Journal ARS 35 (2002) 1-3

Mária ORIŠKOVÁ

Niekoľko poznámok ku knihe S. A. Mansbacha „Modern Art in Eastern Europe: From the Baltic to the Balkans, ca. 1890 – 1939“
[Several Remarks on the Book “Modern Art in Eastern Europe: From the Baltic to the Balkans, ca. 1890 – 1939” by S. A. Mansbach]

(Summary)

In 1999, Modern Art in Eastern Europe: From the Baltic to the Balkans, ca. 1890 - 1939 was published by Cambridge University Press. The author of this book Stephen A. Mansbach has been a professor of Art History at universities in Europe and in the United States and the former Associate Dean of the Center for Advanced Study in Visual Arts, at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D. C. The book was completed after several stages of his research in Eastern Europe with the support of numerous American and European institutions. The acknowledgments in the book express gratitude not only to the western research and grant institutions, but also to the network of the Soros Centers and dozens of museums and galleries in the East.

The book has to be appreciated first of all, because of the lack of this kind of publication written in western languages in general. Despite the recent publication of several books about modern art in Eastern Europe, there is still a lack of information about art in this region. Mansbach's book, for the first time, provides Western readers with access to Eastern European modern art and tries to make a revisionist interpretation of Modernism. At the same time it raises many questions and doubts. One of the reviews of this book, written by James Elkins, (Art Bulletin 82, December 2000) is highly critical and raises objections against the terminology and comparisons of "Western" and "Eastern" works of art.

Our review was motivated by the question of the author's decidedly "western" position. In any case, a view from outside could be highly interesting or unexpected and force a decisive shift in the research of a particular issue. At the same time, the history of an unknown territory could be rewritten according to an author's application of his own principles, different norms or methods on the new subject. This approach could be considered a kind of cultural colonialism.

1. A Survey Book and Its Concept

Mansbach's book is a survey divided into six chapters: 1. The Czech Lands, 2. Poland and Lithuania, 3. The Baltic States of Latvia and Estonia, 4. The Southern Balkans of the Former Yugoslavia, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, and Macedonia, 5. Romania and 6. Hungary. This geographical division forms the basic concept of the book and, according to Mansbach, it enables access to "terra incognita" for many Western readers. In fact, this concept of the book is not satisfactory because of the period explored here. Actually, this period of Eastern European history involved constant disintegration, the rise of new states and instability which resulted in the people of a certain territory or ethnic group separating from and being attached to different neighboring states or empires. For instance, after the Austro-Hungarian compromise, the Czech lands remained subject to Vienna and Slovakia (called Upper Hungary) was part of the Hungarian Empire. But, from 1918 - 1939 the Czech lands and Slovakia formed a new independent state, Czechoslovakia. With the exception of two notes, Slovakia does not exist in Mansbach's book, either within a state or as an" artistic region" (Künstlerlandschaft). Poland with its complicated history connected with Prussia, the Austro- Hungarian monarchy, Russia and Lithuania, was coupled only with Lithuania. The Balkan states look insoluble and Bulgaria is completely god-forsaken. Moreover, different Soviet republics (e.g. The Ukraine, Russia) except for Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are completely left out of the book; the author claims that there are "numerous excellent studies readily available in Western languages" (p. 5). In the beginning of each chapter there is a short historical overview but it doesn't help much because it is obvious that the history of a state, nation or ethnic group and the history of art can sometimes be completely different. That's why the geographical concept of the book is insufficient. The basic question of the influence of history on art should have been answered before composing the chapters. Even if survey books in general do not have the ambition to theorize on the history of art, Mansbach's book results in simplifications and an a priori approach towards the artistic production of the region and period in question. Binding historical processes with art production is as difficult as provide the cultural map of Europe with a simple pattern. The history of European national cultures is a long-term process beginning in the early 19th century. National histories do not only represent the struggle for territory but also for the passionate search for national identity and national culture. European culture means the system of national cultures with its conflict between state and nation (within multicultural states). The rise of Modernism in Eastern Europe is definitely linked with the constitution of nation states and with economic backwardness compared to Western Europe. However, on both sides of Europe the issue of modernity (and of Modernism) is connected with industrial society, communication and urban structures. In Eastern Europe conflicts between the modern and the national (which in some cases means the traditional) produced a complicated symbiosis. Modern art here is a product of different circumstances and the term Modernism can take on different meanings.

