materijalu opravdanje za promaknuÊe jedino egzistencijalno pitanje moderne umjetnosti, zanijekati njenu ulogu pokretaËke snage ispravne umjetnosti, koja Êe nas uvjeriti pitanje umjetnosti revolucije i revolucije obnove oblika, njenu avangardnu poziciju u kako “svijet moæemo posjedovati u sasvim umjetnosti, traæi i nalazi originalna rjeπenja stvaranju nove “sredine” umjetniËkog djela. drugaËijem smislu nego πto smo ga pos- (u πirokom rasponu od Van Gogha do Izmeu zemljaπkog pozivanja na “umjetnost jedovali prije” (C. Fiedler), pravovjerno. I Masserela, od groteske do puËkog realizma, kolektiva” i modernog zahtjeva za divulgaci- baπ u tom neuspjehu Zemlje leæi povijesno od B. Tauta do B. Arvatova), otvara nove jom umjetniËkog produkta ima podudarnosti; opravdanje njenog pokuπaja. putove. U posljednje vrijeme, pogotovo obje tendencije radikaliziraju odnos umjet- Pretpostavljeni cilj politiËke utilitar- u povodu triju ovdje spominjanih izloæa- nost-druπtvo! Zemlja je, takoer, pokuπavala nosti zemljaπkih djela mogao se ostvariti ba, o tome je dosta napisano, pametno svojim nastojanjima na industrijskom diza- poglavito uz uvjet podudarnosti sredstva prosueno. KonaËno je prevladalo miπljenje: jnu i arhitekturi otvoriti perspektive otklona sa sadræajem prikaza, a kako se ta efika- nije toliko vaæno πta se htjelo druπtveno umjetnikovog od slike ili kipa obeÊavajuÊi sna stvaralaËka harmonija, u ono vrijeme postiÊi zemljaπkom umjetnoπÊu, nego kakva mu moguÊnosti stvaranja u sferi proizvod- kao i danas, raala ponajprije u dubini su joj djela, pa su njene povijesne zas- nje, u sferi “prvobitnog organskog graenja liËnosti umjetnika, singularnost stila bio je luge distingvirane od njezinih umjetniËkih æivota”. jedini autentiËni odgovor stvaraoca na te dostignuÊa. Teoretsko zanemarivanje Zemlje oprav- vanumjetniËke zahtjeve. Ako dakle traæimo U takvoj interpretaciji umjetnosti Zemlje davalo se izmeu ostalog i tvrdnjom da je specifikum zemljaπke umjetnosti s pov- — kod Ëega njen posebni sluËaj nije izdvo- objektivnije vrednovanje zemljaπke umjet- ijesno-umjetniËke razine pitanja, onda treba jen iz cjeline umjetnosti odnosnoga vremena nosti bilo moguÊe tek kad su prestali djelova- najprije istaÊi fenomen osamostaljenja for- — Ëak je i njen prijaπnji utilitarizam dobio ti razlozi i sile koje su bitno odreivale njenu malnog, πto je opet, gledano s prostornog i drugu kulturnu dimenziju. pojavu i poloæaj u povijesti hrvatske moderne vremenskog stajaliπta, bio heretiËki primjer, Program i praksa Zemlje prelaze umjetnosti. Takav stav, meutim, ima jedan a uoËen je veÊ bio kao dihotomija izmeu ograniËeno podruËje likovnih umjetnosti; ozbiljan nedostatak: dopuπta interpretaciju politiËkih i umjetniËkih ciljeva. u njima je sadræan novi odnos prema Zemlje kao zatvorenog, dovrπenog procesa Suvremena je kritika na tu “dvojnost” svijetu. Ako zapustimo populistiËku, pros- i povijesno ograniËuje njeno djelovanje. A zemljaπke umjetnosti gledala kroz proreze vjetiteljsku intencionalnost i neke druge niπta ne svjedoËi tome u prilog. × Janusove maske, i u tom πkiljenju promaklo asimptote (tzv. Hlebinska πkola) zemljaπkog joj je kako upravo Zemlja u odgovoru na to programa, nemoguÊe je nakon ove izloæbe Æivot umjetnosti, 17, 1972.

1 “Angaæirana umjetnost u Jugoslaviji 1919-1969”, Umetnosna 4 August Cesarec, Suvremeni ruski slikari, Knjiæevna republika, galerija, Slovenjgradec 1969. 1924. Pretiskano u knjizi “Svjetlost u mraku”, Stvarnost, 2 Neke opÊenitije naznake o tom pitanju: V. MalekoviÊ, Zemlja 1963. str. 281 i d. na zemlji, Vjesnik, 8. lipnja 1971. 5 N. dj., str. 297. 3 Boæidar Gagro, Zemlja izmeu uzroka i posljedice, katalog 6 Miroslav Krleæa, Povratak Filipa Latinovicza, Zora, Zagreb 1962, KritiËke retrospektive Zemlje, Zagreb 1971; Igor ZidiÊ, str. 191. Slikarstvo, grafika, crteæ, n. dj.

189

ZZU_78_79_F.inddU_78_79_F.indd 189189 111/12/061/12/06 13:59:813:59:8 josip the anatomy of ’921 vranËiÊ

After World War I, Zagreb became KriæaniÊ’s statement acquires its full value — the centre of extraordinary cultural only in today’s perspective and with respect activity. This development was largely facili- to the logic of later development. Moreover, tated by the enthusiasm provoked by the fact today it can be corroborated with further data that, in terms of politics and society, much and justified with more exhaustive interpreta- has been demolished which had for dec- tions of the past phenomena. ades been experienced as an obstacle for a The exceptional significance of the year number of projects and against which many of 1921 has also been noticed by B. Gagro had turned with irrational hatred. Another in his study on the of Proljetni Salon circumstance was the fact of the long-aspired (Spring Salon), where he has reached a foundation of the community of South Slavic similar conclusion: “The year of 1921 was peoples, which was considered as the begin- perhaps the most significant year for the ning of a new, general South Slavic renais- generation of ‘Proljetni Salon’. Rather than sance. I think that this new development can indicating its beginning or end, it marks a be traced uninterruptedly from year to year, breaking point in the period, a pinnacle...”3 both in the field of literature1 and in that of We may add “even more” to this state- visual arts, at least until 1921, the year that ment: that this year was not only a breaking marked a sort of “shift of the keystone.” This point in the painting of Proljetni Salon, but was observed already by the contemporary also in our art as a whole. Globally speaking, witness of events Pjer KriæaniÊ in his article it communicated above all the exceptional “Artistic Zagreb”, in which he wanted to quantity of artistic events, i.e. the exceptio- offer a “survey of artistic work in the year na lly large number of exhibitions for those of 1921.” He literally wrote the following: times,4 which can be classified in several lay- “Today, these names (Uzelac, Gecan, ©ulen- ers according to their significance. The mem- tiÊ, Tartaglia, Varlaj, etc. - remark by J. V.) bership exhibition of Proljetni Salon featured completely dominate our artistic life with the several Slovenian artists and Proljetni Salon modernity of their aspirations, casting shad- also organized several exhibitions of artists ows over the otherwise deserving veterans from Yugoslavia and elsewhere. One should of the older generation of artists. The inten- mention the exhibition of the four most distin- sity and productivity of their work has been guished masters of young genera- growing from exhibition to exhibition, until it tion (BijeliÊ, DobroviÊ, MiliËe viÊ, NastasijeviÊ) has reached its pinnacle this year...” In the and that of the New from Munich. conclusion of his article, KriæaniÊ came up The participation of the members of Proljetni with a very definite assessment: “One may Salon at the large international exhibition of well say that this year has been the richest in modern art in Geneva was crucial for the our artistic life.”2 post-war affirmation of Yugoslav art.5 190

