamětí, in: Výtvarné umění V, 1970, p. 237. 20 MACHARÁČKOVÁ, Marcela and a group of authors, Antonín Procházka 1882-1945. 2002, p. 29. 13 art and discovery of Nigerian sculptures. In Czech art this distinctive style developed
very different from Paris, original way. In Сubism young artists saw the “safe ground
on which to build a new style”21, Cubism here was one of the further experiments in
painting. To accept and follow these new style concepts meant to stay on the same
level with Parisian innovations, but in the race for the Parisian trends, young artists
tried not to lose their individuality, otherwise it would have been a blind imitation.
For that reason they just took the main visual characteristics of Cubism and endowed
them with their individual values, the tradition of synthesis remained present. They
were actually using this new trend as a basis for developing their own ideas. Thus in
1910 Cubism, that started to spread among Czech artists, was not Cubism in its pure
meaning. The tradition of previous influences, especially Expressionism was still
relatively actual. Beneš recollected the situation: “At that time we were already fully
in expressionism, which parallely corresponded to the French Fauvism, and no wonder
that in this stage Cubism of Braque and Picasso with its new analysis of a shape opened
to us as a next field.”22
The initial stage of Cubism here appeared in a form of a synthesis of an expressionis-
tic emotional content and geometrical forms23, Miroslav Lamač named this new-
ly-formed style Cubo-Expressionism. It seems, though, that the term is too narrow
and generalized, as the tendency that was formed in that period was more complicat-
ed than just two of this styles mixture. Alongside with expressionist tradition, that
was still actual, there were some other elements such as, for example, individual
preferences of each artist. In the early stage of Cubism were also involved many oth-
er styles and inspirations, including the old art, some classical, baroque and even
21 KUTAL, Antonín Procházka. 1959, p. 10. 22 BENEŠ Vincenc: Úryvky z pamětí, in: Výtvarné umění V, 1970, p. 238. 23 LAHODA, Vojtěch. Český kubismus. Vyd. 1. Praha: Brána, 1996, p. 25. 14 gothic elements. However, the style, that was later defined as Cubo-Expressionism
was flourishing in Czech art aproximately in years of 1910 – 1913.
The transition to Cubism, personally for Antonín Procházka, was a quite logical
conclusion of the previous stages of his art development. It is known that he has al-
ready worked with similar concepts in some of his earlier paintings before Cubism
was even known publicly. If the dating of his works was correct, than already in 1907
in a “Fruits and Jug” (img.2) and “Bouquet in a Vase” (img.3) he worked with
stereotomic elements and simplified forms resembling Cubism. Vincent Kramář and
Marcela Macharáčková agreed with the dating, Miroslav Lamač, though, puts „Fruit
and a jug” to 1908 -190924, however, it was still before 1910. One more example of
using cubist principles is the painting “Circus” (img.4) from 1907, where Procházka
used the different viewing angles, another important principle of Cubism, but those
concepts were not developed any further until 1910.25
All these paintings with simplified geometric elements indicate his openness to
experimentation in this area. Procházka’s interest in Fauvism and especially in art of
André Derain might have also played a key role in his future development. Derain, as
a successful continuator of Paul Cézanne, continued in developing of his schematic,
geometrical principles. The main principle of Cézanne’s art is basically the simplifica-
tion of a natural forms: “..natural forms is necessary to simplify according to the forms
of cylinders, spheres and cones and everything should be attached to a proper
perspective so that each side of an object or surface faces the central point.”26 Under
24 viz note 74 in: MACHARÁČKOVÁ, Marcela and a group of authors, Antonín Procházka 1882-1945. 2002, p. 40. 25 MACHARÁČKOVÁ, Marcela and a group of authors, Antonín Procházka 1882-1945. 2002, p. 40. 26 LAMAČ, Miroslav. Myšlenky moderních malířů: od Cézanna po Dalího. 4. přeprac. vyd. Praha: Odeon, 1989, p. 31. 15 the influence of André Derain, in 1910, Procházka created „Bathing“ (img.5), using
primitive edgy forms.
Closer to 1910 it was already clear in which direction his art was going to move and
Procházka began to develop his creativity in the style of Cubism. The year 1910 was
marked by such works as “Still Life on a Table” (img.6), “Landscape with Factory
Chimneys” (img.7), “Lady with a fan” (img.8) the year ends with the “Prometheus”.
Alongside with the appearance of geometrization in Procházka's artworks began to
reflect study of the old art, iconographic and mythological subjects started to appear
and mostly in dramatic content. Vojtěch Lahoda called it “the period of glare of
Mannerism and Baroque“27 due to its dramatic character and El Greco's influence. It
seems that El Greco, just like Munch in 1905, has become the young artists's soul
mate. For his century, El Greco was also a rebel, he did not follow the standards and
strict rules, that were demanded by church, his manner of depicting noticeably
stands out from other artists. Greco's technique Emil Filla perceived as a very close
to Cubism: “Fixed illusion of an object he composes on multiple perspectives: he does
not want to represent the subject with one glance, he rather shows it from all sides at
once."28 Procházka's admiration of El Greco started to reflect already in 1909 in his
“Study After El Greco” (img.9), where he is copying the figure of a beggar from the
painting “St. Martin and the Beggar” 1597 – 1599 (img.10). At the turn of the year he
painted a paraphrase of the same painting - “Saint Martin” 1909 – 1910 (img.11).
With the advent of Cubism, Greco's influence did not disappear, even in the first cu-
bist work “Prometheus” was noticeably influenced by his art as well.
27 LAHODA, Vojtěch. Antonín Procházka ve dvacátých letech. Published in Bulletin Moravské galerie v Brně Moravská galerie (Brno, Česko) Brno : Moravská galerie, 1980- ,49 (1993) ,p. 27. 28 FILLA, Emil. O umělcích. Vyd. 1. Editor Stanislav Kolíbal. Praha: Arbor vitae, 2005, p. 28. 16 French and Czech artists were guided by some common sources which is the art of
Cézanne, Derain and El Greco, with the exception, that Czech Cubism demanded nar-
rativeness when French Cubism was primarily about the “thing in itself”29 without
any further symbolic meaning. Art for them was about creative plastic forms
endowed with independent existence and value. The idea of the “thing in itself” did
not suit well to the art of Procházka at that particular period of time, apparently he
had some message to proclaim. Internal content of his art was important, his begin-
nings in Cubism as a result were connected with religious and classical subjects, that
allowed him to symbolically indicate the idea of a painting .
