We kindly inform you that, as long as the subject affiliation of our 300.000+ articles is in progress, you might get unsufficient or no results on your third level or second level search. In this case, please broaden your search criteria.
The joint Exhibitions or the artistic societies „New Artistes” (Sofia) and „Zemlja” (Zagreb) held in Sofia. Belgrade, Zagreb, Ljubljana (1934 - 1936). This is the second part of an article, discussing the problem of the character and the motivation for the artistic exchange on the Balkans during the 1930’s. Different methods of analysis - contextual and stylistic, have been combined in the research. The joint exhibitions of the "New Artists” and “Zemlja” in Sofia, Belgrade, Zagreb, Ljubljana, 1934-1936, organized on private sources, are compared with the officially organized and financially supported by the state exhibitions of "The Seven” (Bulgarian artists) in Belgrade, 1933 and of the artistic society “Oblik” (from Belgrade) in Sofia, 1934. Common features and differences between the two artistic societies hold out opportunities for discussing the Variety of modern artistic practices on the Balkans. The analysis of the critical reception of the artistic manifestations of “the Balkan neighbours” is a substantial part of the study. Conclusion is drawn that a kind of modern figurative representation (“conservative modernism”), no matter postimpressionist. Postcezannist or naivistic, could be the “common ground” for the artistic exchange on the Balkans at the and of the l920’s and during the 1930’s. This study is a part of a larger research of the author on the Balkan artistic exchanges and is connected to other articles (like In the mirror of the foreign critic: The Exhibition of “The Seven” in Belgrade, 1933. In: “Kultura” Weekly, 1996, N 34. “Sofia - Athens: two Exchanged Exhibitions”. In: “Art Studies Quarterly”. 2000, N I, etc.).
More...
The article is a first attempt at a contrastive re search into secession in the South-Slavic countries: Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia. The work is divided into sub-subjects as follows: history of the trend as implanted in the history of the early modernism in the South-Slavic countries; the symbolic beginnings in South-Slavic secession; between secession and impression ism; the clash between “the native” and “the foreign” as a characteristic feature of South-Slavic secession; .from the idea of symbolic to the stylistic expression of secession. At the end of 19th and the beginning of 20th century secession on the Balkan is for the first time a carrier of not the novelty and modernity only, but a messenger of “rebellion” as well. The most typical early patterns are set in the works of the Croatians: V. Bukovats, B. Chikosh, Ts. Medovich; the Bulgarians: N. Mihailov, H. Tachev, S. Badjov, G. Datsov; the Serbians: M. Mourat and L. Koen, while Serbian and Slovenian oil-painting are in a closer connection to impressionism. Slavic contemplation and softness shut the presence of the horrible, fearsome and grotesque out of South-Slavic secession and lead to a subtle symbolic in oil-painting while keeping to secession stylistic methods. Another characteristic of painting from the South-Slavic Moderna period is the intermingling of secession and impressionism, are in some countries they remain interwoven as late as the end of the 1920s. The re assessment of the national myth as preserved in the epic, folklore and village everyday life manifested namely at the second stage of the Moderna development in Croatia, partially in Serbia, as well as in its Bulgarian equivalent, the period of i.d. Native Art. The epic of Kraly Marko turned. Out to be particularly relevant for interpreting at that period uniting Slavs. The works of the Croatians: M. Rachky, L. Babich, T. Krizman, I. Meshtrovich, and the Bulgarians: I. Milev, I. Penkov, N. Rainov and Sirak Skitnik are quite similar in their aiming at implanting the inventions of universal secession into national mythology, and to use secession style and methods in decorative expression of native (national) suggestion by means of the right subjects and symbolic. Those similarities in the attempts of South-Slavic countries result in the involvement of South-Slavic artists into the orbit of European style, as well as to its enrichment with later original interpretations based on native tradition.
More...
The interest in the art contacts between Balkan countries is on one hand related to the common interest in the assimilation of modern tendencies in this region in the last years, and on the other - to the current situation in the Balkans. What was the cultural activity on the Balkans in the 1930-s, how were the artistic relations realized thanks to/in spite of the political ones, when were they most intensive, and when were they broken off, what were (where there any) consequences in the artistic orientations - tendencies, styles, forms -these are part of the questions concerned in the article. The biggest challenge in the research on the contacts between the Balkan artistic milieus is how to combine the contextual plan of discussion and the analysis of form and style. Without knowing the diplomatic, military, economic relationships we won’t be able to under stand why the exhibition of “The Seven” in Belgrade was in 1933, of “Techni” - in 1936, the Bulgarian exhibition in Germany - in 1941, why Bulgaria took part in the Venetian biannual in 1942. But if we ignore the level of artistic form we would lose the particular subject of interest. For the artistic circles in Sofia in the first half of the 20-th century, the most active contacts are those with Belgrade, Zagreb, Ljubljana. During the 30-s especially in the period between 1933 - 1939 the exhibition exchange grew up.
More...