ZZU_78_79_F.inddU_78_79_F.indd 190190 111/12/061/12/06 13:59:813:59:8 anatomija ‘921

Poslije prvoga svjetskog rata Zagreb Izuzetno znaËenje 1921. godine dobro — postaje srediπte izvanredne kulturne je uoËio i B. Gagro u svojoj studiji o ak tiv nosti. Tome je mnogo pridonio za nos slikarstvu Proljetnog salona, gdje dolazi do potaknut time πto je u politiËkom i druπtvenom sliËnog zakljuËka: “Godina 1921. moæda pogledu sruπeno ono πto se de set ljeÊima je najvaænija godina generacije ‘Proljetnog osjeÊalo kao zapreka za mnoge pot hvate, salona’. Prije nego πto bi oznaËavala poËe- protiv Ëega se ustajalo s iracionalnom mræn- tak ili kraj, ona oznaËava prelomnu taËku jom a onda i time πto je konaËno ostva re na jednog vremena, kulminaciju...”3 zajednica juænoslavenskih naroda pa se vjer- Ovoj tvrdnji moæemo dodati “Ëak i ovalo da se nalazimo na pragu no ve opÊe viπe”: ona nije samo prelomna u slikarstvu juænoslavenske renesanse. Mislim da se taj Proljetnog salona nego i za naπu sveukupnu no vi rast moæe pratiti iz godine u godinu i na umjetnost. Globalno govoreÊi ona donosi pod ruËju knjiæevnosti1 i na podruËju li kov nih prije svega izuzetnu kvantitetu umjetniËkog umjetnosti, neprekinuto sve do godine 1921, zbivanja, tj. za ono vrijeme izuzetno velik koja se pokazuje kao novo “pomica nje kamena broj izloæaba4 koje se po svom znaËenju meaπa”. UoËio je to veÊ suvremenik i svje- raslojavaju na nekoliko razina. Na Ëlanskoj dok zbivanja Pjer KriæaniÊ u svome Ëlanku izloæbi Proljetnog salona sudjeluju i sloven- “UmjetniËki Zagreb” u kojem je æelio dati ski umjetnici, a Proljetni salon, osim toga, “bi lan su umjetniËkog rada u go dini 1921”. prireuje i nekoliko izloæaba jugoslavenskih On doslovno kaæe: “Danas ta ime na (Uzelac, ili inozemnih umjetnika. Treba spomenuti Gecan, ©ulentiÊ, Tartaglia, Varlaj, op. J. V.) izloæbu Ëetvorice najistaknutijih beogradskih sav re menoπÊu svojih teænja posve dominiraju majstora mlade generacije (BijeliÊ, DobroviÊ, naπim umjetniËkim æivotom zasjenivπi inaËe MiliËeviÊ, NastasijeviÊ) i izloæbu müchenske zas luæne vete rane stare umjet niËke genera- nove secesije. NajveÊu poslijeratnu afir- ci je. Intenzitet i produktiv nost njihovog rada maciju jugoslavenske umjetnosti predstav- ras tao je od izloæ be do iz loæ be, dok nije u ovoj lja sudjelovanje Ëlanova Proljetnog salona godini postigao re kord...” Kao zakljuËak svom na velikoj meunarodnoj izloæbi moderne izIaganju Kriæa niÊ iznosi posve odre en sud: umjetnosti u Æenevi.5 “Moæemo mirne duπe ustvrditi da je ova godina Ali, u ovom nas Ëasu ta godina zanima u naπem umjetniËkom æivotu najbogatija.” 2 prije svega kao odluËna godina u naπem Iz naπe danaπnje perspektive, i u suvis- unutarnjem razvitku. Izvanredno bujna los ti kasnijeg razvoja, KriæaniÊeva tvrdnja aktivnost kao da se odvija u nekoliko slo- do bi va svoju punu vrijednost. “ak i viπe, mi je jeva: dok neke pojave dotrajavaju, istodobno danas moæemo potkrijepiti s joπ viπe podata- se pojavljuje neπto neoËekivano novo ili ka i oprav dati joπ potpunijim tumaËenjima doseæe pun razvoj ono πto je joπ juËer bilo tadaπ njih pojava. teπko prihvatljivo. 191

