The EIGHT Part 2 by Arpad Fako

2/7/11

2:01 PM

Page 2

THE

EIGHT RÓBERT BERÉNY

DEZSÔ CZIGÁNY

BÉLA CZÓBEL

JANUS PANNONIUS MUSEUM

KÁROLY KERNSTOK

EIGHT

8AK_B1_4_PROD_ENG

THE ÖDÖN MÁRFFY

DEZSÔ ORBÁN

BERTALAN PÓR

LAJOS TIHANYI

THE

EIGHT R Ó B E R T B É L A

C Z Ó B E L

Ö D Ö N

PÉCS 2010

B E R É N Y •

M Á R F F Y

B E R T A L A N

P Ó R

•

D E Z S Ô

K Á R O L Y •

•

C Z I G Á N Y

K E R N S T O K

D E Z S Ô L A J O S

O R B Á N T I H A N Y I

JANUS PANNONIUS MUSEUM PÉCS

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

2/3/11

11:19 PM

Page 254

B E R N A D E T T

K O V Á C S

KÁROLY KERNSTOK

Károly Kernstok (1873–1940), although a leading figure of the Eight, also had a broad interest in social, political and artistic affairs, and his peers thought of him as more of a thinker than an instinctive artist. His fellow-painter and friend, Ödön Márffy, claimed that his philosophical depth was often at the expense of painting: “His significance was as much more than a painter, a man of erudition and very great intelligence. […] Such breadth of learning is rare among painters. […] His concern for social problems and politics, however, took up so much of his energies that in many respects it distracted him from art.”1 Right from the start of his career, Kernstok espoused the idea of painting that was well grounded in theory. He avoided random framing, and his forms were not broken up by light impinging on the subject or the play of reflections. His imagination was more driven by the human psyche, as displayed in portraits highlighting human traits. He was also interested in the moral questions inherent in Biblical stories and the everyday realities of poverty. He tried

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK ’ S PHOTO 1896 P ARIS S ALON

PASS TO THE EXHIBITION

OF THE

all of the turn-of-the-century painting styles, producing Mûcsarnok-style, brown-toned portraits and anecdotal pictures (Mother and Child, 1903), plein air naturalism (Plum Pickers, 1901), flirted with symbolism through mysterious figures in the gloom of the studio (Models, 1903).

In the mid-1900s, however, he encountered a completely novel approach to painting. The Parisian milieu, overthrowing impressionism and favouring experiments in style created according to individual notions was exactly suited to Kernstok's philosophical, experimental nature. In 1906 he started to visit Paris2 with increasing frequency, and for longer periods, to study and pick up on the latest developments. But Kernstok never became an epigone of the French. Already a mature artist, established in his homeland, the recipient of many accolades, Kernstok undoubtedly made an impact among the largely young, novice Hungarian painters he met in Paris. And his youthful verve, curiosity and openness to novelty earned him immediate acceptance into their company. Béla Czóbel,3 Róbert Berény and Bertalan Pór (who was closer in age to Kernstok) enthusiastically introduced him to the studios of the latest artists. They also took him into the salon of the Stein brothers of Matisse and Picasso, where Kernstok met both of these artists.4 He learned from the work of K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK , C . 1910

254

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

2/3/11

11:19 PM

Page 255

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

2/3/11

11:19 PM

Page 256

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : P ORTRAIT

B ÉLA C ZÓBEL , 1907

•

C AT .

Matisse and Picasso the technique of decorative distortion of forms, with the difference that his alteration of forms stemmed from intellectual, and not merely visual, considerations. In 1908, he began to explore in his studies the potential for simplified but structurally justified representations of the human body – particularly the

256

NO .

160

naked bodies of young boys and vigorous men. In preparation for larger compositions, he produced over a hundred drawings, made with a practised hand and using tapered ink lines, to lend a well-defined structurality and soft decorativeness to the bodies. His use of Indian ink to convey images with only a few curved lines displays

an affinity with modern French graphics, and also with the Japanese graphics much favoured among the French.5 Seeking ways of expressing structurality, his work clearly bore the influence of Cézanne, and as with other members of the Eight, Cézanne’s works were only the starting points of a process, and not a models to follow. Kernstok preferred to emphasise the outlines of forms and highlight the modelling of parts of the body, in contrast with the blocks of colour making up Cézanne’s forms. The art of Béla Czóbel also had an influence on him. Czóbel, who exhibited with the Fauves and was known as the “rough-edged Fauve” can be seen to have had an effect on Kernstok’s paintings through the use of non-natural colours, thick decorative outlines around forms, and surfaces featuring large patches of colour.6 The sharpest proof of this learning process emerges from reproductions of Kernstok’s ink drawings from the collection of art historian Béla Horváth, made as caricatures of Matisse’s famous Blue Nude.7 Kernstok took what he learned in the studios of modern painting and built it into his artistic method, but only after passing it through a “Kernstokian filter” and adapting it for his own purposes. It was this ability that made him the intellectual leader of the Eight. His previous achievements had brought him connections which he – and thus indirectly the Eight – used to gain acceptance for the artistic revolution, still the subject of much scandal in Hungary. Critics rebutting attacks on the Eight made much and revealing mention of Kernstok’s older pictures, already known and accepted by the public, demonstrating that the controversial visual innovations were not the result of technical inadequacy. His qualification for such a leading role stemmed from his generous temperament as well as his artistic authority, and in what was to become known as the Eight, a company of friends,8 artists whose interests conflicted at so many points, he was the natural centre point. The older artists of the Nagybánya school, who found these new movements somewhat unsettling, also regarded Kernstok as the leader and organiser of these young people.9 Living in a cottage in a vineyard in Nyergesújfalu, he received Béla Czóbel for extended periods in the summer of 190710 and regular visits by Ödön Márffy from 1908 onwards, and subsequently in the villa he built in Nyerges.11 Although Károly Kernstok was not by any means the most daring member of this gradually-forming group of painters, he seems to have been the engine that set it off and kept it in motion, by standing by the young moderns who had hitherto lacked any support in the Hungarian artistic world.

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

2/3/11

11:19 PM

Page 257

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK

He and József Rippl-Rónai helped some of these young artists to be admitted into MIÉNK and to exhibit with that group, much to the indignation of Károly Ferenczy and Pál Szinyei Merse, the organisation’s naturalist-impressionist elders.12 In spring of 1909, the outlines of a new group started to emerge at the MIÉNK exhibition at the National Salon: “Rumours are circulating that Kernstok will be the core of a new secession, breaking away from Miénk, and will form a new group of artists out of the Hungarian ultrayouth, the young titans of Hungarian art, under the name ‘Keresôk’ (Seekers)”.13 In that National Salon exhibition they gave a foretaste of the “artistic truths” they were seeking for, but only came out with a real programme at an exhibition in the Könyves Kálmán Salon which opened on 31 December 1909. Some of the company, and particularly Kernstok, followed the route marked out by Cézanne, rethinking the question of how to represent space and form in painting, a question the impressionists had completely ignored. Each member of the group followed this line under his own individual interpretation, and developed a unique style. “We are devotees of nature. We do not copy it via the perception of schools. We draw meaning from it,” they proclaimed.14 Their aim, as Kernstok stated at his talk on the exhibition to the Galilei Circle,15 was to free art from the formalisms prescribed by the painting schools. In the Kernstokian interpretation, “inquisitive art” was confronting “copying art”. Impressionism and naturalism, for example, were attempts to copy the visible world around us by utterly inap-

WITH HIS FAMILY AND

B ERTALAN P ÓR

AT A

P ARIS

AIR SHOW ,

1906

propriate, imperfect means. The artist therefore has to use his intellectual powers to draw on nature, and thus create meaningful works that convey the essence of the subject. Kernstok openly declared that for him, art was the key to

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK

N YERGESÚJFALU , 1910 S

social progress. “This is not art in the service of the intelligentsia or the proletariat, but what can most concisely be described as “inquisitive art” […] which perpetually seeks artistic value and will not fall with the classes.”16

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : Y OUTH L EADING

H ORSE , C . 1912

•

C AT .

NO .

170

257

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

2/3/11

11:19 PM

Page 258

A BOVE : P ABLO P ICASSO : H ORSES B ATHING , 1906 • C AT . NO . 324. B ELOW : K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : H ORSEMEN AT THE W ATER , 1912 • C AT .

The choice of New Year’s Eve for the vernissage lends itself to symbolic interpretation, resonating as it does with the title, “New Pictures”. It was a proclamation to the public that the young people who had still been seeking for a way forward when they appeared at the MIÉNK exhibition, and who had several times displayed their works as studies, had now found their own style. Kernstok’s own exhibits, Youth17 and its companion piece Youths,18 reveal what had been fermenting within him between Nyergesújfalu and Paris. The study drawings of single- and double-figure

258

NO .

221

nudes and equestrian figures, and the paintings they led to, represented a completely new approach. The most eloquent expression of what this meant was formulated by his close friend and diligent critic, György Bölöni. He said Kernstok was concerned solely with the “construction of the body under new laws”. “He has above all directed his effort at creating balance among the subjects of the pictures, concentrating on how the forms should come together and hold themselves into a unit, and on the way bodies arrange themselves in accordance with their modelling and thus reveal their significance.”19

Kernstok joined the Freemasons in 1901.20 Identifying with the Masonic way of thinking and symbolic system, he attempted to translate these into the language of art. The brotherhood of the Freemasons places particular significance on selfimprovement, the ultimate purpose of which is to create a better, more just world. This is confirmed by several references in their system of symbols, and their effect may be identified on Kernstok’s pictures. The candidate – the “seeker” – regards himself as an uncut stone, and proceeding through each rank of the brotherhood, becomes increasingly polished and perfect. Looked at in this context, it is possible to understand Kernstok’s efforts to characterise human figures infinitely-calculated, refined and yet natural-seeming geometric constructions. The compasses, square, level and plumb are the symbols which define masonic rituals and particular masonic offices, and convey the means of creating the perfect work.21 The closest we can come to perfection in representation of the human body is to conform to the proportions that may be drawn with ruler and compasses. The ideas that appeared in the nudes of boys he painted in 1909 came to full realisation in Horseman at Dawn22 and Horsemen at the Water23 he showed at the 1911 Eight exhibition. The startling subject – an assembly of athletically-built naked men on horse and on foot – is easer to understand if looked at from the viewpoint of a person who believed deeply in the possibility of social equality. Horsemen at the Water is the representation of a hoped-for Arcadian world. Horseman at Dawn also had masonic aspects: the picture was hung on the wall of the drawing room of the Szeged banker József Lukács,25 a member of the Palatinus lodge,26 and a graphics version of the picture appeared on the cover of the weekly newspaper launched for the brotherhood, Szabadgondolat.27 Kernstok’s public activities and commitments also explain his increasing interest in murals from the early 1900s, a development that was also bound up with his study trip to Italy. During what he described in his 1937 memoirs as a “great experience”, Kernstok felt he had hit on the true essence of Italian Renaissance painting: “My artistic outlook completely changed, in fact my whole thinking took a new form, I understood how that whole artistic era had reshaped human nature, I realised the explosive changes it led to in perception, the observation and appreciation of nature that man had gone through.”28 He attempted to repeat this effect on reshaping human nature in his own time, when society was struggling with different, but no less serious problems. He undertook mural commissions even before the Eight era, such as the mosaic frieze of scenes from the Hunor-Magor legend for the outside wall of the Lederer villa in Bajza utca

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

2/3/11

11:19 PM

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : H ORSEMEN , 1912

Page 259

•

C AT .

NO .

223

(1904), designed by the architects’ firm Jámbor and Bálint.29 This was an early display of Kernstok’s tendency, in his determination to make proper use of the material, and to meet the demands of the area concerning height and surface. It was the Vágó brothers, however, who found his reductionist style a way of realising Gesamtkunstwerk ideas in the buildings they designed. They collaborated in the Gutenberg Home, built in 1907,30 which Kernstok decorated with a frieze between the windows of the top floor. It was a series representing printers’ work, for which Kernstok chose a sgrafitto procedure sunk into the rendering, with few colours. Another fruit of his work with the Vágó brothers was an important but completely forgotten work of the Eight era for the new building of the Zsigmond Feld Drama Society in Városliget (1907).31 This was a mosaic of boys with lutes in medieval costumes alternating with naked muses, all in highly simplified forms. It included features which were becoming characteristic of Kernstok’s work, stylised head types with strong eyebrows and nose lines as well as geometric representation of the internal features of the bodies. Next came his most significant all-arts undertaking of that time, the Schiffer villa (1912). The architect, József Vágó, wanted several things from Kernstok. Originally there was to be a frieze on the outside wall under the roof, but this was never came into being, for unknown reasons.32 The series of six-section windows decorating the

KÁROLY KERNSTOK: LANDSCAPE

WITH

TREES,

EARLY

1910S (MISSING)

hall,33 however, became one of Kernstok’s most highly-praised works. The formal divisions required by the technique of glass windows, the pieces of stained glass set in lead frames resulted in a harmonious whole with Kernstok’s geometric style. Arranged into six vertical and three horizontal fields were idyllic scenes: along the top there were alternating groups of naked and clothed figures collecting flowers and fruits, and along the bottom, group of three female nudes. These scenes of heavenly contentment fitted well with the building as a whole, carrying on the themes of harmony between man and nature explored by the other artists hired by József Vágó – Béla Iványi-Grünwald, József Rippl-Rónai and István Csók. “A building is worth nothing if it is

just a collection of technically perfect, finelyarranged forms. You have to imbue the lifeless outlines with soul and social content. It is the social content that takes primacy,” wrote József Vágó in a letter,34 and it was Kernstok whom he engaged most frequently to work with him on buildings. His Panel35 for the hall of the Schiffer villa, however, was a more constrained work. Both the sketch and the final oil painting represented the owner, Miksa Schiffer, and his associates, a heroic figure set in the centre of a triple arcade. The highlighted scene was flanked in the side arches by scenes of horse riding and bridge-building, the hobby and work of the architect and businessman. The geometric construction of the bodies of the dressed figures has an artificial effect.

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : B Y

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : D ETAIL

THE

S TREAM , 1910 (M ISSING )

OF A

P ARK , 1908–1909 (M ISSING )

259

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

2/3/11

11:19 PM

Page 260

H ALL

260

M IKSA S CHIFFER ’ S

VILLA ,

1912

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

2/3/11

11:19 PM

Page 261

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : W INDOW

The style he had developed was more suited to unclothed figures. In 1912, when he was commissioned to decorate the gymnasium of the Dugonics Street Primary School, a folk school set up in the modern spirit of the Bárczy Era, he returned to athletically-built, vigorous men. In preparation for the fresco, Primeval Hunters, he made several sketches exploring the theme of struggle36 –men with each other and men with wild animals.37 In the end he displayed a rhythmical series of men in energetic motion, perfectly conveying the view of the city fathers that young people need to keep fit. A good friend of Kernstok, Pál Nádai, wrote eloquently of these aims: “We hanker for the long-faded joyfulness of the Greek

playing fields, the splendid entertainment, laughter and manliness of the spring of humanity, for a renaissance which will bring to the world the regeneration of human thoughts and beauty.”38 As an example to young people practising the “Swedish gymnastics” introduced during the Bárczy Era,39 he presented prehistoric men energetically chasing their prey with rhythmical steps. It is understandable that this version was chosen to be made in preference to the others, in which prehistoric figures struggled with a bear or with each other. Kernstok, like some others in the group, was not involved in the third Eight exhibition which opened in autumn 1912.40 All of the absentees cited commissions for monumental works.41

DESIGN FOR THE

S CHIFFER V ILLA , 1911

Kernstock was by now an established artist, with a style accepted by the public. He received a series of commissions for art works in the monumental form he so longed to work in,42 and so it is possible that he felt less need for joint shows. It is true, however, that after he loosened his links with the Eight group, Kernstok’s art steadily lost its coherence, and although his message remained full of symbols, the form was less and less appropriate. His paintings Farewell43 and Game on the Meadow44 convey an enforced return visit to naturalism. It is not clear if he was just burnt out, or isolated following the outbreak of the Great War in 1914, or his increasingly vigorous activity in public affairs sapped his inspiration,45 but it is

261

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

2/3/11

11:19 PM

Page 262

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK AND HIS SON N YERGESÚJFALU , C . 1910

IN THEIR GARDEN

certain that at a group show in 1917 even his most loyal friends employed some circumlocution in their praise of his new direction. Kernstok reached his artistic zenith in the years between 1908 and 1912. A major retrospective exhibition in 1911, at the peak of his career, prompted a fellow Freemason to praise him with the words: “He can now do anything that might technically be demanded of a painter. He can deal with the most complex problems of mood, colour and light, and even the more difficult, deeper-lying structural problems. At the same time, he has risen as a thinker to grasp a very broad and deep, and most of all coherent, world-view. Now, by combining all of these technical and intellectual accomplishments into works of art, he is using them to create a new monumental painting, something produced not merely to impress and be appreciated by the few, but made for, and making an impression on the wider world.”46 E NDRE A DY ’ S

POSTCARD TO

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK , 1913

Notes 1

Letter from Ödön Márffy to Iván Dévényi. Budapest, 7 January 1956 – HAS RIA Archives, MKCS–C–I–159/973a. Published in: Dévényi, Iván: Kernstok Károly és barátai szabadiskolája Nyergesújfalun [The free school of Károly Kernstok and his friends at Nyergesújfalu]. Dunamente, 25 July 1959. 2. He was in Paris from May to November 1906, and his letters in autumn 1907 and 1908 suggest extended study trips. Kovács,Bernadett: Kernstok Károly. Hungarian Fauves from Paris to Nagybánya. Ed. by Krisztina Passuth, György Szücs. Budapest, Hungarian National Gallery, 2006. 264. Béla Horváth claimed their acquaintance started in 1903, when Czóbel went into Kernstok’s Vasvári Pál Street studio to view a work in progress, the painting Three Models. Horváth , Béla: Czóbel Béla Kernstok-arcképe [Béla Czóbel’s portrait of Kernstok]. Mûvészet, 3, 1962, 10. 19.

262

“Matisse and Picasso went to Stein’s house every Saturday, and it was there that Kernstok met them. Matisse had an effect on Kernstok. He saw, and was given Picasso’s horseman.” interview by Béla Horváth with Béla Czóbel, 24 September 1961, manuscript, the estate of Béla Horváth. HAS RIA Archives, inv. no,: MDK–C–I–217. “Kernstok was here recently. A very intelligent and well-read person; I hear he is a good artist too. the Guimet Museum had such an effect on him he returned day after day to revel in the Japanese drawings.” Letter from Rezsô Lavotta to Lajos Fülep. Paris, 26 December 1906. Fülep Lajos levelezése I. 1904–1919 [The correspondence of Lajos Fülep], Coll. and ed: Dóra F. Csanak. Budapest, 1990, p. 65. On this question see Gergely Barki: A vaddá válás evolúciója Czóbel Béla korai portréin. Hungarian Fauves 2006. op. cit. p. 202.

There are surviving reproductions of two versions, but the original is lost. The estate of Béla Horváth, HAS RIA Archives, inv. no,: MDK–C–I–217. Rockenbaue, Zoltán r: A Nyolcak egymás közt” [The Eight among themselves] in Nulla dies sine linea. Tanulmányok Passuth Krisztina hetvenedik születésnapjára. [Studies on the seventieth birthday of K. P.], Ágnes Berecz, Mária L. Molnár, Erzsébet Tatai (eds.), Budapest, 2007, pp. 82–89. “Grouped around Kernstok, the Zobels are going to create a new kind of Nagybánya in Nyergesújfalu.” Letter from Károly Ferenczy to István Réti. 18 April 1907. Válogatás a nagybányai mûvészek leveleibôl 1893–1944, [The selected letters of the Nagybánya artists], Edit András, Bernáth Mária (eds.), Miskolc, 1997. 144. A different reading of this letter is given in: Horváth 1962, op. cit. 19.

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

2/3/11

11:19 PM

Page 263

Referring to the above letter from Károly Ferenczy, Béla Horváth pointed out that Czóbel spent the summer of 1907 in Nyergesujfalu instead of Nagybánya. Márffy spent every summer there until 1923 (even during Kernstok’s years of exile). Letter from Ödön Márffy to Iván Dévényi, op. cit. Zoltán Rockenbauer ventured a list of artists and intellectuals who visited Nyergesújfalu and the times they were there, from which it seems that there were rarely more than one of them with the master at a time. It was probably only after 1912, when a villa with a studio was built, that larger companies assembled on the Kernstok estate. Rockenbauer 2007, op. cit. When it was formed in 1908, the question of whether Márffy and Czóbel, who were supported by Kernstok and Rippl-Rónai, should be admitted. The other side of the bargain was the acceptance of Károly Ferenczy’s son Valér. See Horváth 1962, op. cit. 19. (Kézdi) [László Kézdi-Kovács]: A Miénk új kiállítása [The new exhibition of MIÉNK]. Pesti Hírlap, 14 February 1909. 9–10. Az Utak [The Roads Parted] II. 15. Uj Képek kiállítása a Könyves Kálmán szalonjában [An exhibition at the Kálmán Könyves Salon], [Budapest], [1909]. He gave the lecture on 9 January 1910, attracting great interest. Kernstok Károly felolvasása [A lecture by Károly Kernstok]. Egyetértés, 11 January 1910. 12. Az Utak [The Roads Parted] II. 267. Kernstok , Károly: A kutató mûvészet [Inquisitive art]. Nyugat, 3, 1910, I. 95–99. Az Utak [The Roads Parted] II. 291. Fiúakt, 1909. (formerly owned by Marcell Komor). Published in András Körmendi: Kernstok Károly, Budapest, 1936, fig. 9. Ifjak, 1909. Exhibited in Új Képek [New Pictures], Budapest, Könyves Kálmán Szalon, 1909, No 17. Identified via a caricature of the exhibition. See Kovács, Bernadett: Képek a “nevetôkabinet”-bôl avagy a Nyolcak festészete a karikatúrák tükrében [Pictures form the “laughing cabinet” or the painting of the Eight in light of caricatures] in Artmagazin, 2006, 2. 54. György Bölöni: Kernstok Károly. Aurora, 1, 1911, 6. 81–84. Az Utak [The Roads Parted] III. 107. 24 February 1901: admitted to the Reform Lodge. MOL, P 110, box 1, item 3, document 96. 12 March 1906: the name appears among the founding members of the Petôfi Lodge. MOL, P 1121, box 1, document 16, 14 March 1909: permission granted in the Petôfi Lodge to leave the lodge. MOL, P 1121, box 1, document 251. Lodge resolutions 63, 14 March 1909: founding member of the Március Lodge, officially commencing its duties, after he and Bernát Steiner, acting secretary, wrote a latter on 10 March 1909 urging the Petôfi Lodge to release them from the lodge. P 1125, box 1, item 1, documents 15 and 16. This last piece of data is from 1916, when Kernstok was still a member of the Március Lodge. MOL, P 1125, box 1, item 1, document 66. Register of Március Lodge for 1916. After the Republic of Councils, masonic organisations were banned. Károly Kernstok lived in exile until 1926. There is no known evidence that he was a member of a German masonic organisation or an illegal lodge in Hungary after his return. S.: A szabadkômûvesi szimbólumok magyarázata [An explanation of Masonic symbols], Budapest, 1915. 11–12. Magányos lovas. See “Nyolcak” kiállítása a Nemzeti Szalonban [Exhibition of the “Eight” in the National Salon], Int. Géza Feleky, Budapest, 1911, No 57. In 1911 it belonged to József Lukács: Almanach. (Képzômûvészeti lexikon) [Almanac (Lexicon of fine art)], Béla Déry, László Bányász, Ernô Margitay (eds.), Budapest, 1912. 277. In 1928 it was owned by Ottó Popper. See Kernstok Károly gyûjteményes kiállítása [An exhibition of the collected works of Károly Kernstok], Budapest, Ernst Múzeum, 1928, No 99. Lovasok a víz partján. See “Nyolcak” kiállítása a Nemzeti Szalonban [Exhibition of the “Eight” in the National Salon],1911, op. cit. No 56. In 1911 it belonged to Dezsô Bálint: Kernstok Károly gyûjteményes kiállítása [An exhibition of the collected works of Károly Kernstok], Budapest, Mûvészház, 1911. “Reiter, besitzer Desiderius Balint, Budapest.” Later to Dr György Kovács. Kernstok 1928, op. cit. No 103. Éva Bajkay wrote in her essay on the painting that she found in it “the Masonic ideal of collective harmony and general health.” Bajkay, Éva: Lovasok a vízparton. Variációk egy témára:

Kernstok Károly lovasai Gyôrben [Horsemen by the waterside. variations on a theme: Károly Kernstok’s horsemen in Gyôr]. Új Mûvészet, 19, 2008, 12. 12–14. There is a photograph of the Gyopár Street villa with Kernstok’s picture Horseman at Dawn: Lukács György élete képekben és dokumentumokban [The life of György Lukács in pictures and documents], compiled by Éva Fekete, Éva Karádi. Budapest, 1980. 39. Péter Molnos has confirmed this identification by a photographic reproduction, and suggested that József Lukács bought the picture at the persuasion of his son György. Molnos, Péter: Budapest: The “Paris of the East” in the Hungarian Wilderness Hungaian Fauves 2006. op. cit. 119. The present author considers that more prominent among the reasons for the purchase was the motif, the man riding towards the light of dawn, of symbolic meaning in masonic ideology. See Kovács, Bernadett: Kernstok Károly: Magányos lovas. A Mûvészház 1909–1914. Modern kiállítások Budapesten. [K.K. Solitary Horseman. The Artist House. Modern art exhibitions in Budapest] Eds: Judit Gömöry, Nóra Veszprémi. Hungarian National Gallery, Budapest, 2009. 104. A nagy élmény. A Festômûvész Kernstock Károly beszéli [The big experience. Said by the painter Károly Kernstok]. Ujság, 14 December 1937. 14. Republished in: Kernstok Károly írásaiból. A kutató mûvészettôl a Vallomásig 1911–1939 [The selected writings of Károly Kernstok. From the “Inquisitive art” to “Confession”], coll. and pub: Ferenc Bodri. Tatabánya, 1997, pp. 128–129. The journey may have taken place in 1901, for which there is evidence in several quarters. On a year’s scholarship won from the Society of Art Patrons in 1899, he went to the Paris World’s Fair and from then to north Italy. See Horváth, Béla: Kernstok Károly. Tatabánya, 1993, p. 19. On 29 April , he wrote an enthusiastically-worded postcard from Florence to his friend Gyula Kosztolányi Kann. HAS RIA Archives, MDK–C–I–17/2024. Masa Feszty also put the meeting in Italy between father Árpád Feszty and Károly Kernstok at around 1901 in an interview with Béla Horváth. The estate of Béla Horváth, HAS RIA Archives, inv. no,: MDK–C–I–217. 36. The present author would like to thank Attila Rum, Gergely Barki and Zoltán Rockenbauer for their assistance in her research. “Between the windows, covering the whole wall of that storey, runs an excellent mosaic frieze by Károly Kernstok. The images are pure rhythm and pure harmony. Noble, eloquent and bold.” Gerô, Ödön: A Bajza-utcai Lederer-ház [The Lederer Mansion in Bajza utca]. Mûvészet, 7, 1908. 114–118. Gerle, János: Századforduló [Fin-de-siècle], Budapest, 1997, 38. Former Léderer Mansion at Bajza u. 42 (1902, Bálint and Jámbor). Eszter Gábor: A Gutenberg-ház és Vágó József [The Gutenberg House and József Vágó] in Diotíma. Heller Ágnes 70. születésnapjára [Diotima. For the 70th birthday of Ágnes Heller], András Kardos, Sándor Radnóti, Mihály Vajda (eds), Budapest, 1999. 147–156. The stone theatre was destroyed in the Second World War. Only contemporary photographs and archive plans of the building survive. Reproductions of archive photographs in: Anne Lambrichs: Vágó József. Budapest, 2005. 59. The new building of the Városliget Theatrical Society opened on 19 June 1909, and he design was commissioned in 1908. Magyar színháztörténet [History of Hungarian theatre]. György Székely, II, Budapest, 2001. 201. The preparatory drawings were put in place, as may be seen in an archive photograph published in Vágó’s monograph. Lambrichs 2005, op. cit. 85. See also: Gábor, Eszter –Nagy, Ildikó –Sármány, Ilona: A budapesti Schiffer villa. Egy késô szecessziós villa rekonstrukciója [The Schiffer villa in Budapest. Reconstruction of a late Sezessionstil villa]. Mûvészettörténeti Értesítô, 31, 1982. 74–88. Anne Lambrichs also includes the stained glass sketch in the Hungarian National Gallery, utterly different fro that executed, and featuring purely ornamental and symbolic scenes, among the plans or the Schiffer building, but gives no reasons. Lambrichs 2005. 83. The original stained glass window was damaged by a bomb which hit the building during the Second World War, and was restored according to the original plans in the 1980s. 10th letter from József Vágó to György Bölöni, 1943. Extract from the letter published by Lambrichs 2005. 64.

The panel is still in place, but comes out badly in a photograph. The building is the Museum of the Hungarian Customs and Finance Guard. Oil sketch is held by the Budapest Municipal Picture Gallery. The Dugonics Street School in the 8th District was among the works completed in 1912. Kabdebo, Gyula: Közoktatás – iskolaépítés 1909–1912 [Public education – building schools 1909–1912]. Fôvárosi almanach, lexikon és útmutató 1912–1915, [Municipal almanac, lexicon and guide 1912–1915] Imre Gúthi (ed.), Budapest, 1916. 83. In 1926, clearly in consequence of the passions aroused by Kernstok’s return from exile, there was a move to have the fresco removed, because “it shows nudes, not appropriate to a school.” A Kernstok freskója körül [Around Kernstok’s fresco]. Világ, 21 Febraury 1926. 2. One report stated that this was prevented. See Dugonics fresco [Dugnonics fresco]. Pesti Hírlap, 25 April 1926. 4. Nonetheless, the fresco must have been whitewashed over by 1928, because it was clearly it protest against it that it featured as the first item of a retrospective Kernstok exhibition in that year. 1. Perhaps one of the first variations is an oil sketch which recently came to light in a private collection. The author thanks Gergely Barki for the reproduction of the painting and the information. Primeval Hunters, 1912, ca. 55 x 83 cm. i. l. r.: Kernstok Károly 1912. 2. On one linearly arranged compositional sketch, the artist wrote, “This one's better because the heads are aligned!” Primeval Hunters, 1913, Indian ink and aquarelle on paper. 210 x 300 mm. Reproduced in Gombosi, György: Új magyar rajzmûvészet [New Hungaian drawing], 1945. 41, I. 36/b (lost). 3. Coloured pen-and-ink drawing illustrating an article about the fresco. Bálint, Aladár: Károly Kernstok’s fresco. Nyugat, 6, 1913, I, between pp 566–567. Nádai, Pál: Tánc és gimnasztika. Népmûvelés, 1910. 147–151. Quoted in Erdei, Gyöngyi: Fejezetek a Bárczy-korszak történetébôl [Chapters in the history of the Bárczy era], Budapest, 1991. 151. German-type gymnastics teaching gave way to Swedish gymnastics, which preferred freer, more varied forms of movement to achieve “balanced, harmonious physical development.” Erdei 1991, op. cit. 42. A Nyolcak [The Eight] in Világ, 7 April 1912. 15. Az Utak [The Roads Parted] III. 356–357. Zoltán Rockenbauer claims this was an empty pretext, because they could have exhibited the sketches. See Rockenbauer 2007, op. cit. 83. Panel and stained glass window of the Schiffer villa (1912), stained glass windows of the Debrecen County House showing the Seven Chieftains (1913). He was also commissioned to paint a panel for the staircase of a Artist House in Rózsa Street, which was refurbished to plans by László Vágó (1912–1913), but there is no known record of its having been completed. Zwickl, András: A Palotafelavató és az Iparmûvészeti Kiállítás [The palace opening and the exhibition of applied art]. A Mûvészház 1909–1914. 2009, op. cit. 135. Farewell, 1916. (Lost) Exhibited: Kernstok Károly gyûjteményes kiállítása [Exhibition of the collected works of Károly Kernstok], Budapest, Ernst Múzeum, 1917, No 91, Farewell, 1916 (formerly owned by László Reiter). Published in Körmendi 1936, fig. 16. Game on the Meadow (probably the same as in the Garden of 1928), 1917 (formerly owned by Aladár Fónagy) Exhibited in Kernstok 1928, op. cit. No 85. The picture last came to light at a BÁV auction in 1963, as confirmed by he description in the auction catalogue. BÁV 7. sz. mûvészeti aukció. Budapest, 1967, item 51 Kompozíció. oil on canvas, 65 x 87 cm, i. l. r. In January 1913, he became Artistic Vice-President of the Artist House. Zwickl, András: A Modern Mûvészet háza [The house of Modern Art]. A Mûvészház 1909–1914, op. cit. 19. On 2 October 1913 he started teaching painting at the Haris-köz Free School until it was closed in 1919. In 1914, he became an expert member of the Metropolitan Art Committee. Erdei 1991, op. cit. 19. On 2 February 1919 he was appointed Government Art and Applied Arts Commissioner of the National Council. A Nemzeti Tanács mûvészeti bizottsága. Pesti Hírlap, 6 February 1919. 4. Diner-Dénes, József: Kernstok Károly retrospektív kiállítása a Mûvészházban [A retrospective exhibition of Károly Kernstok at the Artist House] in Huszadik Század, 12, 1911. 578–584. Az Utak [The Roads Parted] III. 266.

263

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

264

2/3/11

11:19 PM

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : N UDE

OF A

Page 264

M AN , 1909

•

C AT .

NO .

198

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

2/3/11

11:19 PM

Page 265

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : N UDE

OF A

B OY

BY THE

W ATER , C . 1909

•

C AT .

NO .

200

265

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

266

2/3/11

11:19 PM

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : Y OUTH , 1909

•

Page 266

C AT .

NO .

195

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

2/3/11

11:19 PM

Page 267

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : S TUDY

FOR

S AINT J OHN

THE

B APTIST , 1909

•

C AT .

NO .

196

267

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

268

2/3/11

11:19 PM

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : N UDE

OF A

Page 268

M AN S TEPPING , 1909

•

C AT .

NO .

199

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

2/3/11

11:19 PM

Page 269

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : L YING F EMALE N UDE , 1907–1908

•

C AT .

NO .

184

269

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

270

2/3/11

11:19 PM

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : N UDE

OF A

B OY

Page 270

IN THE

G ARDEN

N YERGES , C . 1909

•

C AT .

NO .

173

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

2/3/11

11:19 PM

Page 271

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : N UDE

OF A

B OY L EANING

AGAINST A

T REE , 1909

•

C AT .

NO .

164

271

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

272

2/3/11

11:19 PM

Page 272

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : S TANDING F EMALE N UDE , 1908

•

C AT .

NO .

163

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

2/3/11

11:19 PM

Page 273

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : S TANDING F EMALE N UDE , 1908

•

C AT .

NO .

162

273

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

274

2/3/11

11:19 PM

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : S ITTING

IN THE

Page 274

P ARK , C . 1909

•

C AT .

NO .

167

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

2/3/11

11:19 PM

Page 275

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : B ANK

OF THE

S TREAM , C . 1908

•

C AT .

NO .

161

275

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

276

2/3/11

11:19 PM

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : L ANDSCAPE

WITH

Page 276

T REES , C . 1910

•

C AT .

NO .

174

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

2/3/11

11:19 PM

Page 277

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : D ETAIL

F OREST II, C . 1910

•

C AT .

NO .

175

277

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

278

2/3/11

11:19 PM

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : L ANDSCAPE

Page 278

N YERGESÚJFALU , C . 1909

•

C AT .

NO .

168

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

2/3/11

11:19 PM

Page 279

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : L ANDSCAPE , C . 1910

•

C AT .

NO .

171

279

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

280

2/3/11

11:19 PM

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : L ANDSCAPE

WITH

Page 280

S TREAM (R EVERSE

F OREST

LANDSCAPE WITH

W ATER ), C . 1910

•

C AT .

NO .

169

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

2/3/11

11:20 PM

Page 281

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : F OREST

LANDSCAPE WITH

W ATER , C . 1910

•

C AT .

NO .

169

281

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

282

2/3/11

11:20 PM

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : S TUDY OF H ORSEMAN , C . 1910 • C AT .

Page 282

H ORSEMAN , C . 1910 • C AT . NO . 208 • H ORSEMAN , C . 1910 179 • Y OUTH ON H ORSEBACK , C . 1910 • C AT . NO . 204

NO .

•

C AT .

NO .

209

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

2/3/11

11:20 PM

Page 283

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : H ORSEMEN , 1912

•

C AT .

NO .

222

•

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : H ORSEMEN

AT THE

W ATER , 1910

•

C AT .

NO .

206

283

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

284

2/3/11

11:20 PM

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : S KETCH

FOR THE

Page 284

P ANEL

AT THE

S CHIFFER V ILLA , 1912

•

C AT .

NO .

178

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

2/3/11

11:20 PM

Page 285

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : H ORSEMEN

AT THE

W ATER , 1910

•

C AT .

NO .

172

285

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

286

2/3/11

11:20 PM

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : Y OUTHS 1909

•

Page 286

C AT .

NO .

165

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

2/3/11

11:20 PM

Page 287

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : H ORSEMAN

D AWN , 1911

•

C AT .

NO .

176

287

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

288

2/3/11

11:20 PM

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : D ESIGN

FOR A

Page 288

S TAINED G LASS W INDOW

AT THE

S CHIFFER V ILLA , 1911

•

C AT .