However, for the reviewed book this should be a crucial approach because methodological uncertainty cannot be compensated for by its "geographical concept". The concept of Mansbach's book might be compared with the concept of the book Relations of Avant-gardes from Prague to Bucharest 1907-1930 written by Hungarian art historian Krisztina Passuth. Because of the breadth of the issue, Passuth consciously decided to focus on avant-garde groups with an emphasis on art journals. It enabled her to articulate the very specific character of the avant-garde movement in the Eastern/Central European metropolises of Prague, Budapest, Warsaw, Zagreb, Belgrade, etc. Namely, in the 19th century, the modern city was the environment where the avant-garde group movement was born/integrated. Passuth reasonably avoided the state geographical divisions framing the art production of this territory by cities, groups, art journals and collaborative projects.

2. The Issue of Modernism, Avant-garde and the "New"

The geography of art history or art history and distant geographical spaces seems to be one of the most important issues (also for Mansbach's book). However, his flexible use of terminology or essential terms - notably modern, Modernism, and avant-garde - is problematic. Especially, if the prevailing part of every chapter in the book consists of descriptions of works of art of Eastern artists followed by a comparative analysis of very well known works of Western artists. On one hand, Mansbach tries to make it more understandable for Western readers; but on the other hand everything becomes too dependent on Western art. Paradoxically, and in a considerable schematization, he notes the progressiveness and creativity of Czech Modernism. As already remarked by Elkins, Mansbach uses several principal models for East-West relations without naming them as such - at the same time East and West are equal and unequal partners in Modernism. When he explains how Eastern artists adopted Western Modernist principles there is also a controversy with the term avant-garde in the sense of the first/original/new. In this respect Eastern avant-garde cannot be "new" or even avant-garde.

The term "new" is central for Modernist doctrine and the condition of modernity exists in symbiotic relation with Modernism which is literally the representation of the new. The phenomenon of the new is a part of avant-garde thinking in a sense of permanent change brought by the modern condition. But here, it must be taken in account that the new is spreading very fast in modern times and the avant-garde became international very early. Next to Paris, there were centers like Berlin, Munich, Vienna and Prague before World War I. Then, there is the question of why Modernism in Vienna is considered "Western" and in Prague it is "Eastern" when both cities belonged to the Habsburg monarchy?

It is as clear as a day that for Mansbach (and for many other authors) what is actually original is the formal invention/innovation. In the moment when Mansbach looks for originality in the East it could not be a new form but the content of the work. On one hand, comparative formal analysis has forced him to use terms like "creative adaptation", "inspiration", "transformation" or " influence". On the other hand, he discovers local/ regional traditions, themes and peculiarities as the "spiritual content" or "baroqueness" of Czech Cubo-expressionism, a "commitment to an art of proletarian culture" in Hungarian Modernism and in Poland the "patriotic and nationalist subjects".

Western theory of Modernism based on the originality/innovation of the stylistic principle evidently enables one to discriminate everything that is not formally new. Critical theories of Modernism (e.g. Peter Bürger: Theorie der Avantgarde, 1974, or Rosalind Krauss: The Originality of the Avant-garde and the Other Modernist Myths, 1985) have been questioning constant innovation and the authority of originality. Recently, not only the Modernist project has been relativized, but also the ideas of its universality and complexity. The post- modern paradigm disclosed Modernism with its myth of stylistic purity and raised the question of whether "impure" forms, pastiche and discontinuity were settled in the very center of Modernism (e.g. in the works of such personalities as Picasso). The terms of "appropriation" or "recycling" used by Post Modernism seem to be new, but the principle of "borrowing" in art history was actually common a long ago. The concept of the "influence" was criticized by Michel Foucault and Michael Baxandall arguing that "... influence occludes actor and agency. In contrast, the term appropriation is located both in the person of the maker and receiver".