29 LAHODA, Český kubismus. 1996, p. 28. 17 3. Prometheus of Antonín Procházka
Classical mythology has been inspiring painters, musicians and writers throughout centuries. The Twentieth century was not an exception, in spite of revolutionary moods and rejection of traditional elements, mythological and biblical subjects did not disappear from the art stage, but were reinterpreted and represented in a new appearance corresponding with artist's individuality and his epoch. Significant inter- est in Classical subjects in the works of Antonín Procházka became especially evident and flourished in his late art, in the thirties and the first half of forties, but the incli- nation to such themes had appeared earlier. In spite of his belonging to certain artis- tic associations, which entailed working on developing common interests and ideas of all of its members, Procházka was still tending to develop individually in his artwork. There were some elements in his art, that distinguished his individual spe- cific character. Since the earliest works there were paintings, that are reminiscent of his admiration of classicism such as „Danae“, “A Woman in the Water”, “Labourer“ and “Kidnap”. It is known, that in 1909 Procházka went on a trip, this time to Italy, where he supposedly had a chance to study or get inspired by antiquity. In the same year he created two oil paintings titled “Bacchanalia”, which foreshadowed his interest in mythological themes. Specifically to the myth of Prometheus in his art he turned twice. Two of these paintings are based on two different key moments of the myth; Prometheus bringing fire to people and Prometheus being bound. Not only
Procházka, but other artists of his generation did not believe in a complete expiry of traditions, among their works can still be found Saints, figures from Christian iconog- raphy and Greco-Roman mythology. The names of their paintings speak for them-
18 selves: “The Raising of Lazarus”, “Saint Sebastian”, “The Judgment of Paris” ,“Salome”,
and others. It was a hallmark of the early stage of Czech Cubism in a period approxi-
mately from 1910 to 1912. However it was not characteristic for the circles of
Procházka only, similar subjects were widely used by other artists and writers. A
good example of using myth about Prometheus in fine art is František Kupka’s cycle
of illustrations for “Prometheus in Chains” and a painting „Prometheus“ 1909-10
(img.12), that was mentioned by Vojtěch Lahoda relating to Procházka's work, as a
painting that indicate the transitional period in switching of styles.
Myths are universally known tales, everybody knows at least few of them and famil-
iar with the names of mythological characters, so that way, myths allow an author to
communicate with the public and denounce his idea through symbolic imagery of the
mythological character. It is known, that mythological Prometheus was suffering the
punishment on Caucasian rock and tortured by an eagle that was pecking his liver.
However, it is not as simple as that, the story behind the punishment has an impor-
tant meaning, which may explain the reason why Prometheus was chosen for
Procházka’s work and how it possibly corresponds with that particular period of his
life.
Already the earliest appearances of mythological Prometheus in literary sources de-
fine his controversial character. He was presented by authors in a different light: as a
rebel, an initiator of culture, the plasticator and creator of mankind, and most impor-
tantly as the founder of all arts.30 The work of Aeschylus was used as the basis for the
further development of the story in later centuries. With time, Prometheus in culture
was no longer represented as a deity or titan, as it was in ancient context, but an
30 RAGGIO, Olga. The Myth of Prometheus: Its Survival and Metamorphoses up to the Eighteenth Century. Jstor.org [online]. 1958, roč. 21, 1/2, p. 44. 19 ordinary human being, endowed with some special qualities, such as excessive
wisdom and an immense talent in art.31 Artists began to compare themselves to
Prometheus and use this character as a metaphor in their works. It was quite natural
for the period of the development of subjectivism and individualism, when artists
concentrate on their own feelings and often compare the depicted figure with
themselves.
Where did the idea of Prometheus come from for Antonín Procházka? Mythology
underlies a large part of fine, literary and other arts and Procházka, as a well-
educated person, was certainly familiar with the myth and some of its variations. We
will take a closer look at the literature and visual art. As it is already known,
Procházka always loved classical art, Renaissance and Baroque, it requires us to find
an answer among the paintings of old masters. Among baroque artists the subject of
suffering and other strong emotional states is a constant phenomenon and its’ char-
acteristic feature and the chained Prometheus also appeared quite often. However,
ideologically, Procházka's Prometheus refers rather to the literature of the Nine-
teenth century, that was read by the members of Osma and Skupina výtvarných uměl-
ců. The image of Prometheus started to be used more frequently especially since Jo-
hann Wolfgang von Goethe32, who returned to the figure of Prometheus in his works
several times, in a period from 1773 to 1830. Goethe emphasized Promethean cre-
ative power and showed a dignity of a free creator. After Goethe, Prometheus ap-
peared in works of J. G. Herder, G. E. Lessing, A. W. Schlegel and other authors of the
Nineteenth century. Since that time Prometheus became a widely used symbol, that
was reinterpreted by following generations of Romantics, Symbolists and later in the
31 GAVRILINA, Maria. Myatezny obraz. In: Gavrilinam.narod.ru [online]. 2004. 32 RAGGIO, Olga. The Myth of Prometheus: Its Survival and Metamorphoses up to the Eighteenth Century. [online]. 1958, p. 44. 20 Twentieth century. Romanticism "discovered" the relationship of the audience and a
work of art33, in that case, it was important to communicate with public, and using
myths is one of the easiest ways to do it. Procházka most likely had the same inten-
tion.
The generation of Romantics with such personalities as Lord Byron, Mary Shelley,
Percy Shelley and, Schlegel brothers saw in Prometheus a representation of rebellion
and bravery, that was used to reflect their own rejection of current circumstances,
which limited their personal freedom. Thus Prometheus character was used to em-
phasize the revolutionary overtones. The late Nineteenth century was as productive
in a sense of Promethean ideas, Friedrich Nietzsche used a figure of Prometheus as a
marker of the relationship between ancient Greece and Modern Germany in his The
birth of tragedy from the spirit of Music 1872.34 Prometheus also became an inspira-
tion for H. W. Longfellow, J. Péladan, A. Gide, and others. The symbol of rebellion and
the struggle for personal freedom, that wanted to throw off the shackles of limited
space35 reflected the main goal for the artist of the new generation, which is getting
more freedom and having less obstacles to creativity.
The idea of using a classical myth for the painting could have also been an intentional
accentuation of the subject, that refers more to the traditional art, in an attempt to
highlight the contrast between “old” and “new” generations. Prometheus, that
appeared in the painting of Antonín Procházka had passed through centuries and
was adapted to the modern times, it was a collective image of a suffering hero.
Procházka chose the subject of chained Prometheus, perhaps, because he identified
33 KROUPA, Jiří. Školy dějin umění: metodologie dějin umění 1. 2., přeprac. vyd. Brno: Masarykova univerzi- ta, 2007, p. 96. 34 LECZNAR, A. Aryan, German, or Greek? Nietzsche's Prometheus between antiquity and modernity. Classical Receptions Journal [online]. 2012-12-20, vol. 5, issue 1, s. 38-62. 35 KARPOV, Andrei. Prometei i evropeiskaya kultura. In: Culturolog.ru [online]. 2010. 21 the figure of Prometheus with his generation of young artists, who were unsuccess-
fully fighting for progressiveness in art. Here he touched upon the most disturbing
problem for young Czech painters at that period - the strong criticism towards their
artworks. The words of Kubišta described their discomfort: “Modern movements,
with their essential progressiveness, have suffered most from criticism, but thus far it
has never reached the stage of public approbation.”36
For successful spread of new level in art it was necessary to overcome criticism, until
it was in power, artists could not consider their mission successfully completed. The
moment of unjust suffering Bohumil Kubišta, for example, depicted in the figure of
Saint Sebastian37 in his painting from 1912. In both cases, “Prometheus” and “Saint
Sebastian” (img.13), it was used as an allegory of a rejected artist, the opposition to
the public, that did not want to accept this artist.