NOS .

211

•

212

•

213

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

2/3/11

11:20 PM

Page 289

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : D ESIGN

FOR A

S TAINED G LASS W INDOW

AT THE

S CHIFFER V ILLA , 1911

•

C AT .

NOS .

215

•

216

•

217

•

218

289

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

290

2/3/11

11:20 PM

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : D ESIGN

FOR A

Page 290

S TAINED G LASS W INDOW I – IV, 1912

•

C AT .

NO .

219

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

2/3/11

11:20 PM

Page 291

291

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

2/3/11

11:20 PM

Page 292

THE EIGHT KÁROLY KERNSTOK PAINTINGS MISSING

292

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : Y OUNG P EASANT W OMAN WITH HER C HILD , C . 1907 (M ISSING ) • K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : P ORTRAIT K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : I N THE G ARDEN , 1906 • K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : M R AND M RS A RTÚR L EDERER , 1908

M RS Ö DÖN R ÉVAI , 1907 (M ISSING )

16_KERNSTOK_ENG

2/3/11

11:20 PM

Page 293

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : Y OUTH , 1909

•

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK : S AINT J OHN

THE

B APTIST , 1909

293

17_ROCKY_MARFFY_ENG

2/3/11

1:26 PM

Z O L T Á N

Page 294

R O C K E N B A U E R

ÖDÖN MÁRFFY’S EIGHT PERIOD In late interviews that he gave, Ödön Márffy (1878–1959) was happy to remember the Eight. ‘The face of the ageing painter lit up when he said, “That was the age of revolutionaries in the artistic life of Hungary: Ady, Bartók in music, and we, the Eight, in painting,”’ noted Endre Murányi Kovács in 1957.1 Today, at a distance of a century from the time of the Eight, this may perhaps seem natural. However, in the 1950s it was by no means obvious that Márffy would choose to emphasise this particular phase in his life’s work. At that point, the period in his painting that enjoyed the best recognition was the one between the two world wars, while the paintings he made at the time of the Eight at best lived on in the memories of the older generation. These early works were dispersed. Most were buried deep in private collections: it was not really possible to see them in public collections and in exhibitions. The rediscovery of this first Hungarian avant-garde group began only in the early 1960s, with the graphic art exhibition ‘The Eight and the Activists’ at the Hungarian National Gallery and with the researches conducted subsequently by Krisztina Passuth.2 The elderly Márffy knew, however, that the laudatory reviews that accompanied the paintings he made at the time of the KUT, and the plaudits he received on winning the State Grand Prix in 1947, were not comparable in their significance with his active role in the unprecedented cultural renewal witnessed in Hungary in the early twentieth century. Márffy had a right to be proud, since he counted as a core member of the Eight.

P RELIMINARIES : F ORMATIVE YEARS IN PARIS At the time the Eight came together, Márffy already enjoyed a certain reputation as a painter, and, as an important official with the Budapest City Council – one able to influence the evolu-

tion of the collection at the City Art Gallery –, a certain respect, too. He had not attended the Munich Academy, as had Károly Kernstok, Bertalan Pór, and Dezsô Czigány, but possessed prestige on account of the fact that – uniquely among his fellows – he had been a student for four years at the École Nationale des Beaux-Arts, which was operated by the French state. Following his first exhibition at the Paris’s Salon d’Automne in 1906, he could boast acknowledgment in France, on which the Hungarian newspapers, too, reported: ‘Ödön Márffy, a talented young Hungarian painter, has been elected to membership of the Union Internationale des Beaux-Arts et des Lettres (which is presided over by Auguste Rodin), for his successes at the Salon d’Automne, from among the Hungarian artists who exhibited there. The members of this body are leading representatives of modern art: Rodin, Cézanne, Monet, Renoir, and others. The honouring of Márffy in this way makes him highly significant, since election of members is very punctilious and strict,’ wrote the newspaper Pesti Napló, amongst other things.3 Márffy was not a member of the Nagybánya group of painters. The initiator of the neo movement at Nagybánya was considered to be Czóbel, but Czigány, Orbán, and Tihanyi, too, sometimes put in appearances at the artists’ colony there, in the school, or independently, as the case may be. Márffy had a good opinion neither of the Munich Academy nor of the Nagybánya artists’ colony; the roots of his painting bound him unequivocally to Paris, so much so that in later periods of his career, too, his art was compared to that of the Paris school, although he spent no time of any considerable length at the famous city, with the exception of his years of study there. Márffy began his studies at the Julian Academy, a popular private institution later attended by Berény, Czóbel, Czigány, Orbán, and Pór, in the autumn of 1902, under Jean-Paul Laurens. However, before the end of that year, he

transferred to the École des Beaux-Arts, to the department headed by Fernand Cormon. The last mentioned was an acknowledged historicist painter, and a strict teacher: Márffy later recalled that he would tolerate no experimentation. Nevertheless, such innovative artists emerged from among his pupils as Henri Toulouse-Lautrec, Vincent Van Gogh, Henri Matisse, Francis Picabia, and Chaïm Soutine. In order to develop his technique, Márffy attended master-courses given by Lucien Simon and Jacques Blanche. But at least as useful to him as his mastering of the compulsory subjects was his coming into contact with trainee painters who were enthusiastic for the new art. ‘Unfortunately, this is an academist school,’ Márffy mulled, ‘but some of us in the studio are the opposition, those who want something different. We’ve been looking at each other’s efforts and have been making friends with one another. After the work, Marinot, Guendet [Guindet], Petitson [Patissou], and a few more have lunch here in the [Latin] Quarter and discuss things. They have already been here a while and are showing me the ropes.’4 He and his French friends regularly frequented contemporary exhibitions, as well as Ambroise Vollard’s gallery in the rue Lafitte where they could study the most up-to-date trends. Vollard was the first to stage solo exhibitions for Cézanne, Picasso, and Matisse. He cultivated good relations with Bonnard and Rouault, supported Gauguin, and purchased the fauves collection at the studio of Derain and Vlaminck. At Vollard’s gallery Márffy could become acquainted in detail with paintings by post-impressionists, nabis, and fauves. At the same time, this experience represented for him a break with the impressionists: ‘The young had already begun to turn away from them,’ he would state later on, ‘they were looking for a path that led in a lasting, constructive direction. I didn’t know which was right. I had to rely on my instincts. I preferred those movements that abandoned impressionism. I liked the works of Van Gogh, Matisse, and Rouault the Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY , 1911 (P HOTO : A LADÁR S ZÉKELY )

294

17_ROCKY_MARFFY_ENG

2/3/11

1:26 PM

Page 295

17_ROCKY_MARFFY_ENG

2/3/11

1:26 PM

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : G IRL

FROM

Page 296

N YERGES , 1908

•

C AT .

NO .

260

best [...]. Paul Guendet drew my attention to Cézanne. At that time, Cézanne was known only within a narrow circle of artists. He was old and lived in Aix. In this way, my attention broadened to Van Gogh, Gauguin, Matisse, and later Braque, who interested me. In 1905 [?], I even visited Matisse in Clamart, a suburb of Paris. He, too, was known and liked only in a small circle. He was at

296

the École des Beaux-Arts in the year before I started and when I was there would come in to visit his old ‘pals’. They, for their part, would put a canvas and brush in his hands, and he would do in half an hour what academists struggled over for weeks.’5 On the advice of his friends, Márffy spent the summers in Pont-Aven and in Bruges, where he was able to experiment to his heart’s content

with the new trends he had got to know outside the school. In the pictures he made at this time, different stylistic elements were often mixed: the blotch painting of the nabis, the vivid colour contrasts of the fauves, and the constructing method of Cézanne. He later recalled: ‘When I went to Bruges one summer, I worked a lot, beginning to find myself step by step. By that time already, I did not trust in the accidental, but tried to build my pictures constructively. But visions appearing in colour always had a decisive role, and this has been the case with me almost all my life: the dominant role of colour. Although I built constructively, I was a colourist, and I remained one, too.’6 An important addition to his four years of study was that, in the coffee houses of Paris, he could make the acquaintance of numerous eminent figures in Hungarian artistic and intellectual life, among them Endre Ady, Lajos Fülöp, György Bölöni, Béla Czóbel, and Róbert Berény. On returning to Hungary in the autumn of 1906, Márffy encountered in Budapest, too, an intellectual life that was remarkably lively. With his younger brother Károly,7 a theatre specialist, he joined the activity of the so-called left windbreak table at the Baross Coffee House. This table ranked as one primarily for artists from the Thália Theatre, a modern theatre led by Sándor Hevesi, but persons prominent in modern literary and artistic life also put in appearances there. Márffy and Lajos Gulácsy, who likewise belonged to this circle, painted stage sets for Thália productions. In this way, the idea emerged that these two painters, who worked in rather different styles and whose dispositions, too, were different, should display work to the Hungarian public at a joint exhibition. The show took place in the Uránia art shop in March 1907 and produced a very favourable response in the press. This contributed in no small measure to Ödön Márffy’s winning in that year the Francis Joseph Coronation Jubilee Prize, the most significant artistic acknowledgment of the era and one that came with a purse of 4000 crowns. This respectable sum enabled the artist subsequently to make study tours to Italy and Dalmatia. However, far important for Márffy was the fact that the exhibition won him the recognition of József RipplRónai and Károly Kernstok. Through them Márffy was invited to be a founding member of an independent Hungarian artists’ circle then in the process of formation: MIÉNK, constituted in late 1907. Supportive friends also tried to help in the matter of the young painter’s studio problems: Rippl-Rónai offered Márffy the use of his own atelier on Budapest’s Kelenhegy and Kernstok invited him to paint on his property at Nyergesújfalú.

17_ROCKY_MARFFY_ENG

2/3/11

1:26 PM

Page 297

U NDER THE S PELL OF FAUVISM : ‘N EW P ICTURES ’ From the middle of that decade, Károly Kernstok’s wine-press building and plot served as a kind of intellectual forum for the painter’s friends. Almost every member of the subsequent Eight appeared there with greater or lesser regularity, and also the Eight’s principal supporters, from Endre Ady through Pál Relle to György Lukács. Although we have no knowledge of the artistic life or artistic programme there, the place had an important role in the coming together of the group from the viewpoint of clarifying painterly-aesthetic issues and of forming an intellectual circle. Situated next to the River Danube, Nyergesújfalú lacked the qualities of a small town on the Mediterranean. Even so, the village had a significance in the history of the Hungarian fauves similar to that enjoyed by Collioure in the history of their French counterparts.8 Just as when he appeared at Nagybánya in 1906, in Nyergesújfalú, too, Czóbel’s role seems to have been decisive. Jealously watching over the primacy of the Nagybánya, Károly Ferenczy wrote to István Réti in the April of 1907 that the ‘neo-impressionists and Zobel [Czóbel] will, as I see it, group themselves around Kernstok at Nyergesújfalú’. In another letter, he expressed the opinion that ‘grouped around Kernstok, Zobel and his followers will create a modern Nagybánya’.9 Czóbel really did spend that summer at Nyergesújfalú, and probably it was he who drew the attention of Károly Kernstok to the fauves.10 The next year, Márffy worked under Kernstok, with the two painters developing their fauve style under the influence of one another. Márffy was genuinely intoxicated by the light glimmering on the Danube and breaking through the trees, by the brilliant colours, and by the air of freedom. He committed his vivid colour contrasts to canvas and cardboard using quick, impulsive brushstrokes. While earlier on he had painted mainly townscapes and portraits, at Nyergesújfalú unbridled nature and nudes became his principal theme, since through Kernstok he could easily procure nude models from the village. At this time, his style of painting resembled that of Matisse most of all; his figures lost their plasticity, bodies and faces were indicated using lightly executed contours only, and surfaces were filled out with patches of colour that differed from those found in nature. It was then that such important works in his oeuvre were created as Girl from Nyerges, Boy and Girl on a Green Bench, Coloured Female Nude, and Bathing Women,11 which counted as his principal work of this period.

While Márffy was taking part in the MIÉNK exhibitions along with fellow painters who had studied in Paris, in the spring of 1909 he organised his second retrospective exhibition, this time a solo one. As its location, however, he chose not Budapest, but Nagyvárad. Remembered as a Paris on the River Körös, it was at this time Hungary’s second most important centre after the capital for modernist intellectual endeavours. This was first and foremost because of the city’s Tomorrow Literary Society and two anthologies edited and published by the grouping (they appeared in the autumn of 1908 and the spring of 1909 respectively). Bearing the title ‘Modern Pictures’ and opening in April 1909, Márffy’s show consisted largely of pictures from his Paris period. Over the following months, he displayed a narrower selection of the works in Fiume (today: Rijeka, Croatia) and in Arad also. In the meantime, signs of crisis were appearing inside the MIÉNK. In the summer of 1909, György Bölöni staged a travelling exhibition entitled ‘New Hungarian Painters’. Built largely on support from members of the Tomorrow group, this consisted primarily of works by young members of the MIÉNK and featured stops in Kolozsvár, Nagyvárad, and Arad. In early December, Miklós Rózsa established his own organisation,

the Mûvészház, and by the end of the year young artists grouped around Károly Kernstok had indeed broke away from the MIÉNK (as had been indicated by some).12 Mentioned at the time mostly as ‘seekers’, eight painters – who adopted the name Eight only in April 1911 – announced on 19 December 1909 that they would stage an exhibition in the Könyves Kálmán Salon by the end of that year. Under the name ‘New Pictures’, its aim would be to ‘lay the foundations of a purely artistic grouping free from every convention’.13 At this exhibition, which opened on 30 December, Márffy featured with seven works: five landscapes, a study not described in detail, and the above-mentioned Arcadian scene entitled Bathing Women. It was this last composition that attracted the greatest attention. The critics were surprised by Márffy’s new style, as they were by the novelty of the exhibition as a whole and its turning away from the depiction of nature. Angry, the reviews almost all focused on the composition with nudes: ‘The unproportionate, contorted, lewd, and unpainterly bodies of Márffy’s bathing women do not accord even with the most extreme theories,’ wrote the newspaper Budapesti Hírlap.14 For his part, the reviewer for the newspaper Budapest judged it together with Kernstok’s picture entitled

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : B OY

AND

G IRL

ON A

G REEN B ENCH , 1908

297

17_ROCKY_MARFFY_ENG

2/3/11

1:26 PM

Page 298

Youths: ‘Competing with him [i.e. Kernstok] in perversity is Márffy, on whose picture Bathing Women we see poorly drawn women with yellow, reddish-brown, and green skin.’15 Writing in the newspaper Pesti Hírlap, László Kézdi-Kovács was scathing: ‘the great Ödön (Márffy), who in his landscapes no longer paints even blotches, only wenches, and who in his picture Bathing Women produces a woman with sulphur-yellow skin whose left shoulder stretches to the High Tatras and whose right leg goes all the way to the blue Adriatic and back’.16 The same view was echoed Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : C OLOURED F EMALE N UDE , C . 1908

298

•

C AT .

NO .

by István Gyulai in the newspaper Kelet Népe: ‘wooden dolls by an Ödön called Márffy drawn round in blue “who” long to be nudes; indeed, the landscapes of this Márffy called Ödön are the greatest outrages that have ever been perpetrated against art. In his pictures, everyone from Manet to Renoir is misunderstood, everyone’.17 In actual fact, it was the critics who did not understand – that Márffy did not want to paint impressionist pictures but rather the very opposite, that he worked in the spirit of a trend which had settled its account with impressionism long before. 261

PICTURE-BUILDING: THE EIGHT FROM 1911

Márffy was not satisfied with fauvism however, and just over six months later was already telling Lajos Fülep of his next move: ‘I have spent the summer surrounded by four walls (for the first time in my life). I have painted many pictures, a large one also (female nudes). I now sense the result of the protracted brooding and thinking; I’ve thought through many things. I’m at a crossroads in painting and I’m working a lot with great keenness.’18 The large nudes painting mentioned was probably his Three Nudes, which, if not in its theme then in its form, represented a pronounced change in comparison with Bathing Women, and which was one of the most important works displayed at the 1911 exhibition staged by the Eight. In this artistic change indicated by Márffy, a role may have been played by the fact that the members of the Eight, already appearing as a group, were beginning to draw near to their particular style, which hitherto had been evolved by these artists more or less separately. Márffy put it as follows: ‘Between the painters gathering in Nyergesújfalú there were certain intellectual links. The pull that detained them there was not so much the qualities of the landscape as a kinship in artistic approach. This artistic approach could perhaps be characterised by the fact that this group of artists turned its back on the mood painting popular at this time in Hungarian painting and yearned after a style of painting subordinated to eternal artistic rules. The common or kindred endeavours of these artists can perhaps be expressed as follows, that they attempted to build up their pictures according to strict principles, with emphasis on composition, construction, forms, drawing, and essence.’19 Accordingly, they stepped beyond the spontaneous emotional painting of the fauves, engaging in conscious picture-building. And just as earlier on they had settled accounts with the academists, now they began to strive for a kind of ‘eternally valid’ aesthetic. In actual fact, this was about a rediscovery of Cézanne, and in the case of the Eight – and therefore in that of Márffy also – was a thoroughgoing process akin to that taking place in the painting of the French Fauves in this period. In the transformation, Braque was in the forefront, but a similar change is observable in the painting of Derain, Dufy, Vlaminck, and Friesz also. Instead of unrestrained paintings held in poster-like twodimensionality, solid, Cézanne-like spatial structures come to prevail, the earlier strident colours are held back, contrasts become more muted, and mostly earth-like colours begin to dominate in the pictures.20 With Braque, the process quickly led to analytic cubism. For their part, the others were

17_ROCKY_MARFFY_ENG

2/3/11

1:26 PM

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : B ATHING W OMEN , 1909

Page 299

•

C AT .

NO .

263

only touched by the cubist approach, as happened in the case of the Eight also.21 The young Márffy was affected by Cézanne’s influence in two phases. The first was at Vollard’s during his years of study and the second in 1907, at the retrospective Cézanne exhibition held at the Salon d’Automne in Paris. Concerning the last mentioned, he reported to Rippl-Rónai as follows: ‘In the Salon d’Automne there are three rooms full of things by Cézanne. I am partaking in the rarest artistic experiences. It is the purest, most absolute painting. When someone sees and understands his work, everything else in the Salon rings empty. There are one or two other fine things. Maillol has a good group (two life-size nudes; they are fully

Greek and reminiscent of the classics). There are one or two Matisses and Bonnards, a few things more, and that’s it.’22 The processing of the Cézanne experience needed a while; it was complete by the beginning of the new decade. Around this time, the artists of the Eight – with the exception of Pór and Kernstok – painted one Cézanne-like still life after another. However, the influence of the hermit of Aix can be sensed in landscapes and Arcadian scenes also: his bathing pictures served as examples for French and Hungarian fauves alike. From the distance of more than a decade, Ernô Kállai took exception precisely to this in Márffy and his fellow painters: ‘The path was shown by Cézanne’s structuralism. But

many of the Eight did not accommodate to that element of it which was essential and which generated the future, namely intimation of the homogeneous geometric ‘structuredness’ of space and form. Logical development of this new structure would have led to cubism and constructivism, in other words to those areas which were inaccessible from the standpoint of the Eight’s experiments with classical and baroque composition. The Eight, and Márffy with them, pushed beyond the secondary benefits of Cézanne-type structure. Surprisingly, they wanted to learn more about that very thing which in Cézanne was weak and even poor: the French master’s ideas on classic composition appearing here and there.’23 However, Cézanne was not

299

17_ROCKY_MARFFY_ENG

2/3/11

M AURICE

1:26 PM

Page 300

V LAMINCK : S AILING B OATS , 1909–1910

•

C AT .

the only source of the Arcadian scenes favoured by the Eight. In the spirit of the ‘eternal laws of art’, these stretched back to Etruscan art, to Greek vase painting, to the Italian Renaissance, and even to compositions by Von Marées and Ferdinand Hodler. Márffy sent paintings made on the basis of the new principles to the 1911 exhibition staged by the Eight: eight paintings in oil and a number G EORGES B RAQUE : H OUSES

300

L’E STAQUE , 1908

NO .

468

•

V ON

DER

H EYDT -M USEUM W UPPERTAL

of graphic art pieces. The catalogue gives neither titles, nor dates, although the majority of the Márffy paintings displayed (along with two of the graphic art pieces) can be identified from the sources available to us. Although we know the large-size Three Nudes, work only from photographs,24 we can form a comparatively precise idea of it, since another representational Márffy nude from the exhibition has survived. With regard to this,25 which is essentially a variant of the female figure on the left-hand side of the missing work, the view has long been that it is nothing other than a fragment of the large composition. On the other hand, the reality is that these two works were separate creations and that both featured in the exhibition at the same time.26 On the basis of the different accounts, it may be deduced, too, that the painter exhibited three landscapes: these were works known afterwards as Old Customs in Vác, Kôbánya, and Winter Landscape.27 In addition, two still lifes and a self-portrait by him also featured.28 Of these, only a still life has been identified so far. Although Márffy’s creations lost their earlier richness of colour, he continued, according to the critics, to be the ‘colourist in the group’.29 Speaking of the artist’s style, Dezsô Rózsaffy recalled that ‘Márffy [...] likewise built himself a bridge from the latest French trends to older Italian art. In his figural works, greater force is manifest in the emphasising of the constructive parts.’30

In the next period also, his interest was directed to construction most of all. Loss of colour was not so noticeable in the case of Márffy as it was with the French fauves and with Kernstok. In his pictures, brown and terracotta did not predominate, but cooler colours rather. He had a partiality for blue, dark green, purple, and for greenish yellow, madder red, and pale red tending to pink. The cool colours stressed still more the crystalline structure that Márffy worked out in this period to produce a sense of space and to convey light on faces and torsos.31 Although the 1911 exhibition staged by the Eight did not pass off without scandals, the Budapest City Government supported the group. Accordingly, Bertalan Pór and Ödön Márffy were given commissions to paint murals in schools as part of Mayor István Bárczy’s building programme. Dezsô Czigány and Károly Kernstok, too, engaged in similar, large-scale projects. All this greatly contributed to the delaying of the third exhibition planned by the Eight. Márffy worked approximately ten months on his mural in the inner courtyard of a school in Kiscelli út,32 doing little else until June 1912. After finishing the secco, he again travelled to the Adriatic. The third exhibition staged by the Eight eventually took place in November 1912, but this time Márffy sent no pictures to it. Czóbel, Czigány, and Kernstok, too, all stayed away, with the result that it was only half of the group that displayed work at the National Salon. Although this was the last separate exhibition staged by the Eight, members still featured together at a good few events – at home and abroad –, and the press continued to treat them as a group. They entered their works for exhibitions staged by the Mûvészház society primarily. This had in the meantime grown stronger and could boast its own premises from January 1913. At the ‘Palace Inauguration Exhibition’, Márffy put in an appearance with another ambitious nude composition, his Three Nudes, which was inspired by mythology. This won the main prize, the Leó Lánczy Prize, with a purse of 1000 crowns.33 With regard to its formal solutions, the work is close to his Kiscelli út murals, and unites in itself constructive endeavours and classicist monumentality. In it, the influence of Hans von Marées is undeniable.34 The outbreak of the First World War made it impossible for the Eight to order their slowly disintegrating ranks. Like Berény, Orbán, and Pór, Márffy was called up for military service, working as a war artist. Officially the group did not break up, but its members never again exhibited together. Márffy puts the dissolution of the group after the war.35 Following the fall of the Hungarian Soviet Republic in 1919, most members of the Eight emigrated. Márffy, for his part, remained in Hungary. The paths of these artists diverged.

17_ROCKY_MARFFY_ENG

2/3/11

1:26 PM

Page 301

Notes 1

Murányi-Kovács Endre: Márffy Ödön mûvészetérôl [On the art of Ödön Márffy]. Hétfôi Hírek, 22 July 1957. 3. The relations within the Eight group are dealt with in detail in an earlier study by the present author. See Rockenbauer, Zoltán A Nyolcak egymás közt [The Eight amongst each other]. Nulla dies sine linea. Tanulmányok Passuth Krisztina hetvenedik születésnapjára. Szerk. Berecz Ágnes, L. Molnár Mária, Tatai Erzsébet. Budapest, 2007. 82–89. Magyar mûvész sikere külföldön [Hungarian artist’s success abroad]. Pesti Napló, 21 December 1906. 11. – Az Utak I.: 174. Márffy, Ödön: ‘Drága L… (Levéltöredék 1903-ból.)’. Fragment of a letter written by the painter. It is not from 1903 as given, but from after March 1906. Borbély, Károly: ‘Adalék Márffy Ödön szellemi arculatához néhány elôször közölt dokumentum alapján’[The intellectual portrait of Márffy. Some data. Dissertation. ELTE–BTK. Department of Art History. 1986. Typescript. 22–24. Maurice Marinot (1882–1960) was a painter and glass artist. In 1905, he exhibited at the Salon d’Automne together with the fauves; Jacques Patissou (1880–1925) was a Nantes-born French painter, pupil of Cormon, and the holder of numerous prizes and distinctions. In 1906, he, too, exhibited at the Salon d’Automne. Paul Guendet was probably identical with the painter named Guindet who can be seen together with Csaba Vilmos Perlrott – and others – on a photograph of the members of the Matisse school. Cf. Benedek, Katalin: Perlrott Csaba Vilmos (1880–1995) alkotói pályájának fôbb állomásai. [The main stages in the career of Vilmos Perlrott Csaba] Békéscsaba, 2005. 12–13. Horváth, Béla: Márffy Ödön kortársairól és a korról. (Részlet a mûvésszel folytatott beszélgetésbôl) [Ödön Márffy on his contemporaries and the epoch. (From a conversation with the artist)]. Jelenkor, 4. 1961. 716. – Márffy’s account is in need of correction. As a matter of fact, Matisse, at Cormon’s urging, had left the school in 1899, in other words three years before Márffy began his studies in Paris. Márffy told others, too, of his visit to Matisse in his studio. Matisse, however, moved to Clamart only in 1909. For a detailed treatment of these accounts and the possible resolution of inconsistencies see Rockenbauer, Zoltán: Márffy Ödön tanulóévei. A párizsi ösztöndíj (1902–1906) [Ödön Márffy: the years of study. The Paris scholarship] . Ars Hungarica, 33. 2005. 117–119. ‘“Hát abban az idôbe…”. Márffy Ödön beszél életérôl és festészetérôl Horváth Bélának’[Well, at that time … Ödön Márffy talks about his life and art to Béla Horváth]. After 1957. Three typewritten pages of a 32-page manuscript. Béla Horváth papers. – MTA MKI Adattár, ltsz.: MDK–C–I–217/I. Károly Márffy (1884–1960), theatre director, stage director, and secretary of the Thália Society. For a comparison of Collioure with Nyergesújfalu see Rockenbauer, Zoltán: Vadak a Dunaparton, avagy tekinthetô-e a magyar Collioure-nak Nyergesújfalu?[Fauves on the Danube; can Nyergesújfalu be regarded as the Hungarian Collioure] Hungarian Fauves from Paris to Nagybánya. Ed. by Krisztina Passuth, György Szücs. Budapest, Hungarian National Gallery, 2006. 137–143; Matamoros, Joséphine: ‘De Collioure à Nyergesújfalu. Incidence des sites français et hongrois sur la naissence du fauvisme’. Fauves Hongrois 1904–1914. Conçu par Sophie Barthélémy. Paris, 2008. 105–111. Letters from Károly Ferenczy to István Réti, 29 April 1907. – MNG Adattár, 8270/1955. and 18 April 1907. – MNG Adattár, 8271/1955. – Válogatás a nagybányai mûvészek leveleibôl 1893–1944.[Selection of letters written by Nagybánya artists between 1893 and 1944] Szerk. András Edit, Bernáth Mária. Miskolc, 1997. 144. – Only parts of the two letters are given in this edition. In the first excerpt, instead of the word modern the word neoszerû [‘neo-like’] is to be found; neoszerû is, however, a misreading. According to Miklós Rózsa, Kernstok ‘only began to pay attention to the first attempts of the new art during the time Béla Czóbel spent with him on his property at Nyergesújfalú. However, he joined it only when he had been able to study personally the works of the chercheurs (Cézanne, Matisse,

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : V ILLAGE

11 12

Picasso, etc.) in Paris and had seen that the new art was unstoppable’. Rózsa, Miklós: A magyar impresszionista festészet [Hungarian impressionist painting]. Budapest, 1914. 265. Reproduced: 296, 297, 298, 299 ‘Mischief-makers are whispering that Kernstok will be the seed of yet an other secession which will take leave of the MIÉNK and will form a new group of artists with Hungary’s ultra-young, with these young giants of Hungarian art, under the name “Seekers”’. (Kézdi.) [Kézdi-Kovács, László]: A MIÉNK Új kiállítása [The new exhibition of MIÉNK]. Pesti Hirlap, 14 February 1909 issue. 9–10. – Az Utak II.: 15. Új képek kiállítása [Exhibition of new pictures]. Független Magyarország, 19 December 1909 issue. 14. – Az Utak II.: 217. A debate has developed in recent years on whether the view (widespread in the specialist literature) that the group was called the Seekers before adopting the name Eight in 1911 is in fact a mistaken one. The position of the present author on this issue is given in his monograph on Márffy published in 2006. See Rockenbauer, Zoltán: Márffy. Életmûkatalógus [Márffy: Complete works]. Budapest – Párizs, 2006. 42–45. Magyar impresszionisták [Hungarian impressionists]. Budapesti Hirlap, 31 December 1909 issue. 12. – Az Utak II.: 225. A Könyves Kálmán kiállítása [The exhibition at Könyves Kálmán]. Budapest, 31 December 1909 issue. 11–12. – Az Utak II.: 224. (k. k. l.) [Kézdi-Kovács, László]: ‘Giccs-kiállítás’ [Kitsch exhibition]. Pesti Hírlap, 31 December 1909 issue. 8. – Az Utak II.: 232. Gyulai, István: Új képek [New Pictures]. Kelet Népe, 19 January 1910 issue. 82–84. – Az Utak II.: 302. Letter from Ödön Márffy to Lajos Fülep, [13 August 1910]. Fülep Lajos levelezése I. 1904–1919. [The correspondence of Lajos Fülöp. I. 1904–1919] Szerk. F. Csanak Dóra. Budapest, 1990. 172. Dévényi, Iván: Márffy Ödön levele a Nyolcak törekvésérôl [Ödön Márffy’s letter on the artistic striving of the Eight]. Mûvészet, 10, 1969, 8. 10.

20 21 22

24 25 26

28 29

31 32 33

34 35

ON THE

H ILLSIDE , C . 1912

Reproduced: 300 Reproduced: 301 Letter from Ödön Márffy to József Rippl-Rónai, 21 October 1907. MNG Adattár, ltsz.: 4853/a. Kállai, Ernô: Márffy Ödön újabb munkái [Recent works by Ödön Márffy]. Ars Una, 1, 1924, 7. 269. – Kállai, Ernô: Összegyûjtött írások. 1. Magyar nyelvû cikkek, tanulmányok 1912–1925 [Collected writings. I. Articles and studies in Hungarian. 1912-–1925]. Szerk. Tímár Árpád. Budapest, 1999. 98. Reproduced: 327 Reproduced: 305 See my study devoted to the proving of this: Rockenbauer, Zoltán: A “Három akt”, avagy elveszett-e Márffy Ödön korai fômûve? ’ [Three Nudes. Has Ödön Márffy’s early masterpiece gone lost?] Mûvészettörténeti Értesítô, 54. 2005. 309–318. Reproduced: 323, 328, 322. Identification of these works is made possible by picture captions and photographic reproductions from the time. For details see Rockenbauer 2006. Op. cit. 55–57. Reproduced: 314 “Nyolcak” kiállítása a Nemzeti Szalonban. Katalógus. [The exhibition of the ‘Eight’ at the National Salon] Bev. Feleky Géza. Budapest, 1911. 12. Rózsaffy, Dezsô: ‘A “Nyolczak” kiállítása a Nemzeti Szalonban’ [The exhibition of the ‘Eight’ at the National Salon’. Az Újság, 29 April 1911 issue. 14–15. – Az Utak III.: 133. Reproduced: 318, 314 For more on the secco see Rockenbauer 2006. op. cit. 61-63 The painting (Reproduced: 113) was altered radically by Márffy later on; two fragments made into independent works are known (327, 304). For the history of the work see Rockenbauer 2005. Op. cit. 309–318. Reproduced: 112, 113 Cf. ‘Márffy Ödön beszél kortársairól és a korról. Somogyi Árpád kikérdezése’ [Ödön Márffy talks about his contemporaries and the epoch. Interviewer: Árpád Somogyí]. 18 April 1951. – MTA MKI Adattár, ltsz.: MDK–C–11–26. 2., 4.

301

17_ROCKY_MARFFY_ENG

302

2/3/11

1:26 PM

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : M ALE N UDE , 1912

•

Page 302

C AT .

NO .

296

17_ROCKY_MARFFY_ENG

2/3/11

1:26 PM

Page 303

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : S TANDING F EMALE N UDE , 1911

•

C AT .

NO .

289

303

17_ROCKY_MARFFY_ENG

304

2/3/11

1:26 PM

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : S ALOME , 1911–1921

•

Page 304

C AT .

NO .

276

17_ROCKY_MARFFY_ENG

2/3/11

1:26 PM

Page 305

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : ‘K APOSVÁR ’ N UDE , 1910

•

C AT .

NO .

264

305

17_ROCKY_MARFFY_ENG

306

2/3/11

1:26 PM

Page 306

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : K NEELING F EMALE N UDE , C . 1911

•

C AT .

NO .

293

17_ROCKY_MARFFY_ENG

2/3/11

1:26 PM

Page 307

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : N UDE , C . 1911

•

C AT .

NO .

292

307

17_ROCKY_MARFFY_ENG

308

2/3/11

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : L YING N UDE

1:26 PM

IN A

Page 308

L ANDSCAPE , C . 1908

•

C AT .

NO .

285

•

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : L YING F EMALE N UDE , C . 1912

•

C AT .

NO .

298

17_ROCKY_MARFFY_ENG

2/3/11

1:26 PM

Page 309

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : N UDE B ACK

OF A

S TANDING W OMAN , C . 1911

•

C AT .

NO .

295

309

17_ROCKY_MARFFY_ENG

310

2/3/11

1:26 PM

Page 310

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : K NEELING F EMALE N UDE , C . 1910

•

C AT .

NO .

287

•

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : K NEELING F EMALE N UDE

WITH HAND LIFTED , C .

1910

17_ROCKY_MARFFY_ENG

2/3/11

1:26 PM

Page 311

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : N UDES

BY THE

W ATER , C . 1913

•

C AT .

NO .

281

311

17_ROCKY_MARFFY_ENG

312

2/3/11

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : P ORTRAIT

1:26 PM

Page 312

M RS D EZSÔ K OSZTOLÁNY , C . 1913

•

C AT .

NO .

282

17_ROCKY_MARFFY_ENG

2/3/11

1:26 PM

Page 313

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : F EMALE P ORTRAIT , C . 1911

•

C AT .

NO .

269

313

17_ROCKY_MARFFY_ENG

314

2/3/11

1:26 PM

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : T ABLE S TILL L IFE

WITH

Page 314

F RUIT

AND A

S CULPTURE , 1911

•

C AT .

NO .

272

17_ROCKY_MARFFY_ENG

2/3/11

1:26 PM

Page 315

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : S TILL L IFE , C . 1910

•

C AT .

NO .

265

315

17_ROCKY_MARFFY_ENG

316

2/3/11

1:26 PM

Page 316

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : Z EBEGÉNY B RICK F ACTORY , C . 1910

•

C AT .

NO .

267

17_ROCKY_MARFFY_ENG

2/3/11

1:26 PM

Page 317

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : L ANDSCAPE

WITH A

F ACTORY , C . 1910

•

C AT .

NO .

266

317

17_ROCKY_MARFFY_ENG

318

2/3/11

1:26 PM

Page 318

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : D ALMATIAN H ILLS , C . 1914

•

O N F OREST R OAD , 1911

•

C AT .

NO .

273

•

C ONSTRUCTIVE L ANDSCAPE , 1913

•

C AT .

NO .

277

•

D ANUBE M ILLS , 1914

•

C AT .

NO .

284

17_ROCKY_MARFFY_ENG

2/3/11

1:26 PM

Page 319

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : H ILLY L ANDSCAPE , C . 1911

•

C AT .

NO .

270

319

17_ROCKY_MARFFY_ENG

320

2/3/11

1:26 PM

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : L ANDSCAPE , 1 ST

HALF OF

Page 320

1910 S

•

C AT .

NO .

259

•

F OREST R OAD , C . 1909

•

C AT .

NO .

273

•

B AY

WITH A

S AILING B OAT , C . 1909

•

C AT .

NO .

268

•

I TALIAN L ANDSCAPE , C . 1912

17_ROCKY_MARFFY_ENG

2/3/11

1:26 PM

Page 321

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : P INE , 1913

•

C AT .

NO .

280

321

17_ROCKY_MARFFY_ENG

322

2/3/11

1:26 PM

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : W INTER L ANDSCAPE , 1911

Page 322

•

C AT .

NO .

275

17_ROCKY_MARFFY_ENG

2/3/11

1:26 PM

Page 323

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : O LD V ÁC C USTOMS (S UBURBAN ), 1910

•

C AT .

NO .

262

323

17_ROCKY_MARFFY_ENG

324

2/3/11

1:26 PM

Page 324

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : C ONSTRUCTIVE S ELF P ORTRAIT , 1914

•

C AT .

