Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Content available remote

Między empatią a naukowością dyskursu krytycznego. Młodopolskie i międzywojenne style odbioru twórczości Ksawerego Dunikowskiego

100%
Wasilewska D.
Estetyka i Krytyka
|
2013
|
issue 1(28)
219-239
EN
This article is an attempt to compare the ways of understanding and interpreting art during the late 19th and early 20th century with the art criticism of the interwar years. To this end, the author presents an array of critical texts devoted to a single artist -sculptor, Xavier Dunikowski, who was active at the junction of the two eras. The focus of attention, however, is not only on the critics' views and opinions of the artist's work, but also on the nature of their language of expression, their discourse, and their criteria of evaluation. A look at the styles of reception predominant in each era will allow the author to pinpoint the transformation of art criticism that took place after World War I, as well as the prevailing patterns in the language of interpretation. This will make it possible to paint a fuller, more complex image of the art criticism of that time
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Wpływy i sztuka narodowa Józefa Czapskiego wobec sporów o pryncypia epoki.

100%
Wasilewska D.
Quart. Kwartalnik Instytutu Historii Sztuki Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego
|
2013
|
issue 2(28)
55-61
EN
The 1930s in Polish art criticism is a period of distinct changes in approach to art. On the one hand, the death of the avant-garde was an- nounced triumphantly – as too difficult, too hermetic and too distant from an everyman’s needs, and this combined perfectly with a strong turn towards neohumanism, tradition and justification of a thing rejected by the avant-garde. On the other hand, the Kapist milieu and related with it critics, supported by the Constuctivists from Łódź despite many different artistic concepts, stubbornly defended innate features of artefacts, staying afar from subordinating art to any non-artistic aims. As a result of a struggle between these two main positions, on pages of the journals of those times one could follow violent disputes and quarrels full of sophisticated and often abusive rhetoric. This is why Józef Czapski broke a mighty storm by publishing in 1933 in “Droga” [Road] monthly his article Influences and national art, in which he announced the necessity of revaluation of the country cultural legacy and the need of “opposing all storms of influences”. He was severely punished for “profaning” Matejko by taking all painterly values out of his art. The heart of the argument was not the master’s very oeuvre but the attitude of the antagonists towards national art and foreign, mostly French, influences on it. On both sides of the artistic barricade similar objections were expressed – about localism, following out-of-fashion streams and anachronism. Only the rhetoric was similar, the views were totally different. The defenders of national art, critical about art on the Seine and any “avant-gardisms”, vote for engaged art, which justified an object and refers to Polish folk tradition. Whereas the Kapists stressed the painterly aspects of works of art, and they wanted to see Polish art as a partner of Western art, open to influences and being a co-builder of modern European art. These two attitudes, impossible to conciliate, predominated the artistic press in the 1930s, and returned later, in a slightly different form and another political reality, in the post-war discourse on art and artists’ social duties.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Stanislaw Lack's Art Criticism

100%
Wasilewska D.
Modus. Prace z historii sztuki
|
2005
|
vol. 6
103-134
EN
Stanislaw Lack, a student of literature and the visual arts, active from 1897 to 1907, is practically forgotten today. His contemporaries saw him mainly as a commentator on Wyspianski's art, as in Wyspianski's oeuvre he found the fulfilment of the ideal of the art postulated by himself. Lack's critical activity concurred with the early phase of criticism of Young Poland , thus with a period abounding in various manifestoes, programmes, and discussions aimed at the struggle for a new status of an artist and art. Lack stood for fully autonomous art created by a genius - an individual who was exceptional, above time and space, above all norms and rules, above morality. He wrote that the condition of artistry was creative activity which was disinterested, thus free from tendentiousness, moralizing, and any form of public utility. Although he rejected all trends and styles, considering them artificial and useless creations, a symbol itself played an important role in his theory, as it permitted a synthetic rendition, by means of line and colour, of the most dramatic moments in human life, of a man's spiritual dilemmas. The ability to create syntheses was one of the elements distinguishing a symbol from an allegory; the latter, as Lack repeatedly emphasized, could only illustrate a man, endow him with a characteristic or pose. Furthermore, in the critic's concept a symbol was an important significant means of showing the 'eternal presence' of the past; it enabled the artist to interpret history, thereby expressing his own epoch, the spirit of his age and place. The majority of researchers wrongly called Lack an Impressionist critic, since impression in his critical language was only a synonym of art, whereas his method of reaching what was hidden and thus most important in a work of art permits his criticism to be defined as emphatic. A great deal has been written about Lack's dismissive attitude towards the reader; the critic usually described a work of art as if it were known perfectly well to the reader and thus not needing to be recalled or briefly introduced to him. What impedes the comprehensibility of his texts is the lack of means of persuasion and - first and foremost - peculiar terminology. Lack is an almost standard example of Young Poland's tendency to depart from generally accepted terms in favour of metaphors and ephemeral terms introduced for one's own use. He created an individual idiolect present in his writings. Consequently, his was one of the most original critical jargons of Young Poland. However, the individuality of his idiom resulted in a total lack of understanding both among his contemporaries and among present-day researchers. How far he has been underrated may be evidenced not only by the concurrence of many of his concepts with the art theories of that time but by the topicality of his writings which also art historians today may find useful in their studies on Young Poland's artistic output and on the evolution of the contemporary aesthetic doctrines and issues concerning theory of literature.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.