Still, art production outside of Western Europe seen as peripheral is often considered passive, adopting original elements/forms from center/centers (within a hierarchical model "center-periphery"). Western Modernist formalism with its emphasis on formal purity and linear development towards formal reduction and de-materialization of the form, do not admit impure deviations or non-linear development. A kind of creativity where the artist is not the innovator of the form but innovator of a sense is not presupposed. However, this is the strategy accepted by Post Modernism and new critical theories of Poststructuralism. In spite of this, "any understanding of contemporary art and criticism is necessarily bound up with a consideration of Modernism, for Modernism is the cultural standard which even today governs our conception of what art is" (Brian Wallis: Art After Modernism: Rethinking Representation, 1984). Today Modernism is an institution. And as an institution, it means the official culture, contemporary classics, mainstream Modernist canon, an overextended market and so on. However, Eastern Modernism does not fit into the Modernist institution. Even if the construction of the Modernist institution is finished it seems to be one-sided building containing many invisible elements. Moreover, Brian Wallis claims that "Modernism marginalized the issue of artistic motivation or interest outside the art system, denying that artworks were themselves bound by a web of connections to specific historical and social contexts."

3. The Issue of Context

The issue of context is probably the key problem or at least one of the possibilities for approaching Eastern Modernism and many other non-western forms of Modernism. Context is a frame for the functioning of a work of art as well as the meaning comprehended within a work of art. Except for its "internal" context, every work of art is a part of a particular historical, social, political or institutional context. Besides esthetics there are also circumstances and functions of a work which could be revealed by studying the texts or documents around it. For S. A. Mansbach there were many limitations in this respect because of the lack of English or German text materials. As a result, he had to rely on "visible" material in different museums or books. That's why his approach is primarily esthetic, considering artworks for autonomous esthetic objects. These objects are subsequently placed into "his" standard western system of Modernism.

Of course, it is possible to interpret a work autonomously. But at the same time it is evident that the Modernist notion of autonomy was only a new function and the work of art designated as autonomous was functioning in a particular context, as well. Within Modernism, the idea of autonomy masked the context of art as social practice. In Mansbach's book the historical context is highly reduced to historical "facts" as granted (but the sources are not usually revealed except for references to Polish history). The bibliography of the publication consists of numerous exhibition catalogues offering basic information and texts of regional authors with a typical effort to introduce the local art scene or to reconstruct the development in a region. While "eastern" authors in many cases emphasize the relevance of the local tradition, the roots of culture (with a kind of glorification) and its connection to western Modernism, a "western" author cannot have the same motivation. He is looking at the East from within the West and its products. His interpretation is mostly limited to a description of a work of art and its affiliation to the West. For instance, Czech Cubism is reduced to "a vocabulary drawn from international styles: German expressionism, French fauvism, analytic Cubism. Luminous colors, implied movement, dynamic forms and other innovations from the West were blended and adapted to the local needs and tradition (especially Bohemian baroque)." (p. 54). Instead of emphasizing differences between French and Czech Cubism (and the reception of French Cubism throughout Europe, all the way to Moscow), the role of the Czech art historian and Cubist collector of Vincenc Kramář and highly authentic Czech Cubist architecture and design, there are only similarities and adaptations. The reasons could be seen in understanding cultural context and social functions instead of looking through western esthetic norms at distant cultures. Considering artwork as autonomous, removed from a particular social, political or economic circumstance means utopia, for a long time preserved by Modernist writing (and many "eastern" art historians), as well. Taking into account architecture, design (graphic design, typography, posters...), including photography and film in the 20s and 30s, there is a new world of reproductive/mass media, mobility and international communication which cannot be taken as an autonomous world of art objects.