NO .

283

17_ROCKY_MARFFY_ENG

2/3/11

1:26 PM

Page 325

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : L YING N UDE , 1913

•

C AT .

NO .

278

325

17_ROCKY_MARFFY_ENG

2/3/11

1:26 PM

Page 326

THE EIGHT ÖDÖN MÁRFFY PAINTINGS MISSING

326

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : C HERRY AND O RANGES , BEFORE 1907 • Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : S TILL L IFE WITH P OTS , C . 1910 Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : S TILL L IFE WITH A W HITE J UG , BEFORE 1907 • Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : R OOM WITH G REEN W ALLPAPER , 1906

17_ROCKY_MARFFY_ENG

2/3/11

1:26 PM

Page 327

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : T HE A MATEUR , C . 1905

•

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : N UDE , 1911

•

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : T HREE N UDES , 1911

327

17_ROCKY_MARFFY_ENG

2/3/11

1:26 PM

Page 328

THE EIGHT ÖDÖN MÁRFFY PAINTINGS MISSING

328

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : L ANDSCAPE , 1909

•

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : G REEN R OOM , 1906

•

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : F ACTORY G ROUNDS , C . 1910

•

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : K ÔBÁNYA , 1910 ( PAINTED

OVER AT A LATER TIME )

17_ROCKY_MARFFY_ENG

2/3/11

1:26 PM

Page 329

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : C ONSTRUCTIVE L ANDSCAPE , 1913

•

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : W OMAN R IDING

H ORSE , 1913

•

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : F EMALE N UDE , 1911

•

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY : F EMALE N UDE , 1911

329

18_ORBAN_ENG

2/3/11

1:28 PM

P É T E R

Page 330

M O L N O S

THE EIGHTH: DEZSÔ ORBÁN In his summary work ‘Modern Art in Hungary’, Lajos Németh expressed a view concerning Dezsô Orbán (1884–1986) that created a consensus lasting half a century: ‘Dezsô Orbán, the least talented of the Eight, likewise belonged among the followers of Cézanne.’1 Curt and (for Németh) unusually severe, the judgment was in actual fact merely a harsh but logical summing up of everything hitherto written about the painter (who lived to a very great age), although its force was certainly increased by Németh’s lengthy appreciations of other members of the group. Things which to contemporary critics and to sworn propagators of the new art seemed the virtues of simplicity, order, and sobriety were regarded scarcely one decade later as hallmarks of dullness and lack of talent instead. In a volume by Iván Hevesy published in 1922 (one of the earliest summaries of modern trends to appear in the Hungarian language), Orbán’s name is not to be found: the author simply leaves him out of his list of the Eight.2 Similar treatment is meted out to him by Ernô Kállai in the pages of ‘New Hungarian Painting’,3 which was significant at the time and highly influential in the value system that developed later. Péter András’s summary published in 1930 brought only a slight change: while the author recalls, in passages of varying length, all the other one-time members of the Eight and the most characteristic features of their work, he does not afford the same treatment to Orbán, although he does at least mention his name when listing the artists who made up the group.4 István Genthon proceeded in like manner: although he judged the ‘struggle’ launched by the Eight to be a something of almost inestimable influence in twentieth-century Hungarian painting, he did not consider that Orbán’s role in it deserved lengthy appreciation. Indeed, in a small but telling omission he left Orbán’s name out of the index of a volume that surveyed the history of the new Hungarian art.5 As the ‘Last of the Mohicans’ and as a supplier of inside information, Orbán, who moved to Australia in 1939, became – from the late 1950s onwards – an increasingly interesting, even an important, figure for Hungarian researchers.6 Although volumes by Krisztina Passuth along with

a few significant studies did much to gratify the elderly painter, his paler hues continued to set him apart from the generality of early progressive Hungarian painting, which was characterised by vivid colours.7 In the case of Orbán, too, we are tempted to vigorous rectification, so often prompted by earlier opinions, which seem to be outdated, a radically different verdict on his art. This said, after the re-studying of whole of his output, we must admit that our predecessors were more or less correct with regard to their final conclusion: the earlier surveying of the power relations within the Eight produced a ranking of him that is fundamentally acceptable today also. Nevertheless, renewed attention, of a kind more painstaking than hitherto, is warranted. The surprisingly good quality of paintings newly rediscovered after lying hidden for decades (principal works known to us earlier only from black-and-white reproductions) and of paintings brought to Hungary after seven decades in Australia (works unknown to us before) is not without significance. It proves undeniably that some parts of the oeuvre of this painter, who was often treated with a certain disdain by his fellow artists, deserve attention in connection not only with the work of the Eight, but also with that of the entire period, with Hungarian painting as it took new paths in the early years of the twentieth century.

F IRST STEPS On almost every conceivable occasion – in his reminiscences as well as in the interviews conducted with him –, Orbán emphasised with obvious pride that he was self-taught. Only at the cost of much suffering was he able to complete, during his first trip to Paris, in 1906, a two-week course (the shortest possible) in the ‘tedious and dusty atmosphere’ of the Julian Academy. These few days remain the sole documented instance of professional training in his entire career.8 ‘What I learned I learned from Hungarian artist friends who were my contemporaries,’ he wrote six decades later.9 Experience of life in the French capital, the influence of pioneering works seen in the art trade and

at exhibitions, and inspiration provided by more experienced fellow artists, – all brought about a radical change in the thinking of this young painter. When Orbán returned home after almost a year, he abandoned for good his earlier, more conservative, style. Although this experience, namely his time in Paris in 1906, represents an unusually sharp break in his oeuvre, it is nevertheless worth making a brief survey of the period which preceded it, one which lasted some years. Dezsô Orbán was born in the western Hungarian city of Gyôr on 26 November 1884, the third child of Adolf Österreicher and Júlia Scharfer. His father was a post office official.10 Dezsô was four years old when the family moved to Budapest.11 The modest but dependable income of the father made possible an upbringing dictated primarily by the artistic inclinations of the mother: culture, in the form of concerts and visits to exhibitions, became a part of their children’s everyday life.12 According to the testimony of later reminiscences, Dezsô Orbán was definitely weak at drawing, completing the tasks assigned him in this subject at school usually with the help of a friend.13 The inspiration which laid the foundations for the subsequent change stemmed partly from a few highly influential exhibitions, e.g. Vereshchagin’s sensational Budapest show in 1898,14 but also from Lajos Gulácsy, two years older than Orbán and a one-time classmate of his whose progress through the school was held up repeatedly on account of poor results.15 As a Form 5 student at the sciences grammar school in Zerge utca, Orbán submitted one of his paintings to Budapest Mûcsarnok in 1899. It was put on display there.16 The students’ glorification of Gulácsy, who provoked antipathy with his odd mannerisms and who ended up in numerous conflicts because of his strange behaviour, gave a decisive impetus to the fifteen-year-old Orbán to begin drawing and eventually to choose painting as a career. A few years later, Orbán, by then a student in the Mathematics and Physics Department at the Royal Hungarian University of Budapest, was persuaded by Gulácsy to submit one of his paintings for an official show at the Mûcsarnok. The opinion D EZSÔ O RBAN

330

WEARING A UNIFORM , C .

1913 (P HOTO : E RZSI G AJDUSEK )

18_ORBAN_ENG

2/3/11

1:28 PM

Page 331

18_ORBAN_ENG

2/3/11

1:28 PM

D EZSÔ O RBAN

Page 332

AS A CHILD WITH HIS FAMILY , C .

1895

of the jury was positive. Following this initial success, a painting by Orbán featured in each of the spring and winter exhibitions at the National Salon and at the Mûcsarnok right up until the artist’s journey to Paris in 1906.17 On the basis of a surviving work, a melancholic composition painted from the window of his flat in Népszínház utca, we can form an impression of his early style.18 At the same time, we can confirm the summary judgment of the critic who reported, in connection with the autumn 1905 exhibition at the National Salon, that ‘Dezsô Orbán is following in the footsteps of his near contemporary Gulácsy.’19

P ARIS , 1906 Having completed his university studies and served for a year as a volunteer in the army a fortunate accident and an allowance of eighty francs monthly given him by his sister, who worked as a piano teacher helped him to his first sojourn in Paris in 1906. A journalist friend gave him a train

332

ticket originally issued in connection with attendance at a congress. This enabled him to travel first class to the French capital, where, on the advice of Lajos Márk, an artist friend from Budapest, he put up at the Hotel Jacob.20 Fellow artists he knew from Budapest showed him the almost obligatory places of pilgrimage in the capital of modern art. The barely two-week course he attended at the Julian Academy and the two meetings he had with his instructor there, Jean-Paul Laurens, left no mark on his art, understandably. Rather, it was long months spent in the Louvre, the principles debated in the cafés, and the examples seen in studios and in exhibitions that formed his style. As he later recalled, his most important mentor was Róbert Berény. The scintillating talent and exasperating self-confidence of this painter, who was three years his junior but a good deal more experienced and a resident of Paris of almost twelve months’ standing, represented a decisive impetus for Orbán, who was stumbling awkwardly on the road to the building of a style. A key Paris experience he related in almost every later interview was captured in a let-

ter, now missing, that he sent to the sociologist István Varró: ‘I knew Róbert from Budapest. I looked him up. He received me very kindly and we talked. As is his wont, he asked many questions. What was my opinion of the Hungarian painters, who did I think was the best, etc. He listened quietly, with a slight smile. Then he said: “Well, tomorrow let’s go to a couple of art dealer exhibitions and I’ll show you what art is!” From that moment on I was completely in thrall to his domineering nature.’21 The story continued at the legendary Vollard Gallery, where Berény showed three paintings, a Cézanne, a Van Gogh, and a Matisse, to his surprised colleague.22 Orbán suffered for months under the impact of what he had seen, since although he believed in the unerring judgment of Berény, whom he greatly respected, he was unable to find authentic artistic beauty in the works held up as examples. He returned to the pictures daily, but in the absence of perceptions continued to paint, with more and more bitterness, his earlier canvases, in traditional style and without invention. If we are to believe his later reminiscences,

18_ORBAN_ENG

2/3/11

1:28 PM

Page 333

this continued until – at a stroke – he became a devotee of the new art following a revelatorytype experience one night. Orbán related, too, that with the assistance of Berény he paid numerous visits in 1906 to Gertrude Stein’s salon, where he got to know Picasso, Matisse, and Modigliani, among others. On the basis of the later accounts of their experiences given by young Hungarian painters who flirted with fauvism, it may seem that the legendary soirées given by the American art collector were open only to enthusiastic representatives of the new trends, and that they were able to supply lifelong inspiration for the narrow circle of the initiated. For this reason, a source scarcely known earlier on – the diary, quoted below, of Lipót Herman, who possessed little talent as a painter but on the other hand a great willingness to tell anecdotes – deserves special attention here. The reason is that it gives a glimpse of each of the most modern centres of artistic life in Paris around the year 1910 through the eyes of a contemporary invested with a critical attitude towards the representatives of the new trends. Arriving in the autumn of 1911, visiting with great zest the Louvre, the Luxembourg Museum, the Petit Palais, the Folies Bergère, and the famous bordellos, and offering a perceptive account of everything, this Hungarian painter was guided through the Durand-Ruel Gallery and then the Vollard Gallery by Béla Hein, who was working for József Brummer at this time. Herman related it thus: ‘Hein took me to Vollard’s, the art dealer’s. He’s a strange man. His shop is more like a storeroom, where an enormous number of paintings are leant against each other. He’s the depository for the newest painters, Gauguin, Van Gogh, and Cézanne. He showed us ten Gauguins, among them some very fine, decorative, and colourful pieces. I saw a few Picassos also; it was hardly possible to know what they depicted. I consider such painting a very great swindle and stupidity, whatever Hein and Brummer say, and, back in Hungary, Perlrott and company also. Vollard has invited us for next Wednesday to his home, where apparently there are some fine things.’23 Two days after this call, the visit to the Steins was confirmed. ‘A bearded vegetarian in sandals [i.e. Leo]; today there was a reception at his place. Englishmen and beaux esprits, enthusiasts for modernism. Creating a slightly foolish impression in the middle was Stein’s plump sister with her reform clothing and a cigar in her mouth. [...] Renoirs (poor ones), Picassos, Matisseses, a few Cézannes, and also a couple of modern works, and old ones, too. Picasso – the great man – is represented here pretty extensively. He seems to be talented, but I’m not convinced of his godlike nature. On the other hand, I’ve seen once again how much these painters are copied back in Hungary, and how badly – if there are gradations in this idiocy at all.’24

D ETAIL

OF THE COLLECTION OF

Orbán shared his Paris studio with two fellow artists from Budapest, a painter and sculptor. There, as he judged matters later on, he produced only unsuccessful paintings during the year 1906.25 The emerging impact of Cézanne and Van Gogh completely crushed the young Hungarian painter struggling with lack of self-confidence. Nor was he taken too seriously (to put it mildly) by his Hungarian friends in Paris, among others Kernstok, Pór, and Berény.26 ‘There are many indications that Berény did not regard Orbán as an artist of the first rank, which caused Orbán much sadness. Other Hungarian artists, too, felt this [...]. Berény, who was the most forbearing, just felt sorry for him.’27 Perhaps it was a fragile mental state – the self-critical attitude of a painter who was feeling his way – that produced a state of affairs whereby even today not a single painting by him is known that represents beyond doubt this style-building period, the years 1906 and 1907. Our picture of his early years is characterised by a number of white spots. The street scene indicating the inescapable influence of Gulácsy and a few naturalistic still lifes

L EO

AND

G ERTRUDE S TEIN

AT RUE DE

F LEURUS 27

P ARIS , 1910 S

from the first years of the twentieth century are followed by a long lull replete with experimentation. This period attests, perhaps, to a destruction of pictures that was prompted by unsparing selfcensorship on Orbán’s part. It lasted right up until 1909, when he again exhibited his work before the Budapest public.

THE PATH TO ‘N EW P ICTURES ’ After the year in Paris, which can be evoked in few actual facts but on the other hand through rich subjective accounts, a period follows in Orbán’s life that is much more difficult to reconstruct. Presumably, he returned to Budapest only in early 1907; at least, the dating ‘Paris 07’ faintly legible on a sketch by him known from a contemporary reproduction renders this likely.28 From his sometimes contradictory recollections we can infer that this was the period in which his relationship

333

18_ORBAN_ENG

2/3/11

1:28 PM

Page 334

with Anna Lesznai, whom he first met in Dezsô Czigány’s studio, became a close one.29 In a letter written to Iván Dévényi, he illuminates this relationship in the following terms: ‘We soon became friends and from that time on for years I spent many months annually on their estate in Körtvélyes in the Zemplén Hills. There I met many interesting people, among them Elek Petrovics, Béla Balázs – with whom I got on very well –, Margit Kaffka, and others. At this time already, I had a studio in Alkotás utca in Buda where Anna Lesznai and I used to paint together. It is from this time that my Little Nude picture dates.’30 Although the painting mentioned by Orbán is supplied with a dedication to Anna Lesznai, the date of an Indian ink drawing depicting a recumbent female nude permits the conclusion that the joint studies made in the Alkotás utca studio can be dated a few years later, to 1910.31 The uncertainty of the date does not alter the hypothesis that Orbán probably played a significant role in Lesznai’s life. Csilla Markója was the first to suggest that Lesznai’s novel ‘In the Beginning Was the Garden’, a key work by the poet and artist, who exhibited together with the Eight in 1911, might conceal – in whole or in part – the figure of Orbán, in the protagonist Ödön Kutas, one of the painters featured in the work.32 This is a possibility. For us, the real significance of a careful re-reading of the novel could be that through it, in its capacity as an approximate but

highly perceptive representation, we may form an authentic picture of the social and human milieu in which the events surrounding the Eight played out.33 After a break of three years, in February 1909 Orbán again appeared before the public, at the second exhibition staged by the MIÉNK. He featured there as an invited artist, with a single picture, Houses at Charenton, dated 1908.34 On the back of the canvas can be seen a recumbent nude made in sketch form (or left unfinished) earlier on that is ‘overwritten’ by an official sticker for the exhibition, producing a distinctive overall impression. According to the handwritten inscription on this sticker, the painter of Houses at Charenton, which was offered for sale at 400 crowns, had his studio at Alkotás utca 31 in Budapest’s District I. Built on the cubistic masses of the buildings, the composition drew general acknowledgement from the critics. This was primarily on account of its six views of light-coloured house walls cut into the brown and Pompeii-red hills of the background with the decorative, tranquil, even cautious blotch rhythms of the blue shadows projecting onto them. Pál Relle, who was presumably on friendly terms with the artist by this time, praised the painting at length in the periodical Egyetértés.35 By contrast, György Bölöni was in all likelihood not on close terms with Orbán. This hypothesis is strengthened by the fact that the painter is conspicuous by his absence in Bölöni’s reminiscences,

D EZSÔ O RBAN : T HE M ANSION

•

334

AND

G ARDEN

K ÖRTVÉLYES , 1912

C AT .

NO .

322

which list numerous journalists and art critics. Perhaps, too, it was not by chance that pictures by Orbán did not feature in the 1909 travelling exhibition to Transylvania organised by Bölöni. We may infer links of the opposite kind in the case of many at the periodical Egyetértés, among them Jenô Miklós, Ede Kabos, and Szaniszló Timár, who were able to greet Orbán as a colleague in December 1909 when he began publishing music criticism in the paper.36 Pál Relle must have been the painter’s closest friend among the members of the editorial team. Words by Orbán indicate not only their joint adventures in Nyergesújfalú,37 but also the leading role they played in organising the Eight: ‘It was in my studio that Pál Relle and I first talked about the need for some of the painters who had been in Paris, those who made works appropriate to the spirit of the age, to come together in a group.’38 The authenticity of these memories, recalled at a distance of sixty years, is proved by a sentence by the painter in the National Salon’s Almanach that relates to Pál Relle: ‘He played an active part in the formation of the “New Pictures” group of artists.’39 At an exhibition advertised for 19 December that opened just one day before New Year, Orbán participated with four paintings and some drawings.40 The paintings – a large landscape, a smaller landscape, and two still lifes – divided the critics (alas, none of these works can be identified today). Although there were words of praise from Relle, Bölöni, and Géza Lengyel, correspondents definitely sympathetic to the group, the conservative side slated his pictures with its customary linguistic bravura. Nevertheless, perhaps the most wounding remark was a tactless assertion by the critic of the newspaper Magyar Hírlap: ‘Dezsô Orbán’s landscapes are mediocre.’41 Without knowledge of the works that featured in the ‘New Pictures’ show, the only way we can form an idea of the creations displayed there is on the basis of a few contemporary pictures whose fates were happier. The canvas entitled Churchyard, at the Janus Pannonius Museum in Pécs, and the very similar Landscape with Pink Road, in Kaposvár, show that around 1909 Orbán’s painterly language was very close to the contemporary styles of the Nagybánya neos, primarily to those of Géza Bornemisza and Béla Czóbel respectively.42 Created by using thin oil paint, the aquarelle-like surfaces, on which the characteristic structure of the canvas comes across without hindrance, are made rhythmic by homogenous blotches that are ethereal in some places, while some colour-fields are divided from one another by thin blue lines that here and there quiver hesitantly. The Pécs painting is one of the most successful in the early period of his oeuvre. It is less daring than its nearest analogies, namely Czóbel’s pictures Courtyard in Nyergesújfalú and Boys Sitting. On the other hand,

18_ORBAN_ENG

2/3/11

1:28 PM

Page 335

D EZSÔ O RBAN : H OUSES

ample compensation is provided by the harmony radiating peace and tranquillity. This is evoked in the viewer by the finely-tuned world of colour and by the music-like rhythm of the group of trees taking shape in a silhouette-like way on the green background. A private collection holds two still lifes bearing the date 1909 whose dry style is akin to that of the Pécs landscape. However, in their tight composition and in the sculpture-like solidity of their forms we can sense the inevitable inspiration stemming from the Cézanne pictures he came to know in Paris, presaging the path on which their creator would achieve the most significant accomplishments of his oeuvre in the course of barely a year.

THE YEARS OF FULFILMENT: 1910 –1911 Orbán, too, featured at the prestigious 1910 Hungarian exhibition in Berlin which presented the entire membership of the ‘New Pictures’ group,43 and also made his voice heard in the Tisza debate,44 which developed one year later and forced a wide selection of modern artists into a united front. However, it is not because of these two events that we can regard this period as the most important of his oeuvre, but rather by reason of the outstanding quality of the works he produced at this time.

C HARENTON , 1908

•

C AT .

NO .

302

The history of the period can be reconstructed with considerable uncertainty, and only fragmentarily. If we put together Orbán’s contradictory accounts, it turns out that in the course of 1910 he travelled to Paris (for the third time already) and shared a studio with Róbert Berény. Although he spent much of his time playing billiards with his painter friend (suffering humiliating defeats in the process), a few pictures he made in this period represent great progress in his development, as his own words attest.45 Dated 1910 and supplied with the inscription ‘Paris’, the work Still Life with Kettle is striking evidence for Orbán’s assertion that the picture is one of the best still lifes not only of his oeuvre, but also of Hungarian painting in the twentieth century.

335

18_ORBAN_ENG

2/3/11

1:28 PM

Page 336

P AUL C ÉZANNE : S TILL L IFE

WITH A J UG , C .

1868.

An assemblage of objects arranged on a table spread with a heavily rumpled green tablecloth forms a perfectly balanced composition in front of a background that is divided into three fields. The clear-cut forms stand before us as firm, solid bodies; order, permanence, and a tranquil harmony radiate from them. The matchlessly elegant, deep-toned colours and the use of paint that was oilier, in sharp contrast to that on his earlier pictures, are reminiscent of the touch-inviting sensuousness of Manet’s still lifes. Nevertheless, the nearest parallel is Cézanne: a masterpiece by him dated to around 1868 and kept in the Musée d’Orsay clearly offers the opportunity for effective comparison.46 At the same time, it shows more sensitively than any written source how profoundly Orbán was affected by all that he saw at Vollard’s, at the premises of other art dealers in Paris, and in the legendary Pellerin collection.47 For want of sources, with regard to the year 1910 we can record, in addition to the Berlin exhibition and the trip to Paris, only the presumed summer holiday in Körtvélyes, the work done in the studio on Alkotás utca, and the customary everyday social life at the café Japán Kávéház. However, by the end of that year the eight artists who had earlier exhibited under the name ‘New Pictures’ were, to be sure, already engaged with the idea of the another joint show. On New Year’s Day 1911, the news appeared in the press that in the near

336

future ‘an exhibition by Károly Kernstok and seven associates entitled “New Pictures”’ would open.48 However, the period of its preparation was much more protracted than usual. In this, a part was clearly played by the fact that some of the members – in accordance with their custom stretching back many years – spent the winter in Paris. One such was Orbán himself, who, in these very months, painted, among other works, his Still Life with Green Jug, which is kept at the Hungarian National Gallery, in a studio that he rented in the French capital. Nevertheless, by mid-April he was, presumably, back in Hungary, since – if we can believe a statement first recorded by Béla Szíj and later disseminated by way of Krisztina Passuth’s study of the Eight – it was on the 13th of that month, and in his studio, that the Eight formally established themselves as a group.49 Despite the fact that letters written by Orbán in the late 1950s that can verify the above hypothesis have been missing for decades (with the result that for the time being it would be better to treat the location of the founding meeting with some reservations), the time – thanks to the precise date published in the contemporary press – can be regarded as an incontrovertible fact.50 At the exhibition, which opened on 6 May 1911, Orbán featured with eight paintings and a few drawings. From among the last mentioned, a landscape was published in the catalogue in reproduc-

tion form.51 While the exhibition was on, a lengthy review of it written by György Bölöni appeared in the columns of Aurora.52 Although this piece represented the first serious evaluation of the painter, nevertheless the paper did Orbán a much greater service by publishing reproductions of eight paintings and three drawings by him. Comparing the pictures exhibited and the reviews published, we may justly assume that the works reproduced were in significant part identical with those that were exhibited. In this way, with the help of the article in Aurora, we can reconstruct, with almost total accuracy, the Orbán material set before the public at this exhibition staged by the Eight. From among the works reproduced, only the 1908 composition Houses at Charenton and a still life that is today missing fail to achieve a clear mention in the reviews. Instead of these works, we may postulate the showing of a nude which is still unknown and a landscape: the former was dubbed ‘A Polynesian Man’s Ideal Beauty’ by one droll critic,53 while in the latter – according to the spring-inspired words of Géza Feleky – ‘three trees rush diagonally inwards while above them continues the happy May march of leaves and boughs.’54 During the time the exhibition was on, other works, too, may have hung on the two sections of wall allocated for works by Orbán,55 as the immediate replacement of pictures that were sold was general at this time.56 The current locations of four of the paintings mentioned in the reviews and reproduced on the pages of Auróra are known: composed with pronounced symmetry and reminiscent of Cézanne in every regard, Still Life with Green Jug is owned by the Hungarian National Gallery, while Still Life with Jug, analysed above, and Little Nude, brought back from Australia a few years back, are both to be found in private collections in Budapest. The latter of the two was mentioned by Orbán on many occasions; indeed, the work, sometimes dated 1911 and sometimes 1912, was displayed by him on numerous occasions in his subsequent exhibitions. Standing in classic counterpoise before an infinitely simple background broken up by large grey and red blotches, the female figure, conceived with a sculpture-like solidity, was – according to a recollection by the artists – painted at the Alkotás utca studio in the company of Anna Lesznai.57 We can form an idea of the most expensive Orbán painting in the exhibition, the large-sized Lying Nude offered for sale at a price of 1200 crowns, on the basis of the introduction to the catalogue, the reproduction featured in the periodical Auróra, a caricature sketch of it made on a postcard,58 and the descriptions given in the reviews. According to its supporters, the nude, which appeared against a ‘greenish-brown background’,59 was ‘a work that was drawn vividly and well’;60 one of its ‘supporters’ – referring to the idea of con-

18_ORBAN_ENG

2/3/11

1:28 PM

Page 337

D EZSÔ O RBAN : S TILL L IFE

trolled human breeding then gaining ground – tersely characterised it thus: ‘Woman with the face of a man, or what too much eugenics leads to’.61 In contrast with statements often encountered earlier on, this exhibition staged by the Eight was highly successful from the financial standpoint also. According to the National Salon’s Almanach, Orbán sold three paintings and a drawing, although with the help of the press reports we have been able to increase the number further. In this way, a certain ‘Dr. Zs. Z.’, a buyer who even today is still unidentified, has been added to the list.62 According to the Almanach information and the inscriptions (presumably from the time of the exhibition) that can be read on the canvas stretchers, Still Life with Green Jug was purchased for the collec-

tion belonging to Ferenc Chorin the Younger and Still Life with Kettle for the collection owned by Baron Sándor Hatvany-Deutsch. For his part, Károly Gomperz bought a still life (which has still not been identified) and Geyza Moscovitz, Anna Lesznai’s father, a pen-and-ink drawing. The list of names epitomises representatives of the Jewish haute bourgeoisie and landowning class who were inclined to art patronage, open to the latest trends, and on terms of friendship – or at least acquaintance – with the artists exhibiting.63 From the time of this exhibition onwards, Orbán was able to support himself entirely from his pictures; in fact, through the sale of the picture priced at 1200 crowns he was able, in the remaining part of 1911, to embark on another, longer,

WITH

K ETTLE , 1910

•

C AT .

NO .

313

study trip to Paris, one that was to last approximately six months. This trip presumably took place only after he had again spent the summer at Körtvélyes,64 painting there a few landscapes executed with vivid colours and a rich painterliness. Among these, a picture at the Hungarian National Gallery entitled Park and dated 1911 and two other compositions now in private collections form a series almost. However, his principal work of the year was again – characteristically – created in the still life genre. This painting – in the collection at the National Gallery of Australia and, unfortunately, known to the present author only from a reproduction – probably represents the zenith of his oeuvre. It testifies to the use of the painterly language bolder and richer in colour and form that Orbán,

337

18_ORBAN_ENG

2/3/11

1:28 PM

Page 338

with a more cautious syntax, had made his own with his Still Life with Kettle created one year earlier.65 Outstanding in terms of its size also, the work was first displayed to the public during the winter of 1912, at the third exhibition put on by the Eight.

L AST Y EARS

D EZSÔ O RBAN : S TILL L IFE D EZSÔ O RBAN

338

BY HIS

S TILL L IFE

WITH A

G REEN P EAR , C . 1909

WITH A

G REEN P EAR , 1909

•

C AT .

NO .

306

The group must have exhibited abroad before the exhibition in the National Salon: at the Expressionist exhibition staged by the Sonderbund in Cologne, Hungarian art was to a significant degree represented by works produced by its members.66 According to the catalogue, only one work by Orbán was shown,67 although an account in the newspaper Világ tells of two landscapes by him.68 At the third exhibition staged by the Eight, Orbán participated with a significant number of works: fifteen paintings, eight drawings, and two woodcuts. Of the pieces exhibited, just two were reproduced: photographs of Decorative Composition and Still Life were published in the catalogue,69 while one of the woodcuts was included in the periodical Nyugat.70 Understandably, it was the monumental nude composition (Decorative Composition) that evoked the greatest response in the press. Having brought great honour to its creator in the eyes of fellow artists who themselves consciously set out to astonish, eventually it inspired cartoons even.71 Reminiscent of an Arcadian idyll, the subject matter can without doubt be closely linked to contemporaneous monumental creations by Márffy, Pór, and even Kernstok, although in execution it is more akin to The Dance by Matisse. In both works, the principal virtue of the composing is the rhythm of forms and movements consciously connected to one another. The difference, however, is rather characteristic: the studied, jerky movements of Orbán’s nudes and the rough angularity of the composition as a whole are to the loose and wafting lightness of the Matisse picture as – to use a favourite idea of Ernô Kállai’s – earthbound Hungarian torpidity is to the soaring French spirit. Although unfortunately we have no information whatever on the colours used in the painting, we can form a vague impression of them with the help of a privately-owned work in Australia that came to light not long ago. Radiating monumentality, this recumbent nude is one of the most exciting works in his oeuvre and deserves an eminent place in the output of the Eight as a whole. The white drapery and the full, ochre-yellow body of the woman are – similarly to Modigliani’s nudes – enveloped by a deluge of accidental lights in a delicately smouldering miscellany. In the meantime, the primacy of structure is proclaimed by solidly-modelled shapes and the strict composition of positive and negative forms corresponding to one another.

18_ORBAN_ENG

2/3/11

1:28 PM

Page 339

The data cannot be reconstructed in a precise way from the reminiscences, but it was probably from late 1912 onwards that, on account of the outbreak of the First Balkan War, Orbán spent seven months in Dalmatia, performing military service in the Cattaro area.72 Since the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy played no part in the armed conflict which developed, the soldiers, deployed merely as a precaution, spent a great part of their time without more particular duties.73 Orbán occupied himself with painting first and foremost: it was at this time that his canvas entitled Dalmatian Landscape was created. This, along with two other landscapes, was first displayed to the public in the spring of 1913, in an international, post-impressionist exhibition at the House of Artists that displayed work by every member of the Eight except Pór.74 Orbán participated with recent canvases painted in Dalmatia at the (open) exhibition staged by the above institution, which was under the direction of Miklós Rózsa. Of his earlier colleagues, only Czóbel and Tihanyi exhibited work outside the exhibition.75 This period was already, probably, one of withdrawal and disintegration in the life of the group, which by this time was kept alive merely by informal connections. However, a few exhibitions still gave opportunities for appearances together. After two graphic art exhibitions in the United States that presented work by every member of the group, only Bertalan Pór again stayed away from the large exhibition staged in the Mûvészház in 1914, while at the spring show staged in Vienna’s Künstlerhaus the awakening antipathy between the members of the group became recognisable in formal terms also.76 However, the last-mentioned event – at least in the case of Orbán, who was given a place in the leadership of the Hungarian exhibition there – was still closely bound to the preceding period. Of three paintings displayed under his name, two certainly represented the earlier period around 1911.77 According to the testimony of an interior photograph published in the newspaper Érdekes Újság, the work Still Life, reproduced in the group’s 1912 catalogue, was displayed to the public in the Austrian capital also, indeed – as we know from a letter written by Rippl-Rónai to Károly Kernstok – the artist hoped for significant financial gain from the sale of this work.79 The other still life exhibited – a painting featuring in the catalogue under the title Pears – is – according to the testimony of the above-mentioned photograph – identical with the Still Life,80 dateable to 1911, in the collection of the Hungarian National Gallery. The exhibition at Vienna’s Künstlerhaus represented the group’s swan song: at the time of the communist Hungarian Soviet Republic the chance of another joint exhibition still glowed faintly, but – like so many things during the hectic months of the commune’s existence – this plan, too, could not

A BOVE : H ENRI M ATISSE : T HE D ANCE II, 1909–1910 (H ERMITAGE , S T . P ETERSBURG ) B ELOW : C ARICATURE OF O RBAÁN ’ S D ECORATIVE C OMPOSITION BY D EZSÔ B ÉR T HE NOTE UNDER THE DRAWING READS : ’T HE RECTOR TO THE SEMINARISTS : G ENTLMEN , FEMALE BODIES . T O BE SURE , THEY DO NOT TURN YOU ON .’

be realised. It is easily conceivable that the members did not really hope for it; perhaps they did not expect the revival of a group from a period that they themselves already considered to be over. For his part, Orbán recalled this brief episode in his life

THESE ARE THOSE FAMEOUS

as follows: ‘It was only for a few years that we stayed together; it was jealousy, envy, mainly jealousy over one another’s success that led to the split. But those years brought about significant changes in our art.’81

339

18_ORBAN_ENG

2/3/11

1:28 PM

Page 340

D EZSÔ O RBAN : D ECORATIVE C OMPOSITION , 1911–1912 (M ISSING )

Notes 1 2 3

4 5

6 7 8 9 10

Németh, Lajos: Modern magyar mûvészet [Modern art in Hungary]. Budapest, 1968. 53. Hevesy, Iván: A posztimpresszionizmus mûvészete [Post - impressionist art]. Gyoma, 1922. 36. Kállai, Ernô: Új magyar piktúra 1900–1925 [New Hungarian painting 1900–1925]. Budapest, 1925 [2nd ed. 1990]; Kállai, Ernst: Neue Malerei in Ungarn. Leipzig, 1925. Péter, András: A magyar mûvészet története [The history of Hungarian art]. Budapest, 1930. II: 159. Genthon, István: Az új magyar festészet története 1800-tól napjainkig [The history of new Hungarian painting from 1800 up till the present day]. Budapest, 1935. 233, 291. The first to begin questioning Orbán, then living in Australia, about Berény was Béla Szíj around 1958, in letters. Passuth, Krisztina: A Nyolcak festészete [The painting of the Eight]. Budapest, 1967; idem: Orbán Dezsô. Budapest, 1977. Desiderius Orban: What is Art all About? Sydney – Richmond – Brisbane, 1975. Caption 73. Letter from Dezsô Orbán to Iván Dévényi, 25 April 1967. – MTA MKI Adattár, ltsz.: MKCS–C–I–159/1136.2. The name and birth details of Orbán’s father appear on a questionnaire filled out by the artist. – MTA MKI Adattár, ltsz.: MKCS–C–I–57/1112–1. Barcs, Emery: ‘And He’s 90 Years Young’. The Australian Women’s Weekly, 11 December 1974 issue. 5. – Extract: MNG

340

12 13 14 15 16 17

18 19

Adattár, ltsz.: 20919.1981. According to the official (Budapesti cím- és lakásjegyzék) lists, the family, having moved from Gyôr, first lived in the apartment building at Csömöri utca 5, in Budapest’s District VII. They later moved to another such building at Népszínház utca 42/44, in Budapest’s District VIII. From 1907, they lived down the street from the last-mentioned address, at Népszínház utca 5. Ogburn, John: ‘Desiderius Orban’. Art and Australia, 3, 1965, 1. 14. (Extract, in the possession of Gergely Barki.) Orban, Desiderius: ‘Paris in 1906’. Quadrant, 22, 1978, 9. 40. – Extract: MNG Adattár, ltsz.: 20919.1981.20. Ibid. Letter from Dezsô Orbán to Iván Dévényi , 25 April 1967. – MTA MKI Adattár, ltsz.: MKCS–C–I–159/1136.2. Marosvölgyi, Gábor: Gulácsy Lajos. Budapest, 2008. 16. For a list of his exhibitions see Orbán Dezsô festômûvész (Ausztrália) gyûjteményes kiállítása [Exhibition of the works of the painter Dezsô Orbán (Ausztrália)]. Magyar Nemzeti Galéria, 1984. A katalógust összeáll. Bellák Gábor, Szabó László. Budapest, 1984. Streetscape, 1900. Reproduced in Passuth 1977. Op. cit. Fig. 1. Rózsa, Miklós: A Nemzeti Szalon ôszi kiállítása [The Autumn Exhibition at the National Salon]. Budapesti Napló, 8 October 1905 issue. 10. – Az Utak I.: 106. We can form the best picture of Orbán’s Paris experiences in 1906 on the basis of the following written sources: letter from Dezsô Orbán to Iván Devényi, 1967. – MTA MKI Adattár, ltsz.:

22 23 24 25 26

MKCS–C–I–159/1136.2.; Ogburn 1965. Op. cit. 14; Orban 1978. Op. cit. 40; McKay, Andrew: ‘A grand visionary’. The Australian, 28 April 1981 issue. – Extract: MNG Adattár, ltsz. 22425.1985.7/20.; Orbán, Desiderius: ‘Looking Back’. Desiderius Orban Retrospective. Works from 1900 to 1975. Art Gallery of New South Wales. Sydney, 1975. 8–12. From a now-missing Dezsô Orbán letter first quoted by Béla Szíj. See Szíj, Béla: ‘Berény Róbert életútja gyermekéveitôl a berlini emigrációig’ [The life of Róbet Berény from childhood to his emigrating to Berlin]. A Magyar Nemzeti Galéria Közleményei, 4. 1963. 114. Orbán sometimes gave the Galerie Durand-Ruel as the place of this visit. Ogburn 1965. Op. cit. 19. Lipót Herman’s manuscript diary. – MNG Adattár, ltsz.: […]. Entry for 14 September 1911. Ibid. Entry for 16 September 1911. Ogburn 1965. 19. Orbán had become acquainted with Pór and Kernstock earlier on, in Budapest, presumably around the artists’ table at the Japán Coffee House. He met up with Kernstok on numerous occasions, in Paris also: ‘we were together fairly often, especially when I was in Paris for the first time, in 1906–7. […] Although I was often invited there (we lived just a couple of buildings away from each other), I don’t remember our ever going to exhibitions together.’ Letter from Dezsô Orbán to Iván Dévényi, 16 June 1968. – MTA MKI Adattár, ltsz.: MKCS–C–I–159/1152.