Since the time of Aeschylus, the fire, that was brought by Prometheus was perceived
not only as a natural element, but also as a spark of divine wisdom, which
distinguishes man from the lower creatures, as the source of mankind knowledge of
the arts and sciences. In short, the purpose of Prometheus was to save people from
ignorance.38 The suffering Prometheus represents the tragedy of man’s often futile
attempts to fulfill his potential. For many modern artists his agony has symbolized
the individual’s fight against oppression, and the (artist’s) attainment of progress
through suffering.39
36 KUBIŠTA, Bohumil a František KUBIŠTA. Předpoklady slohu: úvahy, kritiky, polemiky. Praha: Otto Girgal, 1947, p. 115. 37 SSVESTKA, Jirřií, Tomaísř VLCSEK, Pavel LISSKA a Jaroslav ANDESL. Czech cubism 1909-1925: art, architecture, design. Prague: Modernista, c2006, p. 18. 38 KARPOV, Andrei. Prometei i evropeiskaya kultura. In: Culturolog.ru [online]. 2010. 39 BERNSTOCK Judith E., Classical Mythology in Twentieth-Century Art: An Overview of a Humanistic Approach, Artibus et Historiae 27, XIV, 1993, p. 161-162. 22 4. Prometheus painting
4.1 The theme of the painting – Myth
The earliest mentions of Prometheus were original Greek literary sources, most im-
portant among them were Hesiod’s Theogony and Works and Days, Aeschylus’s trilo-
gy Prometheus Bound, Prometheus Unbound, Prometheus the Fire-Bringer, Plato’s Pro-
tagoras, and Ovid’s Metamorphoses. The story of Prometheus can be interpreted in
different ways, already Aeschylus and Hesiod differ in opinions and create two abso-
lutely opposite judgments upon Prometheus. Hesiod condemns Prometheus as a fire
theft and a liar. Unlike Hesiod, Aeschylus in his tragedy Prometheus Bound shows
Prometheus as the patron of mankind, the hero, who tolerates undeserved punish-
ment from Gods, exactly Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus became demanded in
European culture. Since Goethe and following by the great Romantics, Byron, Shelley,
Longfellow, Nietzsche, saw in him the embodiment of their ideals of freedom and re-
bellion.40 Prometheus shows up as well in the form of the creator of mankind. Ovid
opens his Metamorphoses with the picture of the first days of the humans shaped
with clay and water by Prometheus in the image of the gods.41 Prometheus’s torture
is referred to as an inspiring example of heroic endurance by Cicero, Plutarch sees in
the Titan an embodiment of human reason. The myth of Prometheus remains influ-
ential until our days.
Prometheus the “Forethought” was a Titan in Greek mythology who was also a cre-
ator of humankind from clay and water and their protector from Zeus, who wanted
40 RAGGIO, Olga. The Myth of Prometheus: Its Survival and Metamorphoses up to the Eighteenth Century. [online]. 1958, p. 44. 41 Ibidem. 23 to destroy mankind. The story started with an episode where Prometheus tricked
Zeus in Mecone in benefit of human. He brought out sacrificed ox and split it in two piles, he set meat hidden under skin, and bones covered with juicy fat made it look unattractive and made Zeus to pick one pile, he picked the bones. Angry for being tricked, Zeus refused to give fire to mortal man, but Prometheus stole the sacred fire and brought it to people in a hollow fennel stalk. He taught them arts and gave them a lot of knowledges such as counting, reading and writing. He also discovered metals for people and gave them skill of metalwork. Prometheus put wild beasts on the yoke, so they could serve to people. He also built the first ship with a linen sail.
Prometheus taught people everything that facilitates the sorrows of life and makes it happier, he enabled progress and civilization. For that he was punished by mighty
Zeus and was bound to a caucassian rock at a spot of earth by Hephaestus and
Kratos. Since than every morning an eagle, the symbol of Zeus, flew there to eat his immortal liver that by night grew back again. Prometheus refused to obey Zeus, that might have help him to be free, and proudly bore his punishment. Prometheus was also a prophet, he knew that one day he will be rescued and that Zeus's reign will not last for too long. Prometheus also knew a secret of how to avoid overthrowing of
Zeus, but he refused to tell. Long time passed by before Heracles finally released
Prometheus and killed an eagle by an arrow.
24 5. Prometheus painting
5. 1 Description
The oil painting on canvas, it is 110 x 88 cm. Signed: “Ant. Procházka 1911”
Antonín Procházka started working on “Prometheus” in spring of 1910 and finished it in the beginning of the next year. There is one preparatory graphical sketch for this painting.
The painting was exhibited for the first time at the first exhibition of Skupina výtvarných umělců in January - February of 1912 in Prague’s Municipal House. The
“Prometheus” was purchased in 1929 and now belongs to collection of modern and contemporary art in Moravská galerie [ Moravian Gallery ] in Brno.
The painting depicts a man chained to a rock in a hanging position, with his knees bent and arms lifted up. On the left of the figure we see a big bird flying close. The de- tails let us recognize the figure of chained Prometheus at the moment when he was about to be tortured by an eagle. The drapery is slightly covering his body, traditional depicting of ancient clothing.
Composition is asymmetrical and rather diagonal, it is emphasized with a drapery and diagonal strokes emanating from a light source in the upper part of the picture.
As every cubist painting it has no background depth and linear perspective, all the objects seem to be placed on the same two-dimensional surface, the flatness was de- liberately emphasized.
25 Visually, the composition can be divided into two parts vertically, the right side is darker and it is overloaded with details, those are fractures of a rock, figure of
Prometheus and a heavy drapery on his hips. The main compositional lines visually remind zigzags; ranging from the hand movement down the diagonal drapery, bent legs and finishing at the bottom edge of a cliff. Linearly emphasized fractures accentuate this sophisticated body construction.
The painting was created in a limited rage of colors, primarily in muffled, gray tones, which make it look almost monochromatic, it is variations of brown, dirty yellow and gray. These neutral tones are typical for the art of Cubism and the color palette was corresponding with this tradition. All the shades and hard edges are emphasized with black lines, another characteristic feature of cubist painting, it deliberately ac- centuate the stereotomic elements by its contours. In spite of priority of gray tones, colors are light enough, not very dark and suppressing, mostly because of the lightweight left part of the composition and the light source above the head of
Prometheus, that illuminates other objects. The background, painted with parallel brushstrokes, creates an impression of spreading light rays, it might be a trial of de- picting the light atmosphere of an unseen presence of the Promethean fire.