ZZU_78_79_F.inddU_78_79_F.indd 191191 111/12/061/12/06 13:59:813:59:8 However, at this moment, the year has gained on power and drawn us artists Zagreb, which has gathered, besides the old of 1921 interests us above all as a deci- along. MeπtroviÊ is his greatest promoter. I art professors from the former school of fine sive year in our internal development. The am not sure how much richer beauty has arts, young artists such as KljakoviÊ, BabiÊ, exceptionally rich activity was apparently become by that. Vanitas vanitatum - fash- Vanka, and Juhn. Ivan MeπtroviÊ has been taking place on several different layers: ion - fashion and politics.”6 In fact, it was appointed its first rector and his name and while some phenomena were wearing off, a silent parting with the heroic years in the personality assure us that the institution new and unexpected things were coming painting of Mirko RaËki, with the painting could gain a world-wide reputation.”9 The into existence and others, which had only of our Secession, our “MeduliÊians”. Jelena memorandum of ALU (Academy Of Fine recently been difficult to accept, were now UskokoviÊ has observed: “He retreated to Arts) documented MeπtroviÊ’s role in the reaching their full bloom. his atelier on VoÊarska Road, painting figural reorientation of the academy’s educational compositions, nudes, landscapes, portraits, activity with the following simple words: 1 and occasionally religious motifs...”7 “His personality has influenced the develop- For the moment, we shall not linger That turn in the art of Mirko RaËki is ment of pedagogy in the sense that he has, with names that today mean only quantity documented by such as “Village by the power of his talent, placed a different or anything else that, regardless of its value, on Vis”, “VoÊarska Road”, “Self-portrait With accent in the name of our school, the ‘Royal no longer means any affirmation of qual- Beard”, and everything else that he painted Academy of Arts and Crafts’, than his pred- ity in the context of events, such as the after 1921. Although the contours are still ecessors had done: on the word arts rather exhibitions of Oton IvekoviÊ, Kruπlin or Joso in the foreground, they are becoming less than crafts.”10 Buæan. Nevertheless, one should at least decorative and rather transformed into a Another phenomenon in 1921 was mention the exhibition of , classical or academic element, by which linked with MeπtroviÊ’s comeback in which was not a historical event, but was RaËki obviously sought to join the trends Croatian visual arts. It was the first public nevertheless important, since it presented that were current at that moment. performance of sculptor Frano KrπiniÊ, who an artist who was at that time among the At the same time, MeπtroviÊ, the most would for decades act as a counter-balance main initiators of organizational, pedagogi- prominent personality of our Secession, to the sculpture of Ivan MeπtroviÊ, a sort of cal, and propaganda activity. We should was celebrating its funeral in his own MeπtroviÊ’s opposite pole. Even though in his also recall that he was among the founding way. That year, he was primarily preoccu- beginnings he could not quite emancipate fathers of Proljetni Salon. pied with constructing what was probably himself from MeπtroviÊ’s aggressive form, On a certain level, we have chosen to the last Secessionist building in , it was already at his first exhibition, after enter this continuum of events with two other RaËiÊ’s mausoleum in Cavtat. He had actu- his graduation in , that one could names. These are MeπtroviÊ and RaËki. In ally abandoned the sculpture of emphasized clearly sense the difference in their natures, that year of 1921, they definitely buried national and political ideology during the which was built from diverse materials, as the art that had been inseparably linked to war years and was now dedicating himself well as the difference in their sensibilities the political enthusiasm of young authors, increasingly to religious and general human and schools. MeπtroviÊ’s Viennese school enthusiasm that had now become obsolete, topics, in which he presented the problems was counterbalanced by KrπiniÊ’s Prague since its carriers were either bureaucratised of human destiny (reliefs from Kaπtelet near school, MeπtroviÊ’s closeness to Rodin and under the new regime, which was obviously Split). Certainly, the Secession was still Bourdelle by KrπiniÊ’s links to Sturs and less and less a regime of the people, or else present, especially in its stylised and expres- Maillol, and - what is most important they were pushed aside for having sought sive or decorative variant, but its meaning - MeπtroviÊ’s epic, dramatic, and reflexive new strongholds for the resistance that was had changed completely (“Distant Chords”). highlander mentality was counterbalanced inevitably rising. The accentuated declarative quality had by KrπiniÊ’s Mediterranean optimism and Mirko RaËki spent the war years mostly been substituted by lyricism and contempla- lyricism. Thus, it was precisely in 1921 that in Geneva, working diligently and participat- tion during the war period. the polarization in our sculpture was estab- ing, together with MeπtroviÊ, at exhibitions However, MeπtroviÊ’s appearance in lished that would last until the early years that toured around the cultural centres of 1921 meant something else: Pjer KriæaniÊ after World War II. the Allies, testifying with the power of his wrote in his article that, in the same year, art of the right of South Slavic people to MeπtroviÊ became the rector of the Royal 2 their common and independent political life. Academy of Arts and Crafts,8 which had The overview of the situation in visual RaËki returned to Zagreb in 1920 and a been merely a professional school until arts in its most creative layer will probably year later his first major post-war exhibition that year. The change of name determined be most complete if we use classical labels took place in the Art Pavilion. Precisely with a new direction in its activity. MeπtroviÊ’s for the possible basic starting points: impres- that exhibition, he parted with the art we arrival at the Academy inaugurated a new sion, expression, construction. In 1921, it is have just discussed. Basically, he placed period in the development of that institu- possible to observe the last works of art that his own epitaph on its tomb with the fol- tion, but largely also in the organizational started from impressionism as their basic lowing words: “In my latest work, I have constellations of Croatian visual arts as orientation, followed by the culmination of abandoned nationalism, for I see that it is such. KriæaniÊ documented the event with post-war and the beginning only harmful to art. Art knows no boundaries enthusiasm in his article: “One of the most of constructivist painting, which was at that - it connects people rather than separating memorable artistic events has been the time called . them. In Yugoslavia, (political) nationalism foundation of the Academy Of Fine Arts in 192