18_ORBAN_ENG

28 29

30 31

37 38 39 40

47 48

2/3/11

1:28 PM

Page 341

Communication from István Varró regarding Dezsô Orbán. Formerly in the possession of Béla Szíj, the letter is now missing. The source for the quotation is a handwritten copy held by Krisztina Passuth. Aurora, 5 August 1911 issue. 356. According to Attila Rum’s hypothesis, Czigány became acquainted with Lesznai, then training as a painter, around 1907. Rum, Attila: Czigány Dezsô. Budapest, 2004. 107. Letter from Dezsô Orbán to Iván Dévényi, 1967. 2–3. – MTA MKI Adattár, ltsz.: MKCS–C–I–159/1136.2. Dezsô Orbán: Recumbent Female Nude, 1910. Ink and wash, paper, 162 x 285 mm, mark bottom right. MNG, ltsz.: 60.115 T. ‘For Anna Lesznai, with true friendship and esteem, Dezsô Orbán, 3 Feb. 1910’ – Published in Passuth, Krisztina: A Nyolcak festészete [The painting of the Eight]. Budapest, 1967. 13: Fig. 6. Markója, Csilla: ‘Három kulcsregény és három sorsba zárt “Vasárnapos” – Lesznai Anna, Ritoók Emma és Kaffka Margit találkozása a válaszúton’[Three key novels and three ‘Vasárnapos’ locked in three fates] Enigma, 14. No 52. 2007. 106. Lesznai, Anna: Kezdetben volt a kert. [In the beginning was the garden] I–II. Budapest, 1966. References to members of the Eight and to an exhibition by the group – among others, a scene set in the studio of Ödön Kutas (Dezsô Orbán) dealing with the selection of pictures for a group exhibition – appear in the second volume of the novel on the following pages: 252–261, 379, 394. Although point 16 in the questionnaire referred to in footnote 10 tells of four sojourns in Paris (1906, 1908, 1912, and 1925), according to the marks on paintings there were others, too (1907, 1910, and 1911). It would appear that like Berény, Orbán spent a shorter or longer period in the French capital almost every year, generally in the period from the autumn to the spring. –lle. [Relle, Pál]: M.I.É.N.K. Kiállítás a Nemzeti Szalonban. II. Exhibition in the National Salon II. Egyetértés, 19 February 1909 issue. 11. – Az Utak II.: 23. Reviews signed with the initials o. d. appeared in the theatre and art column of Egyetértés only on 4, 5, and 7 December 1909, although in several of his recollections Orbán writes that he worked for the paper for a lengthy time in the course of 1910. About his work as a music critic: Letter from Dezsô Orbán to Iván Dévényi, 25 April 1967. – MTA MKI Adattár, ltsz.: MKCS–C–I–159/1136.2. Letter from Dezsô Orbán to Iván Dévényi, 16 June 1968. – MTA MKI Adattár, ltsz.: MKCS–C–I–159/1152. Letter from Dezsô Orbán to Iván Dévényi, 25 April 1967. – MTA MKI Adattár, ltsz.: MKCS–C–I–159/1136.2. Almanach. (Képzômûvészeti lexikon). Szerk. Déry Béla, Bányász László, Margitay Ernô. Budapest, 1912. 248. Új Képek kiállítása a Könyves Kálmán szalonjában. [The Exhibition of ’New Pictures’ in the salon of Könyves Kálmán] [Budapest], [1909]. 3–4. – Az Utak II.: 227. 3. Landscape, 900 crowns; 14. Landscape, 500 crowns; 28. Still Life, 400 crowns; 30. Still Life, 500 crowns. K. F. [Kanizsai, Ferenc]: Neoimpresszionisták tárlata [A show of neo-impressionists]. Magyar Hirlap, 31 December 1909 issue. 14. – Az Utak II.: 229. Although Orbán did not visit Nagybánya until the 1920s, an article from 1909 informs us that along with Dezsô Czigány, Ernô Götz B., and Lajos Tihanyi, he signed a memorandum drawn up by the Nagybánya painters requesting better conditions and greater support from the town. Originally published in the 21 November 1909 issue of the newspaper Nagybányai Hírlap, the article is quoted in A nagybányai mûvészet és mûvésztelep a magyar sajtóban 1896–1909. Az anyagot gyûjtötte és a kötetet szerk. Tímár Árpád [The art and the artists’ colony at Nagybánya. Collected and edited y Árpád Tímár]. Miskolc, 1996. 474. Katalog der Ausstellung Ungarischer Maler im Ausstellungsgebäude. Kurfürstendamm 208/209 Berlin, 5. Februar – 3. März 1910. Berlin. 1910. – Pictures exhibited by Orbán: 128. Stilleben; 129. Bildnis, Zeichnung. Orbán’s statement was published: A mûvészek és Tisza István. Interjú. [Artists and István Tisza. An interview] Pesti Napló, 16 April 1911 issue. 16. 40–42. – Az Utak III.: 103. Letter from Dezsô Orbán to István Varró. Formerly in the possession of Béla Szíj, the letter is now missing. The source for the quotation is Krisztina Passuth’s manuscript copy; Orban 1975. Op. cit. 9. Nature morte à la bouilloire, c. 1868. RF 1964 37. Attention to the parallel was first drawn in Jovánovics, György: A 121 legszebb magyar festmény Törô István és Virág Judit válogatásában. [The 121 most beautiful Hungarian paintings. Selected by István Törô and Judit Virág] Budapest, 2009. 88. The visit to the Pellerin collection is described in detail in Orban 1978. Op. cit. 42–43. A Nemzeti Szalon jövô évi munkaprogramja. [Workplan of the National Salon for the coming year]. Az Ujság, 1 January 1911. 73. – Az Utak III.: 5.

49 50 51 52 53

57 58

59 60 61 62

64 65

Passuth 1967. Op. cit. 79. Az Ujság, 16 April 1911. 18; Magyar Nemzet, 16 April 1911. 11; Pesti Napló, 16 April 1911. 14. – Az Utak III.: 99. Orbán’s lines recalling the reception accorded to the show are quoted in Passuth 1967. Op. cit. 80. Bölöni, György: ‘Orbán Dezsô’. Aurora, 20 May 1911. 246–248. – Az Utak III.: 189–190. L. L. [Lakatos, László]: A Nyolcasok. Tárlati ítélôbírálat [The Eight. Critic of an exhibition]. Pesti Napló, 21 May 1911 issue. 8. Az Utak III.: 196. “Nyolcak” kiállítása a Nemzeti Szalonban. Bev. Feleky Géza. [The exhibition of the Eight at the National Salon]. with an introduction by Géza Feleky. Budapest, 1911. 12. Feleky, Géza: Séta a Nyolcak kiállításán [A walk through Exhibition of the Eight]. Nyugat, 4, 1911, 10. I: 990–992. Az Utak III.: 180–182. In Lesznai’s above-mentioned novel, the hanging of a still life to replace a nude that was sold is mentioned in regard to the Ödön Kutas figure reminiscent of Orbán. See Lesznai 1966. II.: 261. Letter from Dezsô Orbán to Iván Devényi, 25 April 1967. – MTA MKI Adattár, ltsz.: MKCS–C–I–159/1136.2. Signed B. K. (i.e. K. B.) and sent to István Réti, the postcard, now missing and known only from a reproduction, is published in Rockenbauer, Zoltán: Márffy. Életmûkatalógus. Márffy. [Márffy. Complete works]. Budapest – Párizs, 2006. 72. (K-y) [Koronghy, Dénes]: Nyolcak kiállítása [The exhibition of the Eight]. Magyar Hirlap, 29 April 1911 issue. 10. – Az Utak III.: 126–127. Bálint, Aladár: A „Nyolcak” [The ‘Eight’]. Magyar Nyomdászat, 24, 1911, 5. 136–137. – Az Utak III.: 140–142. Lakatos 1911. Op. cit. – Az Utak III.: 196. A „Nyolcak” [The ‘Eight’]. Világ, 9 May 1911 issue. – Az Utak III.: 157. At the opening of the exhibition, Orbán presented a ‘less successful’ drawing graphic work to Antal Molnár, a member of the Waldbauer Quartet. See Molnár, Antal: Magamról, másokról. Budapest, 1974. 98. Sándor Hatvany-Deutsch’s sister Hermina was the wife of Geyza Moscovitz and the mother of Anna Lesznai. Ferenc Chorin developed close links with this circle as an important business partner of Sándor Hatvany-Deutsch and through the National Association of Hungarian Industrialists (GYOSZ), which he founded together with him. Ogburn 1965. Op. cit. 19. Large Still Life, 1911. Canberra, National Gallery of Australia, inv. no.: NGA 77.29. Earlier on, the picture was in the possession of the artist.

67 68 69

70 71 72 73

76 77

78 79

Internationale Kunstausstellung des Sonderbundes Westdeutscher Kunstfreunde und Künstler. Stadtische Austellungshalle, 25. Mai–30. Sept. 1912. Köln, 1912. 319. Bäume (13. Saal) Magyar festôk Kölnben [Hungarian Painters in Cologne]. Világ, 30 May 1912 issue. – Az Utak III.: 398–399. A Nyolcak harmadik tárlatának katalógusa. [Catalogue of the third exhibition of the Eight]. National Salon, November–December 1912. Budapest, 1912. Between 21 and 23. Landscape Study. Woodcut. Published in Nyugat, 5, 1912, 22. II. Between 768 and 769. One by Rezsô Bér was published in the satirical paper Borsszem Jankó, 1 November 1912 issue. 5. Orban 1975. 9. The First Balkan War lasted from 8 October 1912 until 30 May 1913 and the Second Balkan War from 29 June to 10 August 1913. A Mûvészház nemzetközi posztimpresszionista kiállítása 1913. május 4. – június 25. [The international post-impressionist exhibition int he House of Artists between….] Budapest, 1913. – 148. Dalmatian Landscape, 1500 crowns; 149. Landscape, 600 crowns; 150. Landscape, 500 crowns. Zsûrimentes kiállítás a Mûvészházban 1913. év. 14 September 1913 – 10 October 1913. [A non-juried exhibition in the House of Artists between….] Budapest, 1913. – 121. Dalmatian Village. Oil. 1000 crowns; 122. Portorose (near Cattaro). Oil. 800 crowns; 123. Olive Trees. Oil. 600 crowns; 124. The Rados House (Castelmoro). Oil. 1000 crowns. Rockenbauer 2006. Op. cit. 68–69. Katalog der XXXIX. Jahresausstellung. Wien, Künstlerhaus. Wien, 1914. – 133. Birnen 1000 Kronen; 135. Landschaft 800 Kronen; 138. Stilleben 1500 Kronen. A király a bécsi magyar kiállításon [The king at the Hungarian exhibition in Vienna]. Érdekes Újság, 5 April 1914 issue. 23. Date of the letter: 17 March 1914. – Szépmûvészeti Múzeum Adattára, ltsz.: 94850. (The hoped-for sale of the picture did not come to pass; it was among the works Orbán eventually took with him to Australia.) The painting to the right of the large nude (a work by Pál Jávor entitled Venus) visible in the interior photograph can – bearing in mind the titles and the works exhibited and the blotch system of some of Orbán’s landscapes at this time – very probably be identified with the missing Orbán work featured in the catalogue as no. 135. Letter from Dezsô Orbán from Sydney, 11 March 1959. Quoted in Szíj 1963. Op. cit. 119.

D EZSÔ O RBAN : S TILL L IFE , 1911

341

ORBAN_ALBUM

342

2/3/11

1:31 PM

Page 342

D EZSÔ O RBAN : S OLITARY T REE , C . 1907

•

C AT .

NO .

307

ORBAN_ALBUM

2/3/11

1:31 PM

Page 343

D EZSÔ O RBAN : F RENCH L ANDSCAPE , C . 1910

343

ORBAN_ALBUM

344

2/3/11

1:31 PM

D EZSÔ O RBAN : L ANDSCAPE

Page 344

WITH

P INK R OAD , C . 1908

•

C AT .

NO .

301

ORBAN_ALBUM

2/3/11

1:31 PM

Page 345

D EZSÔ O RBAN : C HURCHYARD , C . 1908

•

C AT .

NO .

303

345

ORBAN_ALBUM

346

2/3/11

1:31 PM

D EZSÔ O RBAN : S TILL L IFE

WITH

Page 346

F RUIT , C . 1910

•

C AT .

NO .

309

ORBAN_ALBUM

2/3/11

1:31 PM

Page 347

D EZSÔ O RBAN : V ASE

AND

F RUIT B OWL , 1909

•

C AT .

NO .

305

347

ORBAN_ALBUM

348

2/3/11

1:31 PM

D EZSÔ O RBAN : S TILL L IFE

WITH

Page 348

P EARS

AND

A PPLES , C . 1910

•

C AT .

NO .

308

ORBAN_ALBUM

2/3/11

1:31 PM

Page 349

D EZSÔ O RBAN : S TILL L IFE

WITH

P EARS , C . 1911

•

C AT .

NO .

317

349

ORBAN_ALBUM

350

2/3/11

1:31 PM

D EZSÔ O RBAN : T REES , C . 1912

Page 350

•

C AT .

NO .

320

•

D EZSÔ O RBAN : T HE M ANSION

AND

G ARDEN

K ÖRTVÉLYES ,

•

C AT .

NO .

321

ORBAN_ALBUM

2/3/11

1:31 PM

Page 351

D EZSÔ O RBAN : H OUSE H IDDEN

AMONG THE

F OLIAGE , C . 1911

•

C AT .

NO .

319

•

D EZSÔ O RBAN : P ARK , 1911

•

C AT .

NO .

316

351

ORBAN_ALBUM

352

2/3/11

1:31 PM

D EZSÔ O RBAN : D ETAIL

Page 352

P ARK

•

C AT .

NO .

310

ORBAN_ALBUM

2/3/11

1:31 PM

Page 353

D EZSÔ O RBAN : D ETAIL

P ARK

WITH

P URPLE F LOWERS , 1911

•

C AT .

NO .

318

353

ORBAN_ALBUM

354

2/3/11

1:31 PM

D EZSÔ O RBAN : S TILL L IFE

WITH

Page 354

S CULPTURES (C ACTUS , B OOKS , P OTS ), C . 1910

•

C AT .

NO .

300

ORBAN_ALBUM

2/3/11

1:31 PM

Page 355

D EZSÔ O RBAN : L ITTLE N UDE , C . 1910

•

C AT .

NO .

312

355

ORBAN_ALBUM

356

2/3/11

1:31 PM

D EZSÔ O RBAN : L EAFY T REES

Page 356

IN FRONT OF A

H ILL (L ANDSCAPE ), C . 1910

•

C AT .

NO .

311

ORBAN_ALBUM

2/3/11

1:31 PM

Page 357

D EZSÔ O RBAN : S TILL L IFE

WITH

A PPLES

AND

F LOWERS , C . 1912

•

C AT .

NO .

304

357

ORBAN_ALBUM

358

2/3/11

1:31 PM

Page 358

D EZSÔ O RBAN : S TILL L IFE , C . 1911

•

C AT .

NO .

315

ORBAN_ALBUM

2/3/11

1:31 PM

Page 359

D EZSÔ O RBAN : S TILL L IFE

WITH A

G REEN J UG , 1911

•

C AT .

NO .

314

359

ORBAN_ALBUM

2/3/11

1:31 PM

Page 360

THE EIGHT DEZSÔ ORBÁN

PAINTINGS MISSING

360

D EZSÔ O RBAN : S TILL L IFE WITH V ASES , C UPS AND F RUIT , C . 1909 • D EZSÔ O RBAN : G LOXINIA , 1915 D EZSÔ O RBAN : S TILL L IFE , C . 1910 • D EZSÔ O RBAN : S TILL L IFE WITH P OTS , C . 1910

ORBAN_ALBUM

2/3/11

1:31 PM

Page 361

D EZSÔ O RBAN : S TILL L IFE WITH A J UG AND V ASE , C . 1910 D EZSÔ O RBAN : S TILL L IFE WITH A F RUIT B OWL , C . 1910

• •

D EZSÔ O RBAN : L YING N UDE , C . 1910 D EZSÔ O RBAN : L ARGE N UDE , C . 1911

361

19_POR_VAGO_ENG

2/3/11

2:17 PM

C S I L L A

Page 362

V Á G Ó

BERTALAN PÓR

B ERTALAN P ÓR

IN THE EARLY

1900 S ( PHOTOGRAPH )

‘Pictorial formalisms are unknown to him. He hammers out his art according to his own objectives, following his own heart,’1 said Bertalan Pór’s good friend and colleague, György Bölöni, in his apt characterization of Pór’s painting as a synthesis of various trends. In his monumental panneau, striking among his work, the tension between his arbitrary stylization, his artistic intent and hidden meanings is just as confusing today as it was for his contemporaries, just as his works’ stylistic pluralism is still as surprising and thought-provoking as it once was. He gradually turned away from the ideal of Munkácsy, an artist he had idolized in his youth, and joined the wave of modern painting. Instead of colour, he worked with the power of composition and form. He strived to ‘free himself of everything that was foreign and unsteady in the picture, and to find the truths of monumental images intended to shape large surfaces.’2 The symbolism of his works and the emotional, affected tone find kinship with the summarizing efforts of the early 20th century; we find analogies to his work in the art of Ferdinand Hodler, among others, and especially Kuzma Petrov-Vodkin.3

Bertalan Pór, the first child of Mór Pollacsik and Terézia Pick, was born on 4 November 1880 in Bábaszék (Babina), where his father was a government clerk. When he finished elementary school he went to live with his maternal aunt, and thus found himself in Budapest. His uncle was a great music-lover and took his musical young nephew regularly to concerts at the Vigadó. Pór started out as a violinist, but at age fifteen his interests turned permanently to the fine arts.4 In his own words, he showed an early proclivity for painting,5 and in secondary school he supported himself and his sibling with his drawings, which he sold in coffee houses along Budapest’s Ring road and at Fixler and Wagner’s. Thus his work was sold at the Balaton coffeehouse, where a purchase was made by one of the regular customers: ‘none other than Róbert Berény’s father. He introduced me to his son and the owner of the coffee house, who was Tihanyi’s father, and we all became the best of friends for life. I taught them [Róbert Berény and Lajos Tihanyi] to draw, and under my influence they also pursued careers as painters. They were very talented.’6 Pór studied first at the National School of the Fine Arts (Mintarajziskola).7 In 1889 he became the pupil of Gabriel von Hackl at the Munich Academy,8 but after two months he left the outdated studio and went to Simon Hollósy’s school.9 Among those studying at the school in 1900 were Dezsô Czigány and Itóka, or Otillia Markus. She was the wife of Kornél Kozmutza and later married Pór’s good friend György Bölöni. Although Hollósy had petitioned for a scholarship10 for the young painter, Pór abandoned his studies after a month and in early 1901 returned to Upper Hungary. He arose from obscurity at the spring show in the Mûcsarnok11 where his ‘self-portrait disclosed a delicate, poetic spir-

it. Whose art had he spent a lot of time watching – Carrière or István Réti?’12 His artistic portrait won him Baron Frigyes Harkányi’s 450-crown prize for first-time exhibitors.13 With this significant sum in his pocket, the talented young artist headed for Paris, where he became the student of Jean Paul Laurens at the Julian Academy. His way of looking at things had yet to be influenced by current trends. His interest was rather in plein-air painting, and he turned in particular to the Nagybánya school. He planned to travel to Nagybánya in the summer, as evidenced by two letters written in Paris to János Thorma.14 In Paris he struck up acquaintances with several influential figures, such as Czóbel,15 István Csók, and Csók’s social circle including Ödön Márffy, Lajos Fülep, Félix Vályi, and Dezsô Lavotta.16 Year after year he exhibited his portraits, with their delicate naturalism, at the Mûcsarnok. In these works, but especially in his self-portraits of 1905, Studio and his lost work, Nude Study, the forms dissolve, losing their plasticity, their shaded contours. This is also true of his landscapes, overflowing with an intimate atmosphere, and his canvases composed of wide patches of colour. ‘He works with a fistful of brushes; instead of dissecting the colours, he melds them and with almost an ascetic rigour, he retains only so much that colour still remains colour […] the brush is his only tool, but his only objective too.’17 At the end of 1906 he turned to postimpressionism. Still in Budapest, moving in artistic circles, he made the acquaintance of Károly Kernstok, later a leading figure in the Eight, and in the autumn they met again in Paris.18 A retrospective exhibition in honour of Gauguin was mounted in the Salon d’Automne, including B ERTALAN P ÓR IN 1911 ( PHOTOGRAPH : A LADÁR S ZÉKELY )

362

19_POR_VAGO_ENG

2/3/11

2:17 PM

Page 363

19_POR_VAGO_ENG

2/3/11

2:17 PM

Page 364

works by Cézanne. The exhibition, in which Berény, Czóbel and Márffy – all later members of The Eight – also participated, had a strong impact on Kernstok,19 and thus Pór certainly saw these works too. Pór also attended the 1907 exhibition of the Fauves at the Salon des Indépendants, as his housemate and friend, Berény,20 showed six canvases at this there, including a portrait of Pór.21 Berény introduced him to Dezsô Orbán,22 and during their joint adventures, he almost certainly met Matisse and earned a glimpse at the astonishing collection of Gertrude Stein and her brother Leo. Of The Eight, Berény, Czóbel, Kernstock, Orbán and Pór all made appearances at the gatherings of the American writer and art collector on Rue de Fleurus. In late spring, Berény and Pór set off together on a study tour of Italy. Pór’s travel expenses were covered by a 2000-crown travel stipend awarded by the committee of the National Hungarian Israelite Fund.23 They engaged in lively debate all through Italy. ‘From Venice to Capri;

B ERTALAN P ÓR ’ S

FAMILY IN THE

1920 S ( PHOTOGRAPH )

after that, I think we ran out of arguments and, as I clearly remember, money too’ said Berény.24 Pór acquired a good deal of his experience with monumental decorations on this journey. We know of one Venetian landscape which he certainly painted at this time, the first indication of his next coming great style.25 The joint travel ended in Szepesmerény (today: Nálepkovo, Slovakia),26 where he painted numerous decorative landscapes. A large number of these would later appear in his retrospective of 1911.

364

The inspiration he received from Berény had a liberating effect on him. He was too deeply rooted in tradition, however, to make use of the achievements of Fauvism in their purest form: the gradations of colour, colour contrasts, and the expressive power of autonomous spatial composition. His landscapes painted after 1907, Next to a Stone Bridge, Sunlit Landscape with Bridge, and Landscape show the loose application of colour patches in the spirit of Fauvism and the spontaneity of drawing with paint. “The relaxed splotches of colour in blue – yellow – green vibrate on the canvas. The structuring of the work, the extract of the landscape detail, and the tranquil character of his brushwork recall both the landscape compositions of Cézanne and the brushwork of the Fauve masters.’27 Rich in experience, these years gave new impetus to Pór, who planned study trips to Holland and Germany already in the first half of 1908. In August 1910 he applied again – unsuccessfully – for the Franz Joseph Coronation Jubilee prize but was rejected unfortunately.28

At the first exhibit of Circle of Hungarian Impressionists and Naturalists (MIÉNK), Pór participated as a guest artist.29 After viewing his work Gypsy making mud bricks, critics were unequivocal about the artist’s place in the ultramodern camp. ‘Conspicuous in their monstrousness are the filth-smeared Gauguinisms of Csaba Vilmos Perlrott and Bertalan Pór.’30 His landscapes31 at the second exhibit of MIÉNK were not singled out for criticism, but Miklós Rózsa clearly labelled Pór along with Márffy, Perlrott, Tihanyi,

and Orbán as young painters in Kernstock’s circle.32 Pór did not participate in the travelling exhibit ‘New Hungarian Painters’ organized by György Bölöni, following the MIÉNK exhibit. Bertalan Pór and the members of the Eight travelled along almost the same path, with the numerous salons as their meeting points. His friendships with Berény, Tihanyi, and also Vilmos Fémes Beck, who joined the group later, were genuine. Influenced by the overwhelming force of his Italian and Parisian experiences, but with the decisive affirmation of Róbert Berény’s and Károly Kernstok’s views, he turned toward progressive trends. His relationship with Kernstok was one of friendship as one of artistic deference and respect. He was not among Kernstok’s close circle, visiting Kernstok’s residence in Nyerges only once,33 but his older colleague’s bold stylistic change affected him, and he admired his charisma and his artistic and political influence. His intellectual orientation was fundamentally determined by Kernstok’s worldview, which was similar to that of the Galilei Circle, the freemasons, and bourgeoisie radicals, and would eventually transform into a left-wing conviction. Kernstok’s impact may be suspected in the concept of Pór’s Family; a similar stark change in approach is not evident in his earlier paintings from 1909, the Portrait of Ödön Lechner or the more brightly coloured Self Portrait in a Hat. With this work he appeared in the first joint exhibit of the Kernstok group, the exhibition ‘New Pictures’ which opened on 31 December 1909. However, the painting arrived only after the official opening, on 5 January,34. Under the title Portrait study, it became the most expensive painting at the exhibit, selling for 6000 crowns. As the story goes, the huge canvas was not done in time, thus Kernstok, with the help of Czigány, lifted the still damp, half-finished work from the easel and brought it to the exhibition.35 The oldest of his younger brothers, Károly, does not appear in the picture, since he was already working in Upper Hungary. Starting at the left we see Helen seated with the youngest, Ferkó, on her knee. Behind them stands Lajos and next to him, also in schoolboy clothes is Géza, then Hermina and Janka (Jeanette). Along the central axis of the image – and in a central place of the life of the artist too – is his mother. The head of the family, his father, is sitting at the far right. There is no evidence that the painting was based on a photograph, but the arrangement of the figures does not follow the traditional composition of a group portrait and is much more reminiscent of a family photo. Miklós Rózsa suggests some possible prototypes: ‘Although many names enter our minds when we stand

19_POR_VAGO_ENG

2/3/11

2:17 PM

Page 365

B ERTALAN P ÓR : T HE F AMILY 1909–1910

before the painting – Puvis de Chavannes, Carrière, Gauguin, and even the old Rippl-Rónai and Kernstok – still it is the artist’s powerful individuality that creates unity in this monumental composition. Pór also struggles for the right of form, although his struggle is not as arithmetically conscious as Kernstok’s. He too rejects valeurs, but at the same time he acknowledges the legitimacy of local colours and tones. The work, in addition to its strong literary taste, is one of the most valuable of Pór’s last years,

because it is one of the most fertile of his creations.’36 Despite Bertalan Pór’s weaknesses of composition and execution, he achieved such great recognition that he was inspired to experiment further with large compositions. The selected material of the ‘New Pictures’ exhibition– including Pór’s Family – was displayed in Berlin in early February 1910, and thus Pór had his first opportunity to participate in a large-scale international premiere of modern Hungarian painting.

•

CAT . NO .:

334

Known as a portrait painter, Pór had never taken part in a group or individual show, perhaps because at this point his collection of work lacked the depth that would merit a one-man show. But in the year following the ‘New Pictures’ exhibition, Pór worked fiercely and by 29 January 1911 he opened his own show at the Könyves Kálmán salon.37 The nearly seventy paintings and vast number of prints were ‘bits of information on a period in an artist’s life: those moments of turmoil, of pursuit; the dreams and

365

19_POR_VAGO_ENG

2/3/11

2:17 PM

Page 366

B ERTALAN P ÓR : S KETCH

FOR THE

P ANEL P AINTING

OF THE

P EOPLE ’ S O PERA , 1911

achievements from which, if necessary, anyone could construct the story of an entire life.’38 A survey is difficult because the catalogue provides little help in identifying pictures.39 According to the information in newspaper arti-

T HE P EOPLE ’ S O PERA

366

AT THE INAUGURATION IN

1911 ( PHOTOGRAPH

•

CAT . NO .:

337

cles, older portraits occupied a separate corner, with depictions of ‘girls, ladies, the heads of small children among them,’ and also the Nude Study,40 from 1905, the early Study of a Head, and perhaps one or two of his self-portraits from the early 1900s.

R UDOLF B ALOGH )

These portraits represented the point of departure, but also a counterpoint to his more recent work, the Nudes. Besides his family portrait, his highly-esteemed Venetian Lagoon, Gypsy Boy41, and Gypsies42 were shown at the exhibit as well as numerous decorative landscapes painted between 1906 and 1910 in Szepesmerény, in the environs of Kassa. As the catalogue included no information about the year painted, the size, or technique used, these latter works are impossible to identify. With his Nudes, Pór went beyond the problems he had been grappling with the previous year, ‘and he looked deeper, and deeper, interested in pictorial secrets which spout from the ancient springs of art.’43 He aimed for the synthesis of classical and modern painting, permanence and order, for which he found inspiration in the art of the Renaissance. One may wonder why it is that he consistently adhered to his ideas about composition in his preliminary studies, while his completed works are completely estranged from these, frozen projections of his impulsive preliminary drawings and colour sketches. Conspicuous are the increases in proportions at the expense of the environment, and the reduction of the background landscape in both space and colour. The question naturally arises: why did he change his method of approach at the decisive moment? Not only did these superhuman figures fulfil the need for monumentality and the creation of a new style, but they allowed for the perception of a new, different kind of reality, reflecting the nostalgic, utopian yearnings of the artist. Discernible in the earlier sketches and (just barely) in the final painting is a flower presented by the youth in the middle to the woman. During the organization of the exhibit, Kernstok violently scratched it from the canvas with a jack knife he kept in his pocket, stating ‘there is no need for that!’44 Here, Pór was not breaking with tradition; his original intent was to tell a story.

19_POR_VAGO_ENG

2/3/11

2:17 PM

Page 367

B ERTALAN P ÓR : S KETCH B ERTALAN P ÓR

FOR THE

P ANEL P AINTING

IN HIS STUDIO ON

S ZÁZADOS

OF THE

ÚT ,

P EOPLE ’ S O PERA , 1911 ( MISSING )

1912 ( PHOTOGRAPH

M ÓR E RDÉLYI )

He displayed two colour sketches for his composition Yearning for Pure Love (R. 389). One was reproduced in Aurora, but its whereabouts are unknown.45 The other colour sketch46 displays a close connection to the nude compositions produced by the members of the Eight, and especially to the style of Tihanyi in its conception and colours. Following his highly successful one-man show, he had little time before the festive vernissage on April 29 of the second exhibition of the Eight, by now an official group. The artist surprised the public with yet another giant composition, Sermon on the Mount (R. 388), and some accompanying sketches and compositional experiments.47 The exhibition catalogue offered Pór’s five oil paintings for 250 crowns each. In the last few years the colour sketch for Sermon on the Mount, dated and dedicated to Dr. Virgil Ciaclan, has been identified and much studied.48 In the surviving preliminary sketches,49 the central figure appears either arranged as a hero with a passionate, animated gesture or is shown stepping out with a whip in his hand. We are presented with a judgmental, combative prophet, a revolutionary figure capable of sacrificing himself. The passions in the final painting are subdued, the orator’s gesture and the quiet student

367

19_POR_VAGO_ENG

2/3/11

2:17 PM

Page 368

symbolize the rebirth and its promise of a better future. The artist intended that Sermon on the Mount refer only in its title to the passage from the Bible. Central to his concept was change and rebirth. In its symbolic content, the huge canvas is closely intertwined with the efforts of the Galilei Circle, especially if we consider that the painting hung on the wall of the large hall in the Reform Club until 1914.50 Pór genuinely believed in the messianistic power of art: ‘I think that art is just now awaiting a brilliant, triumphant future, a true renaissance, in which new art […] will appear great to all […]’51 Following the exhibition of the Eight, five of Pór’s paintings were chosen by an official jury of the Hungarian state to appear at the International Exhibition in Rome:52 Double Portrait,53 Gypsy Boy, a portrait of a girl, a sketch of Yearning, and The Family. However, an account in Világ relates the disgrace that befell Pór: ‘the pictures had already been hung by the artists assigned to organize the exhibition […] when Bertalan Pór was indirectly informed that an unknown person, who could not be persuaded by his works, ordered them to be removed from the wall. The paintings had not hung for even a day, and were now languishing in storage, disowned, in a faraway land.’54 At the third exhibition of the Eight55 a large-scale sketch of the work made for the People’s Opera (Népopera), four self-portraits, a standing female nude,56 and several composition sketches were displayed. Among the self-portraits, two half-figures are known, while two smaller portraits are lost. Of the three oil paintings, only one has been identified with certainty.57 Upon Márffy’s initiative, the City of Budapest bought a composition sketch in 1912, which, presumably, has been destroyed.59 The architect Dezsô Jakab bought one of the figural oil paintings.60 Whether any of these was identical with the sketch reproduced in the catalogue of the Eight is uncertain as all had a similar theme: ‘Giant figures in heroic landscapes. […] Besides this, there were friendly, sunny fresh greenery, a clear sky, with an occasional gently whirling cloud. An elegant accord of the Seicento-born pastoral.’61 That the artist was counting on further commissions is clear from the compositions on display at the final exhibition of the Eight. In that same year he had been asked to design a modern neo-Classical mosaic for the school in Vas Street, to be executed by Miksa Róth.62 To this day the mosaic can be seen its original location, unharmed in the front hall of the building. In 1913 Pór prepared sketches for wall decorations of a dining hall. A small ink sketch63 and two colour sketches of minor figures in the original size are known of this work.64 Whether the wall-painting was ever realised, is not known.

368

BERTALAN PÓR : SKETCH 1913 • CAT. NO.: 338 UPPER

FOR THE

FRESCO

IN A

DINING ROOM II.,

LEFT :

OF THE

BERTALAN PÓR AND MIKSA RÓTH: THE MOSAIC SCHOOL IN VAS UTCA (PHOTOGRAPH)

CENTRE LEFT: BERTALAN PÓR: SKETCH FOR THE MOSAIC SCHOOL IN VAS UTCA, 1912 • CAT . NO .: 371 LOWER

LEFT :

BERTALAN PÓR’S

FAMILY IN FRONT OF THE

SAME - SIZE COLOURED DESIGN OF THE MOSAIC OF THE SCHOOL ,

OF THE

VAS

UTCA

1910S (PHOTOGRAPH)

In 1914 Pór participated in a travelling exhibit of graphic artists to America65 and in another exhibit organized in the Kunstsalon Brüko in Vienna with Tihanyi and Berény. Based on the catalogue of the Panama-Pacific International Exposition in San Francisco in 1915 Pór participated with the second largest number of works, 72 items.66 Pór served in World War I with the Hoffman army corps as a draftsman. In 1918, in his fresco sketches made at the time of the Hungarian Soviet Republic, he returned to his earlier forms, moving in his revolutionary poster on towards cubism and futurism. Because of his role in the Directorate of the Arts, after the collapse of the revolution he fled to Slovakia. During his long years of voluntary exile, the bucolic nudes of his Arcadian panneaux were transformed into shepherd figures struggling with nature and animals. The cows peacefully grazing in the fields became the exclusive subject of Pór’s art, the attributes for a period.