The coloring, though, is not that important, all the attention is focused rather on the form. On a closer examination it is noticeable, that the work was painted with a small brushstrokes in different directions, the background is covered with a thin coat of paint just to cover the surface. The attention was concentrated primarily on the cen- tral area, which is the figure of Prometheus. The figure is highlighted with the con- trast of light tones also emphasized with thick patches of white color on the body and face, and it is with black contours.
26 From far away, all the elements: the mountain, drapery and an eagle merge together
and are difficult to distinguish, but the figure stands out and its' complex body posi-
tion adds dynamics to the composition. As there is no traditional elements for ex-
pressing the atmosphere such as depth, scope and color, the whole emphasis of the
painting is focused on the sophisticated position of the figure of Prometheus, other
details are secondary. The preparatory sketch is basically just a study of the figure in
two different positions, standing and hanging, the last one was picked as the final
variation that was used for the painting. The figure is literally inserted into the pic-
ture frame, there is almost no space around it, as if the author wanted nothing to
distract the attention of the viewer from Prometheus. The painting is memorable for
its simplicity and at the same time originality.
The “Prometheus” is Procházka's own variation of early Cubism, it combines in itself
the geometrical cubist forms, symbolic context and with reference to the old art. By
the style of its' execution and the period, painting belongs to the tradition of Czech
Cubo-Expressionism.
“Cubist shattered, but still readable forms of figures (or objects) is mixed with
expressively charged deconstruction.“42
The “Prometheus” is usually introduced as a cubist painting, Albert Kutal, though,
doesn’t put it together with “St. Martin”, “Bathing” and “Still Life on a Table” to Cu-
bism yet, in his opinion „they are just relying on Picasso’s paintings.“43 Which is a mat-
ter of dispute, as there is no special features that would indicate its relation specifi-
cally to the work of Picasso. Perhaps, Kutal talks only about the tradition of Cubism
in general, that was invented by Picasso and associated mainly with this artist.
42 LAHODA, Vojtěch. Český kubismus. 1996, p. 25. 43 KUTAL, Albert. Antonín Procházka. 1959, p. 27. 27 Miroslav Lamač as well, does not classify the painting among cubist, he puts it to the
context of so called “Smaller Cubists” and explained, that the painting is related to the
work of Henri Le Fauconnier “L'Abondance“ from 1910-11 (img.14), who was as
Procházka, a novice in Cubism. The relation of two of these paintings, of course, is ac-
cidental. Both of the paintings are pre-cubistic and rely on El Greco's manner.44
So it is hard to strictly classify if ”Prometheus” is a cubo-expressionistic or a cubist
work, it represents rather the transition to Cubism, or the first serious trial in
Cubism, that in Czech art corresponded to Cubo-Expressionism due to its expressive
dramatical subject. One of the most tense moments here depicted in simplified edgy
shapes, but details are still distinctive, it is not necessary to check the name of the
painting first, to recognize Prometheus here. Starting with this painting onward,
Procházka goes on and on trying to simplicate forms, in ”Prometheus” though, he did
not go so far, so the painting is on the range of this transition.
44 LAMAČ, Miroslav. Osma a Skupina výtvarných umělců: 1907-1917. 1. vyd. Praha: Odeon, 1988, p. 203. 28 5.2 Comparisons
There is a noticeable lack of complete independence of an individual Procházka's
style, “Prometheus” is another example of experimentation with borrowing elements
from other artworks. As it was mentioned by Vojtěch Lahoda, it is very complicated
to trace the primary source of inspiration, because he “only chose what was
intrinsically close to his artistic temperament”.45 Based on the current trend of Cubism
Procházka created an artwork, which with its own peculiarities refers to the heritage
of the old masters. Selection of the classical subject with dramatical composition
indicates a possible link with the Baroque art. In comparison to his previous works it
is clearly noticeable, that the figure was depicted in a non characteristic manner for
Procházka. It is evident already from the preparatory sketch, that the figure was
performed in the manner close to El Greco. Vojtěch Lahoda confirmed it with words:
“This figure is rather synthetic in the sense of evocation of more impulses including, of
course, El Greco.”46 As to form, Lahoda sees the connection of “Prometheus” primarily
with Peter Paul Rubens47. Among Rubens's paintings, that could have served as a
prototype for “Prometheus” he mentioned “Andromeda” 1638 (img.15), which
Procházka had a chance to see in the Berlin museum during his study trip in 1906.
The previous version of this painting was “Perseus and Andromeda” 1636 (img.16).
The similarity here only in the body depiction, the same pose, gestures, and the same
motif of the chained figure. Another painting Lahoda mentioned due to figure depic-
tion similarity was “The Rape of Ganymede” 1611-1612 (img.17), that Procházka
could find in current publications. Lahoda supports his conjectures using
45 LAHODA, Vojtěch. Antonín Procházka ve dvacátých letech. Published in Bulletin Moravské galerie v Brně Moravská galerie (Brno, Česko) Brno : Moravská galerie, 1980- ,49 (1993), p. 27. 46 Ibidem. 47 Ibidem. 29 Procházka's personal notes48, that show his obvious interest in Rubens's manner of
depicting human bodies, he divides them into 3 types: 1. corporal, organic 2. neutral
– body – passive 3. bestial – gaze oriented to the destination.49 Lahoda suggests, that
he was captivated by the first type of gesture, and eventually transformed it into the
spiral or rotational pose. The zigzag forms of Prometheus might have also been one
of his first trials in developing this principle of depicting bodies.
It is not known for sure, whether the artist was guided by one particular painting as
a paradigm among baroque paintings, that he had a chance to see in the past. All of
the mentioned above paintings were chosen primarily due to a visual similarity of a
body position. If the aim is to find a prototype of a figure, than a lot of similar
paintings come into view. In addition to the paintings listed by Vojtěch Lagoda can
also be mentioned, for example, the “Martyrdom of St. Sebastian” from circa 1803 by
François-Guillaume Ménageot (img.18) and “Martyrdom of St. Sebastian” 1849 by
Honore Daumier (img.19). These guesses stay too ephemeral. Most likely, Procházka,
as one of synthetics, was not confined to just one picture as the main inspiration.
Сonnection with any of mentioned above paintings remains a conjecture, while the
influence of El Greco is more obvious. Some common elements with El Greco are rec-
ognizable here, it is the distortion of the body, marked with disproportionate elonga-
tion, which is the distinctive feature of El Greco, gestures and angularity. Thus the
body of Prometheus evidently corresponds with El Greco's manner, that he obtained
in his late works, when his art became more free in expression and acquired its
distinctive individual character marked with flat appearance and simplified unpro-
portional forms. The motif of the figure faced up appealed to heaven in a prayer 48 Random notes of Antonín Procházka that are kept in a Moravian gallery in Brno, information published in: LAHODA, Vojtěch. Antonín Procházka ve dvacátých letech. 199, p. 28. 49 Ibidem. 30 trance with hands lifted up can be found on many of Greco's works: “The Resurrec- tion” 1595 (img.20), “Laocoön” 1610 (img.21), “Baptism of Christ” 1608 (img.22),
“Opening of the Fifth Seal” 1608-14 (img.23). The last one is the most striking example, it is also known as “The Fifth Seal of the Apocalypse” or “The Vision of St.