Five out of the twenty paintings of the monumental oil painting cycle Slavonic Epopee ( l910 - 1928) reveal Alfons Moucha’s interest in the Bulgarian cultural and political history; these five are the following: The Introduction of Slavonic Liturgy in Great Moravia (863 - 880)”, “King Simeon of Bulgaria (889 - 927)”, “Mount Athos”, “Slavonic Dynasties Alliance”, and “Apotheosis of Slavicism”. The elements of Byzantine artistic culture occupy a significant place in the Slavonic Epopee paintings on Bulgarian themes. Owing to the inspiration ensuing from the art system of Byzantine art, which is close to the Bulgarian one, Moucha has established his original art nouveau style, which at the end of the 19 century enriched the overall pattern of the European art nouveau with appreciable impulses. The author outlines the strong appreciation of Bulgaria and the Bulgarians of the Slavonic Epopee in the 1920-s. She has indicated also the criticism on the Epopee in the Czech media of 1920-s and 1930-s. Even in the 1980-s in Czechoslovakia, the set of ideas and the artistic implementation of the Slavonic Epopee are co measured in a criticizing manner with the academic trends of the second half of the 19th century. The author points out the possibility of taking a somewhat different attitude towards Alfons Moucha’s Epopee on the basis of the rehabilitation, from nowadays’ point of view, of academism and symbolism in European painting. The Pictures of the Slavonic Epopee series, including those of Bulgarian subject matter and themes, undoubtedly expand the life-length of the European art nouveau that occurred in the late 19th century. This series strengthens in the European aspect the existence in the first decades of the 20th century of a type of artistic works where it is admissible to combine the art nouveau stylistics, which is subdued to conditionality and decorativeness, linearity and synthetism, with the manifestations of naturalism, impressionism, post-impressionism.
More...
Bulgaria and Germany continue to maintain an intensive mutual relationship in the period between the two Wolds Wars. Germany through economic and cultural expansion imposes its mighty presence and influence. A great number of Bulgarians qualify or manifest in various spheres of art in Germany. Several Bulgarian artists take a respected presence in German artistic life. Boris Angelushev (1902 - 1960) studied Black and White Drawing in Berlin 1924 - 1928. His activity is connected with the struggle of the German Communist Party. He published revolutionary black and white drawings and caricatures in, "Rote Fahne”, ,,Der Kniippel”, ,,Roter Pfefter”, ,,AIZ” ,,Die rote Front” etc. He also illustrated many short stories and novels, treating the everyday life and struggle of the German working class, the political development of the day and present historical personalities as part of the social movements. He always signs under the pseudonym Bruno Fuck. He is a member of the German Communist Party and of the Revolutionary Association “Assoziation Revolutioniirer Bilden der Kunstler Deutschlands” (ASSO). In 1933, when Hitler takes the power, he left Germany and in 1935 goes back to Bulgaria. His works of art are well recognized as top revolutionary black and white art in Europe and partly have not lost actuality even today. Bencho Obreshkov (1899 - 1970) graduated from The Art Academy in Dresden 1926 under O. Dix and O. Kokoschka and then joined The Berlin Magazine “Der Sturm” published by Hervarth Vaiden dedicated to Bulgarian Art (1929). Boris Georgiev (1888 - 1962) had a one-man exhibition in “Schulte” Art Gallery in Berlin in 1929. He communicated with A. Einstein and other intellectuals. The famous exhibitions through the 30-ies of Nicola Tanev (1890 - 1962) were uproariously accepted by the official German press. The Bulgarian artist included one way or an other in the German context are very different in character and moods. Nevertheless, all the time these contacts made them more accomplished and committed to the European movements. As a whole, they all reacted sincerely and whole-heartedly without adapting outside their inner necessities and thinking.
More...