ZZU_78_79_F.inddU_78_79_F.indd 192192 111/12/061/12/06 13:59:813:59:8 1 crteæ joπ uvijek istaknut, on je sve manje sasvim oteti agresivnoj MeπtroviÊevoj formi, U ovom se Ëasu neÊemo zadræavati na dekorativan i sve viπe prerasta u element ipak se veÊ tu, na prvoj njegovoj izloæbi imenima koja danas znaËe samo kvantitetu, klasiËnog ili akademskog i time nastoji uÊi u nakon studija u Pragu, nedvosmisleno osjeÊa pa ni na onome πto usprkos odreenim vri- tokove koji su aktualni toga Ëasa. da su to dvije razliËite prirode, graene jednostima ne znaËi viπe afirmaciju kvalitete U to isto vrijeme i MeπtroviÊ, glavni pro- od razliËitog materijala, potpuno razliËite u kontekstu zbivanja, kao πto su izloæbe tagonist naπe secesije, obavlja njen pokop osjeÊajnosti, a napokon i druge πkole. Otona IvekoviÊa, Kruπlina ili Jose Buæana. na svoj naËin. Te je godine dobrim dijelom MeπtroviÊevoj beËkoj πkoli suprotstavlja Ipak treba bar zabiljeæiti izloæbu Tomislava zauzet izgradnjom vjerojatno posljednje sece- se KrπiniÊeva praπka, MeπtroviÊevoj bliskosti Krizmana, koja doduπe nije bila povijes- sionistiËke graevine u nas, RaËiÊeva mau- s Rodinom i Bourdelleom KrπiniÊeva veza ni dogaaj, ali je vaæna zbog predstavl- zoleja u Cavtatu. Kiparstvo s naglaπenom sa Stursom i Maillolom i, πto je najvaænije: janja umjetnika koji je u to vrijeme bio nacionalnom i politiËkom tezom napustio MeπtroviÊevom epskom, dramatskom, mis- jedan od glavnih pokretaËa organizacionog, je zapravo veÊ u toku rata, ulazeÊi sve viπe aonom gorπtaËkom doæivljaju suprotstavlja pedagoπkog i propagandnog djelovanja. u religiozne i opÊeljudske teme u kojima se KrπiniÊev mediteranski optimizam i lirika. Sjetimo se da je on na prvom mjestu meu iznosi probleme ljudske sudbine (Reljefi iz I tako je upravo 1921. godine uspostav- osnivaËima Proljetnog salona. splitskog Kaπteleta). Doduπe, i tu Êemo joπ ljena polarizacija u naπem kiparstvu koja Êe Na odreenoj razini uÊi Êemo u konti- naÊi seseciju prije svega u njenoj stiliziranoj potrajati sve do prvih godina poslije drugoga nuitet zbivanja s druga dva imena. To su i ekspresivnoj ili dekorativnoj liniji, ali Êe svjetskog rata. MeπtroviÊ i RaËki. Oni u toj godini definitivno njen smisao biti potpuno izmijenjen (“Daleki pokapaju onu umjetnost koja je bila neod- akordi”). Naglaπenu deklarativnost veÊ u 2 vojivo vezana s politiËkim zanosom mladih toku rata zamjenjuje lirika i misaonost. Pregled slikarske situacije u njenu umjetnika, zanosom koji je sada postajao Ali MeπtroviÊeva pojava u 1921. godi- najkreativnijem sloju vjerojatno Êemo bespredmetan jer su se njegovi nosioci ili ni znaËi joπ neπto: Pjer KriæaniÊ u svom najbolje dati sluæeÊi se klasiËnim oznaka- birokratizirali u novoj vlasti, sve oËiglednije Ëlanku biljeæi da je MeπtroviÊ 1921. godine ma osnovnih moguÊih polaziπta: impresija, nenarodnoj, ili su bili potisnuti u stranu zbog postao rektorom Kraljevske akademije za ekspresija, konstrukcija. U godini 1921. traæenja novih uporiπta za otpor koji se nemi- umjetnost i umjetni obrt,8 koja se do te naÊi Êemo joπ posljednja djela koja polaze novno raao. godine nazivala samo Visokom πkolom. od impresije kao osnovne orijentacije, zatim Mirko RaËki proveo je ratno vrijeme Izmjena imena oznaËivala je i novu orijent- kulminaciju poslijeratnog ekspresionizma uglavnom u Æenevi, marljivo radeÊi i sud- aciju u djelovanju. MeπtroviÊev dolazak na i poËetak konstruktivnog slikarstva koje je jelujuÊi s MeπtroviÊem na izloæbama koje Akademiju otvara novo razdoblje u razvitku tada nazivano kubizmom. su obilazile savezniËka kulturna srediπta, te ustanove, ali dobrim dijelom i u organiza- Kad govorim o slikarstvu impresije ne dokazujuÊi, snagom umjetnosti, pravo cionim konstelacijama naπe likovne umjet- mislim na one oblike i sliËice o kojima s juænoslavenskih naroda na njihov zajedniËki nosti uopÊe. KriæaniÊ je taj dogaaj s entuzi- omalovaæavanjem govore ©imiÊ11 i MiciÊ,12 samostalan politiËki æivot. U Zagreb se RaËki jazmom zabiljeæio u svom Ëlanku: “Meu a koje su bile najbrojnije ali i najnezanim- vraÊa 1920., a 1921. prireuje svoju prvu najznamenitije umjetniËke dogaaje spada ljivije na tadaπnjim izloæbama, nego prije veliku poslijeratnu izloæbu u UmjetniËkom osnivanje Visoke slikarske akademije u svega na veliku izloæbu Emanuela VidoviÊa paviljonu. I upravo ta izloæba znaËi oproπtaj Zagrebu, oko koje su se pored starijih umjet- u UmjetniËkom paviljonu, na kojoj se moæe s umjetnoπÊu o kojoj smo govorili. Sam niËkih nastavnika bivπe umjetniËke πkole pratiti kretanje od slikarstva impresije preko RaËki kao da joj rijeËima stavlja epitaf: “Kod okupili mladi umjetnici: KljakoviÊ, BabiÊ, sve slobodnije pikturalne kreativnosti prema posljednjih radova ostavio sam nacionalizam Vanka, Juhn. Prvim rektorom te akademije slikarstvu ekspresivne kontemplacije.13 jer vidim da je to samo na πtetu umjet- izabran je Ivan MeπtroviÊ i njegova liËnost Ono πto je B. Gagro nazvao “kulminaci- nosti. Umjetnost ne poznaje granica — ona i ime jamËe, da bi taj zavod mogao dobiti jom generacije ‘Proljetnog salona’” zapravo zbliæava ljude a ne rastavlja ih. Kod nas znaËenje jedne svjetske akademije.”9 je kulminacija ekspresionistiËke orijentacije razmahao se nacionalizam (politiËki) pa je Spomenica ALU jednostavnim rijeËima u nekoliko razliËitih koncepcija. Jednu od povukao i nas artiste za sobom. MeπtroviÊ biljeæi znaËenje MeπtroviÊeve uloge u preori- njih manifestira i prva velika samostalna mu je najveÊi propagator. Ja ne znam koliko jentaciji odgojnog djelovanja Akademije: “... izloæba Vilka Gecana odræana te godine. se je ljepota time obogatila. Vanitas vani- njegova liËnost je utjecala na razvoj peda- Ovaj najizrazitiji predstavnik naπeg ekspre- tatum — moda — moda i politika.”6 To je gogije u tom, πto je on snagom svog talenta sionizma u tom Ëasu razvio se negdje zapravo tihi oproπtaj s herojskim godinama stavio akcenat u nazivu πkole ‘Kr. akademija izmeu KraljeviÊa, Kokoschke i njemaËkih slikarstva Mirka RaËkoga, sa slikarstvom za umjetnost i umjetni obrt’, viπe na rijeË: utjecaja, osobito u grafici (grafiËki ciklusi naπe secesije, naπih “meduliÊevaca”. Jelena umjetnost, nego na umjetni obrt kao njegovi “Klinika” i “Ropstvo na Siciliji”). UskokoviÊ biljeæi: “Povukao se u svoj atelier stariji prethodnici.”10 Izuzetno osvjeæenje slikarstvu ekspresije u VoÊarskoj cesti slikajuÊi figuralne kompo- S ponovnim ulaæenjem MeπtroviÊa u donose te godine i BabiÊeva djela kao πto su zicije, aktove, pejzaæe, portrete a povremeno naπ likovni æivot dobro je vezati i joπ jednu “Crvene zastave” i πpanjolski ciklus. Od svoje i religiozne teme...”7 pojavu iz 1921. godine. To je prvi javni nas- prijaπnje ekspresivnosti, koja je proiziπla iz To skretanje u slikarstvu Mirka RaËkoga tup kipara Frana KrπiniÊa, koji Êe nekoliko secesije, BabiÊ se okreÊe izrazito slikarskom dokumentiraju slike “Selo na Visu”, “VoÊarska desetljeÊa biti stanovita protuteæa kiparstvu gledanju koje se ostvaruje ploπnim slobod- cesta”, “Autoportret s bradom” i sve ono πto Ivana MeπtroviÊa, MeπtroviÊu suprotni pol. nim nanosima profinjenog kolorita, potaknut je nastalo nakon godine 1921. Iako je tu Iako se ni on u svojim poËecima nije mogao πpanjolskim susretima, ali mu nije teπko 193