19_POR_VAGO_ENG

1 2 3 4 5 6

12 13

15 16 17 18

24 25

2/3/11

2:17 PM

Page 369

Bölöni György: Pór Bertalánról és az új mûvészetrôl. [On Bertalan Pór and the new art], A Ház 4. 1911, 171–173. Az Utak III.: 111. Bálint Aladár: Új mûvészek [New Artists]. Magyar Nyomdászat, 24, 1911, 2. 41–42. Az Utak III.: 57. Krisztina Passuth called my attention to the connections between Bertalan Pór’s and Petrov-Vodkin’s paintings. Bertalan Pór’s statement about music. Magyar Rádió Hangarchívum, D 1834/1/4. Lyka Károly: A 70 éves Pór Bertalan [Bertalán Pór at 70]. Magyar Nemzet, 12 October 1950, 7. Episodes from the life of Bertalan Pór. Family Chronicle. Based on the notes of Dr. Margit Pór. 9 March 1972. MNG archive, inv. no. 19174/1975. Az Országos Magyar Királyi Mintarajziskolának és Rajztanárképzônek Értesítôje az 1899–1900. tanévrôl [Bulletin of the National School of the Fine Arts]. Budapest, 1900. Géza Jászai: München und die Kunst Ungarns 1800 bis 1945. (Einige Bemerkungen zur Revision der modernen ungarischen Kunst). Ungarn Jahrbuch, 2. 1970. 151. Pór barely attended a month of school, from December of 1900 to early January 1901, and thus his name does not appear on the registrar’s lists for 1900 or 1901. ‘I have applied for scholarships […] Because of the exceptional talents (of the new ones Czigány and Pór) I ask in advance for your attention. Without a scholarship they would have difficulty remaining for the year. As it is, they only pay partial tuition. Most pay nothing.’ Rózsaffy Dezsô: Hollósy Simon és iskolája. (Emlékezések és levelek.). [Simon Hollósy and his school (Recollections and letters) ] A Mûbarát, 2. 1922. 172. Tavaszi nemzetközi kiállítás 1901 (International Spring Exhibition 1901). Mûcsarnok. Budapest, 1901. No 208. Study (oil on canvas) priced at 600 crowns. Lázár Béla: A tavaszi tárlat [The spring show]. Magyar Szalon, 35. 1901. 125. Az Utak I.: 8. A “Studio’ a magyar mûvészetrôl [The “Studio’ on Hungarian art]. Mûcsarnok, 13 October 1901, 327. The painting was bought by the sculptor György Zala for 300 crowns. It was reproduced in the catalogue, but also appeared in the August issue of the English art journal The Studio. Letter of János Thorma to István Réti, Paris, 7 February 1902. MNG Archive, inv. no. 7570/1955; ‘Pór is an exceptionally enthusiastic painter. This enthusiastic, but poor boy from Nagybánya supports his mother and five siblings from his own earnings […] In the summer they may come down to Nagybánya, and we’ll give some hard thought as to whether the four of us should do a separate exhibit in the autumn. Csók is also coming to Bánya in the summer and the two young ones have grand plans of what they’ll make for this exhibit.’ János Thorma’s letter to István Réti. 6 February 1902. MNG Archives, inv. no. 7700/1955. Passuth Krisztina: A Nyolcak festészete [The painting of the Eight]. Budapest, 1967. 31. Csók István: Emlékezéseim [My recollections]. Budapest, 1945. 135. Nagy Endre: Írás a Mûcsarnokról [Essay on the Kunsthalle]. Jövendô, 23 April 1905, 15–16. Az Utak I.: 100. Bertalan Pór with Károly Kernstok and family at an airplane show in 1906. Photograph. Tata, Kuny Domonkos Múzeum. See Hungarian Fauves from Paris to Nagybánya. Ed. by Krisztina Passuth, György Szücs. Budapest, Hungarian National Gallery, 2006.264. Photo see p. 257. Magyar festôk a Salon d’Automne kiállításain (1903–1913) [Hungarian painters at the exhibitions of Salon d’Automne], ibid., 319. In the spring of 1907, Pór lived in his Paris workshop at 9 rue Falguière, atelier no. 12. Barki Gergely: A magyar festôk párizsi lakcímei [The Paris addresses of Hungarian painters]. Ibid., 325. Magyar festôk a Salon des Indépendants kiállításain (1905–1914) [Hungarian painters at the exhibitions[ of the Salon des Indépendants], ibid., 322. ‘At this time I was close friends with Róbert Berény and Bertalan Pór and had the honour of befriending Károly Kernstok.’ Letter of Dezsô Orbán to Iván Dévényi. Sydney, 17 April 1967. MTA MKI Archive, inv. no. MKCS–C–I–159–1128. Letter of the Committee of the National Hungarian Israelite Fund to Bertalan Pór. Budapest, 14 October 1906. (Owned by the family.) Róbert Berény’s toast to Bertalan Pór on his 70th birthday. MNG archive, inv. no. 23306/IX.22/1992. Pór Bertalan kétszeres Kossuth-díjas kiváló mûvész emlékkiállítása [A commemorative exhibition of the double Kossuth Award winner and Merited Artist B. P.]. Catalogue. Compiled and introduction by Anna Oelmacher. Budapest, Magyar Nemzeti Galéria, 1966. 9. ‘I am staying until I finish my paintings, until I complete a couple of pictures. Róbert left two weeks ago.’ Bertalan Pór’s letter to his parents. Szepesmerény, 31 July 1907. (Owned by the family)

27 28

32 33 34

35 36 37 38 39

40 41

42 43 44 45 46 47 48

49 50 51 52 53

56 57

Krisztina Passuth: Bertalan Pór Hungarian Fauves. op. cit. 276–277. Nagy Lajos: A Ferenc József koronázási díj története [History of the Franz Joseph Jubilee prize]. Manuscript. [no date] Fôvárosi Szabó Ervin Könyvtár, Budapest Collection, 109. 163. M.I.É.N.K. elsô kiállítása [The first exhibition of the Circle of Hungarian Impressionists and Naturalists]. Nemzeti Szalon. January 1908. Budapest. No 186. Gypsy making mud bricks. Kézdi-Kovács László: A ‘MIÉNK’ csoportkiállítása a Nemzeti Szalonban [Group exhibition of ‘MIÉNK’ in the National Salon].’ Pesti Hirlap, 11 January 1908. 6–7. Az Utak I: 326. M.I.É.N.K. második kiállítása. [The second exhibition of Circle of Hungarian Impressionists and Naturalists] Nemzeti Szalon. February – March 1909. Budapest. No 173, 174. Landscape. Tövis [Miklós Rózsa]: M.I.É.N.K. A Hét, 21 February 1909. 138–139. Az Utak II: 26. Letter of Bertalan Pór to Iván Dévényi. Budapest, 20 January 1956. MTA MKI Documents dept., MDK–C–I–159/1191/c. The notice was published in: Egyetértés, 4 January 1910. 13; Egyetértés, 5 January 1910. 11; Budapest, 5 January 1910. 12; Alkotmány, 6 January 1910. Az Utak II: 241, 244. Oelmacher Anna: Pór Bertalan. Budapest, 1980. 6. Rózsa Miklós: Kernstok Károly. A Hét, 9 January 1910. 31. Az Utak II: 254. Articles and reviews published in January 1911 about the exhibit: Az Utak III: 24–31. -lle. [Relle Pál]: Pór Bertalan kiállítása [Bertalan Pór’s exhibition] Egyetértés, 19 January 1911. 14. Az Utak III: 25. Pór Bertalan kiállítása a Könyves Kálmán Szalonjában [Bertalan Pór’s exhibition in the Könyves Kálmám Salon]. 29 January to 26 February 1911, Budapest, 1911. Bertalan Pór: Nude study, 1905. (missing). Exhibited at the ‘Spring Show’ in 1905. Mûcsarnok. Budapest, 1905. No 331. Bertalan Pór: Gypsy Boy, 1910. Oil, canvas, 77 x 62,5 cm. Privately owned. ‘Among the figural works, Gypsy Child stands out with its strong, individualist drawing, the appropriate and conscious emphasis of the constructive parts.’ Rózsaffy Dezsô: Pór Bertalan kiállítása (A Könyves Kálmán szalonjában) [Bertalan Pór’s exhibition (in the Könyves Kálmán Salon)]. Az Ujság, 19 January 1911. 19. Az Utak III: 30. ‘A half-length portrait of a gypsy model, with the traces of an already entirely new vision and approach. Perhaps this represents a transition to the large-scale nudes.’ Pór Bertalan képei [Paintings by Bertalan Pór]. Pesti Napló,1 February 1911. 14. Az Utak III: 38. Bertalan Pór: Gypsies, 1907. Oil, canvas, 55 x 66 cm. MNG, inv. no.: 69.58 T. Bölöni György: Pór Bertalan. Aurora, 31 January 1911. 37–38. Az Utak III: 33–34. Letter of Bertalan Pór to Iván Dévényi. Budapest, 20 January 1956. MTA MKI Archive, inv. no. MDK–C–I–159/1191/c. Aurora, 13 May 1911. 205. Bertalan Pór: Yearning for Pure Love, 1910. Oil, canvas, 52 x 67 cm. i. l. l.: Pór 1910. Privately owned. Relle Pál: A “Nyolcak’ kiállítása [Exhibition of the ‘Eight’]. Egyetértés, 19 April 1911. 11–12. Az Utak III: 123. Bertalan Pór: Sermon on the Mount (sketch), 1911. Oil, canvas, 50 x 63.5 cm, inscribed: Dr. Ciaclan Virgil... szeretettel [with love] Pór Bertalan. Privately owned. BTM Kiscelli Múzeum, Prints and Drawing Collection, inv. no. 62.150.1. – 62.150.14. Meeting of the members of the Galilei Circle 1955. Magyar Rádió Hangarchívum, D 6/1–2 Mûvészek és Tisza István [Artists and István Tisza]. Interview. Pesti Napló, 16 April 1911. 40–42. Az Utak III: 104. Esposizione internazionale di belle arti Roma 1911. Ungheria. Budapest, 1911. 205–211. Bertalan Pór: Study for a portrait of a child’s face (portraits of Ferenc and Géza Pór), 1904. Oil, canvas, 125.5 x 102 cm, i. l. r. Shown at the ‘International Winter Exhibition’ 1904/1905. Mûcsarnok. Budapest, 1904. No 236. Reproduced: Mûvészet, 3. 1904. 400. Presently Peter Forbáth Collection, Ontario Art Gallery, Toronto. Mûpártol az Állam. Rómától a “Nyolcak”-ig [The state’s support of art. From Rome to the ‘Eight’]. Világ, 19 May 1911. 14–15. Az Utak III: 187–188. Nyolcak harmadik tárlatának katalógusa [Catalogue of the third exhibition of the Eight] Nemzeti Szalon, Budapest, November 1912. Entries 59-68 Bölöni György: A Nyolcak. [The Eight] Világ, 15 November 1912. Az Utak III: 480. Bertalan Pór: Self Portrait, 1912. Oil, canvas, 61.5 x 49.8 cm. i.l.l.: Pór 1912. MNG, inv. no. F.K. 1057 T; Bertalan Pór: Self-portrait, 1912. Oil, canvas, 69.5 x 55.5 cm. i.l.r.: Pór 1912. Privately owned.

60 61

Bertalan Pór: Landscape in Upper Hungary with shepherds and animals, 1912. Oil, cardboard, 62 x 76 cm. i.l.l.: Pór 1912. Privately owned. More recent, related data appears only in the list of wartime losses of the Gallery of the City of Budapest (Fôvárosi Képtár): ‘B. Pór: Composition design, oil, canvas 50 x 60 cm inv. no. 299. i.: 1912.’ A Fôvárosi Képtár háborús veszteségeinek jegyzéke. [The register of the war losses in the Gallery of the City of Budapest] Ed. Sándor Jeszenszky. Budapest, 1951. 656. Rum Attila: Czigány Dezsô. Budapest, 2004. 100. Felvinczi Takács Zoltán: Négyen a nyolcak közül. Glosszák egy modern mûvészeti kiállításhoz. [Four among the Eight. Commentary on a modern art exhibition.]. Nyugat, 5, 1912, 22. II: 763–768. Az Utak III: 483. Erdei Gyöngyi: Mozaikok a budapesti mecenatúra fénykorából 1901–1918 [Mosaics from the heyday of Budapest patronage]. Budapesti Negyed, 9, 2001, 2/3. 111. Bertalan Pór: Sketches for a fresco, 1913. Ink, pen, paper, 288 x 217 mm. MNG Department of Prints and Drawings, inv. no. F. 75.446. Bertalan Pór: Sketch for a dining-room fresco I., 1913. Oil, cardboard, 180 x 100 cm. MNG Department of Prints and Drawings, inv. no. LU 64.43; Bertalan Pór: Sketch for a diningroom fresco II, 1913. Oil, cardboard, 180 x 100 cm. Inscription on reverse: “Tanulmány egy ebédlô freskótervéhez” [Study for a dining-room fresco].’ MNG Department of Prints and Drawings, inv. no. 75.37 T. Catalogue of an Exhibition of Contemporary Graphic Art in Hungary, Bohemia, and Austria. The Buffalo Fine Arts Academy. Albright Art Gallery. Introduction by Martin Birnbaum. New York. 1914. 34: no. 86–90. “The fine arts commissioner of the World Expo selected four large compositions and brought them and about thirty of my drawings to the exhibition (including the original composition sketches of The Family, Yearning for Pure Love, Sermon on the Mount and People’s Opera).’ OSZK Manuscript archive, inv. no. 80/31.

B ERTALAN P ÓR : S TANDING F EMALE N UDE , C . 1910 • CAT . NO .: 350

369

19_POR_VAGO_ENG

370

2/3/11

1:34 PM

Page 370

B ERTALAN P ÓR : S ELF P ORTRAIT , C . 1906

•

C AT .

NO .

325

19_POR_VAGO_ENG

2/3/11

1:34 PM

Page 371

B ERTALAN P ÓR : S TILL L IFE

WITH A

P AINTER ' S

TOOLS ,

1907

•

C AT .

NO .

327

371

19_POR_VAGO_ENG

372

2/3/11

1:34 PM

B ERTALAN P ÓR : S KETCHES

FOR

Page 372

P ORTRAITS , 1910

•

C AT .

NO .

353

•

C AT .

NO .

354

19_POR_VAGO_ENG

2/3/11

1:34 PM

Page 373

B ERTALAN P ÓR : G YPSY B OY , 1910

•

C AT .

NO .

336

373

19_POR_VAGO_ENG

374

2/3/11

1:34 PM

Page 374

B ERTALAN P ÓR : S HADY R IVERBANK , 1909

•

C AT .

NO .

329

19_POR_VAGO_ENG

2/3/11

1:34 PM

Page 375

B ERTALAN P ÓR : B Y

THE

S TONE B RIDGE (E DGE

OF THE

F OREST ), 1908

•

C AT .

NO .

328

375

19_POR_VAGO_ENG

376

2/3/11

1:34 PM

B ERTALAN P ÓR : S UNLIT L ANDSCAPE

Page 376

WITH

B RIDGE , 1909

•

C AT .

NO .

333

19_POR_VAGO_ENG

2/3/11

1:34 PM

Page 377

B ERTALAN P ÓR : F OREST R OAD , 1911

•

C AT .

NO .

341

377

19_POR_VAGO_ENG

378

2/3/11

B ERTALAN P ÓR : L IGHT

1:34 PM

BY THE

Page 378

R IVER , 1909

•

C AT .

NO .

330

19_POR_VAGO_ENG

2/3/11

1:34 PM

Page 379

B ERTALAN P ÓR : B Y

THE

S TREAM , 1909

•

C AT .

NO .

331

379

19_POR_VAGO_ENG

380

2/3/11

1:34 PM

B ERTALAN P ÓR : S ELF P ORTRAIT , 1913

Page 380

•

C AT .

NO .

378

19_POR_VAGO_ENG

2/3/11

1:34 PM

Page 381

B ERTALAN P ÓR : S ELF P ORTRAIT , 1913

•

C AT .

NO .

377

381

19_POR_VAGO_ENG

382

2/3/11

1:34 PM

Page 382

B ERTALAN P ÓR : C OMPOSITION WITH F IVE F IGURES , C . 1910 • C AT . NO . 355 • B ERTALAN P ÓR : B ULLS AND S HEPHERDS , C . 1912 • C AT . B ERTALAN P ÓR : N UDES IN THE L ANDSCAPE , C . 1912 • C AT . NO . 374 • B ERTALAN P ÓR : G RAZING H ORSES , C . 1912 • C AT . NO . 373

NO .

375

19_POR_VAGO_ENG

2/3/11

1:34 PM

Page 383

B ERTALAN P ÓR : M ALE N UDE , 1910 • C AT . NO . 351 • B ERTALAN P ÓR : S TUDY FOR A N UDE , 1911 B ERTALAN P ÓR : S TUDY FOR A M ALE N UDE , C . 1911 • C AT . NO . 34 • B ERTALAN P ÓR : T WO S TUDIES , 1911

• •

C AT . C AT .

NO . NO .

357 358

383

19_POR_VAGO_ENG

384

2/3/11

B ERTALAN P ÓR : S KETCH

1:34 PM

FOR

Page 384

Y EARNING

FOR

P URE L OVE , 1911

•

C AT .

NO .

365

•

B ERTALAN P ÓR : S KETCH

FOR

Y EARNING

FOR

P URE L OVE , 1911

•

C AT .

NO .

366

19_POR_VAGO_ENG

2/3/11

1:34 PM

Page 385

B ERTALAN P ÓR : S KETCH

FOR THE

P ICTURE Y EARNING

FOR

P URE L OVE , 1911

•

C AT .

NO .

361

385

19_POR_VAGO_ENG

386

2/3/11

B ERTALAN P ÓR : S ERMON

1:34 PM

ON THE

Page 386

M OUNT ( SKETCH ), 1911

•

C AT .

NO .

342

•

B ERTALAN P ÓR : S KETCH

FOR THE

P AINTING S ERMON

ON THE

M OUNT , 1911

•

C AT .

NO .

367

19_POR_VAGO_ENG

2/3/11

1:34 PM

Page 387

B ERTALAN P ÓR : Y EARNING

FOR

P URE L OVE (S KETCH ), 1910

•

C AT .

NO .

335

387

19_POR_VAGO_ENG

388

2/3/11

B ERTALAN P ÓR : S ERMON

1:34 PM

ONT HE

Page 388

M OUNT , 1911

19_POR_VAGO_ENG

2/3/11

1:34 PM

Page 389

B ERTALAN P ÓR : Y EARNING

FOR

P URE L OVE , 1911

•

C AT .

NO .

340

389

19_POR_VAGO_ENG

390

2/3/11

1:34 PM

B ERTALAN P ÓR : S ELF P ORTRAIT , 1912

Page 390

•

C AT .

NO .

344

19_POR_VAGO_ENG

2/3/11

1:34 PM

Page 391

B ERTALAN P ÓR : S ELF P ORTRAIT , 1912

•

C AT .

NO .

345

391

20_TIHANYI_PASSUTH_ENG

2/3/11

1:37 PM

K R I S Z T I N A

Page 392

P A S S U T H

LAJOS TIHANYI Tihanyi was, so to say, a son of the Balaton Coffee House, which was on the corner of Rákóczi út and Szentkirályi utca. I myself lived very near, on the corner of Kazinczy utca and Wesselényi utca. Thus it could have been – since people frequented many different coffee houses then – that I wandered in there, too. It seems it was there that I got to know Tihanyi. [...] I was then a clerk and lived with my parents. I led a rather bourgeois, structured life. Tihanyi was privileged in that his home was a place where he could choose from a menu card what to eat for lunch and what to eat for supper, and without having to pay. I was envious. [...] Lajos was a gourmet. He loved to eat well, understood food, and could cook excellently also.’ With these words, Tibor Déry recalled, in 1974, those traits of Lajos Tihanyi (1885– 1938) that for him were the most characteristic.1 It is certainly true that the papers left by Lajos Tihanyi included many menu cards. In his correspondence also, eating and food featured a great deal. They did so not always on account of indulgence in them but rather a lack of it: in his émigré years, Tihanyi could order from restaurant menu cards but seldom. In fact, he regularly went hungry, sometimes lacking money even for soap. In spite of everything, though, this son of the Balaton Coffee House had an unusual career – perhaps the most unusual of the careers enjoyed by the members of the Eight. His completely autonomous, uncompromising personality did not make his life easier. Nor did it help his chances of success.2 Tihanyi’s life was a short one: he was less than fifty-three years old when

he died of meningitis, the very same illness that had robbed him – at the age of eleven – of his hearing and, by and large, his speech also. The last mentioned he was able to recover partly, through very great efforts. As Tibor Déry recalled, the artist ‘spoke in a somewhat broken way [...]. [In Paris,] his names for streets went the rounds. For example, Champs-Elysées he pronounced ‘Chanch-Elysées’, and rue Richelieu ‘rue Roohelue’. This stemmed from the spelling of the names and his small knowledge of French.’3 Tihanyi had to struggle again and again for everything – to understand what someone said by reading that person’s lips or to express himself more or less intelligibly. Indeed, in his own way he compensated for all this, because he not only painted, but wrote also, and passionately. His surviving correspondence (which, clearly, is but a fragment of the original whole) would fill many volumes. For him, writing partly replaced speaking and served as a substitute for it. Tihanyi was prejudiced, uncompromising, and wilful; he was also demanding with regard to his friends and to collectors of his work. At the same time, he was ironical, quarrelsome, and sarcastic. In his personal contacts and in his art he was guided by the same extremism. ‘Tihanyi, who hears with his eyes,’ Lajos Fülöp wrote of him;4 we could add ‘who devoted his whole being to his passions’, be the object of those passions a woman, a supper, or a painting. Although he wrote on art, he did not develop a theory of it describable as coherent. He wrote about things he had experienced or painted, and not about those that required

thinking in advance. In his decisions, feelings of the moment played a much larger part than deliberations beforehand. From all this it followed that even at the age of fifty Tihanyi something childish about him. Perhaps it was this more than anything else that enabled him to captivate those around him, women and men alike. As is clear from his letters, his work, and the recollections of others, Tihanyi’s character did not change after his early youth, regardless of the country in which he lived or the style in which his paintings were made. He was not ‘hardworking’ in the strict sense of the word: when he was young, he spent much of the day chasing women; when he was older, it was a livelihood – money and connections – that he sought. Comparatively few paintings by him have survived. More numerous are the drawings that have come down to us. The last mentioned, which, obviously, were done quickly in a moment of inspiration (and sometimes in the absence of a model), exhibit logical construction, despite appearing dashed off and sketchy. Tihanyi was indeed a son of the Balaton Coffee House: his father, József Tihanyi (Teitelbaum),5 head waiter at Weingruber’s and later on ‘coffee-house proprietor of renown’, opened his own business in 1894, on the site of the one-time Schramek Restaurant. Tihanyi emulated his father’s upwardly-mobile and industrious way of life not in the slightest. Tibor Déry recalled: ‘If I remember well, Tihanyi very much disliked his father, and often said so to me.’6 With some exaggeration, we may assert that for L AJOS T IHANYI , 1910 S

392

20_TIHANYI_PASSUTH_ENG

2/3/11

1:37 PM

Page 393

20_TIHANYI_PASSUTH_ENG

2/3/11

1:37 PM

Page 394

L AJOS T IHANYI : B ATHERS , 1907

Tihanyi the father represented not a model to emulate, but rather an exemplar to reject. He did not wish to follow him in anything. He was unable to accept him, in the same way that the father was unable to accept the son’s career as a painter or his manner of living. If Tihanyi kicked against the existing social order his entire life, later on rebelling against it, then it was in his boyhood that this attitude took shape, in such a way, moreover, that he refused his father’s authority also and wished to follow his own path. This found expression in his essential unwillingness – and his inability also – to continue studying in the usual way. In this, naturally, his illness, too, played a part: by the age of eleven, he had completed four years at school, but because of his deafness was unable to proceed to a gymnasium, namely a grammar school. (In a curriculum vitae written in French, he men-

394

tioned that these four years were the sum total of his formal education.7) Looking back later on, in 1920,8 he recalled matters thus: ‘After my illness, I honed my mind through home study, dealing only with those things that interested me, with thinking as well as with the natural sciences. Soon I felt that I was a superior soul and understood that in the social order as it then existed I could be successful only as an artist. Everything I studied I studied on my own.’ In a curriculum vitae composed in Hungarian, he stated that from 1906 until 1910 he attended Budapest’s School of Design. On the other hand, in the same document he also wrote the following: ‘I spent two years at the School of Design studying and stylising flora and fauna, and drawing geometrical figures. Today, I consider this time and this course of study to have been very important, much more important than

the almost two years that followed, which I spent at a private school sketching nudes and heads.’9 He stated in the curriculum vitae written in French (which was later) that at the School of Design his decorative drawings were the best. When he left this school, he continued, he wanted to paint nudes after nature, but his father would not hear of it. Instead of studying painting as he had wished to do, he became an apprentice photographer. However, he soon tired of the touching-up work and spent the three years of his apprenticeship in libraries. In all likelihood, it was at this time that he grasped the significance of photography, despite his bad experiences with the touching-up work. Later on, he took care to have photographs made of his pictures. Moreover, among Tihanyi’s best friends in Paris were such photographers as André Kertész and Brassaï. His distinctive, highly expressive countenance and his characteristic figure are captured on numerous photographs. Tihanyi subsequently remembered the beginnings of his career as follows: ‘When I was able to get paint, I made landscapes and portraits for friends of my family. A number of years passed like this.’10 Later, he mentioned that he took part in extracurricular courses given by official and private schools. All this data is difficult to check and difficult to date. (We do not even know exactly the types of schools he attended, if indeed he attended any at all. For the time being, there are simply no data on this.11) But putting together everything, we can say that Tihanyi first travelled to Nagybánya in the early summer of 1907, at a time when he could to all intents and purposes be regarded as self-taught and when still lacked a qualification of any kind. His stay there represented the turning point that he clearly needed. It was at Nagybánya that he became a painter, as the works he made in that period attest. He did not become a member of the artists’ colony, but may possibly have received instruction as someone working outside it.12 At the very least, he must have picked up from others certain concepts, methods, and approaches even. And although he wrote in the abovementioned curriculum vitae of 1920 that his first paintings were from the period 1909–1911, in actual fact earlier ones, too, are known: among others, Bathers,13 from 1907, and Pont Saint Michel14 and Interieur,15 both from 1908. Accordingly, it was in Nagybánya (and subsequently in Paris) that Tihanyi became a real painter. Since it was precisely in 1907 that the influence of Paris waxed great for the neos (neoimpressionists) at Nagybánya, it was then, presumably, that Tihanyi got to know and partly adopt the Nagybánya approach in the strict sense of the term and, through it, the French fauve one.

20_TIHANYI_PASSUTH_ENG

2/3/11

1:37 PM

Page 395

into the French artistic world. And by the time he returned to Paris for a longer spell in 1910 and again in 1911,16 the fauve current was exhausted and new trends had made their appearance. That Tihanyi became an artist almost from nothing, and without any training at an academy, can he explained solely by his exceptional talent and aptitude, by means of which he over-

came difficulties of technique, learnt – after mastering drawing – how to handle paint, and adopted (largely) the approach taken by Sándor Ziffer and his circle.17 Tihanyi’s landscapes were, clearly, painted after nature. Small individual characteristic landscape pieces plucked from nature are depicted, but in such a way that landscape elements fill out, so to say, the entire picture surface; some motifs (trees, hillsides) are not painted whole, but with parts left off. The effect is, consequently, much more tense and dynamic than if the artist had stuck with the details. The initial sketchiness and the more powerful contouring are eclipsed by the stronger colours. In his compositions, the deep greens of the neos and characteristic, Gauguinesque pink shading can be seen. In Tihanyi’s work, the forms are hard and separated from one another by sharp breaks. In his compositions, no impressionistic element of any kind can be sensed, much so, rather, the constructive influence of Cézanne’s landscapes. For Tihanyi, clearly, the decisive impetus stemmed from the fact that he did not work alone, or in an environment that was indifferent for him: he learnt from others (the tricks of the trade, he ‘learnt by watching’, to use his own expression, developing these in his own way). Tihanyi did not become a real Nagybánya painter, although – apart from painting – his friendship with Józsi Jenô Tersánszky (which

L AJOS T IHANYI : W RESTLERS , 1909 (M ISSING )

L AJOS T IHANYI : S TILL L IFE , 1909 (M ISSING )

L AJOS T IHANYI , J ENÔ T ERSÁNSZKY J ÓZSI

At the same time, it was clearly a disadvantage for him that he arrived in Nagybánya approximately one year after the great ‘neo revolution’ there, and that he reached Paris some two years after the birth of French fauvism. It was probably due to this that in both places he remained outside events, neither becoming a member of the Nagybánya circle in its stricter sense, nor fitting

AND THEIR FRIENDS IN THE

B ALATON C OFFEE H OUSE , 1910 S

395

20_TIHANYI_PASSUTH_ENG

2/3/11

1:37 PM

L AJOS T IHANYI : P ORTRAIT

Page 396

T IBOR S ZAMUELY , 1913 (M ISSING )

developed there) did represent in some degree a tie to the place. (It is from his letters to Tersánszky that we learn the most about Tihanyi’s early years as a painter and about his amorous adventures.18) The second impulse – and at the same time his gradual break with Nagybánya – derived from his spell in Paris in 1907–1908. Although Nagybánya motifs lived on in his landscapes even in 1909, his links with Nagybánya became increasingly ambivalent. He did not want to go there, because was not fond of drinking,19 disliked the ‘smell of manure’20 along with certain instructors, e.g. Boromisza,21 and because he must have found Nagybánya definitely provincial after Paris. But although he yearned for the French capital, his principal base was to all intents and purposes Budapest. It was there that he had his home, and there that he built up a circle of friends (this included, in addition to those mentioned above, György Bölöni, Endre Ady, and the

396

literary translator Hugó Gellért, brother to Oszkár Gellért). It was in Budapest, too, that his art developed in all its variety. For this, though, he needed friends, real associates, and even membership of some kind of community. He was to find all of these in the Eight group formed later on. It was in 1907–1908, at the ages of twentytwo and twenty-three, that Tihanyi progressed being an art enthusiast to being a real painter. He did so early in comparison with others in the field (since he had eschewed an academy training), but late in comparison with one particular individual. This was Róbert Berény, who was two years younger than Tihanyi. Berény had created his first masterpieces in 1905–1907 already, at a time when Tihanyi was still feeling his way. The friendship between the two probably meant more to Tihanyi than it did to Berény, who at that time reached the highest point of one of his best periods as a painter. Berény’s path differed

greatly from Tihanyi’s: Berény had come to Paris in 1905, at the age of eighteen, and had spent a couple of months at the Julian Academy, although his principal experience had been the fauves’ autumn exhibition in 1905. All these things contributed to the fact that he became the most fauve-like Hungarian painter.22 On the other hand, he did not visit Nagybánya. Accordingly, the phase that for Tihanyi was so important Berény omitted. In spite of all this, it is in comparison with Berény’s painting that the weight of Tihanyi’s can best be gauged– all the more so since the two artists later on formed, within the Eight grouping also, a friendly collaboration (together with Bertalan Pór and Vilmos Fémes Beck). Tihanyi and Berény would at the same time be the youngest members of the Eight group. ‘We met when we were just starting out as painters,’ Berény recalled in 1938. ‘As a painter who had already spent time in Paris, I had a great influence on him. Not only in his work was this noticeable. He, too, often said so. This was how our friendship started. He was like a child: he loved, hated, envied me, and was suspicious, too [...]. He never weighed problems, but became angry when he encountered them. He stamped his foot when watercolour didn’t take to oil paint, but ran off it instead. Reconsidering, he would then slander the shopkeeper for selling him “bad aquarelle” [...]. The works he painted in Hungary are especially outstanding (1907–1919). Some of his landscapes are among the best Hungarian paintings.’23 Although his evolution into a painter came two years later than Berény’s, Tihanyi managed to catch up with his friend, before the forming of the Eight group. Tihanyi experimented in many different ways and in many directions, and although he made portraits at this time (Gyürki, 1908), these did not predominate as much as they did a little later on, around 1912. In contrast with Berény, he did not become unequivocally a fauve painter either: only in a few of his works, particularly those painted at Nagybánya, did he give out the colour-rich style of the fauves. Before the coming together of the Eight, and, indeed, even while the group was in existence, Tihanyi turned with uniform interest towards landscape, still-life, and portrait painting. For him, these were all ‘subject-matter’; he did not make sharp distinctions between them.24 Just as Tihanyi related ambivalently to Nagybánya, so, too, did he relate ambivalently to Jewry, or, to be more specific, his own Jewishness: ‘My father was then even more afraid that I would get myself baptised, although he had no reason to do so.’25 How much reason the father may have had was shown by the Christianisation of numerous members of the radical intelligentsia, e.g. György Lukács, Béla Balázs,26 and – from among

20_TIHANYI_PASSUTH_ENG

2/3/11

1:37 PM

Page 397

L AJOS T IHANYI : L ANDSCAPE

the Eight – Dezsô Czigány. Tihanyi’s ambivalent feelings found expression at this time in remarks he made here and there: ‘Inside, the town’s a nasty Jewish village,’ he wrote,27 presumably meaning Budapest. Later, in 1911, he remarked: ‘Since I don’t trust in God, don’t vilify me as you

do the other Jews!’28 From the fragmentary, offthe-cuff remarks we can at best only suspect that – precisely at the time of the Eight – this was a problem for him, although, clearly, it did not bring a change in his behaviour, and he did not convert. On the other hand, by this time already

WITH A

B RIDGE , 1909

•

C AT .

NO .

387

his left-wing outlook was already beginning to take shape, even if he did express it a little hesitantly: ‘I am just writing to say that in my dictionary I don’t find a better word than culturedness and for this reason cannot express in another way that I don’t like the culturedness of F.

397

20_TIHANYI_PASSUTH_ENG

2/3/11

1:37 PM

Page 398

L AJOS T IHANYI : P ONT S AINT -M ICHEL , 1910 (M ISSING )

[Ferenc] Herczeg, because in his work there are gentry, who to me are just people.’29 How the son of the Balaton Coffee House became pronouncedly left wing, and by 1919 someone committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat can be deduced only from some of his remarks and connections. (Nevertheless, even today it is unclear how he got to know, and why he painted, Tibor Szamuely in 1913, when, after a spell in prison, the last mentioned was abroad as a correspondent for the newspaper Népszava. Also unclear is the nature of his ties with the politician Mihály Károlyi.) Tihanyi’s letters to Tersánszky were, generally speaking, sent on the headed writing paper of the Balaton Coffee House, the Virágbokor Restaurant, or the National Salon. On 1 June 1911, though, he used the writing paper of the National Reform Club, meaning that he had by then forged a connection with it. The following month, there were (we learn) two pictures by him in the ‘Reform Club’.30 How pictures by Tihanyi came to be in the Reform Club, which was popular with freemasons, we can only guess. Maybe it was through the Balaton Coffee House that he could establish links with such writer-masons as György Bölöni, Géza Csáth, Ödön Gerô, and József Yartin, all of whom were among the founders of Világ, a new masonic periodical.

398

Perhaps he established connections with politicians in the same way: with Gyula Justh and his wife, both of whom he got to know early on, presumably at the Balaton Coffee House, and with Oszkár Jászi, husband of Anna Lesznai. The periodical Világ rallied the radical wing of the freemasonry movement, as did the National Reform Club. Their principal political goal was to win universal, equal suffrage with a secret ballot. This was ‘the National Reform Club – whose establishment, said Jászi in the euphoria surrounding this event, would be viewed by historians later on as the birth of modern Hungary’.31 This was the period in Hungarian history that produced the greatest number of left-wing, radical movements. The publication Világ, the birth of the National Reform Club, and the suffrage struggles – all coincided with the years of the Eight’s activity. They probably all played a part in the crystallising of Lajos Tihanyi’s political views. In 1919, each of the Eight came out strongly in favour of proletarian power. Whether this occurred under the impact of the Republic of Councils, or as a result of autonomous intellectual development cannot be decided today. It was in the Eight that Tihanyi found his true home, from as early as the 1909 ‘New Pictures’ show. He had exhibited works before: at the second MIÉNK show staged at the National Salon

in February 1909. There he had displayed three pictures: Landscape from a Tower, Market in Nagybánya, and Gypsy Woman with Her Child – three Nagybánya compositions which had featured together with pictures by the so-called chercheurs, who were later known as the Eight. Of these three pictures, Gypsy Madonna can be identified beyond all doubt. The female figure, seemingly motionless, becomes monumental, almost icon-like. The perceptive Pál Relle, one of Tihanyi’s fans, noticed this: ‘From among Lajos Tihanyi’s pictures, “Gypsy Woman with Her Child” is profoundly affecting. It is as though the work is an image of a Madonna of a nomadic kind. A Gypsy Madonna with her child [...]. It is a symbol of time-honoured love.32 The uniformly dark blue background and the empathetic expression can, obviously, be brought into connection with Picasso’s blue period: they are found neither in Nagybánya painting, nor in fauve painting. Whatever the impact made by the composition, Tihanyi went no further along this road: in 1909 already, he was experimenting with other solutions. Even before the Eight could exhibit together, a travelling exhibition of modern works rejected by the National Salon visited the towns of Kolozsvár, Nagyvárad, and Arad. This show was organised by the critic György Bölöni.33 In it, Tihanyi took part with five pictures, as he wrote to Bölöni, remarking that because of an application for a scholarship, ‘I have not been able to send any of my more serious works’.34 One critic mentioned the artist thus: ‘A very young man, almost a child: Lajos Tihanyi’.35 In any case, this was an exhibition which preceded the first show staged by the Eight; it was one in which several members of the Eight took part, and in which Tihanyi’s work did not attract particular interest. Matters were different at the exhibition entitled ‘New Pictures’, which opened on 31 December 1909 (and which counted as the group’s first show together). At this, Tihanyi’s Wrestlers composition36 (1909) came to the forefront of attention, becoming, moreover, an ongoing scandal. Unfortunately, we know the Wrestlers painting only from reproductions. The coarse, fierce forms of the scene evoked surprise and antipathy: ‘the sausage-constructed limbs of Tihanyi’s wrestlers’.37 So, too, did its loud hues: ‘The group of swollen, saveloy-coloured figures lolling in a green field is unwarranted even in the best case.’38 As a matter of fact, this strange, fierce, and somewhat grotesque composition by Tihanyi fits into the category of those nude compositions which, in France and in Hungary alike, appeared fairly frequently at that time. For example, on e.g. Othon Friesz’s 1908 painting entitled Le printemps ou L’Age d’or,39 distant nudes can be seen at the edges of the horizontally arranged composition. In Tihanyi’s picture, nudes

20_TIHANYI_PASSUTH_ENG

2/3/11

1:37 PM

Page 399

L AJOS T IHANYI : P ONT S AINT -M ICHEL , 1908

can be seen in the foreground, so as to emphasise the scene of the two male figures in the middle. Instead of the two-dimensional approach found in Gypsy Madonna, here the swollen forms and the space around them become emphatic. In its approach, Csaba Vilmos Perlrott’s painting Nudes in the Open Air (Eden) (1907–1909) is very close to Tihanyi’s picture, likewise emphasising the contrast between the figures lying on the ground and the figures standing. Tihanyi deliberately, and not accidentally, chose a depiction of this kind pour épater les bourgeois: it diverges fundamentally from his earlier, more balanced creations. Tihanyi dis-

played at the ‘New Pictures’ exhibition another two landscapes and a still life, although these evoked far less interest. A truly large, representative exhibition of work by the Eight was staged in April 1911. In comparison with ‘New Pictures’, this represented a kind of canonisation. At this show, however, the real ‘star’ was not Tihanyi, but Berény, who, with forty-nine paintings and numerous drawings, was present at the exhibition almost with an exhibition of his own. Tihanyi featured with four landscapes and one still life,40 as well as with a major work from earlier on, namely Boy in a Red

•

C AT .