John”, it was admired by modernist artists, and it is not surprising that Procházka was guided by it in his work as well. Already from the first glance at both pictures, El
Greco's and Procházka's their similarity is obvious. The front figure of Saint John most likely served as a direct inspiration for Prometheus as the reversed version.
Both figures have similar body posture, gestures of hands, head position, even facial similarity even though in Procházka's version it is too simplified. In the case of Saint
John, the figure is not nude, but the technique of depiction of clothing folds by using spiky, edgy lines visually corresponds with the body of Prometheus, constructed with edgy forms, not yet purely cubist.
All the mentioned possible prototypes and inspirations might, or might not play the key role in a process of creating of “Prometheus”, however, every of listed above paintings, including “Prometheus”, remain in history as a unique and original piece of art.
31 5.3 Interpretation
As was mentioned before, what was missing in new raised art styles is narrativeness.
Modern art, especially Cubism, was too honest and forthright, the painting is becom-
ing just an object.50 For this reason Procházka touches upon a mythological subject
with symbolic meaning behind it, which facilitates the possible interpretation.
“The work of art is an embodiment of some thought, or it would be more proper to say
feeling."51
In opinion of Alena Krkošková, Procházka “used it to address a personal dilemma of
religious faith and atheism.”52 She also referred to Vojtěch Lahoda, who mentioned
that the impulse for the painting may have come from Goethe's Faust, where he
questioned the absolute power of the gods, and showed that the God can be replaced
by a human being.53 Vojtěch Lahoda sees some other possible interpretations of
“Prometheus” in Faust, he mentioned the motif of revitalization of inorganic nature
when Wagner in the tube creates his Humunkulus.54
"It works! The moving mass grows clearer,
and my conviction the more certain:
what`s been extolled an Nature`s mystery
can be investigated, if but Reason dare,
50 The idea of a Tableau-objet, painting is just an object, its' flatness is deliberately emphasized LAMAČ, Miroslav. Osma a Skupina výtvarných umělců: 1907-1917. 1988, p. 174. 51 PEČÍRKA, Jaromír. Antonín Procházka, 1945, p. 16. 52 MACHARÁČKOVÁ, Marcela and a group of authors, Antonín Procházka 1882-1945. 2002, p. 130. 53 KARPOV, Andrei. Prometei i evropeiskaya kultura. In: Culturolog.ru [online]. 2010. 54 LAHODA, Vojtěch. Antonín Procházka ve dvacátých letech.1993, p. 30. 32 and what she used to let be just organic
we can produce by crystallizing."55
The main focus here is on crystalline forms in assistance which formed a figure of
Prometheus, that „incorporates animated breath into inanimate nature,
anthropomorphize it“.56 The idea of mixture of organic and inorganic nature seems to
make sense, Prometheus indeed looks like the figure, that had grown into the rock,
because of the commixture of lines and patches of color. It also might be a visual
effect due to the technique, in which the “Prometheus” was painted.
Lahoda also sees the same ideological basis of Procházka's work with František
Kupka's “Prometheus” 1909 – 1910 in the idea of Promethean development in cre-
ation. Kupka claimed that in every artist slumbers "ingenious Prometheus", the
symbol of liberation, divine wisdom and creative inspiration. 57 Hence, Prometheus in
this context is primarily a personification of creativity in general and the fire of
Prometheus is a symbol of new discoveries in art, which coincided with the reality of
both authors. Kupka's painting was linked with the period of changeover to
Abstraction, and Procházka's “Prometheus” in that sense is a symbol of what opened
to him at that period with Cubism.58 However, there is a significant discrepancy
between the choices of subjects, in case of František Kupka, Prometheus depicted as
a hero, the proud fire-bringer with an athletic body of a Greek Titan and it all
emphasized with bright radiant colors. In case of Antonín Procházka the image of
Prometheus is completely different, the depicted moment emphasizes suffering, not
55 GOETHE, Johann Wolfgang von, Walter Arnold KAUFMANN a Johann Wolfgang von GOETHE. Goethe's Faust: the original German and a new translation and introduction [online]. New York: Anchor Books, [1989], c1961, p. 176. 56 LAHODA, Vojtěch. Antonín Procházka ve dvacátých letech. 1993, p. 30. 57 Ibidem, p. 29. 58 Ibidem. 33 the triumph of the fire-bringer, which implies further interpretation. Considering
general tendency to pessimism dominating in the work of Procházka's generation, it
is quite logical to assume, that he was not trying to concentrate on the optimist's
note only, which is the opened way to the new level in art.
Thus we come to the theme of Prometheus as a martyr suffering a punishment from
Zeus, as a metaphor for the artist, suffering from constant judgments of his art. This
theme had appeared in his art before in 1909 in paintings “Christ and Pharisees”
(img.24) and “Expulsion of the merchants from the Temple” (img.25). These paintings
were mentioned by Marcela Macharáčková and Miroslav Lamač, they agreed that the
two paintings reflect artist's personal thoughts on the situation in which young
artists found themselves. “Both works are period moralities, the biblical themes pro-
vide an excuse for an allegorical criticism of the unsatisfactory situation in art.” 59 One
year later, when Procházka accepted new tendencies, he knew that the new, even
more radical experiments are going to be taken as harsh as previous ones. Artists un-
derstood the complexity of the situation in which they found themselves due to their
own initiative, they knew that the public most likely was not going to approve their
innovations.
Bohumil Kubišta in 1910 in a letter to Vincenc Beneš wrote: “We are too wild for
Prague and as a consequence we do not have a base there, we are suspended between
heaven and earth”.60
It might be possible that Procházka was just trying to find the most suitable option
for the transmission of the one specific idea; the vision of young artists by them-
59 MACHARÁČKOVÁ, Marcela and a group of authors, Antonín Procházka 1882-1945. 2002, p. 41. 60 ČEŘOVSKÝ, František, František KUBIŠTA, Bohumil KUBIŠTA. Bohumil Kubišta: korespondence a úvahy. 1. vyd. Praha: Státní nakladatelství krásné literatury, hudby a umění, 1960, p. 127. 34 selves as a heroes fighting for progress against disapproving public and judgmental
critics corresponded well will the bound Prometheus. The judgmental public here is
symbolized by an eagle, torturing his body. Procházka here emphasized the suffering
of a rejected painter with his repressed ambitions. Just as biblical, if not better,
mythological subject allowed to provide an allegorical meaning for everyone to un-
derstand and it also suited well to his idea of an artwork, that supposed to “be valid
for all people of all times and nations.”61 Considering Cubism a promising movement
in art, and most understandable to artists of tomorrow, he tried to convey the idea of
classic Prometheus to the public by means of Cubism.