ZZU_78_79_F.inddU_78_79_F.indd 193193 111/12/061/12/06 13:59:913:59:9 When I speak of impressionist painting, he presented his “Blaæuj” phase. The com- expressionism, now changed its character I do not mean those forms and images that mon denominator of these phenomena may and expression without entirely disappearing. ©imiÊ11 and MiciÊ12 mention with depreca- perhaps be characterized as a turn towards The new painting was not always consistent- tion and which were the most numerous and objectivity and construction, but not exclu- ly objective and unemotional, especially with most uninteresting at the exhibitions of those sively. With Varlaj and BeciÊ, the objective Uzelac. The new forms could also express years, but primarily the great exhibition of constructive form was a result of analysis intimate excitement, restlessness, and even Emanuel VidoviÊ in the Art Pavilion, which and simplification of motifs, whereas Uzelac protest; moreover, they could do it more allows us to trace the development from and especially ©umanoviÊ were increasingly brutally than before (Uzelac: “Magdalene”, impressionist painting to the increasingly using the method of abstraction, in which “Sphinx of the Metropolis”, “Self-Portrait in liberal pictorial creativity to the painting of the form was subjected to the predominantly a Bar”). We may be quite justified in calling expressionist contemplation.13 aprioristic conception of the composition this new phenomenon the expressionism of What B. Gagro has termed the “pinnacle (Uzelac: “Circus”, “Harvest”; ©umanoviÊ: form. But that was not all that the new paint- of ‘Proljetni Salon’ generation” was actually “Sculptor In His Atelier”, “Composition ing had brought forth as its social message; the pinnacle of expressionist orientation in With a Clock”). The cases of Uzelac and contrary to all previous hyper-sensitivity and several different conceptions. One of them ©umanoviÊ are significant precisely because psychologizing, social engagement was now was manifested at the first large solo exhi- of their turn towards visual independence, expressing its protest as crude and brutal bition of , which took place in the autonomy of expression and composi- truth, in forms that would adopt a new, solid the same year. This most distinguished tion. Even though they had certain common construction (Uzelac: “Factories”). representative of Croatian expression- features, their examples are not identical and Eventually, we may summarize the his- ism appeared at that moment somewhere A. B. ©imiÊ expressed these differences very torical significance of 1921 in the following between KraljeviÊ, Kokoschka, and German clearly: “Uzelac has not embraced abstrac- way: in its scope, as well as the significance influences, especially in his graphics (cycles tion in his painting as much as ©umanoviÊ of events in visual arts, it was the most “Clinic” and “Slavery On Sicily”). - even though it was to be expected, judging important year after 1913, the year of the An extraordinary refreshment in expres- from two or three of his paintings, in which posthumous exhibition of Miroslav KraljeviÊ. sionist art of those years were BabiÊ’s the house, for example, has been so simpli- All external impulses that had appeared in paintings such as the “Red Flags” and the fied that it has almost been transformed into the meantime were embedded in the current Spanish cycle. BabiÊ’s previous expression- a naked geometric form. (And that is the way of Croatian visual arts only insofar as they ism, which had originated in the Secession, towards cubism)... But Uzelac’s nature is, I were an adequate expression of subjective was now substituted by a characteristic think, such that playing around with purely and objective reality, and they mostly found vision of a painter, realized in flat, liberal abstract forms could not satisfy him...”14 their manifold basis, rich with possibilities, strokes of refined colourism inspired by his Moreover, the crucial difference between precisely in KraljeviÊ’s art. Parallel to the cur- Spanish encounters, but he also managed to Uzelac and ©imunoviÊ was that Uzelac’s rent dominated by KraljeviÊ’s painting, there establish continuity with KraljeviÊ’s painting work was accidentally embedded in the was another, with MeπtroviÊ as its dominant culture. In the same year, Aralica and ©ulen- organic current of Croatian visual arts of the feature, which was experiencing a crucial tiÊ were also presenting Spanish motifs. time, especially through its internal links to reorientation in 1921. Thus, it became the However, the most decisive change KraljeviÊ, while ©imunoviÊ was still too dog- year of summarizing the results, but also the brought by the year of 1921 was the crucial matically and strictly tied to the workshop year of new beginnings. Whether the subse- turn towards the construction of forms as of A. Lhote. quent years continued that process and that abstraction. In this respect, the XII Proljetni Innovations of Uzelac and ©imunoviÊ tempo of development, whether they justified Salon and the exhibition of Sava ©umanoviÊ were recognized by almost all critics as the new hopes, born in 1921, remains a were of foremost significance, but one should cubism, but it should be kept in mind that it topic of debate. × also keep in mind that Vladimir BeciÊ had did not mean breaking up with expression- his solo exhibition in the same year, where ism. What had only yesterday been termed prijevod: Marina Miladinov

1 See an excellent study by Ante FraniÊ, O autohtonim izvorima This coincidence in the line of development is not accidental, ekspresionizma u hrvatskoj knjiæevnosti [On the Autochthon but rather a reflection of organic correlation. This is confirmed Sources of Expressionism in Croatian Literature], Zadarska by some other events from 1921. Let us recall that four revija, 1969, No. 1 pp. 1-45. It also contains the following representative issues of Savremenik were published in the suggestion for a periodization of expressionism in Croatian same year (Gagro calls it “the most important year in the literature: “The first phase lasted approximately from 1914- history of all Croatian journals”), containing, beside literary 1917 and defines the period when expressionism was born...; texts, several first-class essays on visual arts written by the second phase - in which the expressionist word reached its literary authors. The best examples are Krleæa’s “Marginal pinnacle in Croatian literature... lasted approximately until Remarks on Paintings by Petar DobroviÊ” and ©imiÊ’s articles 1921...” (p. 4) “Constructivist Painting” and “Painting and Us”. Several other 194