NO .

382

Shirt, which was still owned by György Bölöni in 1936.41 This work (which can undoubtedly be brought into connection to Kokoschka’s portraits) is almost entirely the opposite of the vulgarly drafted Wrestlers. Tihanyi’s half-length portrait shows the boy with disproportionately large arms; the head and immobile face of the boy are formed with surprising sharpness and plasticity from blotches that in some places are indistinct. The head is disproportionate in comparison with the body. Behind it, there is another face, half concealed; this is a repainted detail taken from a variant of Tihanyi’s 1909–1910 composition entitled

399

20_TIHANYI_PASSUTH_ENG

2/3/11

1:37 PM

Page 400

Worker Family (Family). Near the red-shirted boy, a number of fragment-type motifs appear (e.g. to the right there are two fingers, a reference to the hand featuring in Worker Family). The red shirt of the subject and his powerfully formed facial features are made all the more emphatic by the uncertain, indistinct motifs around him. The child’s fragility, and his finely shaded facial expression, constitutes the very opposite of the impersonal coarseness of Wrestlers. Here, Tihanyi again chose a completely different mode of expression, one to which he afterwards often returned in his portrait painting. Additionally, Tihanyi exhibited four works each entitled Landscape and one entitled Still Life. Identification of these has been attempted by Valéria Majoros.42 At the next (and at the same time the last) Eight exhibition, staged at the National Salon in November–December 1912, only four members of the group took part: Berény, Orbán, Pór, and Tihanyi. In this way, along with his closer

L AJOS T IHANYI

400

IN HIS

B ERLIN

STUDIO ,

1922

friends Berény and Pór, Tihanyi remained loyal to the group, and exhibited a much larger collection of work than earlier.43 ‘Tihanyi displayed two self-portraits (one, owned by Sándor Ferenczy, bore the title Study), two portraits, a still life, three works each entitled Composition, and seven landscapes. The portraits depicted the Viennese journalist Schulz and György Bölöni respectively,’ wrote Valéria Majoros.44 Of the works mentioned, the portrait of György Bölöni stood out with its powerful plastic forms, towering and almost Gothic, which, however, indicate the body in a slipshod way only, so as to emphasise instead the pronounced, interesting features of the head. The background consists of slightly indistinct, casually dashed-off blotches, as in the case of Boy in a Red Shirt. Although the picture was made in 1912, in its powerful, monumental solution it already foreshadowed the artist’s next period (which belonged to activism), the one in which his best portraits were created.

Despite everything, in the next years, too, Tihanyi remained loyal to the Eight group, more so than any other member. Attesting to this is a letter he wrote to Bölöni, in which, he said, there should be ‘another big Eight exhibition’ in Zürich and in Berne (independently of each other), indeed in Vienna, too, and afterwards in Budapest (he said, by the by, that he would like to stage a solo exhibition in Vienna of his own work).45 Tihanyi was swept up in the enthusiasm for the new proletarian system in 1919; an expression of this (made somewhat later) was his article ‘Cultural Revolution’, from 1923. Tihanyi left Hungary in the autumn of 1919, and never wished to return. Despite this, he preserved his links with the Eight, emphasising these even in Paris. Those who knew him in his émigré years were aware that of all his ties it was probably these that were – and would remain – the strongest.

20_TIHANYI_PASSUTH_ENG

2/3/11

1:37 PM

Page 401

20 21

23 24

L AJOS T IHANYI ( PHOTOGRAPH

A NDRÉ K ERTÉSZ ) 25

Notes 26 1

3 4

5 6 7

9 10 11

12 13 14

15 16 17 18

Interview with Tibor Déry. Conducted by Ilona Fodor and Krisztina Passuth. May 1974. MS. Privately owned. [Hereinafter: Déry interview 1974]. Lajos Tihanyi’s work has been written up very thoroughly in two volumes supplemented with numerous documents: Majoros, Valéria Vanília: Tihanyi Lajos írásai és dokumentumok. [The writings of LT]Budapest, 2002 and Majoros, Valéria Vanília: Tihanyi Lajos. A mûvész és mûvészete. [The artist and his art]Budapest, 2004. The present paper draws on these works, on the Hungarian National Gallery Documentation Department (MNG Adattár), and on the György Bölöni and Lajos Tihanyi material held by the Petôfi Museum of Literature (PIM) and by the National Szechényi Library (OSZK). Déry interview 1974. Op. cit. 5. Fülep, Lajos: ‘Tihanyi Lajos. Az arckép a festôjérôl’. [LT The portrait about its painter] Nyugat, 11. 1918. II.: 692–696. – Fülep Lajos: Egybegyûjtött írások. III. Cikkek, tanulmányok 1917–1930. Szerk. Tímár Árpád [Collected writings. Articles and studies. Ed. By ÁT]. Budapest, 1998. 130–134. – The quotation: 130. Majoros 2004. Op. cit. 21. Déry interview 1974. Op. cit. 2. ‘Mon derniere certificat de l’École est le 4 e classe normale. C’est toute ma education intellectuelle [sic].’ Letter from Lajos Tihanyi to Robert Desnos. Paris, 1935 or 1936. – MNG Adattár, Inv. no.: 18791/73. ‘Tihanyi Lajos önéletrajza. Berlin, 1920 telén’. In a letter replying to a questionnaire sent by Antal Németh. Berlin, 17 July 1924. – MTA MKI, Adattár, Inv. no.: M.D.K.C.I–10/1059. Ibid. Letter from Lajos Tihanyi to Robert Desnos. Paris, 1935 or 1936. Op. cit. ‘Tihanyi was not a pupil of Matisse, but in Paris made the first painting of a “muscle-man”.’ Barki, Gergely: A Juliantól Matisse akadémiájáig. A „Párizsba gravitáló mûvész-generáció” iskolái. Hungarian Fauves from Paris to Nagybánya. Ed. by Krisztina Passuth, György Szücs. Budapest, Hungarian National Gallery, 2006. 93. Majoros 2004. Op. cit. 27. Lajos Tihanyi: Bathers, 1907. Oil, canvas, 80 x 73 cm. MNG, Inv. no.: 68.50 T. (R: 394) Lajos Tihanyi: Pont Saint-Michel, 1908. Oil, canvas, 55 x 65 cm, mark bottom right: Tihanyi Paris 08. Privately owned. On the back: Adam and Eve, 1907–1908. N. i. (R: 399) Lajos Tihanyi: Interieur, 1908. Oil, canvas, 59 x 55 cm, mark bottom left: Tihanyi L. 08 Nagybánya. PIM, Inv. no.: 65.24.1. ‘Tihanyi Lajos önéletrajza’ [The autobiography of LT], 1920. Op. cit. – The dates given by him do not necessarily accord with the reality. Majoros 2004. Op. cit. 27. Letters from Lajos Tihanyi to Józsi Jenô Tersánszky: PIM Kézirattár, Inv. no.: V. 4330. Tihanyi’s letters to Tersánszky are published: E. Csorba, Csilla: ‘Tihanyi Lajos levelei Tersánszky Józsi Jenôhöz’. Kritika, 1981, 8. 21–26; Majoros 2002. Op. cit.

27 28 29 30 31

32 33

36 37 38

36–123. – The last mentioned work publishes his letters up to his emigration in 1919. ‘I not sorry about Nagybánya, because I am after all someone who doesn’t like alcohol,’ wrote Tihanyi to Józsi Jenô Tersánszky. Budapest, 21 September 1911. – Majoros 2002. Op. cit. 53. Letter from Lajos Tihanyi to Józsi Jenô Tersánszky. Budapest, 18 April 1911. – Majoros 2002. Op. cit. 41. Letter from Lajos Tihanyi to Józsi Jenô Tersánszky. Budapest, 1 June 1911. ‘The piles of manure we can be sure of. Boromisza will be there, and Ziffer’s coming. I sense the smell. This is why I won’t be going to Nagybánya. However, without it [i.e. the smell] I would.’ – Majoros 2002. Op. cit. 46. Barki, Gergely: ‘Berény Róbert, az “apprenti fauve”’. Hungarian Fauves from Paris to Nagybánya, eds. Krisztina Passuth, György Szücs. Budapest, Hungarian National Gallery, 2006. 217–234. Berény, Róbert: ‘Tihanyi Lajos’. Századunk, 13. 1938. 216. ‘My pictures are not just pictures of things and people, not just the dynamic impact of forms on each other that is occasioned by the spatial positioning of those forms, but are also organic parts of things, space, and people. In essence and thus in matter and composition they are ONE with the actual and metaphysical laws governing the creator-organism, which is identical with me. In art as in life, I look for and find collectivity in material things that are not beyond materiality. Accordingly, the life of a motif (model) is abolished as something separate, something on its own […]. By dint of their construction, my pictures are for people only thing-related, but people in their false and corrupted way of seeing still have not come to a realistic sense and appreciation of the thing and its value.’ Aide mémoire of Lajos Tihanyi without title or date. MS. – OSZK Kézirattár, Bölöni–Tihanyi-fond, Inv. no.: 198/13. Letter from Lajos Tihanyi to Józsi Jenô Tersánszky. Budapest, 15 September 1911. – Majoros 2002. Op. cit. 38. Novák, Zoltán: ‘A Vasárnap Társaság’. A magyar filozófiai gondolkodás a századelôn. [A Vasárnap Társaság’. Hungarian philosophy at the beginning of the 20th c.] Szerk. Kiss Endre, Nyíry Kristóf. Budapest, 1977. 308, 309. Letter from Lajos Tihanyi to Józsi Jenô Tersánszky. Budapest, 13 October 1910. – Majoros Valéria 2002. Op. cit. 40. Letter from Lajos Tihanyi to Józsi Jenô Tersánszky. Budapest, 26 June 1911. – Majoros 2002. Op. cit. 48. Ibid. Letter from Lajos Tihanyi to Vilmos Fémes Beck. Szomolnok, 27 July 1911. – Majoros 2002. Op. cit. 52. ‘Beszámoló az Országos Reformklub megalakulásáról’. Dél, 1910. 16. sz. – Quoted in Heverdle, László: ‘A Martinovics páholy és a Világ’. Magyar Könyvszemle, 103. 1987. 109. -lle. [Relle, Pál]: ‘M. I. É. N. K. Kiállítás a Nemzeti Szalonban II.’. Egyetértés, 19 February 1909 issue, 11. – Az Utak II.: 23. Parádi, Judit: ‘Szintézis és megújulás a MIÉNK keretében’. Hungarian Fauves from Paris to Nagybánya. Ed. by Krisztina Passuth, György Szücs. Budapest, Hungarian National Gallery, 2006. 123–128; Tímár, Árpád: ‘A MIÉNK mûvészegyesület története a korabeli sajtóban. I–II.’[The history of MIÉNK, based on the contemporary press]. Mûvészettörténeti Értesítô, 57. 2008. 47–82, 249–286. The pictures offered for exhibition were in Tihanyi’s enumeration as follows: Nagybánya Landscape (large), Bathers, Paris pont St. Michel, Intérieur, Landscape with Washerwomen. Letter from Lajos Tihanyi to György Bölöni. Budapest, 15 May 1909. PIM Kézirattár, Inv. no.: V. 4321/53. Ákos Dutka wrote an account of the Nagyvárad exhibition in which he mentioned Tihanyi’s Intérieur. – Dutka, Ákos: ‘Új Magyar Festôk Kiállítása’ [The exhibition of ‘New Hungarian Painters’]. Nagyvárad, 10 June 1909 issue, 1–2. – Az Utak II.: 111. György Bölöni made reference to the very same picture at the Arad exhibition: ‘Lajos Tihanyi, who already understands the language of empty rooms also; to say the least, he has painted a picture of one that is warm and as intimate, as though a modern Jammes-like French poet were incanting the faint utterances of the furniture.’ Bölöni, György: ‘Kernstok Károly és társai’ [KK and his friends]. Arad és Vidéke, 4 July 1909 issue, 8. – Az Utak II.: 136; According to Valéria Majoros, in actual fact only his Intérieur was displayed at Arad. Majoros 2004. Op. cit. 37. ‘Az Új Magyar festôk. Megnyílt a kiállítás’ The exhibition of ‘New Hungarian Painters’. Kolozsvári Hírlap, 30 May 1909 issue, 7. – Az Utak II.: 96. The picture is currently missing; it is known only in black-and-white reproduction. See Majoros 2004. Op. cit. 62: Composition, 1909. ‘Magyar impresszionisták’ [Hungarian Impressionists]. Budapesti Hírlap, 31 December 1909 issue, 12. – Az Utak II.: 225. K. F. [Kanizsai, Ferenc]: ‘Neoimpresszionisták tárlata’[Exhibition of neo Impressionists]. Magyar Hírlap, 31 December 1909 issue, 14. – Az Utak II.: 229. Othon Friesz: Le printemps ou L’Age d’or, 1908. Oil, canvas,

40 41

42 43

44 45

81 x 100 cm. Paris, Musée d’Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris. Majoros 2004. Op. cit. 45. (R: 120) Lajos Tihanyi: Boy in a Red Shirt. Oil, canvas, 70.5 x 48.5 cm, N. i. Privately owned. – Exhibited: ‘Nyolcak’ kiállítása a Nemzeti Szalonban. Katalógus. Bev. Feleky Géza. Budapest, 1911. No 86. Fiú. – Reproduced: ‘Garcon en Chemise rouge, 1909. Owned by György Bölöni (Paris)’. Desnos, Robert: Tihanyi. Peintures 1908–1922. Paris, 1936. II. t. (R: 440) Majoros 2004. Op. cit. 45. For the exhibition, see Passuth, Krisztina: A Nyolcak festészete. [The Painting of the Eight] Budapest, 1967. 91–95; Majoros 2004. Op. cit. 46–51. Majoros 2004. Op. cit. 47. Letter from Lajos Tihanyi to György Bölöni. Budapest, 18 March 1919. – PIM Kézirattár, Inv. no.: V. 4132/350/1–4.

L AJOS T IHANYI : S TANDING F EMALE N UDE , C . 1909

•

C AT .

NO .

428

401

20_TIHANYI_PASSUTH_ENG

402

2/3/11

L AJOS T IHANYI : S TILL L IFE

WITH A

1:37 PM

Page 402

P OTTED P LANT

AND

P EAR , C . 1908

•

C AT .

NO .

385

20_TIHANYI_PASSUTH_ENG

2/3/11

1:37 PM

Page 403

L AJOS T IHANYI : S TILL L IFE

WITH A

P OTTED P LANT , 1909

•

C AT .

NO .

392

403

20_TIHANYI_PASSUTH_ENG

404

2/3/11

1:37 PM

Page 404

L AJOS T IHANYI : N AGYBÁNYA L ANDSCAPE , 1909 • C AT . NO . 393 • L ANDSCAPE , 1909 • C AT . NO . 381 N AGYBÁNYA L ANDSCAPE WITH THE K ERESZTHEGY , 1909 • C AT . NO . 396 • N AGYBÁNYA L ANDSCAPE , 1909

•

C AT .

NO .

386

20_TIHANYI_PASSUTH_ENG

2/3/11

1:37 PM

Page 405

L AJOS T IHANYI : N AGYBÁNYA L ANDSCAPE , 1909

•

C AT .

NO .

384

405

20_TIHANYI_PASSUTH_ENG

406

2/3/11

L AJOS T IHANYI : S TILL L IFE

WITH A

1:37 PM

Page 406

S CULPTURE , 1913

•

C AT .

NO .

415

20_TIHANYI_PASSUTH_ENG

2/3/11

1:37 PM

Page 407

L AJOS T IHANYI : S TUDY

FOR A

M ALE N UDE , 1908–1910

•

C AT .

NO .

426

407

20_TIHANYI_PASSUTH_ENG

408

2/3/11

L AJOS T IHANYI : S TILL L IFE

WITH A

1:37 PM

Page 408

B LUE V ASE , 1911

•

C AT .

NO .

399

20_TIHANYI_PASSUTH_ENG

2/3/11

1:37 PM

Page 409

L AJOS T IHANYI : S TILL L IFE

WITH A

L ARGE Y ELLOW T ABLECLOTH , 1909

•

C AT .

NO .

389

409

20_TIHANYI_PASSUTH_ENG

410

2/3/11

L AJOS T IHANYI : S TILL L IFE

WITH A

1:37 PM

Page 410

G REEN B OTTLE , 1908

•

C AT .

NO .

383

20_TIHANYI_PASSUTH_ENG

2/3/11

1:37 PM

Page 411

L AJOS T IHANYI : S TILL L IFE

WITH A

B LUE B OTTLE , C . 1909

•

C AT .

NO .

390

411

20_TIHANYI_PASSUTH_ENG

412

2/3/11

1:37 PM

Page 412

L AJOS T IHANYI : S UBURBAN T OWNSCAPE , C . 1912

•

C AT .

NO .

405

20_TIHANYI_PASSUTH_ENG

2/3/11

1:37 PM

Page 413

L AJOS T IHANYI : T RENCSÉN S TREET , 1912

•

C AT .

NO .

411

413

20_TIHANYI_PASSUTH_ENG

414

2/3/11

1:37 PM

L AJOS T IHANYI : T RENCSÉN C ASTLE , 1912

•

Page 414

C AT .

NO .

408

20_TIHANYI_PASSUTH_ENG

2/3/11

1:37 PM

Page 415

L AJOS T IHANYI : T RENCSÉN S TREET , 1912

•

C AT .

NO .

410

415

20_TIHANYI_PASSUTH_ENG

416

2/3/11

L AJOS T IHANYI : L ANDSCAPE , 1911

1:37 PM

•

C AT .

Page 416

NO .

397

20_TIHANYI_PASSUTH_ENG

2/3/11

1:37 PM

Page 417

L AJOS T IHANYI : L ANDSCAPE

WITH

W OODS , 1911

•

C AT .

NO .

398

417

20_TIHANYI_PASSUTH_ENG

418

2/3/11

L AJOS T IHANYI : L ANDSCAPE

WITH

1:37 PM

Page 418

W INDING R OAD , 1911

•

C AT .

NO .

401

20_TIHANYI_PASSUTH_ENG

2/3/11

1:37 PM

Page 419

L AJOS T IHANYI : S MALL P ARK L ANDSCAPE , C . 1909

•

C AT .

NO .

388

419

20_TIHANYI_PASSUTH_ENG

420

2/3/11

1:37 PM

Page 420

L AJOS T IHANYI : L AJOS T IHANYI : R OCKY L ANDSCAPE , 1915

•

C AT .

NO .

419

20_TIHANYI_PASSUTH_ENG

2/3/11

1:37 PM

Page 421

L AJOS T IHANYI : S UMMER

S ZÉCSÉNYKOVÁCS , 1913

•

C AT .

NO .

414.

421

20_TIHANYI_PASSUTH_ENG

422

2/3/11

1:37 PM

Page 422

L AJOS T IHANYI : L ANDSCAPE . T HE C HATEAU G ROUNDS

K ÖRTVÉLYES , 1912

•

C AT .

NO .

409

20_TIHANYI_PASSUTH_ENG

2/3/11

1:37 PM

Page 423

L AJOS T IHANYI : T RENCSÉN L ANDSCAPE , 1912

•

C AT .

NO .

406.

423

21_TIHANYI_SARKANY_ENG

2/3/11

J Ó Z S E F

1:44 PM

Page 424

S Á R K Á N Y

ON THE PORTRAITS BY LAJOS TIHANYI ” I remember this painting and not my own face as a young man” 1 Tihanyi’s genius is proven by the fact that after a short period of experimentation he painted a masterpiece as early as 1908 titled Gypsy Woman with Child (Gypsy Madonna)2 pervaded by the archaic and primitive simplicity of Gauguin’s Tahitian women as well as the solitude and destitution of Picasso’s outcast figures excluded from middleclass society from his blue period.3 The dominance of Tihanyi’s coherent blue surfaces are only broken up in some places – and thus with all the more intensity and force – by some red-brown patches, such as the heavily outlined face of the gypsy woman with a tired and sad countenance, her large and strong hands as well as by the lighter tones of the infant in her lap. Due to the subject matter the colours are rather heavy and gloomy and the influence of Fauvism is limited to a small area of the canvas. However, the overall effect relates this painting to those works (Nudes in the Open Air, Bathers)4 whose forms are outlined with powerful, thick contours. Tihanyi’s bold and bright palette – although not on a par with the intensity created by Berény, Czóbel or Márffy – can especially be seen in Bathers, in which the saturated green of the banks, the homogenous blue patch of the river, the blue-violet tree trunk, the carmine yellow leaves rippling like decorative tongues of flame, the pale red-bodied nude boys shaded in green and the black contours evoke Gauguin’s decorative planar patches as well as the vivid, saturated tones and bold brushwork of the Fauves. The same L AJOS T IHANYI : G YPSY W OMAN

424

WITH HER

C HILD , 1908

•

C AT .

NO .

380

21_TIHANYI_SARKANY_ENG

2/3/11

1:44 PM

L AJOS T IHANYI : G YPSY W OMAN WITH (S KETCH ), 1908 • C AT . NO . 423

HER

Page 425

C HILD

decorative tone characterises his landscapes too, with brilliant homogenous patches of colour embraced by thick black contours. This is mostly noticeable in his painting of towns, where the heavy masses of houses and the extensive surfaces help in the painting of coherent planes. The next period was crucially important not only in the artistic development of Tihanyi but also for Hungarian culture on the whole. Around this time a progressive group of artists formed which, as György Lukács wrote, “declared war on all kinds of impressionism, all sensation and mood, all kinds of disorder and negation of values, as well as all worldviews and art that has »I« as its first and last words.”5 The exhibition titled ”New Pictures”, mounted from the works of this group of artists in the Könyves Kálmán Salon made it clear that “the roads parted”. The painters who exhibited here sought to show the essence of things and wanted to make their art “the old art, the art of order and value, the art of construction”. They had Cézanne’s name written on their flag, since they believed that “we are yearning for permanences, and for the measurability of our actions and the unequivocalness and verifiability of our statements.”6 Tihanyi exhibited his Wrestlers7 at the “New Pictures” show, the daring forms of which shocked viewers. The wrestlers’ “members strung-together as if from rolls of sausages”,8 and the grotesquely twisted and elongated nudes were seen by the visitors and the art critics as some kind of absurdity. The works made by Tihanyi around this time were characterised with an ever increasing constructivism, a striving towards plasticity and – in P ABLO P ICASSO : M OTHER

AND

C HILD , 1905

425

21_TIHANYI_SARKANY_ENG

2/3/11

1:44 PM

Page 426

L AJOS T IHANYI : P ORTRAIT

426

G YÖRGY B ÖLÖNI , 1912

21_TIHANYI_SARKANY_ENG

2/3/11

1:44 PM

Page 427

G YÖRGY B ÖLÖNI , 1900 S

contrast to most of the members of The Eight – a strengthening pictorial dynamism. The tension created by the contrast of static and dynamic forms is also present in his painting titled Worker Family (The Family of the Artist), made in 1910.9 The tension in the composition with three figures squeezed into an extremely narrow space is intensified by their closely-linked bodies depicted in one solid mass. The worn-out middle-aged woman flanked by her children casts a melancholy glance at her younger son, who looks at us with a sad, premature countenance. While the peaceful meditation of these two people shows affinity with the figures in Bertalan Pór’s monumental, almost still-life-like Family,10 the third character in Tihanyi’s painting, who actually has the painter’s features, is an eager, young man full of vitality, with his head confidently thrown back and his glance courageously cast ahead. Towering above the other two, he protectively embraces them with his widely extended arms, the sweeping curve of which is filled with dynamism and, amplified by the curves of the curtains seen in the background, seems to seize them. The central protagonist is imbued not only with the enthusiasm and faith of Tihanyi but with that of all the Hungarian radical intellectuals – a faith in being able to rescue the people of the “Hungarian wasteland” from centuries of backwardness and apathy and make them into Europeans. Worker Family can be regarded as a milestone in Tihanyi’s art, since here he left behind the thick contours typical of his Fauve period and achieved contained forms through powerful plasticity. This work is dominated by the plastic forms and surfaces of Cézanne; however, the partial forms are only relatively contained and the

M AX O PPENHEIMER : H EINRICH T ANNHAUSER , 1911–1912

composition’s elements are linked together with powerful lines. The dynamism of this painting and the desire to control the entire picture plane are in a certain sense the precursors of the change that took place under the influence of Tihanyi’s trip to Paris in 1911. The stylistic change that evolved in Tihanyi’s art in 1911–1912 can be followed in his portraits, which must be attributed special attention in the evaluation of the artist’s Hungarian period. The fame he earned for himself was predominantly thanks to the works he made in the period to come. However, the portraits he made as a member of The Eight in the strict confines of its operation are precious records of his seeking and learning.

•

C AT .

NO .

299

The earliest portrait by Tihanyi, known from a photograph, is the Portrait of Györki11 from 1908, preceding the artist’s trip to Nagybánya. The blackand-white photograph shows the three-quarter profile of an aged, bald man with a twirled moustache, depicted in a tight, block-like composition. From the portraits made around 1910 the Boy in a Red Shirt12 was probably cut out from a previous version of the painting titled Family and was one of those works that could be seen at the 1911 exhibition of The Eight. The Portrait of a Boy,13 dated 1910, a half-length portrait of a boy wearing a blue shirt depicted in a three-quarter profile and set against a blue backdrop, could well be the companion piece for the Boy in a Red Shirt. However,

427

21_TIHANYI_SARKANY_ENG

2/3/11

L AJOS T IHANYI

IN HIS

1:44 PM

B ERLIN

Page 428

STUDIO ,

1922

the change in the manner of painting between the two portraits is worthy of note. Heavier elements, suggesting Tihanyi’s familiarity with and understanding of Cézanne’s surface- and massforming, are used in the background, the surface of the vest or the shirt constructed from ‘flakes’ of paint, or the forming of the harshly modelled face. At the same time, the subsequently made Portrait of Jenô Miklós14 seems to be a step backwards compared with the Portrait of a Boy. Although in his commentary15 Ottó Mezei describes the work as “showing the attributes of the mature Tihanyi portraits, almost in their fullest manifestation”, he also concedes that the denotation of the “foreground” and the “background” is relative since even though they are not interlocked as in the portraits of the following years – primarily in the daring Self-portrait – the formal harmony of colour and form points towards the accomplishments to come”. Mezei regards this work as “an important signpost of change” but in my opinion the compositional solu-

428

tions, especially the thick contours that virtually cut the figure out of its environment relate the painting with the works Tihanyi made in and around 1909. The artist’s seeking a way is also suggested by the division of the background by a plane, something which upsets the compositional integrity of the work and a solution I would evaluate as the verso of a painting set against a wall, as opposed to Ottó Mezei’s interpretation of it being “a square set on its tip deprived of the meaning of a concrete object”.16 In my view the real stylistic breakthrough in Tihanyi’s portrait painting is represented by the one of György Bölöni.17 As György Bölöni recalled18 this portrait was displayed at the exhibition of The Eight on 15 November 1912 in the National Salon,19 and since it is dated there can be theoretically no question about the year of its execution. A large part of the surface of the Bölöni portrait is occupied by the interlocked rippling and curving muted pale blue and grey forms of the shirt of the depicted and the drapery placed

in the space surrounding him, and the sitter’s face rendered peculiarly emphatic by a reddish ochre is integrally structured into the cold tones of the environment. This is the work that authenticates and represents the following ideas Lajos Tihanyi wrote in the third catalogue of The Eight: “On the canvas the painter strives to create the illusion of space in which there are objects. The boundary of the objects is determined by the space they are placed in. As a result of this adapting the objects have no strictly defined outlines. The lines naturally surround the objects, separating them from space. The valorisation of the colours – more or less successfully – is used to try and balance the objects’ limitation to appear in space. However, since the object of the painting and its environment form an integral whole, we must perceive both substances as one and abstraction occurs when the two are separated.”20 Tihanyi’s portrait painting reached its fullest potential in the following years. The pictorial inventions of the Bölöni portrait were further per-

21_TIHANYI_SARKANY_ENG

2/3/11

F RONT PAGE OF M A WITH C IACLAN V IRGIL , 1918

1:44 PM

A DETAIL OF THE

Page 429

P ORTRAIT

C IACLAN V IRGIL WITH Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY ’ S H ORSEMAN ( DRAWING ), 1912 AND V ILMOS F ÉMES B ECK ’ S SCULPTURE , 1910 S

fected and the composition in the Portrait of Dr Virgil Ciaclan21 was built from heavier, bolder and more decisively drawn curves and the dynamic structure of curving forms. We partly have to agree with contemporaneous critics who perceived a Gothicising or – especially considering the elongated heads and bodies – El Greco-esque effect, yet I believe that the influence of Futurism or Orphic Cubism were increasingly manifested in the works. It is especially true of the Self-portrait,22 constructed with luminous lines of force and planes

L AJOS T IHANYI : P ORTRAIT

fluxing into space and representing one of the artistic peaks in Tihanyi’s painting in the 1910s.23 When looking for reference points for the dating of the aforementioned Self-portrait and seeking the origin of the Cubistic surfaces seen in Tihanyi’s portraits painted in the period after 1912 the oil painting titled Compositional Sketch – Male and Female Nude24 provides a significant connection to Picasso’s early Cubism. In my opinion, the work in question was made in 1911 and is akin in its theme and composition to Idyll25 by

C IACLAN V IRGIL , 1914

•

C AT .

NO .

417

Róbert Berény, painted around the same time. Both works show a man with a disproportionately elongated body and massive and broad rounded shoulders leaning on his elbow and behind him is a female nude with her arms raised. In both the female nude in Tihanyi’s work and the painting of a nude26 preserved in a private collection in Budapest the body parts made geometrical by the use of angular, broken-up lines, the grey-blue blurred background and the muted ochre-toned body reflect the stylistic features of early

429

21_TIHANYI_SARKANY_ENG

430

2/3/11

1:44 PM

Page 430

L AJOS T IHANYI : C OMPOSITIONAL S KETCH , C . 1911 U PPER LEFT : P ABLO P ICASSO : N UDE WITH D RAPERY , 1907–1908 L OWER LEFT : F EMALE N UDE S ITTING ON A C HAIR , C . 1912 • C AT .

NO .

Cubism, and despite the obvious differences in how the figures are formed, the artist’s familiarity with Picasso’s The Young Ladies of Avignon27 is certain. The movements of the middle female figure and the sitting (squatting) nude in Picasso’s work as well as their body parts drawn with sharply broken up lines and penetrating into their surroundings can also be seen in Tihanyi’s painting. At the same time, the pronounced plasticity and body parts reduced to basic geometrical shapes in Tihanyi’s figures – especially in the case of the

standing nude – are far from the planar quality of Picasso’s nudes and allude more to the application of Cézanne’s famous instruction. In this regard they have more affinity with Picasso’s Three Nudes28 from 1908.29 In Male and Female Nudes Tihanyi predominantly achieves the heightened spatial movement and diffusion of the figures – especially those sitting – by the distortion of their body parts. Of the two figures in the Compositional Sketch (Village Centaur)30 the one on the right is shown in such a posture.31 This halfway solution is a cru-

443

21_TIHANYI_SARKANY_ENG

2/3/11

1:44 PM

Page 431

L AJOS T IHANYI : C OMPOSITIONAL S KETCH , C . 1911 • C AT . NO . 395 U PPER RIGHT : L AJOS T IHANYI : S TUDY FOR N UDE , C . 1910 • C AT . NO . 440 • C ENTER RIGHT : S KETCH FOR 1911–1912 • C AT . NO . 442 • L OWER RIGHT : N UDE C OMPOSITION (S KETCH ), C . 1912 C AT . NO . 446

cial stage in the process whereby “the objective was first to become familiar with nature and construct objects. This quickly led to the construction of pictures.”32 This approach was initially implemented in those drawings that Tihanyi displayed at the 1912 exhibition of The Eight, and which astonished even Zoltán Felvinczi Takács, a critic of the periodical Nyugat.33 The change is clearly noticeable if we compare Wrestlers, painted in 1909 and the sketches made in 1911 also showing wrestlers (preserved by the Janus Pannonius

C OMPOSITION ,

Museum in Pécs). In the drawings the figures are outlined and modelled by Tihanyi’s characteristically sensitive and exploratory lines with the body parts forming planes that penetrate into one another. The spiralling lines of force create the impression of whirling, filling the composition with dynamism.34 In Tihanyi’s Indian ink drawings from 1912, Landscape, made in Körtvélyes, and Small Houses with Palm Trees,35 and in the nudes36 he drew in 1912–13 the interlocking forms created by bold and forceful curves provide the funda-

431

21_TIHANYI_SARKANY_ENG

2/3/11

1:44 PM

Page 432

O SKAR K OKOSCHKA : I TALIAN G IRL , 1909

•

C AT .

NO .

229

mental structure of the drawings and they are filled in with an organic system of elements rendered in anxious, thin pen strokes, emerging from each other and reduced to geometrical forms. These forms have a heavy construction, yet are forceful enough to radiate across the entire surface of the work. The direct precursors of these constructions and partly overlapping with them in time are the artist’s portraits dating from the period between 1912 and 1918. Tihanyi’s portraiture is so complex stylistically that a scholar looking for direct artistic parallels for these portraits finds himself in a difficult situation. Contemporaneous critics – realising the importance of Tihanyi’s works – sought to establish a connection between the artist and one

432

of the prominent European masters. Of the critiques Lajos Fülep’s evaluation – “Orthodox Cézanneist infused with some Kokoschka”37 – is the one that is regarded as a “base”, which was either fully embraced by some critics – such as Iván Dévény38 – or – especially due to the parallel drawn with Kokoschka – was debated by György Bölöni, Oskar Reichel, Ernô Kállai, Lajos Kassák, Krisztina Passuth, Júlia Szabó, Valéria Vanília Majoros39 who pointed out Tihanyi’s connection with other artists. Perhaps the most important difference between the two artists was identified by Reichel40 in 1920, when he evaluated Tihanyi’s art as a “monumental whole” as opposed to Kokoschka’s “intimate and visionary” paintings. The interlocking,

intersecting and superimposed lines of force and planes in Tihanyi’s works are of a constructive nature, with their layers penetrating deep down, while their dynamic curvilinear and broken forms strive upward, evocative of the transcendence of Gothic art, and form a web over the picture plane. Even the portraits41 Kokoschka made around 1910, which have a relative affinity with those of Tihanyi, appear to share the spirit of the Late Baroque and the Vienna Secession with “the silhouettes of the figures melting into space and the soft resonance they exude filling the interior with emotion,”42 while his works dating from the mid1910s attest to a pictorial style utterly different from that of Tihanyi’s. Kokoschka’s broadly undulating and winding brushstrokes of lively, saturated colours are seen on the clothes, the body parts and the surroundings of the depicted figure, almost living a life of their own, and taking on an ornamental but not a structural role.43 The different formal and compositional approaches of the two artists can be also traced back to a fundamental difference in their understanding of function, which must be studied in regard to the relations that exist between the work and the artist, the work and the sitter, as well as the artist and the sitter. Júlia Szabó also calls attention to this when she describes Kokoschka’s style of portraiture as “strongly lyrical and always partly self-referential. He always depicted his friends, acquaintances and clients as if he was analysing his own emotions, suffering and passions.”44 In contrast, striving for objectivity, Tihanyi did not project his own self onto the sitters but keeping at a relative distance from them he selects from the myriad of memories those he finds important and thus determines the sitter’s “physical and spiritual field of force and the place he or she occupies in the world… Profound questions are inherent in every one of his works relating both to the depicted person and to life in general.”45 Tihanyi was the best Hungarian portraitist of his time. Together with the other outstanding portrait painter of his generation, Róbert Berény, he believed in revering a sitter’s ethical uprightness, to which they both ascribed great significance during the process of depiction. For this very reason Tihanyi’s contemporaries criticised his works for unveiling the models and stripping them bare. His friend, Brassaï, wrote the following about Tihanyi: “He looks through people as through a pane of glass. No one can keep any secrets from him. All he needs is a two-minute conversation or a gesture to form a final (and 99 out of a hundred cases accurate) picture of a person’s character, which he holds to be of absolute value and so deeply-rooted that he never alters it.”46 The sitters of his portraits did not see an everyday aspect of their person but rather their

21_TIHANYI_SARKANY_ENG

2/3/11

1:44 PM

Page 433

L AJOS T IHANYI : S ELF P ORTRAIT , 1914

•

C AT .

NO .