As a result, we have a unique combination of classical subject and progressive style
of the Twentieth century, it attracts the attention of a viewer, but without knowing
the specific features of Procházka's creativity, this unusual representation can be
taken as a sarcastic reinterpretation of the Classical myth. While the Baroque
masters tried to give as much drama and affection in a pose, facial expression and
contrasts of colors, this distorted stereotomic figure of Prometheus may even look
comical. Shackles are shown conventionally, they do not keep figure chained to a
rock, but rather hang freely on his arms. Another dissonance is in the depiction of an
eagle, that supposed to be the symbol of the main danger, here is shown like a small-
sized harmless creature, while mythology describes a big terrifying eagle, and so it
was depicted in majority, if not all the paintings of old masters. In one of Kupka's il-
lustrations to Prometheus in chains, Prometheus was even sitting on an eagle to em-
phasize its gigantic size.
61 LAHODA, Vojtěch. Český kubismus. 1996, p. 25. 35 Perhaps, because of all of these sometimes not very suitable combinations and wild
experiments the art of Prague Cubo-Expressionists by most of the public was not
taken seriously, moreover their art was openly ridiculed.62 From today’s perspective,
though, it does not look that ridiculous, Cubism, that was adapted by the generation
of Skupina výtvarných umělců, widespread not only in painting, but also in applied
arts and architecture.
But in the period of “Prometheus” the next exhibition promised to be just as strongly
criticized as previous ones, and artists realized that. In the eyes of artists themselves
it was the fight for a new art, that supposed to bring better changes. According to the
myth of Prometheus he was a prophet and he knew that he is going to be rescued af-
ter all. Coincidentally or not, his face on the painting is directed upward, towards the
light in the upper part right above the head of the figure, it could be an indication of
hope for better changes, or the symbolic light of Promethean fire of wisdom.
Despite the fact, that the painting was an important turning point in a sense of chang-
ing style to Cubism, in which he subsequently worked for a considerable part of his
life, the ideological context here is very important as well. It is quite possible, that in
that turbulent atmosphere, one of the main disturbances of the artist that was at the
center of attention was his failure in the art scene. Taking into account high
ambitions of the generation of Osma and the Skupina výtvarných umělců, the fact that
their manifestations were not accepted and strongly suppressed, mixed together
with pessimistic atmosphere influenced by ideas of Schopenhauer and reading
Goethe and other mystical, pessimistic or sentimental literature, caused similar
moods in subjects of the artworks. Pessimism was not characteristic for Antonín 62 in 1912 were even published the caricatures in Humoristické listy LV, 1912, No 44, 18 October. The comic magazine mocked cubism since the beginning of 1912, starting with the first cubist exhibition of Skupina výtvarných umělců. 36 Procházka, his contemporaries defined him as an optimistic and cheerful person. In
seclusion, outside of Prague, his personal character gradually became apparent in a
greater extent, and eventually turned his art to a direction completely different from
the early period in his art. For comparison, the later version of Prometheus is not a
martyr hanging on a rock, but triumphant, engine of progress and earner of fire,
which in turn corresponds to the atmosphere of that period, in which the picture was
painted. Only at the late period of his career, Procházka's art was finally accepted.
The prevailing atmosphere of the period of time reflected in the main idea behind the
“Prometheus“ painting. Mythological Prometheus is an example of a sacrifice for
progress and perseverance despite all sufferings.
There are, of course, other possibilities of perceiving the painting, as it was said by
Antonín Procházka “The painting is uncalculated and unpredictable, it affects you
again and again, it keeps showing the new aspects, that we have not observed
previously.”63
63 PEČÍRKA, Jaromír. Antonín Procházka. 1945, p. 19. 37 6. Conclusion
In my work i was focusing on the interpretation of the Antonín Procházka's painting
“Prometheus”, that was created during a very unstable situation in the artist’s personal life and the art circles which he belonged to. The “Prometheus”, based on the classical mythology, was painted in a new for Procházka technique, he just start- ed developing in Cubism. The painting belongs to one of artist’s experiments, but at the same time, it’s unique and stands out. The originality of this painting is using many different styles that merge together within one unique piece of art. The tradition of synthesis, that was characteristic for the circle of Osma association, was still present in “Prometheus” in 1911. We can not say, though, that synthesis was the purpose, it was rather a method that helped young artists to find their unique char- acter in art. All of the elements, borrowed from the old and new masters, that found an echo in the soul of the young artists, were used as the basis for the formation of their own style.
During my work, in “Prometheus” i was discovering more and more new values; the associations with the masters of Baroque and Mannerism, Kupka's Orphism, Pi- casso's Cubism, Czech Cubo-Expressionism, the relation to The Faust of Goethe and other Nineteenth century literature. It seem to be wrong to classify the painting strictly to one style, as it contains too many features in itself. This mixture of differ- ent inspirations was reflecting the devotion to the certain preferences of an artist, but those were just its’ visual characteristics. The ideological content was not bor- rowed, the painting reflects individual emotions and experiences of its’ author.
Procházka, as a painter who was always striving for the narrative character in his 38 artworks, endowed the painting with an expressionistic content that was characteristic for his works at that period of time. Increasing individualism of that time allows us to correlate the interpretation of the myth directly to the personal sit- uation of Antonín Procházka associated with his searching and development in art.
From the very beginning of activities of the new young generation of Osma, they were guided by a very provocative and revolutionary form of art, that was presented to them by Edvard Munch. Thus, from the beginning of their art career, it was a very risky path, that was chosen by them and was presumed incomprehensible by the public. The means in art, that they have chosen to demonstrate their ideals, were very radical, they experimented with color and form so boldly, that it was hard not to notice. In the century of increasing individualism, each artist was trying to show their talent as much as possible in the original way and those experiments could continue indefinitely. Just at that time in Paris, which was a main focus of attention of young Czech artists, emerged a new style in painting, that still to this day causes mixed reviews – Cubism. To adapt this new, not less radical, style in art meant to get even more incomprehension of the public. The flow of negative criticism towards the young generation was a frequent occurrence and it certainly impeded the free expansion of their ideas. This fact was reflected in the artworks, particularly in the artworks of Procházka in the period until 1911 – twice and “Prometheus” was one of those works.
In the painting, Procházka was focusing on both, narrative and the visual content of it, as he, unlike his friends from Osma who also published articles, preferred to ex- press himself through his artworks only. For his generation it was important to en- dow artworks with some message behind them, that had a demonstrative character.
39 So, perhaps, it is fair to say, that Procházka's intention was not only to express his in- ner feelings, but also and maybe for the most part to demonstrate it to the judgmen- tal public.
The “Prometheus” was the depiction of a modern creator, that was rejected by public, in this case, even a whole generation of artists. Antonín Procházka, thus, comes to the image of Prometheus as a fighter for justice, freedom and progress in art, just like he perceived his own generation. By the vivid combination of past and progressive present, Procházka tried to voice his thoughts and feelings about the present situation. He put himself and his generation here in the position of Prometheus, that fights for progress and is being punished for that. Fire of Prometheus for the new generation was a symbol of Modernism with its innovative ideas.
