With the Soviet-Polish Non-Aggression Pact having been signed on 25 July 1932, there began a period of ‘rapprochement’ between the two countries, this resulting in e.g. a visit of a group of six Polish artists to Moscow and Leningrad (23 Nov. – 7 Dec. 1933). The group included: Władysław Jarocki, Władysław Skoczylas, Tadeusz Pruszkowski, Xawery Dunikowski, Władysław Daszewski, and Mieczysław Treter. Following the group’s return, it was only Władysław Skoczylas who publicly spoke about his impressions from the trip. He was most promptly associated with the Polish-Soviet ‘rapprochement’ in fine arts at the time: he most frequently spoke about art and organization of artistic life in the Soviet Union, he also actively participated in establishing relations with Soviet artists, and since he was a known and esteemed artist himself, also a President of the Institute of Art Propaganda, board member of the Society for Promoting Polish Art Abroad, and an active columnist affiliated with ‘Gazeta Polska’, an unofficial organ of the Polish government, his words resounded widely. The paper attempts to reconstruct the course of the visit of the Polish delegation, to analyse the report presented by Władysław Skoczylas in ‘Gazeta Polska’, as well as to answer the question why what he saw in the artistic life of the USSR was by him considered to have been one of the ‘strongest’ impressions he had had in the recent time. The encounter with Soviet art as well as becoming acquainted with the conditions in which Soviet artists lived and worked must have been an important experience for Władysław Skoczylas. In the Soviet Union he was able to see with his own eyes how the issues he himself had been considering as of the mid-1920s were solved, namely the mass character of art, its commitment to the life of the state and to the promotion of its ideology, functioning of the state and social patronage, organization of the artistic production and its sales, and finally the artists’ living conditions. Favourable interest with which he assessed what he saw during the visit to Moscow and Leningrad had by no means to do with his leftist inclinations. It resulted from Skoczylas’s deep conviction that the state, being the institution of the greatest potential and authority, also in the domain of art (particularly in the period of the deepest economic crisis) should take on the role of the main patron and client, providing artists with support, and treating them just like any other highly qualified specialist, while the artists should create art playing ‘a major role as a state-building factor’. The Soviet example illustrated what the implementation of the idea of art connected with the state and its ideology could look like, how art and the artists could benefit, yet it also showed the price of such an arrangement. Skoczylas does not provide an unequivocal answer to the question whether the price is worth paying. However, both his statements and the opinions voiced by representatives of other Polish artistic circle in the early 1930s suggest that they would be willing to incur the cost.
PL
Artykuł jest próbą rekonstrukcji przebiegu wizyty w Moskwie i Leningradzie (23 listopada – 7 grudnia 1933) sześcioosobowej grupy polskich artystów (Władysław Jarocki, Władysław Skoczylas, Tadeusz Pruszkowski, Xawery Dunikowski, Władysław Daszewski i Mieczysław Treter), a także analizy i kontekstualizacji czteroczęściowego artykułu Władysława Skoczylasa Sztuka w ZSRR, opublikowanego po powrocie z podróży na łamach „Gazety Polskiej”, będącego jednym z najważniejszych świadectw dotyczących polsko-radzieckich kontaktów w sferze sztuki.
In Władysław Strzemiński’s Writings (published 1975) the article Blockade of Art (first edition: ‘Gazeta Artystów’ 1934, No. 3) featured an incorporated fragment of another text that could be found on the same page of the periodical: of Political Section (Odcinek polityczny) by Zenon Drohocki. The error resulted in the fact that researchers using the reprint of the Blockade of Art considered that Strzemiński’s statement as the artist’s only, yet extremely radical political declaration. The paper is to demonstrate why even without confronting the reprint with the first edition, the Blockade of Art in the version contained in the Writings cannot have been written by Władysław Strzemiński.
PL
W Pismach Władysława Strzemińskiego (wyd. 1975) do artykułu Blokada sztuki (pierwodruk: „Gazeta Artystów” 1934, nr 3) został dołączony fragment innego tekstu znajdującego się na tej samej stronie czasopisma – Odcinka politycznego autorstwa Zenona Drohockiego. Pomyłka ta sprawiła, że badacze korzystający z przedruku Blokady sztuki uznali tę wypowiedź Strzemińskiego za jedyną, ale niezwykle radykalną deklarację polityczną artysty. Celem artykułu jest pokazanie, dlaczego nawet bez konfrontowania przedruku z pierwodrukiem Blokada sztuki w wersji zawartej w Pismach nie mogła być napisana przez Władysława Strzemińskiego.
Almost all of Józef Czapski’s pre-war painting output was lost during the Second World War. His work from that time can be judged only on the basis of no more than a dozen or so preserved canvases. The absence of original works can be to a certain extent compensated for by their reflection in the words of those who saw them. An extremely important source of knowledge about Czapski’s pre-war achievements are therefore the statements of reviewers commenting on exhibitions in Poland at which, from 1930 onwards, he presented his works. They make it possible to partially reconstruct Czapski’s oeuvre from the years 1930–1939, trace the transformations it was undergoing, and examine its reception in art criticism of the period. This article analyses almost all press commentaries relating to the exhibition with Czapski’s participation (so far minimally used by researchers of his work), confronting them, as far as possible, with other source texts, including statements by the artist himself and by the members of his circle.
PL
Niemal cały przedwojenny dorobek malarski Józefa Czapskiego przepadł w czasie II wojny światowej. O jego twórczości z tego czasu możemy sądzić na podstawie zaledwie kilkunastu zachowanych płócien. Brak oryginalnych dzieł może w pewnym stopniu zrekompensować ich odbicie utrwalone w słowach tych, którzy je widzieli, niezwykle ważnym źródłem wiedzy o przedwojennych dokonaniach artysty są więc wypowiedzi recenzentów komentujących wystawy w Polsce, na których malarz prezentował swoje prace od 1930 r. Dzięki nim możemy przeprowadzić częściową rekonstrukcję twórczości Czapskiego z lat 1930–1939, prześledzić zachodzące w niej przemiany, a także przyjrzeć się jej ówczesnej recepcji w krytyce. W artykule przeanalizowano niemal wszystkie komentarze prasowe odnoszące się do ekspozycji z udziałem Czapskiego (dotychczas w minimalnym stopniu wykorzystane przez badaczy jego twórczości), konfrontując je w miarę możliwości z innymi tekstami źródłowymi (m.in. wypowiedziami samego artysty i ludzi z jego kręgu).
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.