ZZU_78_79_F.inddU_78_79_F.indd 194194 111/12/061/12/06 13:59:913:59:9 uspostaviti ni kontinuitet s KraljeviÊevom prema apstrakciji kao ©umanoviÊ — iako je nije sve πto Êe novo slikarstvo iznijeti kao slikarskom kulturom. ©panjolske motive te to Ëovjek mogao oËekivati po dvjema-trima socijalnu poruku; druπtvena Êe angaæiran- iste godine izlaæu Aralica i ©ulentiÊ. njegovim slikama u kojima je na primjer ost, nasuprot dojuËeraπnjoj boleÊivosti i Ipak je najodluËnija promjena koju don- kuÊa toliko pojednostavljenja da prelazi psihologiziranju, sada kao protest iznijeti osi 1921. godina korjeniti zaokret prema skoro u goli geometrijski oblik. (To je put grubu, brutalnu istinu, u isto takvim forma- konstrukciji oblika kao apstrakciji. U tom prema kubizmu)... Uzelac je, dræim, uopÊe ma koje Êe poprimiti i novu, ËvrπÊu gradnju pogledu od prelomnog je znaËenja XII pro- takva priroda da ga ne bi mogla zadovoljiti (Uzelac: “Tvornice”). ljetni salon i izloæba Save ©umanoviÊa, a ne igra Ëisto apstraktnih forma...”14 Na kraju, karakteristiku povijesnog treba smetnuti s uma da je te iste godine na Osim toga, bitna je razlika izmeu znaËenja 1921. godine moæemo ovako samostalnoj izloæbi nastupio i Vladimir BeciÊ Uzelca i ©umanoviÊa u tome πto je stjeca- saæeti: Po opsegu jednako kao i po znaËenju sa svojim djelima “blaæujske” faze. Ono πto jem okolnosti UzelËevo djelo uraπteno u likovnog zbivanja to je najistaknutija godina je zajedniËko u ovim pojavama moæe se organski tok hrvatske likovne umjetnosti nakon 1913. u kojoj je odræana posmrtna vjerojatno okvalificirati kao zaokret prema toga vremena, napose svojim unutarnjim izloæba Miroslava KraljeviÊa. Svi vanjski pot- objektivnosti i prema konstrukciji, ali ne vezama s KraljeviÊem, a ©umanoviÊevo je icaji koji su se u meuvremenu javili samo jednoznaËno. Kod Varlaja kao i kod BeciÊa joπ uvijek odviπe dogmatiËno i strogo vezano su onoliko urasli u tok naπega likovnog æiv- objektivan konstruktivni oblik bit Êe posljed- na radionicu A. Lhotea. ota koliko su bili adekvatan izraz subjektivne ica analize, pojednostavnjivanja motiva, a Ono πto Uzelac i ©umanoviÊ donose kao i objektivne stvarnosti, a veÊinom su baπ u kod Uzelca i joπ viπe kod ©umanoviÊa sve novo svi kritici uglavnom poËinju nazivati KraljeviÊevoj umjetnosti naπli viπeznaËnu Êe se viπe manifestirati metoda apstra- kubizmom, ali ne treba smetnuti s uma da podlogu bogatu moguÊnostima. Usporedo hiranja u kojoj se oblik podvrgava preteæno to ne znaËi i kidanje s ekspresijom. Ono πto sa strujom kojom dominira KraljeviÊevo apriornoj koncepciji kompozicije (Uzelac: se juËer nazivalo ekspresionizmom, sada slikarstvo, postoji i ona druga s MeπtroviÊem “Cirkus”, “Berba”; ©umanoviÊ: “Skulptor u samo mijenja karakter i izraz, ali ne nestaje. kao dominantom koja je godine 1921. atelieru”, “Kompozicija sa satom”). Upravo Novo slikarstvo, pogotovo kod Uzelca, nije doæivljavala korjenitu preorijentaciju. Tako je sluËaj Uzelca i ©umanoviÊa znaËajan uvijek dosljedno objektivno i neemocion- je to postala godina saæimanja rezultata ali i zbog zaokreta prema likovnoj samostalnosti, alno. I nove forme mogu izraziti unutarnje godina novih poËetaka. Jesu li daljnje god- autonomiji izraza i kompozicije. Iako je rijeË uzbuenje, nemir, pa i protest, Ëak i snaænije, ine nastavile taj tok i taj tempo uspona, jesu o nekim zajedniËkim crtama, ni primjer brutalnije nego prije (Uzelac: “Magdalena”, li bile opravdane nove nade, tada roene, o Uzelca i ©umanoviÊa nije istoznaËan; raz- “Sfinga velegrada”, “Autoportret u baru”). tome bi trebalo tek raspravljati. × like je vrlo dobro uoËio A. B. ©imiÊ: “Uzelac Tu novu pojavu moæemo nazvati, priliËno u svojem slikarstvu nije otiπao tako daleko opravdano, ekspresionizmom forme. Ali to Æivot umjetnosti, 18, 1972.

1 Vidi o tome i odliËnu studiju Ante FraniÊa, O autohtonim Sjetimo se da su u te godine iziπla u Zagrebu Ëetiri reprezen- izvorima ekspresionizma u hrvatskoj knjiæevnosti, Zadarska tativna broja Savremenika (Gagro ih naziva “najvaænije godiπte revija, 1969, br. 1, str. 1-45. Tu Êemo naÊi i ovaj prijedIog u historiji svih naπih Ëasopisa”) u kojima uz knjiæevne tekstove za periodizaciju ekspresionizma u hrvatskoj knjiæevnosti: “Prva nalazimo i prvorazredne napise knjiæevnika o likovnoj umjet- faza traje otprilike od 1914. do 1917. i znaËi vrijeme raanja nosti. Navedimo kao najbolje primjere Krleæin esej “Marginalije ekspresionizma...; druga faza - u kojoj je ekspresionistiËka uz slike Petra DobroviÊa”, ©imiÊeve Ëlanke “Konstruktivno rijeË dosegnula vrhunac u hrvatskoj knjiæevnosti... proteæe se slikarstvo” i “Slikarstvo i mi”. O likovnoj umjetnosti piπu u to nekako do 1921. godine...” (str. 4.) vrijeme i drugi knjiæevnici kao Cesarec, Krklec, BatuπiÊ, Ova podudarnost razvojne linije nije sluËajna nego je odraz ViloviÊ, MiciÊ, a likovnoj kritici Nehajeva nema premca. organske povezanosti. To potvruju joπ neki dogaaji iz 1921. UzelËeve i Gecanove ilustracije u Savremeniku same po sebi 195