After quite a long period of time, today’s viewer does not perceive the “Prometheus” in the same way, as it was perceived in the beginning of the Twentieth century. For today's epoch, though, the picture did not loose its importance and originality. As was noted at the beginning of the work, keeping the traditions of art of the past alive made it possible to specify brighter changes in development. Thus, using the classical myth adapted to the period it was created was a very interesting idea. The
“Prometheus” could be a good example of how the Twentieth century has visually changed regarding to previous centuries.
The “Prometheus” from 1911 and the “Prometheus bringing Fire to People” from 1938 are two paintings, that show the path of the artists in his artistic development. The first one corresponds with the young, not yet accepted artist, the later version is an adult successful painter. It was only in Brno, that Procházka's art found wider re- sponse and respect. It is fair to say, that Prometheus finally fulfilled his mission, the 40 Cubism in Czech art also gained wider response, Procházka's generation left a trod- den a path for the future development of Czech art.
41 7. Image attachments
Image 1: Antonín Procházka, Prometheus, 1910-1911 oil on canvas, 110 x 88 cm Moravian Gallery, Brno available on: http://www.creativoas.cz/antonin-prochaz- ka.php
42 Image 2: Antonín Procházka, Fruits and Jug, 1907 oil on pasteboard, 50 x 65 cm GVU Ostrava available in: MACHARÁČKOVÁ, Marcela and a group of authors, Antonín Procházka 1882-1945. 2002, p. 239
Image 3: Antonín Procházka, Bouquet in a Vase, 1907 oil on pasteboard, 65 x 50 cm available in: MACHARÁČKOVÁ, Marcela and a group of authors, Antonín Procházka 1882-1945. 2002, p. 239.
43
Image 4: Antonín Procházka, Circus, 1907 oil on card, 49 x 66 cm NG Prague available in: MACHARÁČKOVÁ, Marcela and a group of authors, Antonín Procházka 1882-1945. 2002, p. 240.
44 Image 5: Antonín Procházka, Bathing, 1910 oil on card, 58.5 x 73.5 cm Galerie Zlatá husa, Prague available in: MACHARÁČKOVÁ, Marcela and a group of authors, Antonín Procházka 1882-1945. 2002, p. 245.
Image 6: Antonín Procházka, Still life on a Table, 1910 oil on pasteboard, 53.5 x 72.5 cm available in: MACHARÁČKOVÁ, Marcela and a group of authors, Antonín Procházka 1882-1945. 2002, p. 245.
45
Image 7: Antonín Procházka, Landscape with Factory Chimneys, 1910 oil on pasteboard. 49.5 x 65.3 cm MG Brno available in: MACHARÁČKOVÁ, Marcela and a group of authors, Antonín Procházka 1882-1945. 2002, p. 245.
46 Image 9: Antonín Image 8: Antonín Procházka, Study after El Procházka, Lady with a Greco, around 1909 Fan, 1910 available in: oil on pasteboard, 71 x 50.5 MACHARÁČKOVÁ, Marcela cm and a group of authors, available in: Antonín Procházka 1882- MACHARÁČKOVÁ, Marcela 1945. 2002, p. 45. and a group of authors, Antonín Procházka 1882- 1945. 2002, p. 245.
47
Image 10: El Greco, Saint Martin and the Beggar, 1597/1599 oil on canvas, 193.5 x 103 cm Widener Collection available on: http://www.nga.gov/content/ngaweb/Col- lection/art-object-page.1164.html
48
Image 11: Antonín Procházka, Saint Martin, 1909 – 1910 oil on pasteboard, 86 x 70.5 cm GAP Brno available in: MACHARÁČKOVÁ, Marcela and a group of authors, Antonín Procházka 1882-1945. 2002, p. 45.
49
Image 12: František Kupka, Prometheus, 1909 watercolor on paper, 32.1 x 29.3 cm NG Prague available on: http://www.cavetocanvas.com/post/186784597 80/frantisek-kupka-prometheus-1909-10
50
Image 13: Bohumil Kubišta, Saint Sebastian, 1912 oil on canvas, 98 x 74.5 cm NG Prague available on: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bohumil_Kub i%C5%A1ta_-_St_Sebastian.jpg
51
Image 14: Henri Le Fauconnier, L`Abondance, 1910- 1911 oil on canvas, 191 x 123 cm Gemeentemuseum, Haag available on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Henri_Le_Fauconnier,_1 910-11,_L%27Abondance_%28Abundance %29,_oil_on_canvas,_191_x_123_cm_%2875.25_x_48.5_in. %29,_Gemeentemuseum_Den_Haag.jpeg
52
Image 15: Peter Paul Rubens, Andromeda, 1638 oil on canvas, 189 x 94 cm Gemäldegalerie, Berlin available on: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Peter_Pau l_Rubens_-_Andromeda_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg
53
Image 16: Peter Paul Rubens, Perseus and Andromeda, 1636 oil on panel, 25 x 19 cm collection Koenigs available on: http://collectie.boijmans.nl/en/collection/3199-%28ok %29
54
Image 17: Peter Paul Rubens, The Abduction of Ganymede, 1636-1637 Museo del Prado, Madrid http://artunframed.com/Gallery/shop/the- abduction-of-ganymede/
55
Image 18: François-Guillaume Ménageot, The Martyrdom of St. Sebastian, circa 1803 oil on canvas available on: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fran%C3%A7ois- Guillaume_M%C3%A9nageot_-_The_Martyrdom_of_St_Se- bastian_-_WGA15027.jpg
56
Image 19: Honoré Daumier, The Martyrdom of St. Sebastian, circa 1849 oil on wood, 32 x 22 cm Musée d'Orsay, Paris available on: http://www.musee-orsay.fr/en/collec- tions/works-in-focus/painting.html? no_cache=1&zoom=1&tx_damzoom_pi1[showUid]=1165 26
57 Image 20: El Greco, The Resurrection, 1595- 1600 oil on canvas 210 x 128 cm Museo Del Prado, Madrid available on: https://greatworksofart.word- press.com/2011/10/17/el-greco- 1541%E2%80%93-1614/the-resurrection- 1595-1600-el-greco/
58
Image 21: El Greco, Laocoön, 1610 – 1614 oil on canvas, 84 cm x 1.13 m National Gallery of Art, Washington available on: https://images.nga.gov/en/search/do_quick_search.html? q=%221946.18.1%22
59
Image 22: El Greco, The Baptism of Christ, 1597 – 1600 oil on canvas, 350 cm x 144 cm Museo Del Prado, Madrid available on: http://www.wga.hu/frames- e.html?/html/g/greco_el/22/2201grec.html
60 Image 23: El Greco, The Opening of the Fifth Seal, 1608-1614 oil on canvas, 224.8 x 199.4 cm The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City available on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opening_of_the_Fifth_Seal#/media/File:El_Gr eco,_The_Vision_of_Saint_John_%281608-1614%29.jpg
61
Image 24: Antonín Procházka, Christ and Pharisees, 1909 oil on pasteboard, 48.5 x 59.5 cm available in: MACHARÁČKOVÁ, Marcela and a group of authors, Antonín Procházka 1882- 1945. 2002, p. 187.