416

433

21_TIHANYI_SARKANY_ENG

2/3/11

1:44 PM

L AJOS T IHANYI : P ORTRAIT

Page 434

L AJOS F ÜLEP , 1915

•

C AT .

NO .

innermost selves, since Tihanyi had the talent to “distinguish the significantly characteristic filled with the abundance of life from what is unimportant and contrast the former with the latter. That is, he did not simply depict a sitter but also – although indirectly – passed judgement over him or her… fired by his bias of a superior nature he cried the truth onto his paintings.”47 Tihanyi’s portraits provide a real gallery of the progressive Hungarian intellectuals of the 1910s.48 An early piece of the series is the 1912 portrait of his friend, György Bölöni, the organiser and critic of The Eight. A “strict, Neroesque face filled with contemplation and despair in one moment and prone to gentle and womanly weep-

434

420

ing in the other looks at us from the surface broken and dissected by forceful lines. That is me,”49 admitted the model of the portrait made of him. Tihanyi’s severe judgement, conceived in love yet being mercilessly honest, had to be accepted since the fierce struggle the artist waged for these paintings – which he never felt were completed and had a difficult time parting with – happened before their very eyes. This struggle is recalled in György Fenyô’s memoirs, who, being 12–14 at the time, understood50 that [when painting his portrait]“the artist was going through a very difficult time, a process of excruciating pain.”51 Tihanyi’s “half suffering, half belligerent attitude”52 resulted in genuine portraits, in which

he presented the bare truth with utmost honesty, as in his depiction of the ill Ady “collapsing like a woman suffering”,53 the “haughty and proud” art critic Fülep with a championing intellect, the “priest, strategist”54 Kassák, the founder of a movement depicted in a billowing, loose purple tunic, the aristocratic and excited Kosztolányi with “a childish bashfulness”55 on his face, and the sculptor Pál Pátzay, as well as Mihály Babits, Béla Révész, Jenô Tersánszky Józsi and many other famous intellectuals. The figures of the portraits sit against a blurry background painted in impasto and virtually disappearing into infinity, typically supplemented by a curtain or drapery to at least partially close off space. Tihanyi’s portraits

21_TIHANYI_SARKANY_ENG

2/3/11

1:44 PM

Page 435

are mostly half-lengths (György Bölöni 1912, Virgil Ciaclan 1914, Lajos Fülep 1915, Lajos Kassák 1918, Pál Pátzay 1919) with a larger cut in which the sitter’s arms folded or resting in his or her lap can also be seen. However, the most emphatic part of these works is the model’s head and face since all the other elements – such as the other body parts partly applied as the composition’s lines of force and the folds of the clothes with lines penetrating into the surrounding space – gravitate towards it. The importance of the head is also indicated by their sharp delineation and hard modelling – which is contrasted with the hands for example that almost disappear and melt into the blurrily painted background or the body diffusing into space – as well as by its strongly emphasised main characteristic features. Especially in his paintings before 1912, Tihanyi used the contrast between dark and light parts to highlight the patch of the head, while in the mid-, and late-1910s he increasingly applied the contrast between cold and warm tones (Self-portrait 1912–14, Dr Virgil Ciaclan 1914, Flajos Fülep 1915), and he combined the relatively small number of colours with an extraordinary richness of tone. He applied a wide range of artistic tools to heighten the dynamism of his pictures, a beautiful example of which is his Portrait of Lajos Fülep,56 where the “Don Quijote”57 character’s forms broken at acute angles, his diagonal position, bow-like body arched in the opposite direction from the curve of the red-brown drapery in the background as well as the reddish tone of the head contrasted with the blue patch behind it all enhance the painting’s formal tension. Ernô Kállai referred to the art of Tihanyi and that of certain others – as structural naturalism,58 which was ultimately defined by Cézanne’s constructivism and realism as well as psychological expressionism and the achievements of early Cubism and Orphism in the early-1910s. His synthesism and sharing Cézanne’s “after nature approach” did not allow him to apply the cubist principles in their purest form; however, he adopted the Cubist forms and the acutely broken-up, interpenetrating planes, as well as curves and straight lines starting out from the represented object and theme and then breaking out of them to live their own lives as energy fields diffusing on the picture plane and creating an integral surface by making space and the objects part of the same structure and ornamentation. Tihanyi’s system, in which realist, constructivist and expressive elements are combined with a psychological approach and dynamism perfectly met the requirements people at the time had of portraits. The correlations of these elements produced a unique synthesis which not only represents an important achievement of Hungarian Modernism by international comparison but is also an intrinsic value of Tihanyi’s art. L AJOS T IHANYI , 1927 ( PHOTOGRAPH

BY J UTKA

M IKLÓS )

435

21_TIHANYI_SARKANY_ENG

2/3/11

1:44 PM

Page 436

Notes 1 2 3

5 6 7

8 9

11 12 13

Interview with Tibor Déry. Made by Ilona Fodor, Krisztina Passuth. May 1974. MTA MKI Database, inv. no.: MKCS C–I–117/107. Gypsy Woman with Child (Gypsy Madonna), 1908. Oil on canvas, 84 x 74 cm. Pécs, Janus Pannonius Museum, inv. no.: 68.679. R: 424 Pablo Picasso: Mother and Child, 1905. Watercolour on paper, 353 x 253 mm. Budapest, Museum of Fine Arts, Department of Prints and Drawings, inv. no.: 1918–461. R: 425 Lajos Tihanyi: Nudes in the Open Air (Dancing Nudes), c. 1907. Oil on canvas, 52 x 46 cm, signed bottom left.: Tihanyi. Private property; Lajos Tihanyi: Bathers, 1907. Oil on canvas, 79.5 x 73 cm. Hungarian National Gallery, inv. no.: 68.50T. R: 394 György Lukács: Az utak elváltak [The Roads Parted]. Nyugat, 3. 1910. I.: 190–193. – Az Utak II. [The Roads II]: 322. Ibid., 322., 323. Lajos Tihanyi: Wrestlers, 1909. Oil on canvas, signed and dated bottom right: Tihanyi Lajos 1909. latent. R: 395 In my opinion this work is identical with one of the pictures published in Valéria Majoros’s book. (Composition 1909, under number 77 in the selected works, and therefore also identical with item no. 64, i.e. Wrestlers (Composition), c. 1909. Oil on canvas. Latent). See: Valéria Vanília Majoros: Tihanyi Lajos. A mûvész és mûvészete [Lajos Tihanyi. The Artist and His Art]. Budapest, 2004. 64. This means that the two items (nos. 64 and 77) refer to one and the same work. My assumption is supported by the review titled A Könyves Kálmán kiállítása [The Exhibition of the Könyves Kálmán Salon] published in 1909. “Despite of the wild modern slogans an actual »composition« can also be found here. The picture is titled »Wrestlers« and if we take a close look at it, and if the artist swears by it, with a lot of good will we might believe that what we see is actually two naked athletes.” Budapest, 31 December 1909. 11–12. – Az Utak II. [The Roads II]: 224. Magyar impresszionisták [Hungarian Impressionists]. Budapesti Hírlap, 31December 1909. 12. – Az Utak II.: 225. Family of Workers, 1910. Oil on canvas, 114 x 99 cm, signed bottom left: Tihanyi. Hungarian National Gallery, inv. no.: 64.197 T. R: 439 Bertalan Pór: Family, 1909. Oil on canvas, 176 x 206 cm, signed and dated bottom right: Pór Bertalan 1909. Hungarian National Gallery, inv. no.: 60.136 T. R: 365 In: Aurora, 6 May 1911. 169., and: Majoros 2004. op.cit. picture 60. Lajos Tihanyi: Boy in a Red Shirt, 1909. Oil on canvas, 70.5 x 48.5 cm. Private property. In: Aurora, 6 May 1911. 154. R: 440 Lajos Tihanyi: Portrait of a Boy, 1910. Oil on canvas, 66 x 51 cm, signed and dated bottom right: Tihanyi L 1910. Private property. In: Majoros 2002. op.cit. fig. 14. Lajos Tihanyi: Portrait of Jenô Miklós, 1911. Oil on canvas, 61 x 41 cm. Private property – in: Aurora, 6 May 1911. 156.; R: 442 Jenô Miklós (1878–1934), writer, journalist, from 1903 working for the periodicals Egyetértés, Világ, and Magyarság. He wrote theatre, litarture and fine arts reviews. At the time of the portrait being painted he was the night editor of Világ. Ottó Mezei: Megjegyzések Tihanyi Lajos ismeretlen portréjához [Commentary on the Unknown Portrait of Lajos Tihanyi]. Mûvészet, 16, 1975, 9. 19–20. This compositional solution – which is also a reference to the painting being exhibited in a studio – is used by the painter in several of his portraits made in 1912–1913. (Self-portrait, 1912. Oil on canvas, 71 x 58 cm. Hungarian National Gallery, inv. no.: 70.132 T. R: 443; Andor Gross, 1913. Oil on canvas, 82 x 66.5 cm. Collection of Iván Dévényi R: 444 Tihanyi did not use the picture within the picture solution, which is frequently applied in portraits placed in interiors – the closest examples of which are two contemporaneous paintings by Róbert Berény: Woman in a Red Dress, 1908. Oil on cardboard, 92 x 58.5 cm, signed and dated top right Berény Paris 1908. Pécs, Janus Pannonius Museum, inv. no.: 75.215 R: 171; Self-portrait in a Top Hat, 1907. Oil on canvas, 79 x 60 cm, signed and dated bottom left: Berény Paris 907. Pécs, Janus Pannonius Museum, inv. no.: 87.8. R: 167 – but he indicates almost provocatively that the sitter status of the depicted is important. Tihanyi lifted the object (I intentionally did not use the word ’Him’) out of its environment, turning it into an object, and the subject of his exploration, his work as in a still-life. I can see the contradiction between the contemporaneous critiques and my previous statement. In his critique written about the exhibition of “The Three Hungarian Painters” György Bölöni wrote, “The man the artist portrayed was not only a subject of painting for him but also psychological material.” (Nyugat, 7. 1914. I.: 497. – György Bölöni: Képek között [Among Pictures]. Coll. And ed. Edit Erki. Budapest, 1967. 432.), however, he already retracted this popular statement in the catalogue on the third exhibition of The Eight. He was even more straightforward in regard to this issue in his letter to Ernô Kállai – as early as in 1937 – which reads: “... however, that famous Kosztolányi portrait (which to my misfortune was lost) is not a document of psychological depiction but of 2 pinks and in

436

20 21

contrast to this the valorisation of a huge mass and a heavy greenish-black on a rather large, almost 1 square metre surface. This is the “bravura” that lies at the heart of this painting’s importance.” (Tihanyi’s letter to Ernô Kállai 29 January 1937., Archives of the Research Institute for Art History of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences MDK-C-1-11/128/1-2, in Valéria Vanília Majoros: Tihanyi Lajos írásai és dokumentumok [Writings by Lajos Tihanyi and Documents]. Budapest, 2002. op. cit. 254.) Lajos Tihanyi: Portrait of György Bölöni, 1912. Oil on canvas, 86 x 70 cm, signed and dated top left: Tihanyi Lajos 912. Private property. R: 426 “I took Ady to the exhibition of The Eight that caused a great stir so that he could see the new painting. In the big hall, opposite the entrance, hangs my portrait: it was painted by Tihanyi.” György Bölöni: Az igazi Ady [The Real Ady]. 5th ed. Budapest, 1977. 358–360., Majoros 2002. op.cit. 472-473. – quote from 472. The assumption that “the painting was displayed at the exhibition” cannot be made in complete confidence since the exhibition catalogue’s list of works contains very little data. “69. Study. Oil painting. The property of Dr Sándor Ferenczi. 70. Self-portrait. Oil painting. 1000 K.; 71. Portrait. Oil painting. For sale. […] 81. Portrait. Oil painting. For sale.” See: A Nyolcak harmadik tárlatának katalógusa [Catalogue on the third exhibition of The Eight]. November-December 1912. Budapest, National Salon, 1912. 31. If we accept the statement made by Valéria Vanília Majoros, according to which item 69 is actually a Self-portrait, then the Self-portrait under item 70 must be the same as the picture in the holdings of the Hungarian National Gallery (Self-portrait, 1912. R: 443) since its reproduction was included in the exhibition catalogue. In contrast, the following can be read in the exhibition guide by Zoltán Felvinczi Takács: “The artist mainly strove to solve problems related to plasticity and space with unity being the central objective in both regards. This is easily recognisable in the portraits, primarily in the larger self-portrait and in the portrait of Schulz, a Viennese journalist.” (Zoltán Felvinczi Takács: Négyen a nyolcak közül. Glosszák egy modern mûvészeti kiállításhoz [Four out of The Eight. Commentaries on a Modern Art Exhibition]. Nyugat, 5. 1912. II.: 763–768. Az Utak III. [The Roads III]: 484.) According to the previous source, item 81 is the latent, unknown Schulz portrait. It can be concluded from the above work that number 71 may have been the György Bölöni portrait, although it is still difficult to answer the question as to why not a single contemporaneous review, exhibition guide or article mentioned this fact. Bölöni was a popularly known personage in the social life of the capital. The first mention of the portrait is made by him in his writing titled Három magyar festô [Three Hungarian Painters]. Nyugat, 7. 1914. I.: 497. – György Bölöni: Képek között [Among Pictures]. Coll. And ed. Edit Erki. Budapest, 1967. 432. Nyolcak harmadik tárlatának katalógusa [Catalogue of the third exhibition of the Eight]. 1912. op. cit. 29. Lajos Tihanyi: Portrait of Dr Virgil Ciaclan, 1914. Oil on canvas, 107 x 79.5 cm, signed and dated bottom right: 1914 Tihanyi Lajos. Hungarian National Gallery, inv. no.: 70.135 T. R: 429 A detailed analysis of the work can be read in: Valéria Majoros: Budapest 1869–1914. Modernité hongroise et peinture européenne. Commissariat général: Emmanuel Starcky, László Beke. Dijon, Musée des Beaux-Arts de Dijon, 1995. 226–229., and: Majoros 2002. op.cit. 479–480. Dr Virgil Ciaclan, attorney. Until 1918 he practised law in Budapest and of the members of The Eight he maintained good relations with Róbert Berény, Bertalan Pór and Lajos Tihanyi, as well as with Vilmos Fémes Beck. After his death his collection comprising prominent artworks was bequethed to the Hungarian National Gallery in 1991. On the relationship between Virgil Ciaclan and Lajos Tihanyi see: Majoros 2004. op.cit. 63. Lajos Tihanyi: Self-portrait, 1912? (1914). Oil on canvas, 56 x 45 cm, signed bottom left: Tihanyi Lajos, Hungarian National Gallery, inv. no.: 62.31 T. R: 433 The dating of the work is not unambiguous, which is indicated by the date 1914 on the index card crossed out and changed to 1912. In my opinion this change can at least be questioned, since according to the painting’s stylistic marks it is more likely to be a portrait from 1913–1914. Lajos Tihanyi: Compositional Sketch – Male and Female Nudes, 1911–1912. Oil on canvas, 100 x 78 cm, signed bottom right: Tihanyi L. Hungarian National Gallery, inv. no.: 70.151 T. R: 431 Róbert Berény: Idyll, 1911. Oil on canvas, 49 x 62 cm, signed and dated bottom left: Berény 1911 Budapest. Hungarian National Gallery, inv. no.: 60.115 T. R: 185 Lajos Tihanyi: Nude, 1911. Oil on canvas, 60 x 34 cm. Private property. – in: Krisztina Passuth: A Nyolcak festészete [The Painting of the Eight]. Budapest, 1967. 112 Pablo Picasso: The Young Ladies of Avignon, 1907. Oil on canvas, 243.9 x 233.7 cm, New York, The Museum of Modern Art, Douglas Cooper: The Cubist epoch. London, 1976. 21, and Pablo Picasso: Nude with Drapery, 1907–1908. Oil on canvas,

33 34

38 39

150 x 100 cm. (Saint Petersburg, Hermitage), R: 430 Douglas Cooper: The Cubist epoch. London, 1976. 32. Pablo Picasso: Three Women, 1908. Oil on canvas, 200 x 177 cm. (Saint Petersburg, Hermitage), Douglas Cooper: The Cubist epoch. London, 1976. 33, and Georges Braque: Three Figures, 1907. Indian ink on paper. Douglas Cooper: The Cubist epoch. London, 1976. 28. The Compositional Sketch in the collection of Arnold Gross, 1911. Oil on canvas, 80 x 60 cm R: 430. Its composition with five figures is an earlier stage in this clear change of style. The body of the figures placed in a natural environment is plastically modelled, but at the same time the curving bodies linked to each other with wavy lines recall the art of Hans von Marées, as well as Károly Kernstok’s stained glass window designed for the Schiffer villa. Lajos Tihanyi: Compositional Sketch (Village Centaur), 1912. Oil on canvas, 78 x 86 cm, signed and dated bottom right: Tihanyi L. 1912. Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Füst Milán Translators’ Foundation. R: 453 In my opinion this painting is the most surreal work by Tihanyi. The narrow upper band of the picture is dominated by the bastions and buildings of a stylised, Cubistic medieval town flooded by violet and blue light. A widening violet-purple road leads from the landscape indicated by yellowish and blue-green triangular planes to the picture’s bottom left corner, from where a black horse – which is disproportionatly smaller than the two men next to it – moves towards the center of the composition. The men’s plastically modelled bodies painted in flesh tones are twisted in the joints and are ill-proportioned. The face of the figure in the central axis has Tihanyi’s facial features, while the model for the previously mentioned man sitting on the right – as Gergely Barki called to my attention – must have been Artúr Elek, a fine arts critic and columnist of the periodical Nyugat, attested to by a portrait photograph by Aladár Székely. Lajos Tihanyi’s autobiography 1920/1924 Berlin, Manuscript, Archives of the Research Institute for Art History of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences M.D.K.C.I-10/1059/1–2. In: Majoros 2002. op.cit. 204-207Felvinczi 1912. op.cit. – Az Utak III. (The Roads III) 483–484Lajos Tihanyi: Wrestlers, 1909. Indian ink on paper, 260 x 314 mm. Pécs, Janus Pannonius Museum, inv. no.: 66.75. R: 450 and Wrestlers 1909. Indian ink on paper, 237 x 163 mm. Pécs, Janus Pannonius Museum, inv. no.: 66.81. R: 523 Lajos Tihanyi: Landscape, 1912. Indian ink on paper, 213 x 274 mm, signed and dated bottom left: Tihanyi Lajos Körtvélyes 912/X. Hungarian National Gallery, inv. no.: 1954–4917– in: Majoros 2002. picture 75., and Lajos Tihanyi: Small Houses with Palm Trees, c. 1911. Indian ink on paper, 380 x 330 mm – in: Passuth 1967. op.cit. 59. Tihanyi Lajos: Nude Study, 1912. Indian ink on paper, 288 x 230 mm, signed and dated top left: Tihanyi Lajos 912. Pécs, Janus Pannonius Museum, inv. no.: 70.310. R: 448; Standing Nude Study, 1902. Indian ink on paper, 427 x 280 mm. Pécs, Janus Pannonius Museum, inv. no.: 66.84. R: 431 Lajos Fülep: Tihanyi Lajos. Az arckép a festôjérôl [Lajos Tihanyi. The Portrait about Its Painter]. Nyugat, 11. 1918. II.: 692–696. – Fülep Lajos: Egybegyûjtött írások. III. Cikkek, tanulmányok 1917–1930. [Collected Works. III. Articles and Studies 1917–1930] Coll. and ed. Árpád Tímár. Budapest, 1998. 130–134. – qt: 133. Iván Dévényi: Tihanyi Lajos [Lajos Tihanyi]. Budapest, 1968. 15. György Bölöni describes Tihanyi’s portraits as being “somewhere between the unsettling psychological content of Van Gogh portraits (although the two artists’ approach to painting differ considerably) and Dostoevsky’s characters.” (Bölöni György: Tihanyi Lajos [Lajos Tihanyi]. Ma, 15 October 1918. – Bölöni 1967. op.cit. 487.) as well as Ernô Kállai: Ludwig Tihanyi. Der Cicerone, 1924. 358–364. – Ernô Kállai: Mûvészet veszélyes csillagzat alatt [Art under a Dangerous Star]. Ed. Éva Forgács. Budapest, 1981. 217–219. (transl. Béla Kerékgyártó); Lajos Kassák: Tihanyi Lajos. Munka, 1938. 62. – Lajos Kassák: Éljünk a mi idônkben. Írások a képzômûvészetrôl [We Should Live in Our Own Time. Writings about the Fine Arts]. Sel. and ed. Zsuzsa Ferencz. Budapest, 1978. 197–198. Besides the influence of Kokoschka, Júlia Szabó calls attention to the influence of the Viennese “minor masters”, Albert Paris Gütersloh, Max Oppenheimer and Ludwig Faistauer, as well as that of Orphic Cubism. – Júlia Szabó: A lidércnyomás igazságáig [Until the Truth of Nightmares]. Évfordulók 1985. Budapest, 1984. 346., and Júlia Szabó: A magyar aktivizmus története [The History of Hungarian Activism]. Budapest, 1971. 47–48. Krisztina Passuth sees a similar approach in Lyonel Feininger. – Passuth, Krisztina: La carrière de Lajos Tihanyi. Acta Historiae Artium, 20. 1974. 130. In relation to this question, in her two-volume monograph Valéria Vanília Majoros focused not so much on the parallels and similarities between Tihanyi and Kokoschka, but mostly on exploring the differences. Majoros 2004. op.cit. 70–72. Tihanyi leads us from Cézanne’s surfaces to a modern way of looking at things. Starting from Cézanne he works through

21_TIHANYI_SARKANY_ENG

42 43

44 45

2/3/11

1:44 PM

Page 437

Picasso’s Cubism to finally achieve the monumentality of his own works through applying the force of Expressionism. Tihanyi is the great Eastern European rival of the great Expressionists of today: Munch, Picasso and Kokoschka”. This interpretation is thus akin to that of Fülep’s; however, in the catalogue’s introduction Reichel goes on to say that “he is in dire opposition with the latter. While Kokoschka’s approach is akin to Van Gogh’s intimate, agitated and visionary world, creating life force in every square inch, Tihanyi’s work is the process of the entire creation expressed through a monumental whole.” Tihanyi. Erste Ausstellung der Modernen Galerie Kunst und Wohnung. Einf. Oscar Reichel. Wien, Moderne Gallerie, 1920. 5–6. Oscar Kokoschka: Adolf Loos, 1909. Oil on canvas, 74x91 cm. Berlin, Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Neue Nationalgalerie, inv. no.: A II 448NG 1482; Egon Welles, 1911. – in: Oscar Kokoschka, Prestel-Verlag München, 1991. 15. T. Italian Girl, 1909. Oil on canvas, 65 x 54 cm. Wuppertal, Von der Heydt-Museum, inv. no.: G 1486. R: 432 Szabó 1971. op.cit. 47. Oscar Kokoschka: Carl Moll, 1913. – in: Oscar Kokoschka, Prestel-Verlag München, 1991. 24. T. Self-portrait, 1917. – in: Bernhard Bultmann: Oskar Kokoschka. Salzburg, 1959. picture 64. Szabó 1971. op.cit. 47. Ibid., 48. Júlia Szabó’s view is supported by an excerpt of a letter Tihanyi wrote to Jenô Tersánszky Józsi in 1916: “and I see the

46 47 48

value of my portraits not in their being a likeness of XY, but in my painting them. The difference is thus. Since this little work is very much as if it were your portrait, just like you seem to be making demands throughout your novel [….] The story is for you and it happens in you.” Lajos Tihanyi’s letter to Jenô Tersánszky Józsi. 1916. Archives of the Petôfi Museum of Literature, inv. no.: V 4330/167/45. Brassaï: Elôhívás. Levelek 1920–1940 [Developing. Letters 1920–1940]. Sel. and intro. Andor Horváth. Bucuresti, 1980. 40. Róbert Berény: Tihanyi Lajos [Lajos Tihanyi]. Magyar Mûvészet, 14. 1938. 279. It is a revealing fact characteristic of the period that Tihanyi’s sitters – as in the case of other artists sharing his approach – are other artists, writers and critics i.e. his intellectual partners. He made most of his painting on a non-commission basis so he was not limited by the expectation of representation. He did not exit the boundaries of primary representation, although within this framework he used the tools of artistic expression to the maximum to present and record most effectively the sitter’s physical and intellectual character (Tihanyi’s opinion that crystallised in him about the person he depicted). These portraits were later put up for sale just like his still-lifes and landscapes, but their value was not determined on the grounds of how well they represented the political-economic role and importance of the depicted individuals in society but by their aesthetic merit and quality

49 50

52 53 54 55 56

57 58

instead. The same could be seen in Paris in the case of usually unnamed portraits by Picasso and Braque, as well as in Vienna in the case of Kokoschka and Max Oppenheimer. Oscar Kokoschka: portraits of Adolf Loos, Karl Moll and Herwarth Walden; Max Oppenheimer: Portrait of Thomas Mann and Portrait of Heinrich Tannhauser. R: 427 Bölöni 1914. –Bölöni 1967. op.cit. 432. Lajos Tihanyi: Portrait of Two Boys (The Fenyô Brothers), 1915. Oil on canvas, 115 x 103 cm, signed and dated bottom left: Tihanyi Lajos 915. Private property. – in: Majoros 2002. picture 23. György Fenyô’s letter to Iván Dévényi. Archives of the Research Institute for Art History of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, inv. no: C–I–159/593 1–5. Ibid. György Bölöni: Tihanyi Lajos [Lajos Tihanyi]. Korunk, 14. 1938. 577–581. –Bölöni 1967. op.cit. 523. Ibid. 524. György Bölöni: Tihanyi Lajos [Lajos Tihanyi]. MA, 3. 15 October 1918. 122–123. – Majoros 2002. 395-396. - quote: 396. Tihanyi Lajos: Portrait of Lajos Fülep 1915., Oil on canvas, 77,5 x 95 cm., signed and dated bottom left: Tihanyi L. 1915, Hungarian National Gallery inv. no.: 70.152 T. R: 434 Fülep 1918. – Fülep 1998. op.cit. 130. Ernô Kállai: Új magyar piktúra 1900–1925 [New Hungarian Painting]. Budapest, 1925. 53–57.

L AJOS T IHANYI : S MALL N UDE , 1911

437

21_TIHANYI_SARKANY_ENG

438

2/3/11

1:44 PM

T IHANYI L AJOS : C OMPOSITION (F AMILY ), 1910

Page 438

•

C AT .

NO .

435

21_TIHANYI_SARKANY_ENG

2/3/11

1:44 PM

Page 439

L AJOS T IHANYI : W ORKER F AMILY , 1909–1910

•

C AT .

NO .

394

439

21_TIHANYI_SARKANY_ENG

440

L AJOS T IHANYI : B OY

2/3/11

IN A

1:44 PM

R ED S HIRT , 1909

•

Page 440

C AT .

NO .

391

21_TIHANYI_SARKANY_ENG

2/3/11

1:44 PM

Page 441

L AJOS T IHANYI : S ELF -P ORTRAIT , C . 1909

•

C AT .

NO .

403

441

21_TIHANYI_SARKANY_ENG

442

2/3/11

L AJOS T IHANYI : P ORTRAIT

OF J ENÔ

1:44 PM

Page 442

M IKLÓS , 1911

•

C AT .

NO .

400

21_TIHANYI_SARKANY_ENG

2/3/11

1:44 PM

Page 443

L AJOS T IHANYI : S ELF P ORTRAIT , 1912

•

C AT .

NO .

407

443

21_TIHANYI_SARKANY_ENG

444

2/3/11

L AJOS T IHANYI : P ORTRAIT

1:44 PM

Page 444

A NDOR G ROSS , C . 1913

•

C AT .

NO .

413

21_TIHANYI_SARKANY_ENG

2/3/11

1:44 PM

Page 445

L AJOS T IHANYI : P ORTRAIT

OF A

G IRL (P ORTRAIT

M AGDOLNA L EOPOLD ), 1914

•

C AT .

NO .

418

445

21_TIHANYI_SARKANY_ENG

446

2/3/11

1:44 PM

L AJOS T IHANYI : L YING N UDE W OMAN

WITH

Page 446

C LASPED H ANDS

AND

L EGS , C . 1909

•

C AT .

NO .

432

21_TIHANYI_SARKANY_ENG

2/3/11

1:44 PM

Page 447

L AJOS T IHANYI : P ROFILE

OF A

N UDE W OMAN D OWN

O NE K NEE , C . 1909

•

C AT .

NO .

431

447

21_TIHANYI_SARKANY_ENG

448

2/3/11

1:44 PM

L AJOS T IHANYI : F EMALE N UDE , 1912

•

C AT .

Page 448

NO .

448

21_TIHANYI_SARKANY_ENG

2/3/11

1:44 PM

Page 449

L AJOS T IHANYI : T WO N UDES , 1913

•

C AT .

NO .

449

21_TIHANYI_SARKANY_ENG

450

2/3/11

L AJOS T IHANYI : S KETCH

FOR A

1:44 PM

Page 450

C OMPOSITION , 1911–1912

•

C AT .

NO .

441

•

W RESTLERS , C . 1910

•

C AT .

NO .

438

21_TIHANYI_SARKANY_ENG

2/3/11

1:44 PM

Page 451

L AJOS T IHANYI : F IGURES

IN A

L ANDSCAPE , C . 1910

•

C AT .

NO .

439

451

21_TIHANYI_SARKANY_ENG

452

2/3/11

1:44 PM

Page 452

L AJOS T IHANYI : C OMPOSITIONAL S KETCH , 1911–1912

•

C AT .

NO .

404

21_TIHANYI_SARKANY_ENG

2/3/11

1:44 PM

Page 453

L AJOS T IHANYI : C OMPOSITIONAL S KETCH (V ILLAGE C ENTAUR ), 1912

•

C AT .

NO .

412

453

21_TIHANYI_SARKANY_ENG

2/3/11

1:44 PM

Page 454

THE EIGHT LAJOS TIHANYI MSSING PAINTINGS

454

L AJOS T IHANYI : M ARGARET B RIDGE , 1913–1914

•

L AJOS T IHANYI : S ELF P ORTRAIT , 1911

•

L AJOS T IHANYI : L ANDSCAPE , 1909

•

L AJOS T IHANYI : L ANDSCAPE

WITH

F OREST , 1911

21_TIHANYI_SARKANY_ENG

2/3/11

1:44 PM

Page 455

L AJOS T IHANYI : S TUDY

OF A

N UDE , C . 1911

•

L AJOS T IHANYI : L YING N UDE , 1910

•

L AJOS T IHANYI : N UDE

OF A

B OY K NEELING , 1910

455

22_FEMESBECK_ENG

2/7/11

3:14 PM

Page 456

…AND THEIR GUESTS

22_FEMESBECK_ENG

2/7/11

3:14 PM

Page 457

22_FEMESBECK_ENG

2/7/11

3:14 PM

A T T I L A

Page 458

R U M

VILMOS FÉMES K EC B

“What joy he felt for the Revolution and the new world, for he believed in its arrival with all his heart! His declining vigour was restored in those days, his wilting spirit revived with a feverish joy,”2 wrote art critic Artúr Elek upon the death at age thirty-three of Vilmos Fémes Beck (1885–1918), a devoted participant in the Aster Revolution. Fémes Beck was one of the major – if not the greatest – talents and hopes of 20th century Hungarian sculpture. His brother, Fülöp Ö. Beck, twelve years older, was also a prominent figure in the history of sculpture in Hungary.3 Fémes Beck set off on his path from craftsmen to sculptor at the Budapest School for Drawing and Design (Fôvárosi Iparrajziskola). Later he joined an evening course at the Royal Hungarian School of Applied Arts, which he continued to attend between 1902 and 1904. During this time, he spent his apprenticeship with László Vandrák, a bronze caster in Budapest. According to the evidence of his school certificate, he completed his three years with top marks in modelling. Staying on at the school for another two years, he studied as silversmith, while working for his older brother, Fülöp Ö. Beck as a chaser. His training was completed in 1905. In the next four years Fémes Beck travelled abroad to acquire the necessary experience and perfect his crafts and raise his knowledge to the level of art. First he worked, in 1905, in Dresden as polisher. Then

V ILMOS F ÉMES B ECK : Ö DÖN L ECHNER C OMMEMORATIVE M EDAL , 1911 • C AT . NO .: 145

he and his brother Márton, a bronze caster, created a collection of bronze, silver and pewter objects, which won a gold medal at the World’s Fair in Milan in April 1906. The award-winning flower containers, bowls, and writing desk accessories displayed there presumably fell prey to the fire which destroyed, among others, the Hungarian Pavilion, too, on 4 August 1906. By the end of September a new exhibition space had been built, where the brothers again displayed their works designed for personal use. Whether these were the same objects as before, remains uncertain for lack of information.4 In this same year,

Fémes Beck won a 1200 crown state scholarship, which he used for travelling to Darmstadt. The Darmstadt artists’ colony, established in 1901, was at this time under the leadership of Joseph Maria Olbrich. In the spirit of Secessionist Gesamtkunstwerk, the prince elect of Hessen had established an art colony dedicated to the design and execution of applied art objects, and he invited the best, modern-thinking German artists to participate. Noted interior designers, painters and draughtsmen, sculptors and metal craftsmen worked alongside the two architects, Olbrich and Peter Behrens. After studying and working with Olbrich until February 1907, Fémes Beck returned home. This year he received his increased scholarship of 1600 crowns with the requirement that he continued his studies in England. In spite of that, however, he settled in Munich, where he worked with German sculptor Georg Roemer. Roemer was a former student of Adolf von Hildebrand, one of the fathers of 20th century modern European sculpture. Fémes Beck mastered the technique of medal engraving, which he later improved to perfection, under Roemer. In the spring of 1908 he travelled to London, and in the summer to Paris, but he settled in neither city. When he returned to Munich he learned of J. M. Olbrich’s death. He paid a tribute to his master in the last 1908 issue of the journal Nyugat, this is his first writing to appear in print.5 At the end V ILMOS F ÉMES B ECK , C . 1910 ( PHOTO : A LADÁR S ZÉKELY )

458

22_FEMESBECK_ENG

2/7/11

3:14 PM

Page 459

22_FEMESBECK_ENG

2/7/11

H ANS

VON

3:14 PM

Page 460

M ARÉES : T HE H ESPERIDES , 1884–1885, M ÜNCHEN , N EUE P INAKOTHEK © B LAUEL /G NAMM - ARTOTHEK

of January 1909, after a difference of opinions with Roemer, he returned to Budapest. In 1908 his brother, Fülöp Ö. Beck. also moved to Munich. Fémes Beck’s memoir, an important source on social history and the artistic life of the period, gives a detailed account of an artistic event in Munich in December 1908 which proved a defining experience for both sculptors: “the tides of chance or perhaps the helping hand of fate appeared. […] Help arrived at the moment of greatest need, the helping hand of Hans Marées. The artist was already dead, but the works he left behind were brought from Rome, supplemented by material from Schleissheim and pictures privately owned. A large exhibition of this bequest was put up, bringing all Munich into a state of excitement. For me this was a true Godsend. The lesson of his works cut right in the very world of ideas which occupied me at the time. If one follows [Marées’] development through his works, one can see how, during his studies of classical art in Rome, or perhaps actual experience of this art, he emerged as one who sees, who considers form. In emphasising and interpreting the formal essence of figures, these become in a sense excerpts of the human figure. Despite this, there are no schematic yawns in his paintings, on the contrary, they reflect lively impressions of nature. Meanwhile Marées maintained, in fact further developed his painterly language. It’s interesting that I learned this from the work of a painter, but it’s even more interesting that he himself actually learnt from sculp-

460

ture.”6 Published simultaneously with the staging of the exhibition was the new edition of Karl von Pidoll’s monograph on Marées, a work thoroughly studied and highly valued not only by the Beck brothers, but by, among others, painter Károly Kernstok, a leading figure of the later Eight.7 The Marées collection was next shown in the Berlin Secession, which one year later would serve as the location of the first important international debut of modern Hungarian painting.8 Fémes Beck also wrote an article for Nyugat about the Marées show in Munich. It was eventually not published, but the manuscript has fortunately survived among the papers of Ernô Osvát, one of the editors of the journal.9 “We are overcome with a majestic feeling of watching the harmonious figures, bursting with a pageantry of colours, while they go about their everyday tasks. The convincing power of the gestures, the balance so pleasing to the eye, have us forget that we are standing before a painting; we are ushered into a world entirely confined but harmonious; a world that is totally Marées’, and yet all of ours. Signs of weariness and labour are hidden from us, and like a natural phenomenon, beautiful and logical in its every phase, this quiet world impacts us,” wrote Fémes Beck,10 spelling out for us what admirers of Marées, an artist almost completely forgotten today, appreciated in his work and why, during the period around 1910. Marées the painter, Hildebrand the sculptor, and Konrad Fiedler the aesthete formed the circle that strived to reconcile authentic depic-

tions of nature and man with the achievements of classical Greek-Roman sculpture, and thereby create modern, contemporary art. Marées’s painting, Hildebrand’s statues, but especially the latter’s “The problem of form in painting and sculpture”, proved influential among a significant portion of young artists who were trained on the masterpieces of antiquity, but had grown disgusted with academic art. Hildebrand’s theoretical work in German appeared first in 1893, and in Hungarian in 1910.11 Fémes Beck thus adopted the artistic principles of Hildebrand as transmitted by Georg Roemer. Fémes Beck began his artistic career actually in 1909, when he returned to Budapest, the best of his work was created in the five years that followed. Immediately after his return he viewed the second show of MIÉNK, of which he informed his brother in Munich.12 At this exhibition six painters of those who were later to form the Eight participated, thus providing Fémes Beck with an opportunity to see in a concentrated way those efforts which later lead to Kernstok’s and his associates’ brake with MIÉNK. Fémes Beck also certainly saw the exhibition ‘New Pictures’ organized in the winter of 1909–1910. There, this significant group of young modern artists openly and proudly expressed their independence, stating clearly that official shows dominated by academic versions of the once revolutionary Impressionism had seen their day. This was the moment the path of modern Hungarian fine arts divided, with one of the main directions set

22_FEMESBECK_ENG

2/7/11

3:14 PM

Page 461

by Kernstok and his associates, a group of artists who would later become famous as the Eight. On 9 January 1910 at the Galilei Circle, Kernstok read his ‘Inquisitive Art’, which was subsequently published in Nyugat.13 The thoughts expressed here did not only correspond with the principles of post-impressionist modern French painting, primarily those of Cézanne and Matisse, but were also in line with the views of the Marées – Hildebrand – Fiedler circle. In Kernstok’s opinion, “…with tradition as our starting point we proceed forward in search of those new, great values, which in their essence are very much related to all good art throughout the ages.”14 This reflected the basic position of modern (although not necessarily avant-garde) art, which, drawing from the examples of its predecessors, strived to create contemporary work. In this year Fémes Beck married Mária Fridrik, who in time would also become an important sculptor under the name Mária Fémes Beck. In March, he viewed the exhibition of the sculptor Ivan Mestrovicˇ in Vienna, and later reviewed it for Nyugat.15 It is characteristic for the clear-sightedness and openness of Fémes Beck, that while his approach to Mestrovicˇ was critical as far as the collection of primarily torsos was concerned (the torso genre was incompatible with the notions of Hildebrand), he nevertheless recognized the sculptor’s natural talent. Admiring Mestrovicˇ’s freedom, courage, and “the bursting strength of his forms,” Fémes Beck placed him among the top modern sculptors. As he wrote, “For such a talent, everything is allowed; also things that are forbidden for others.”16 Upon his arrival home, he displayed important works first at the exhibitions in September and November of 1910 at the Mûvészház.17 At the September event, for which there was no jury assessment, he showed three male portraits in plaster. Only two of the three are known today, although not in the original plaster versions, but the later bronze copies: the portrait of Józsi Jenô Tersánszky and presumably that of Lajos Tihanyi.18 Art critics without exception reacted favourably to Fémes Beck’s debut.19 As the exception that proves the rule, only Géza Feleky (who later became one of the most devoted admirers of Fémes Beck’s sculpture) expressed criticism in the true sense, viewing the exhibited plasters as merely the promise of future masterpieces.20 At the winter exhibition of Mûvészház in November of the same year, Fémes again showed a plaster portrait and, as a novelty, two of his chalk drawings.21 János Kmetty exhibited at the same show his work It is the Grand Unity I Want, a telling example of the belief that through art’s strength and help the ideal and perfect social order could be attained – this belief, shared by the modernists of the time, was the tie between them.22 A DOLF

VON

H ILDEBRAND : Y OUNG M AN , 1877–1884

461

22_FEMESBECK_ENG

2/7/11

3:15 PM

Page 462

A UGUSTE R ODIN : L’Â GE

V ILMOS F ÉMES B ECK ’ S

SCULPTURE

K NEELING W OMAN

M IKSA S CHIFFER ’ S

For Fémes Back, however, only the exhibition of the Eight on 29 April 1911 brought real wide recognition. Kernstok and his associates established the society officially two weeks before the opening, thus the exhibition was to be their first show as a group, but in fact their second joint appearance. Guest artists were also invited. The sculptors Fémes Beck and Márk Vedres, as well as the artists Mária Lehel and Anna Lesznai, participated in the show, which was to generate serious debates on art policy and the theory of art, and thus proved to be an event of far greater significance than what of a regular show of contemporary art could normally claim. Fémes Beck exhibited again the two busts shown earlier at Mûvészház, the Tersánszky portrait and supposedly that of Tihanyi, along with a portrait of

462

VILLA ,

1912

a woman, and eleven medals and plaques engraved in bronze.23 In the cases where the exhibition catalogue mentions “coloured plasters”, Fémes meant to indicate by the use of colour the intended final material: stone, or patinated bronze. Unfortunately these painted plasters are known only from photocopies. The medals and plaques on the other hand, because they were produced in several copies, can be found almost without exception. Géza Feleky praised these miniature masterpieces, among others, in the exhibition catalogue: “a description of Vilmos Beck’s efforts would lead us to the very centre of the struggle for sculptural form. Given the magnitude of the task and the gravity of his work, he did become a worthy fellow-in-arms of the Eight. His plaque-making technique is typical of his work.