ZZU_78_79_F.inddU_78_79_F.indd 195195 111/12/061/12/06 13:59:913:59:9 literary authors wrote on visual arts in the same period, such Jelena UskokoviÊ, Mirko RaËki, catalogue of the as Cesarec, Krklec, BatuπiÊ, ViloviÊ, and MiciÊ, while the retrospective exhibition, Zagreb 1970, p. 52. literary criticism of Nehajev is considered unsurpassable. 7 Jelena UskokoviÊ, op.cit., p. 52 Uzelac’s and Gecan’s illustrations in Savremenik summarize 8 There is some confusion regarding the year of MeπtroviÊ’s alone that moment in visual arts. arrival at the academy. The reference in KriæaniÊ’s article, Eventually, one should mention the appearance of Zenit. which I am quoting in my text, speaks of it as a completed The first issue was published precisely in 1921, in Zagreb. act and the article is dated to the end of 1921. However, the Even though its Balkanian profitism and Dadaism could not Memorandum of the Academy of Fine Arts (Zagreb 1958) gives find their audiences in Zagreb, which was at that time the year of 1922 as the year of MeπtroviÊ’s arrival on pp. 98 oppressed by very actual social nightmares, it remains one of and 99 and 1923 as the year of his appointment to the the elements completing the picture. rectorship. The same year of his arrival at the Academy is given 2 Pjer KriæaniÊ, UmjetniËki Zagreb [Artistic Zagreb], Pokret, 1921, by Æ. Grum in his monograph on MeπtroviÊ (Zagreb, 1961). No. 12, p. 3. 9 Pjer KriæaniÊ, op.cit. The naïve optimism in the new social 3 Boæidar Gagro, Slikarstvo ‘Proljetnog salona’, 1916-1928. circumstances, which was still characteristic for some of [Painting of ‘Proljetni Salon’, 1916-1928], Æivot umjetnosti, the personalities in public life, is described in the punch line 1966, No. 2, p. 52. of the same article by KriæaniÊ: “All in all, there is specific 4 According to the data from the Archive of Visual Arts at JAZU, artistic life and spirit increasingly crystallizing in Zagreb the following artists exhibited in Zagreb that year: Lina Virant- and with time it will educate an audience that will be able to CrnËiÊ, Joso Buæan, Mihovil Kruπlin, Mirko RaËki, Sava understand even the latest artistic phenomena. But regardless ©umanoviÊ, N. V. Haritonov, Miljenko GjuriÊ, Aleksej Hanzen, of that spirit, which is developing by itself in Zagreb as the city Aneo UvodiÊ, Jozo Turkalj, Boris D. PetroviÊ, Ladislav Kralj, of certain artistic traditions, positions, etc., it is necessary Frano KrπiniÊ, Gjoko MazaliÊ, Emanuel VidoviÊ, Tomislav that the educational policy of our central government should Krizman, Stojan Aralica, Zlatko ©ulentiÊ, Vladimir BeciÊ, also promote the efforts of centralizing and concentrating the Juraj Skarpa, and Ivan TuciÊ. Apart from that, the following artistic life of our nation in Zagreb.” The cruel reality, which the exhibitions of Proljetni Salon were held: X (the Munich artistic sensibility of Pjer KriæaniÊ could not sense, is illustrated Secession), XI (the solo-exhibition of Vilko Gecan), XII (the joint in the summary of the Academy’s history, which refers to the exhibition of the membership), and XIII (BijeliÊ, DobroviÊ, period when Ivan MeπtroviÊ was its rector: “... [I]n draft on MiliËeviÊ, and NastasijeviÊ). paper, same as all those projects, efforts, and best intentions 5 It was the Exposition international d’art moderne, which took that originated precisely from our first rector, I. MeπtroviÊ, and place in Geneva in the period 26 December 1920 - 25 January referred to our institution, its construction, and improvement. 1921. It featured 1926 works from 21 countries. Yugoslavia In fact, that first rector of ours, the almighty I. MeπtroviÊ, was represented by 15 artists (KrizmaniÊ, Gecan, Heinrich internationally recognized artist and undoubtedly the greatest Stefan, Hugo Johan, Trepπe, Tartaglia, Vanka, MijiÊ, Uzelac, authority in the field of art, early war veteran and the carrier KraljeviÊ, Krizman, BeciÊ, Varlaj, and ©ulentiÊ) with 43 of the ideology of unity, was entirely impotent and helpless exhibits. Elie Moroy evaluated their performance in Mercure de concerning the Academy and its development. It was the time France in the following way: “One should especially mention of anti-national royal regimes.” (Memorandum of the Academy the Yugoslav department, which was one of the victors of of Fine Arts, Zagreb, 1958, pp. 46-47). the current Salon. This country has been celebrated by a nice 10 Memorandum of the Academy of Fine Arts, Zagreb, 1958, p. 27. procession of painters, in a way that pays it the greatest 11 A. B. ©imiÊ, Deveta izloæba Proljetnog salona [The Ninth honour. These painters and graphic artists have shown, apart Exhibition of Proljetni Salon], Kritika, 1920, p. 2. from their benevolent and meticulous work, that they possess 12 Ljubomir MiciÊ, UmetniËka kritika [Art Criticism], Nova Evropa, spontaneous artistic intuition and natural lyricism, which 1920, No. 12 allows them to rise very high without betraying any weariness 13 The fact that it was a turning point in VidoviÊ’s art is evident of work on their canvasses. Vladimir BeciÊ, , from the periodization of his work given by Vesna Novak-OπtriÊ Miroslav KraljeviÊ, and Zlatko ©ulentiÊ have presented brilliant and Igor ZidiÊ. Both classifications name the years of 1920/21 evocations and portraits, bursting with intense life.” (L-t, Naπi as the turning point in the art of E. VidoviÊ. On this topic, see: umetnici u Æenevi [Our Artists in Geneva], Kritika, 1921, No. 2). Vesna Novak-OπtriÊ, Katalog izloæbe Emanuela VidoviÊa [E. V., Excerpts from other reviews can be found in: Disk, naπi exhibition catalogue], Zagreb 1970 and Igor ZidiÊ, Emanuel umjetnici na internacionalnoj izloæbi moderne umjetnosti u VidoviÊ, Predgovor katalogu retrospektivne izloæbe [E. V., Æenevi [Our Artists at the International Exhibition of Modern Art Preface to the catalogue of retrospective exhibition], Zagreb, in Geneva], Jugoslavenska njiva, 1921, No. 1. 1971. 6 From a letter of Mirko RaËki to Izidor Krπnjavi. Taken from: 14 A. B. ©imiÊ, Uzelac, Kritika, 1922, No. 4