Image 25: Expulsion of the Merchants from the Temple, 1909 oil on canvas, 83 x 14 cm NG Prague available in: MACHARÁČKOVÁ, Marcela and a group of authors, Antonín Procházka 1882-1945. 2002, p. 244.
62 8. Bibliography
SSVESTKA, Jirřií, Tomaísř VLCSEK, Pavel LISSKA a Jaroslav ANDESL. Czech cubism 1909-1925: art, architecture, design. Prague: Modernista, c2006.
HALASOVÁ, Libuše. Antonín Procházka. 1. vyd. Praha: Min. inf., 1949.
MACHARÁČKOVÁ, Marcela, KRKOŠKOVÁ, Alena, SLAVÍČEK, Lubomír (eds.) (2002). Antonín Procházka 1882-1945: Muzeum města Brna, Moravská galerie v Brně, 6.6.- 29.9.2002 : Obecní dům, Praha, 11.12.2002-22.3.2003. Brno: Muzeum města Brna, 2002.
CHATRNÝ, Jindřich a Radana ČERVENÁ. Brněnský Prométheus: nad obrazem Antonína Procházky Prométheus přinášející lidstvu oheň. Brno: Statutární město Brno, 2013.
KRAMÁŘ, Vincenc. Umění Emila Filly a Antonína Procházky. Opava, 1932.
KUTAL, Albert. Antonín Procházka. Praha, 1959.
LAMAČ, Miroslav. Osma a Skupina výtvarných umělců: 1907-1917. 1. vyd. Praha: Odeon, 1988.
LAHODA, Vojtěch. Český kubismus. Vyd. 1. Praha: Brána, 1996.
KARKANOVÁ, Hana, Lenka KUDĚLKOVÁ a Marcela MACHARÁČKOVÁ. Od renesance po modernu: 1900-1945 : stálá expozice výtvarného umění v Brně : Muzeum města Brna, Špil- berk, Brno 1997. Brno: Muzeum města Brna, 1997.
KROUPA, Jiří. Školy dějin umění: metodologie dějin umění 1. 2., přeprac. vyd. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2007.
LAMAČ, Miroslav. Myšlenky moderních malířů: od Cézanna po Dalího. 4. přeprac. vyd. Pra- ha: Odeon, 1989.
DOLANSKÁ, Karolína. České moderní a současné umění 1890-2010. V Praze: Národní ga- lerie, 2010.
FILLA, Emil. O umělcích. Vyd. 1. Editor Stanislav Kolíbal. Praha: Arbor vitae, 2005.
SVRČEK, Jaroslav B. Antonín Procházka. Praha: Melantrich, 1939.
63 WINTER, Tomáš. Zajatec kubismu: dílo Emila Filly v zrcadle výtvarné kritiky (1907-1953). Vyd. 1. Praha: Artefactum, 2004.
ČEŘOVSKÝ, František, František KUBIŠTA, Bohumil KUBIŠTA. Bohumil Kubišta: kore- spondence a úvahy. 1. vyd. Praha: Státní nakladatelství krásné literatury, hudby a umění, 1960.
Češi a Němci: dějiny - kultura - politika. Vyd. 2. Praha: Paseka, 2002.
DEMPSEY, Amy. Umělecké styly, školy a hnutí: encyklopedický průvodce moderním uměním. 2. vyd. Praha: Slovart, 2005.
HLUŠIČKA, Jiří. České moderní malířství v Moravské galerii v Brně. 1. vyd. Brno: Blok, 1984.
KULIKOVA, Irina Sergejevna. Filozofia a umenie modernizmu. 1. vyd. Bratislava: Pallas, 1976.
MATĚJČEK, Antonín a Zdeněk WIRTH. Modern and contemporary Czech art. London: Routledge, 1924.
WITTLICH, Petr. Česká secese. 1. vyd. Praha: Odeon, 1982.
WINTER, Tomáš. Marcela Macharáčková - Lubomír Slavíček - Alena Krkošková (ed.): An- tonín Procházka 1882-1945. Umění: časopis Ústavu dějin umění. 2003.
BENEŠ Vincenc: Úryvky z pamětí, in: Výtvarné umění V, 1970.
Bulletin Moravské galerie v Brně Moravská galerie (Brno, Česko) Brno : Moravská galerie, 1980.
Czech Modernism 1900-1945: [katalog výstavy], Houston October 8, 1989 - January 7, 1990. 1st Edition. Houston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1989.
PEČÍRKA, Jaromír. Antonín Procházka: [vydáno u příležitosti slavnostního zahájení posm- rtné výstavy Antonína Procházky v Olomouci 11. listopadu 1945]. V Olomouci: Skupina olomouckých výtvarníků, 1945.
64 MRKVIČKA, Otakar. Národní umělec Antonín Procházka: souborná výstava, leden-únor 1947, [Praha], Spolek výtvarných umělců Mánes. Praha: Spolek výtvarných umělců Mánes, 1947.
KUBIŠTA, Bohumil. Nicolas Poussin. Volné směry. 1912.
LAHODA, Vojtěch. Antonín Procházka ve dvacátých letech: sugesce formy. Lahoda, Vojtěch. In: Výtvarné Brno 1918-1938 / [Red.]: Gabrielová, Bronislava - Marčák, Bohumil a kol Brno : Moravská galerie, 1993.
BERNSTOCK, Judith E. Classical Mythology in Twentieth-Century Art: An Overview of a Humanistic Approach. Artibus et Historiae [online]. 1993 [cit. 2015-04-15]. Dostupné z: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1483450? uid=3737856&uid=4580267327&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=3&uid=60&sid=2110 6006558941
GAVRILINA, Maria. Myatezny obraz. In: Gavrilinam.narod.ru [online]. 2004 [cit. 2015-04- 10]. accessible on: http://www.gavrilinam.narod.ru/MaG/obrazprometeya.htm
GOETHE, Johann Wolfgang von, Walter Arnold KAUFMANN a Johann Wolfgang von GOETHE. Goethe's Faust: the original German and a new translation and introduction [online]. New York: Anchor Books, [1989], c1961 [cit. 2015-04-15]. ISBN 03-850-3114- 9.
KARPOV, Andrei. Prometei i evropeiskaya kultura. In: Culturolog.ru [online]. 2010 [cit. 2015-04-10]. accessible on: http://culturolog.ru/index.php? option=com_content&task=view&id=200&Itemid=11 LECZNAR, A. Aryan, German, or Greek? Nietzsche's Prometheus between antiquity and modernity. Classical Receptions Journal [online]. 2012-12-20, vol. 5, issue 1 [cit. 2015-04- 10]. DOI: 10.1093/crj/cls004. accessible on: http://crj.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/doi/10.1093/crj/cls004
RAGGIO, Olga. The Myth of Prometheus: Its Survival and Metamorphoses up to the Eighteenth Century. Jstor.org [online]. 1958, roč. 21 [cit. 2015-04-11]. accessible on: http://www.jstor.org/stable/750486
65 66