The artworks of Anna Jossifova (born Haehn), kept in the private collection of Prof DA E. Staycheva in Sofia - the richest known collection of this artist’ s creations - represent Anna Jossifova as one of the most original Bulgarian masters, working in the field of both painting and decorative arts during the first quarter of 20-th century. In the Bulgarian letters, this is the first specilised art-historical study, dedicated to the artist’s splendid life and works. Based mainly on the investigation of the applied art forms found in the collection, the study identifies their styles and techniques of execution; and outlines their key significance for the real artistic appearance of this period in the history of our culture, when the very concept of the decorative and style has been evaluated and fruitfully accomplished in practicing art as a way of life. Born German, in the old European cultural centre Braunschweig, Anna Haehn trained fine and applied arts in her native town, and in the Hague, Netherlands, with the leading still-life painter M. Rosenboom. In 1899 she married the Bulgarian eng. Petar Jossifov, and came to Sofia, where she stayed until her death in 1931. During the whole of her active creative life Anna Jossifova identifies herself as a Bulgarian artist, and regularly participates in the intensive activities of the painters’ associations “Savremenno izkoustvo” (“Modern art”) and “Lada”, keeping close relations and confessing similar artistic values with such painters as Haralambi Tachev, Nikola Mihaylov, Goshka Dazov. Her creative dignity has been also recognized and highly appreciated by prominent Bulgarian writers, art-critics and intellectuals, such as Konstantin Velichkov, Andrey Protich, Dobri Nemirov, etc. Through her oil paintings and watercolours, A. Jossifova introduces the genre of floral still life into the domestic fine art and elaborates it to individual achievements of universal European value. Being a relative and inheritor of Anna Josifova, Prof. DA Staycheva has managed to save in very good condition a great deal of watercolours, paintings, woodcut furniture, porcelains, textiles and other creations by the artist, in the past forming an integral Secessionist interior of the house of Jossifovi, itself built and furnished as a Gesamtkunstwerk. The very house, designed by the eminent Bulgarian architect Pencho Koychev in 1903 in the manner of Brussels’ modem, occurs to be the earliest ex ample of the Bulgarian Secession in architecture. (Unfortunately, although notified as a monument of culture, the original house has been illegally destroyed by the communist city authorities in 1987.) Besides of Josifova ‘s magnificent still life paintings of flowers, that adorn different collections in our country and abroad, and for which she is mostly known, she is also the first Bulgarian artist who worked out fine decorative wooden furniture in the technique of coloured pyrography, skilfully combined with carving, oils, veins martin, varnish, etc. She also decorated porcelain vessels with a rich palette of overglaze enamels; and refined objects of textile, employing experimental techniques of the age. In addition to a profound familiarity with most outstanding traditions of ornamental decoration, her various decorative works demonstrate a special affinity to old-Bulgarian and Byzantine ornamental motives. Their remarkable author’s transformation into unique art forms of a Secessionist mentality and sensibility suggests a phenomenon of great cultural value, revealed in the artistic personality of Anna Jossifova. Estimating the decorative work of the paintress, we should rank her among the most important artistic figures, creating the neo-Byzantine manner of the modem architecture and decorative arts, idiomatic of the image of Bulgarian Secession. In the context of the Bulgarian “modem” movement’ s search for a distinctive style, symbolising the revived continuity of the national cultural identity, as well as its re-integration in the old European “common home’’, revered elsewhere in the international mode of Art Nouveau, the artistic presence and significance of Anna Haehn Jossifova should be treated as central.
More...
The article provides a multifaceted analysis of the Keret House as an artistic installation and a cultural event. The construction is placed in the analytical context of Jeremy Bentham’s panopticon, Le Corbusier’s machine for living, Krzysztof Wodiczko’s Pojazd dla bezdomnych (Vehicle for the Homeless), Big Brother and XTube. Other interpretative contexts are: the history of the Warsaw ghetto, the Aktion Reinhardt as well as the ensemble of issues connected with the third phase of the Holocaust (i.e. “the margins of the Holocaust”): the history of Jewish hideouts, the hunt for the Jews (Judenjagd), the plunder of Jewish mobile and immobile property, the Polish part of the biography of Etgar Keret’s parents. From such a perspective, the Keret House takes the form of a macabre historical re-enactment. The analytical framework comprises Erving Goffman’s stigma theory as well as the history of the attitude of the Polish majority towards the Jewish minority. With increasing frequency, anti-Semitic symbolic violence assumes the form of philosemitic symbolic violence. The poetics of gift and the category of “a Jewish writer with a sense of humour” function as an instrument of blackmail that place the individual subjected to it in a situation with no way-out. In Polish majority culture, the image of Jews as guests, which corresponds to the representation of Poland as home and Poles as hospitable hosts, heirs of the myth of King Casimir the Great, plays the same role. The Keret House proves to be a machine for the reproduction of the Polish majority narrative about the majority attitude of Poles towards Jews, also during the Holocaust. What is at stake within this narrative is the image of Poland and the Poles. [The project was prepared with a financial support of the National Science Centre; decision no DEC-2011/03/B/HS2/05594
More...
Another problematic aspect of the contemporary art scene is the role of the state in promoting culture, which inevitably includes a good deal of junk culture. Much questionable artistic production today is financially underpinned by taxpayer’s money and the art of extracting money from the state for art projects is prone to landing up in the hands of well-organised cliques. This is a perennial grievance of the conservative press, whose readers resent having to pay for shows that a small clique of banal anarchists and revolutionary groupies (according to this view) foists on the general public. The left on the other hand believes that it is the mark of a civilised state to encourage dissidence in art as in everything else, sidestepping the fact that state-subsidised art has rather lost its martyr’s aura of bold contrarianism. Otto Mühl, for instance, was celebrated with two major shows of his work at Vienna’s Museum für Angewandte Kunst on exiting gaol in 1997, and thirteen years later he was also exhibited at the Leopold Museum. Both of these venues are sustained by taxpayers’ money. It is an open question whether the Mühl exhibitions, at least at the MAK whose Director was obsessed with fashionable provocation,1 were more designed to create a scandal (and thus attract visitors) than to celebrate an important artistic talent. Less open in retrospect is the question as to whether the Province of Burgenland should have supported Mühl’s authoritarian and partly criminal commune by offering building subsidies.
More...