In Mansbach's book there is a shift to modern urban and proletarian culture in Eastern Europe in the 1920s and 1930s. The dynamics and the functionality of this kind of art are now unavoidable and Mansbach admits that in Constructivist-Functionalist concept there is a new progressive base serving for social changes. Communication and transmission of ideas is obvious, art journals, posters, exhibitions or typography are "international", as well as the "international style" of Bauhaus.

However, this "international style" is for Mansbach again adopted in Eastern Europe, even if numerous Eastern European emigrants contributed to its "internationalism". Moreover, the author of this book decided to exclude (e.g. in the chapter on Hungary) famous emigrants such as László Moholy-Nagy, because he conducted "his career almost entirely in the West..." (p. 355). The question of a dividing line between the local, regional, international and even co-production of "eastern" artists must be raised. Comparing the book of Krisztina Passuth again, she found necessary to introduce the Hungarian avant-garde in emigration, even if nationalist authors consider the avant-garde outside of Hungary to be non-Hungarian. The issue of nationality is surely relevant, but according to Passuth and her analysis of functioning the art journal "Ma", she goes beyond "national". The international network and collaboration among artists and critics, and the new theory of art published in "Ma" did not care about "nationality". Divisions and differentiation (Moholy-Nagy as "western" and Kassák as "eastern") were not decisive and this kind of approach is probably more appropriate for the period of the Cold War.

4. Who Is the Author? Who Is He Writing for? What Is His Motivation?

These questions will be surely raised by many "Eastern" readers even if the book is not addressed first of all to them. We don't mean to suggest the "impossibility" of writing about a distant or "unknown" art territory, but to reveal the position of the author. Mansbach's book could be considered the single comprehensive survey published in the West to date. We don't know why Professor Mansbach decided to write about Eastern Modernism (the bibliography indicates his several books on Hungarian Modernism), still his introductory questions ask about art of this region and why it is "almost totally forgotten and overlooked?" (p. 1). On one hand such a question could be highly challenging for every scholar and could lead to new discoveries, but it could mean also expansion. The cultural or academic expansion (or colonization) is often accompanied by an application of norms and patterns (of the colonizer's subject) on the (colonized) object which is the object of the research and appropriation as well. However, Eastern Europe was not considered a colony but a cultural region erased from the cultural map of Europe. Contemporary post colonial discourse demands the deconstruction of Western stereotypes imposed on non-western cultures, but Eastern Europe is mostly designated as the "Eastern periphery of Europe" or "terra incognita". To articulate more precisely what this means and if the long term model "center-periphery" is an acceptable approach, will be the task for art history or cultural studies in the East and in the West. In this respect, the re-examination of the discipline of art history (as an academic discipline) with its universalist claims will be necessary because the history of other artistic work which did not fit into the universal framework of (western) Art History has been marginalized or excluded. Paradoxically, even if Poststructuralist theory (and many other approaches) started the redefinition of borders of the discipline, art historians in the East have not noticed the possibilities of new approaches. Usually, local histories of art are simply inserted into the framework of the Western art historical narrative.

Mansbach's book can be seen as the survey of the art production of a region which has been insufficiently examined in the West. The author found one of the objects of his academic research. But what remains questionable is his approach. His approach, or better to say, his style of writing, is very impersonal. He attempts to remain "objective", supporting his narrative with numerous facts, events, dates, names, and "universal" usage of general (western) norms, classifications and notions. With this kind of art history approach he only continues in one of the fictions of the historiography of art and does his business of an art historian using powerful universal agendas instead "of questioning the normative subjectivity of Western epistemology" (Keith Moxey: Art History Today: Problems and Possibilities, unpublished lecture at Central European University Budapest) as well as articulating very different stories outside of Western norms.