196

ZZU_78_79_F.inddU_78_79_F.indd 196196 111/12/061/12/06 13:59:913:59:9 saæimaju trenutak likovne umjetnosti. Napokon treba donosim u nastavku teksta, oËito je da je rijeË o svrπenom spomenuti i pojavu Zenita. Prvi je broj iziπao upravo 1921. Ëinu, a Ëlanak je pisan potkraj 1921. Meutim, Spomenica u Zagrebu. Iako njegov balkanski profetizam i dadaizam Akademije likovnih umjetnosti (Zagreb 1958) na str. 98 i nisu viπe mogli postiÊi popularnost u Zagrebu, kojega su 99 kao godinu MeπtroviÊeva dolaska na Akademiju oznaËuje poËele tiπtati sasvim konkretne druπtvene móre, ipak 1922, a kao godinu njegova imenovanja za rektora 1923. Istu je i on jedan od eIemenata koji upotpunjuju sliku. godinu dolaska na Akademiju navodi i Æ. Grum u monografiji o 2 Pjer KriæaniÊ, UmjetniËki Zagreb, Pokret, 1921, br. 12, str. 3. MeπtroviÊu (Zagreb 1961). 3 Boæidar Gagro, Slikarstvo ‘Proljetnog salona’ 1916-1928., 9 Pjer KriæaniÊ, n. dj. O naivnom optimizmu u novim druπtvenim Æivot umjetnosti, 1966, br. 2, str. 52. okolnostima, koji je joπ uvijek karakterizirao neke od sudionika 4 Prema podacima Arhiva likovnih umjetnosti JAZU te su godine u javnom æivotu, govori i poanta istog KriæaniÊeva Ëlanka: u Zagrebu izIagali: Lina Virant-CrnËiÊ, Joso Buæan, Mihovil “Sve u svemu, u Zagrebu se sve viπe kristalizuje jedan izraziti Kruπlin, Mirko RaËki, Sava ©umanoviÊ, N. V. Haritonov, umjetniËki æivot i duh, koji Êe s vremenom odgojiti publiku za Miljenko GjuriÊ, Aleksej Hanzen, Aneo UvodiÊ, Jozo Turkalj, razumijevanje najsuvremenijih umjetniËkih pojava. I bez Boris D. PetroviÊ, Ladislav Kralj, Frano KrπiniÊ, Gjoko MazaliÊ, obzira na taj æivot, koji se u Zagrebu, gradu izvjesnih umjet- Emanuel VidoviÊ, Tomislav Krizman, Stojan Aralica, Zlatko niËkih tradicija, poloæaja, itd. razvija sam od sebe, bilo bi ©ulentiÊ, Vladimir BeciÊ, Juraj Skarpa, Ivan TuciÊ. Osim toga potrebno da i prosvjetna politika centralne vlade potpomaæe odræane su ove izloæbe Proljetnog salona: X (Münchenska nastojanje da se u Zagrebu centralizuje i skoncentriπe secesija), XI (Samostalna izloæba Vilka Gecana), umjetniËki æivot naπe nacije.” Krutu zbilju, koju likovna sen- XII (ZajedniËka izloæba Ëlanova) i XIII (BijeliÊ, DobroviÊ, zibilnost Pjera KriæaniËa nije joπ tada mogla ni naslutiti, ilus- MiliËeviÊ i NastasijeviÊ). trira saæetak povijesti Akademije koji se odnosi na vrijeme dok 5 Exposition international d’art moderne, odræana u Æenevi od je Ivan MeπtroviÊ bio njen rektor: 26. XII 1920. do 25. I 1921. IzIoæeno je 1226 djela iz 24 “... u nacrtu na papiru, kako su ostali i svi oni projekti, nasto- zemlje. Jugoslaviju je predstavljalo 15 umjetnika (KrizmaniÊ, janja i najbolje namjere, πto su nastajale upravo sa strane Gecan, Heinrich Stefan, Hugo Johan, Trepπe, Tartaglia, Vanka, naπeg prvog rektora I. MeπtroviÊa, a ticale se naπeg zavoda i MijiÊ, Uzelac, KraljeviÊ, Krizman, BeciÊ, Varlaj, ©ulentiÊ) sa 43 njegove izgradnje i njegova πto veÊeg unapreenja. Taj naπ djela. Elie Moroy u Mercure de France ovako ocjenjuje taj prvi rektor tada svemoÊni I. MeπtroviÊ, internacionalno priznati nastup: “Treba naroËito istaknuti jugoslavensko odjeljenje, umjetnik, nesumnjivo kao najveÊi autoritet na polju umjetnosti, koje je jedno od triumfatora aktuelnoga salona. Tu zemlju prvoborac, upravo nosilac ideologije ujedinjenja, bio je stvarno proslavlja jedna lijepa povorka slikara, na naËin koji joj u pitanju Akademije i njezine izgradnje nemoÊan i bespomo- Ëini najveÊu Ëast. Kod tih slikara i crtaËa otkriva se, osim Êan. Bilo je to vrijeme protunarodnih kraljevskih reæima.” dobronamjernog i minucioznog rada, jedna spontana artistiËka (Spomenica Akademije likovnih umjetnosti, Zagreb, 1958. intuicija, prirodna lirika koja im dozvoljava da se vrlo visoko str. 46/7). dignu, a da se na njihovim platnima ne odrazuje nikakav 10 Spomenica Akademije likovnih umjetnosti, Zagreb 1958, umor od rada. Vladimir BeciÊ, Milivoj Uzelac, Miroslav str. 27. KraljeviÊ i Zlatko ©ulentiÊ imaju sjajnih evokacija i portreta 11 A. B. ©imiÊ, Deveta izloæba Proljetnog salona, Kritika, 1920, u kojima bukti intenzivan æivot.” (L-t, Naπi umetnici u Æenevi, str. 2. Kritika, 1921, br. 2). Neke ulomke iz drugih kritika moæemo 12 Ljubomir MiciÊ, UmetniËka kritika, Nova Evropa, 1920, br. 12. naÊi i u Ëlanku: Disk, Naπi umjetnici na internacionaInoj izloæbi 13 Da je rijeË o prijelomnoj VidoviÊevoj izloæbi oËito je iz perio- moderne umjetnosti u Æenevi, Jugoslavenska njiva, 1921, br. 1. dizacije njegove umjetnosti koju daju Vesna Novak-OπtriÊ i Igor 6 lz pisma Mirka RaËkoga Izidoru Krπnjavom. Navedeno prema: ZidiÊ. I po jednoj i po drugoj razdiobi 1920/21. prelomna je Jelena UskokoviÊ, Mirko RaËki, katalog retrospektivne izIoæbe, godina za djelo E. VidoviÊa. Vidi o tome: Dr Vesna Novak- Zagreb 1970, str. 52. OπtriÊ, Katalog izloæbe Emanuela VidoviÊa, Zagreb 1970, i lgor 7 Jelena UskokoviÊ, n. Dj., str. 52. ZidiÊ, Emanuel VidoviÊ, predgovor katalogu retrospektivne 8 Postoji stanovita pometnja u vezi s godinom MeπtroviÊeva izloæbe, Zagreb 1971. dolaska na Akademiju. lz navoda u KriæaniÊevu Ëlanku, koji 14 A. B. ©imiÊ, Uzelac, Kritika, 1922, br. 4.

197

ZZU_78_79_F.inddU_78_79_F.indd 197197 111/12/061/12/06 13:59:1013:59:10