D ’ AIRAIN ,

1875–1877

He did not make large models which he later mechanically reduced in size, but rather carved his medals in the actual size, thus providing greater sharpness and definition to his forms.”24 Aladár Bálint on the other hand felt that “his plaques evoked the memory of ancient Greek masters.”25 Critical response to Fémes Beck’s works in the Nyolcak exhibit was positive in every respect, with no crossfire of opinions, although critics did express uncertainty as they sought a point of reference for his sculptural portraits, modelled with such honesty as to border on the grotesque. Unqualified praise, however, was heaped on Fémes Beck’s medals. Of the eleven medals on display, eight were reproduced in the journal A Ház; thus it is possible to determine which pieces were shown to the public.26 The most sought after items at the exhibit were Lesznai’s embroideries and Fémes Beck’s medals, although certainly the lower cost of these items compared to that of the paintings was a factor.27 While the critics were in agreement, most of the praise was generally empty. Only Géza Feleky’s critique stands out as his description of the art of Márk Vedres and Fémes Beck reveals an understanding of the true qualities of sculpture.28 In Fémes Beck’s account of the exhibition sent to Tersánszky, who was at that time in Nagybánya, he wrote: “Our exhibition, as you have surely heard, was a success. I also sold some plaques and even the portrait of you for 100 crowns.”29 Unfortunately the name of whoever

22_FEMESBECK_ENG

2/7/11

3:15 PM

A POLLONIOS : B ELVEDERE T ORSO ,

Page 463

MIDDLE OF

1 ST

CENTURY

B. C.

bought the plaster bust of Tersánszky did not appear in the Almanach of the National Salon, although this would have aided in reconstructing the circle of collectors interested in the Eight. That the Nagyvárad lawyer Virgil Ciaclan left the bronze copies of both male portraits to the Hungarian National Gallery, however, is known for certain. Ciaclan was one of the major patrons of the Eight, and was close friends with Fémes Beck and Tihanyi. The portraits can be seen in a 1922 photograph of the lawyer’s Nagyvárad study. What is unclear is whether the painted plaster sculptures or the bronze copies now in the public collection are seen in the photo.30 The other male portrait was identified as Lajos Tihanyi by Ildikó Nagy, although aside from the Ciaclan family oral tradition, no other sources are available to support this claim except for an erroneous catalogue entry. In the summer of 1912, a review of the most modern art trends in Europe was organized in Cologne. The main attractions of this international exhibition were Van Gogh, Cézanne, Gauguin, Picasso and Munch. Although primarily a show of French and German works, the exhibition contained an adequate sample of Hungarian painting and sculpture. Six members of the Eight and their two guest sculptors, Vedres and Fémes Beck, displayed their works together before the German public. An additional eight Hungarian exhibitors including Rippl-Rónai, Bornemisza and Perlrott also participated. In the critical reviews of the V ILMOS F ÉMES B ECK : K NEELING N UDE

OF A

B OY , 1912

•

C AT .

NO .:

151

463

22_FEMESBECK_ENG

2/7/11

3:15 PM

Page 464

V ILMOS F ÉMES B ECK : Ö DÖN L ECHNER C OMMEMORATIVE M EDAL , 1911 • C AT . NO .: 145

V ILMOS F ÉMES B ECK : W OMAN WITH A B OUGH IN B LOOM AND A B IRD , 1910–1911 • C AT . NO .: 140

exhibition, no more than four sculptors are ever mentioned, although the exhibition catalogue lists five: Fémes Beck, Jenô Körmendi Frim, Elza Kövesházi Kalmár, Márk Vedres and Lajos Tihanyi, who according to the catalogue exhibited a plaster statue entitled Female Bust.31 However, no statues by Tihanyi are known in the literature, and no letters mention any attempt by him at sculpture. The editor of the catalogue probably misinterpreted the list of objects, which was submitted well before the exhibition. Here Tihanyi was listed as painter and as a model for one of the sculptures. Fémes Beck’s name, on the other hand, appears in the catalogue only beside bronze plaques, although his work in association with the Eight was predominately portraits and medals. Apparently Fémes Beck displayed not only his plaques in Cologne, but also his bust of Lajos Tihanyi and a plaster portrait of a woman. The international review in Cologne was the real reason why the third exhibition of the Eight, originally planned for April and May of 1912 in Mûvészház, was postponed until the autumn.32 This allowed Fémes Beck and most of the members of the Eight to appear together in Cologne.33 The year 1912 also saw Fémes Beck’s most important artistic achievement. Presumably the success achieved at the Eight’s 1911 exhibit was one reason why Miksa Schiffer commissioned him to design the sculptural decoration of the villa designed by József Vágó. Fémes Beck made two kneeling bronze figures, the marble reliefs for the side of a flower basin, and an embossed red-copper vase. Together with a large glass window and wall painting by Kernstok, these works comprised the decorative painting and sculpture of the hall of Schiffer’s villa. Fémes Beck com-

pleted his works by 1 May 1912, and with the honorarium he travelled to Italy. On 7 October the villa was opened, and media coverage devoted special attention to his work. Particularly successful was his marble basin in the middle of the hall with the sculptures of male and female nudes on the two shorter sides. “His two new bronze statues – the figures of a man and woman facing each other – nobly, simply and with sculptural conciseness capture the beauty of the human body. Simple and concise. These two words contain an entire series of difficult, interrelated problems that have been successfully resolved in these statues,” wrote Aladár Bálint.34 The shape of the male figure raising both hands as he falls to his knees reveals the influence of two different periods and trends. The theoretical basis is formed by Hildebrand’s notions, which place emphasis on the purity and structural quality of classical forms. At the same time Fémes Beck’s reliefs met the requirements of “noble simplicity and quiet magnitude,” the foundation of Winckelmann’s interpretation of classical art. His actual prototype, however, may have been Appolonios’ Belvedere Torso (middle of the first century), which had become an allegory for sculpture as sculptors debated for centuries whether the missing parts of the work could be adequately reconstructed.35 With his Kneeling Male Nude, Fémes created a paraphrase of this famous ancient Greek work. His completion of the torso provided a satisfactory response to the urging of Hildebrand to work toward fashioning the perfect human form. In addition, however, he was certainly impacted by Rodin’s Bronze Age, his naturalist masterpiece reflecting a deep knowledge of the works of Michelangelo. Returning home from his tour of Italy, Fémes Beck was the only guest artist at the third exhibition of the Eight that November, the group

464

V ILMOS F ÉMES B ECK : T O THE G ODDESS OF S IGHT , 1910–1911 • C AT .

P LEASURE 141

OF THE NO .:

now reduced to just four members.36 Here he showed the small sculpture Sitting Female Nude with a Bird, again a portrait, as well as the plaster works, sketches and drawings made for the Schiffer villa. The coloured plaster statues for the well were acquired by Virgil Ciaclan and have survived the century to the present day. At this time Fémes Beck first exhibited a small sculpture of a female nude. In this work, Ildikó Nagy saw, as she did in all his figural works, Fémes Beck’s search for the “autonomous expressive possibilities of sculpture.” His nudes show different versions of a “gesture without determined action.” These gestures in their own right express a state of mind rather than the intention to perform some kind of real action. “In every art form only one subject interests him: the exclusively expressive essence of the human body independent of all other references. All this took place in the last moment of the history of sculpture, when it was still possible to work based on classical ideals.”37 Fémes Beck’s last significant appearance was in the spring of 1913 at the international post-impressionist exhibition of Mûvészház.38 At this time he exhibited in the company of the most modern French, German and Russian artists, including Archipenko, Heckel, Kandinsky, Javlensky, Marc, Matisse, Pechstein and Picasso. The exhibition occupies a special place in the history of groups of foreign and Hungarian contemporary artists exhibiting in Hungary. The core members of the Eight and their guests (except for Pór and Lesznai) also participated in the exhibition. Fémes Beck was one of the founders in 1913 of the society Hungarian Art Work. Joining the group of exclusively progressive architects, Fémes knew he would not have to adjust his art to the official world of sculpture competitions. Encouraged by the success of his

22_FEMESBECK_ENG

2/7/11

3:15 PM

Page 465

V ILMOS F ÉMES B ECK : W OMAN D IPPING , 1910–1911 • C AT . NO .: 139

V ILMOS F ÉMES B ECK : “F OR L IDI

WITH LOVE ”,

1911

work for the Schiffer villa, he strived to win private commissions. With the outbreak of World War I, Fémes Beck immediately enlisted and was only discharged in October 1918. During the war years he drew, and on leave he probably sculpted too, and was also a regular exhibitor at the Mûcsarnok shows, but he had no chance to create any works

of great significance. Fémes Beck participated with great faith and joy in the events of the Aster Revolution. On 8 December 1918, he was voted into the Cultural League of Artists and Scholars, but eight days later he died of an incurable illness contracted during the war. In 1923 a commemorative exhibition was held in the Belvedere.39 The 120 sculptures, plaques and draw-

Notes

Ildikó Nagy’s basic research on Vilmos Fémes Beck was a tremendous help to me in writing this paper, as was Árpád Tímár’s collections of press response to the major exhibits of the period, published under the comprehensive title “Az utak elváltak [The Roads Parted].” Artúr Elek: Fémes-Beck Vilmos (1885–1918). Nyugat, 12, 1919, 2. I.: 146–148. Artúr Elek: Mûvészek és mûbarátok. Válogatott képzômûvészeti írások [Artists and patrons. A selection of writings on the fine arts]. Ed. Árpád Tímár. Budapest, 1996. 48. For biographical information on Vilmos Fémes Beck, see: Nagy Ildikó: Fémes Beck Vilmos (1885–1918). Mûvészettörténeti Értesítô, 34. 1985. 97–118. Miklós Székely: A milánói világkiállítás eseménytörténete, eszmei háttere [The history and intellectual background of the Milanese World’s Fair]. MA Thesis. Pázmány Péter Tudományegyetem Mûvészettörténeti Tanszék, 2005. Vilmos Fémes Beck: “Olbrich-emlék (1867–1908) [Memories of Olbrich],” Nyugat, 1, 1908, 24. II: 502–504. Rippl-Rónai József emlékezései. Beck Ö. Fülöp emlékezései [József Rippl-Rónai’s recollections. Fülöp Ö. Beck’s recollections]. Ed. and introduction by Zoltán Farkas. Budapest, 1957. 256–257. Karl von Pidoll: Aus der Werkstatt eines Künstlers. Erinnerungen an den Maler Hans von Marées aus den Jahren 1880–1881 und 1884–1885. Luxemburg, 1908. (One copy of the work contains the marginal notes of Károly Kernstok: MTA MKI Documents Dept., inv. no.: MDK–C–I–217/I.). Beck Ö. 1957. ibid. 260. Ausstellung Hans von Marées, vom 28. Februar bis Anfang April im Gebäude der Secession. Kurfürstendamm 208/209. Berlin, 1909; Ausstellung Ungarischer Maler im Ausstellungsgebäude. Kurfürstendamm 208/209, Berlin, 5. Februar – 3. März 1910. Berlin. 1910. Vilmos Fémes Beck: Hans von Marées hagyatéki kiállítása a müncheni Sezessionban [Exhibit of the estate of Hans von Marées in the Munich Sezession] [1909]. Published by Ildikó Nagy: Fémes Beck Vilmos kiadatlan írása Hans von Marées-rôl [Vilmos Fémes Beck’s unpublished writings on Hans von Marées]. Ars Hungarica, 12. 1984. 103–109. Ibid., 107.

14 15 16 17

19 20 21

26 27

Adolf Hildebrand: Das Problem der Form in der bildenden Kunst. Strassburg, 1893. Vilmos Fémes Beck’s letter from Budapest to Fülöp Ö. Beck in Munich, 6 February 1909. Published by Sándor Kontha: Fémes Beck Vilmos húsz levele [Twenty letters of Vilmos Fémes Beck]. Ars Hungarica, 4. 1976. 150–151. Károly Kernstok: A kutató mûvészet [Inquisitive Art]. Nyugat, 3, 1910, 2. I: 95–99. Az Utak II.: 288. Op. cit. 95. Vilmos Fémes Beck: Mestrovicˇ Iván. Nyugat, 3, 1910, 7. I: 477–478. Ibid., 478. A Mûvészház zsûrimentes kiállítása [The unjuried exhibition at the Mûvészház]. September 1910. Budapest, 1910. No. 109. Portrait intended to be cast in bronze, plaster, 200 crowns; No. 110. Study, plaster, 100 crowns; No. 111. Portrait of my friend, plaster study for a work in stone, 200 crowns. Ildikó Nagy: Fémes Beck Vilmos (1885–1918): Tersánszky Józsi Jenô képmása, 1910 [Fémes Beck’s portrait of Józsi Jenô Tersánszky]. A Mûvészház 1909–1914. Modern kiállítások Budapesten. Magyar Nemzeti Galéria, 2009. Ed. Judit Gömöry, Nóra Veszprémi. Budapest, 2009. 46–47. See Az Utak II: 431–436, 438, 441, 447–448. Ibid., 448. A Mûvészház téli kiállítása [Winter exhibition of the Mûvészház]. November 1910. Budapest, 1910. No. 31. Sculptural portrait of engineer G. J., 200 crowns; No. 36. Lesbia, chalk drawing, 80 crowns; No. 37. Seeing is pleasure, chalk drawing, 80 crowns. Ibid., No. 69. János Kmethy [sic!]: It is the grand unity I want, 150 Korona. “Nyolcak” kiállítása a Nemzeti Szalonban [Exhibition of the ‘Eight’ at the National Salon]. Intro. Géza Feleky. Budapest, 1911. No. 87. Coloured plaster, 200 crowns; No. 88. Coloured plaster, 200 crowns; No. 89. Coloured plaster, 200 crowns; No. 90. Eleven engraved bronze medals, 40 crowns per piece. Géza Feleky: “Nyolcak” kiállítása a Nemzeti Szalonban [Exhibition of the ‘Eight’ in the National Salon]. Intro. Géza Feleky. Budapest, 1911. 13. Aladár Bálint: A “Nyolcak” [The ‘Eight’],. Magyar Nyomdászat, 14, 1911, 5. 136–137. Az Utak III.: 142. A Ház [The House], 4, 1911, 5. 192–193. Almanach. (Képzômûvészeti lexikon [Dictionary of fine arts]). Ed.

V ILMOS F ÉMES B ECK : D ANCING F EMALE N UDE , 1909–1910 • CAT. NO.: 133

ings on display at that time represented his entire life’s work. “He strived for classical forms, as do those artists in general who try to express as much as possible with the simplest of tools,” wrote Erzsébet Korb, a superb painter who also died young.40 On the one hundredth anniversary of his death the King Stephen Museum of Székesfehérvár organized an exhibit of his works.41

30 31

32 33

37 38

40 41

Béla Déry, László Bányász, Ernô Margitay. Budapest, 1912. 257–292. Géza Feleky: Szobrok, érmek [Statues, medals]. Nyugat, 4, 1911, 10. I: 993–996. Az Utak III.: 183–185. The letter was published by Ildikó Nagy: Tersánszky Józsi Jenô és Tihanyi Lajos portréja Fémes Beck Vilmostól. (Adatok egy mûgyûjtô arcképéhez) [Vilmos Fémes Beck’s portraits of Józsi Jenô Tersánszky and Lajos Tihanyi (Information on the portrait of an art collector)]. Mûvészettörténeti Értesítô, 42. 1993. 40. The photograph was also published by Ildikó Nagy, ibid., 41: ill. 2. Internationale Kunstausstellung des Sonderbundes Westdeutscher Kunstfreunde und Künstler zu Köln. Köln, Städtische Ausstellungshalle, 25 May – 30 September 1912. Cologne, 1912. No. 632. Tihanyi, Ludwig, Budapest, Weibliche Halbfigur (Plaster). A “Nyolcak”, Világ, 7 April 1912. 15. Az Utak III: 356–357. Szoborkiállítás a Mûvészházban [Exhibition of Sculptures in the Mûvészház]. Budapest, 12 March 1912. 12. Az Utak III: 328. B-t. [Aladár Bálint]: Fémes Beck Vilmos új szobormûvei [New sculptural works of Vilmos Fémes Beck]. Népszava, 8 October 1912. Az Utak III: 441. On this subject, see Ildikó Nagy: Egy új mûforma – a torzó [A new art form – the torso]. Történelem – Kép. Szemelvények múlt és mûvészet kapcsolatából Magyarországon. Catalogue. Ed. Árpád Mikó, Katalin Sinkó. Budapest, Magyar Nemzeti Galéria, 2000. 736–739. A Nyolcak harmadik tárlatának katalógusa [Catalogue of the third exhibit of the Eight]. Nemzeti Szalon, November – December 1912. Budapest, 1912. Nagy 1985. Op. cit. 97–118. [106, 110, 111.] A Mûvészház nemzetközi postimpresszionista kiállítása [International post-Impressionist exhibition at the Mûvészház]. 4 May – 25 June 1913. Budapest, 1913. No. 73. Head, mgt; No. 74. Plaquettes, sellers. Fémes-Beck Vimos szobrász emlékkiállítása [és] Pap Géza festô gyûjteménye [Commemorative exhibition of sculptor Vilmos Fémes Beck (and) the collection of painter Géza Pap]. Belvedere, 11-25 March 1923. Budapest, 1923. Erzsébet Korb: Fémes Beck Vilmos. A Kékmadár, 1923, 1. 34–35. Fémes Beck Vilmos 1885–1918 emlékkiállítás [Commemorative exhibition of Vilmos Fémes Beck]. István király Múzeum, 16 February – 17 March]. Intro. Ildikó Nagy. Székesfehérvár, 1985.

465

22_FEMESBECK_ENG

466

2/7/11

3:15 PM

Page 466

V ILMOS F ÉMES B ECK : K NEELING F EMALE N UDE , 1912

•

C AT .

NO .:

157

22_FEMESBECK_ENG

2/7/11

3:15 PM

Page 467

V ILMOS F ÉMES B ECK : S KETCH , 1910

•

C AT .

NO .:

156

467

22_FEMESBECK_ENG

468

2/7/11

3:15 PM

Page 468

V ILMOS F ÉMES B ECK : K NEELING F EMALE N UDE WITH A B IRD , 1910–1911 • C AT . NO .: 138 D ANCING B ACCHUS , 1909–1910 • C AT . NO .: 132 • T HREE M ALE N UDES , 1910–1911

• N UDE OF A Y OUNG M AN K NEELING ON A C UBE , 1911 • • C AT . NO .: 137

C AT .

NO .:

143

22_FEMESBECK_ENG

2/7/11

3:15 PM

Page 469

V ILMOS F ÉMES B ECK : K NEELING W OMAN , 1912

•

C AT .

NO .:

152

469

22_FEMESBECK_ENG

470

2/7/11

3:15 PM

V ILMOS F ÉMES B ECK : P ORTRAIT

Page 470

OF J ENÔ

T ERSÁNSZKY J ÓZSI , 1910

•

C AT .

NO .:

135

22_FEMESBECK_ENG

2/7/11

3:15 PM

Page 471

V ILMOS F ÉMES B ECK : P ORTRAIT

L AJOS T IHANYI , 1910

•

C AT .

NO .:

134

471

22_FEMESBECK_ENG

472

2/7/11

3:15 PM

Page 472

V ILMOS F ÉMES B ECK : S INGING G IRL , 1910

•

C AT .

NO .:

136

22_FEMESBECK_ENG

2/7/11

3:15 PM

Page 473

V ILMOS F ÉMES B ECK : S ITTING F EMALE N UDE

WITH

B IRD , 1911

•

C AT .

NO .:

146

473

22_FEMESBECK_ENG

474

2/7/11

3:15 PM

Page 474

V ILMOS F ÉMES B ECK : F EMALE N UDE 1911–1912 • C AT . NO .: 149 F EMALE N UDE (W OMAN H OLDING E ARS OF W HEAT ), 1911–1912

•

C AT .

NO .:

148

22_FEMESBECK_ENG

2/7/11

3:15 PM

Page 475

V ILMOS F ÉMES B ECK : W OMAN

WITH A

B IRD , 1912

•

C AT .

NO .:

150

475

23_JAKOBOVITS_ENG

2/7/11

P É T E R

7:02 PM

Page 476

M O L N O S

THE NINTH ARTÚR JAKOBOVITS AND THE EIGHT

Artúr Jakobovits (1880– 1945?) was born in Fenyôháza, in Liptó County (then part of the Kingdom of Hungary, now Northern Slovakia – transl.). He attended primary school in Zólyom, and completed his secondary education in Besztercebánya and Turócszentmárton.1 In 1900 he studied at the Országos Mintarajziskola (Royal Hungarian College of Art) under the direction of Ede Balló and László Hegedûs and in November the following year he enrolled in the Royal Bavarian Academy of Fine Arts in Munich, where his masters were Johann Härterich and Karl Raupp.2 Although in 1902 he also attended Hollósy’s Nagybánya school, news from Paris prompted him to embark upon a study trip: following the “usual schedule”, he travelled to Paris (in 1903), where he trained at the Académie Julian for two years under Jean-Paul Laurens. Jakobovits first exhibited his works in public at the National salon in spring 1903, and from that time onwards he displayed pictures at the Mûcsarnok every year for an entire decade. He also participated at joint exhibitions in Budapest

476

with Dezsô Orbán and Ödön Márffy; however, he formed close ties with the future members of The Eight, not in Hungary but more probably in Paris, which is supported by the memories of Béla Czóbel which – upon Iván Dévényi’s request – he summed up in summer 1967 as follows: “I actually knew A. Jacobovics, he was a good friend of mine and he worked with me in the cité Falguière studio. He had an exhibition at the ’Indépendants’, and his works were put in quite a good place. I cannot answer your question as to what has become of his paintings. […] He was a modest, kind, tall and thin young man. […] He was the son of wealthy timber traders.”3 The information provided by Czóbel can be fully verified based on the catalogue of the Salon des Indépendants in its spring 1907 exhibition and the reviews published in various Budapest periodicals.4 The six works Jakobovits had exhibited here “were a testimony to Czóbel’s style”, to quote the laconic observation made by Károly Lendvai.5 One of the entries of the questionnaire referred to in footnote 1 records that

the art of Cézanne, Gauguin and Puvis exerted the greatest influence on Jakobovits in Paris. Between 1906 and 1911 Jakobovits made drawings and caricatures for the humour magazines Fidibusz (Fidibus) and Üstökös (Comet) and in 1908 he exhibited a pointillist work from this period at the show “The Rejected”, hosted by the Gresham Palace.6 This picture attracted the attention of Géza Lengyel, one of the most active art critics writing about The Eight, who wrote numerous praising articles in support of the group about two years later.7 Even though a distinct group of Budapest art critics played a significant and stronger than customary role in the realisation of the “New Pictures” exhibition and the forming of The Eight, it cannot be ascribed to Lengyel’s obvious fondness for Jakobovits that the artist was invited to appear with one of his works at the legendary 1909 show of the Könyves Kálmán Salon. The real reason for the invitation is still unknown, since the experiences Jakobovits and Czóbel shared in Paris and the memories of their working together do not

23_JAKOBOVITS_ENG

2/7/11

7:02 PM

Page 477

provide sufficient reason for such an important decision. However, it is a fact that only one of the would-be members of The Eight, Artúr Jakobovits, participated at the “New Pictures” exhibition. What is more, his landscape had a more traditional style, which was at variance with all the other exhibits conceived in a more modern vein: “it is a strong case of Realism and it has nothing to do with Impressionism,” wrote Ferenc Kanizsai, one of the few critics who devoted any attention at all to the paintings by Jakobovits.8 This brief and most probably forgotten episode at the time, around 1910, gradually gained importance later. While the 1912 almanac of the National Salon did not include the artist’s appearance at the “New Pictures” show in 1909 in its short lexicon entry after the painter’s name9, the text of the autobiography compiled by Jakobovits in 1926 makes a cursory reference to the event by stating that he participated “at the first exhibition of The Eight”.10 Moreover, in a 1934 study written by Máriusz Rabinovszky in Magyar Mûvészet [Hungarian Art] analysing the art collection owned by the painter’s brother the following can be read: “Artúr Jakobovits, who belonged to the closest circle of The Eight before the war, must have played no little part in his brother Mr Jakobovits turning to the fine arts with devotion and expertise”.11 The greatest merit of this article in relation to our theme is that it published a reproduction of his Self Portrait, whose decorative and planar composition is constructed from diagonally lined brushstrokes reminiscent of Cézanne.12 It can be clearly ascertained from the facts that the “New Pictures” exhibition was Jakobovits’ only joint appearance with the members of The Eight, which would form in spring 1911, this fleeting episode of his youth developed into a central element in his biography over time: the art lexicon published in 1935 already states unambiguously that he formerly “belonged to The Eight”.13 “He was at the right time at the right place” appears to be the main conclusion that can be drawn from studying some oeuvres. It can be clearly seen that the one-off participation at the “New Pictures” exhibition secured Jakobovits a place on the pages of volumes and studies exploring the most modern aspirations in 20th-century Hungarian painting, albeit only occasionally and in the form of a brief mention. The early works by Jakobovits are not known, and his ties connecting him to the wouldbe members of The Eight are mostly shrouded in obscurity. Nevertheless, one thing is for certain: for an inconsequential moment he visited the place where once “the roads parted”.

A RTÚR J AKOBOVITS : S ELF - PORTRAIT , C . 1910. (M ISSING )

Notes 1 The main events of Arthur Jakobovits’s life can be reconstructed from a questionnaire he filled in before 1920 and from his autobiography written in 1926. Archives of the Hungarian National Gallery, inv. no.: M.M.A. 891/1920.; Archives of the Research Institute for Art History of the Hungarian Academy of Science 2 The data pertaining to Jakobovits originating from the student roll call of the Munich Academy can be found at: http://matrikel. adbk.de/05ordner/mb_1884–1920/jahr_1901/matrikel–02426 3 Béla Czóbel’s letter written to Iván Dévényi. 1 August 1967 – Archives of the Research Institute for Art History of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, inv. no.: MKCS–C–I.159/503. 4 List of works exhibited at the 1907 Salon des Indépendants: Magyar Vadak Párizstól Nagybányáig 1904–1914 [Hungarian Fauves from Paris to Nagybánya 1904-1914]. ? Hungarian Fauves from Paris to Nagybánya 1904-1914. Ed. Krisztina Passuth, György Szücs. Budapest, Hungarian National Gallery, 2006. 322. 5 (l. k.) [Lendvai Károly]: A független mûvészek kiállítása Párizsban [The Exhibition of Independent Artists in Paris]. Pesti Napló, 31 March 1907. 16. – Az Utak I. [The Roads I]: 211.

12 13

The Exhibition of the Rejected. April 1908. Budapest, Gresham Palace, 1908. L. G. [Lengyel Géza]: The Rejected. A Polgár, 15 April 1908. 7. – Az Utak I.: 436–437. K. F. [Kanizsai Ferenc]: A neo-impresszionisták kiállítása. [The Exhibition of Neo-impressionists]. Magyar Hirlap, 31 December 1909. 14. – Az Utak II.: 229. Almanach [Almanac]. (Képzômûvészeti lexikon [Fine Arts Lexicon]). Ed. Béla Déry, László Bányász, Ernô Margitay. Budapest, 1912. 176. A typescript autobiography compiled by the painter in1926. Archives of the Research Institute for Art History of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences Máriusz Rabinovszky: Két modern magángyûjtemény [Two Private Collections of Modern Art]. Magyar Mûvészet, 10. 1934. 343. Ibid., 363. Mûvészeti lexikon. Építészet, szobrászat, festészet, iparmûvészet. I. [Art Lexicons. Architecture, Sculpture, Painting, Applied Arts I.] Ed.: László Éber, György Gombosi. Budapest, 1935. 503.

477

24_LEHEL_BUTYKA_ENG

2/7/11

5:14 PM

E S Z T E R

Page 478

B U T Y K A

MÁRIA LEHEL

M ÁRIA L EHEL , 1920 S

Mária Lehel (1889–1972) first displayed her work publicly at the National Salon, in the April of 1911, as one of the guest exhibitors invited by a group of artists known as the Eight.1 Unfortunately, no documents or reminiscences have survived that tell of the circumstances of this invitation. In all likelihood, Lehel, who at the time was twenty-two years of age, owed her presence there not solely to the time she had spent at Nagybánya and to her acquaintance with the other exhibitors. An important part in her invitation may have been played by her husband, Ferenc Lehel,2 too, a writer on art who by this time was already involved with the programmes accompanying the exhibitions staged by the Eight.3

478

Mária Lehel’s years of apprenticeship were best summed up by Ferenc Lehel in the periodical Nemzeti Mûvészet: ‘It is a fact that Mária attended too many schools and spent too little time at them. She worked under Ferenczy, Vajda, Márk, Kernstok, Grünwald, Viktor Olgyay, and Révész, but in each case only for a few weeks, a month at most.’4 On the basis of István Réti’s records, she first arrived in Nagybánya in 1906, returning there many times in the course of the next years (in 1908, in 1912, and in 1914).5 At Nagybánya, she worked under Károly Ferenczy initially. Nevertheless, as an acquaintance of Ferenc Lehel, she was able, even at the outset of her career, to get to know the latest trends in painting and those in Hungary who followed them. Around 1916, she appeared at the Kecskemét artists’ colony, too.6 On the basis of reproductions published in the periodical Ország-Világ, we can say that two pictures by Mária Lehel were shown at the second exhibition staged by the Eight.7 One was her ‘Child with a Ball’; the other, a pastel portrait of an old woman, is now missing.8 Fortunately, this second work, which is known only from a reproduction, agrees almost completely with a detail (the central figure) of a picture in oil known by the title ‘Grandmother with her Grandchild’. The presentation in ‘Grandmother with her Grandchild’ of three different phases in life through the showing of three generations reflects the propensity for symbolic formulation that was characteristic of Mária Lehel later on also. However, because of a solution employed in the work, namely the omission of half of the figure of the man, it is possible that this is a piece of a larger composition, perhaps one similar to Bertalan Pór’s painting entitled ‘The Family’.9 In a statement published in the newspaper Pesti Napló, Mária Lehel described the main features of her style, already formed by that time, in the following terms: ‘This style paints every object a different colour and if possible gives just one

colour to an object. The contours do not blend objects together, but sharply separate them from one another. This important role for contours in painting has again placed the plot in the forefront. Figural compositions are again taking the place of landscapes. Indeed, the plot is becoming so intrusive that – as at other times also – it is displacing symbolic motifs.’10 Mária Lehel’s characteristic manner of painting, in which, as a result of the strong contours, the figures seem to be set together from fragmented ‘joints’, made her works highly suitable as designs for stained-glass windows or mosaics. A case in point was her picture ‘Child with a Ball’, made into a mosaic in co-operation with József Palka. The mosaic was likewise among the works exhibited.11 This co-operation with other branches of art was characteristic of other members of the Eight also. M ÁRIA L EHEL : G RANDMOTHER WITH HER G RANDCHILD , C . 1911 (D ETAIL OF A BIGGER COMPOSITIONS ) • C AT . NO . 231.

24_LEHEL_BUTYKA_ENG

2/7/11

M ÁRIA L EHEL : C HILD

WITH A

5:14 PM

Page 479

B ALL , C . 1911

•

C AT .

NO .

232.

479

24_LEHEL_BUTYKA_ENG

2/7/11

5:14 PM

Page 480

The strong contouring visible on both pictures, the emphatic, large, dark eyes, the stiffly gathered clothing, and the unrealistic coloration, – all bear witness to her familiarity with Byzantine art. We know from the reminiscences of Ferenc Lehel, as well as from those of Renée Erdôs, that Mária made a study tour in Italy in 1910.12 Her knowledge of the museums and art treasures of Rome and Florence played a significant role in the development of her language of forms. Work by Mária Lehel were displayed together with those by the Eight on one occasion only, although later on she was a frequent exhibitor at the Mûvészház, which afforded opportunities to those representing progressive trends in art. A key work of her oeuvre, her picture entitled ‘Nude’ in the Rippl-Rónai Museum in Kaposvár, echoed the endeavours of the Eight. The rough shapes, the stressing of light-and-shade effects, the emphatic contours framing the body, and the merely token depiction of a background, – all link it first and foremost to similar pictures by Károly Kernstok, Bertalan Pór, and Dezsô Orbán, although the non-schematic, engagingly charming depiction of the woman’s face13 and the importation of the child figure distinguish it from works by the above-mentioned artists. The Lehel family moved to Paris in 1924, an event that represented a radical change in the style of Mária’s art. In her technique, pastel came to predominate, and later on her works spoke in the light, decorative style inspired by the École de Paris.

M ÁRIA L EHEL : S ELF P ORTRAIT , C . 1910 ( MISSING ) T O THE RIGHT : M ÁRIA L EHEL : Y ELLOW F LOWERS , 1912

•

C AT .

NO .

233.

Notes 1

2 3

4 5

M ÁRIA L EHEL : N UDE , C . 1913

•

C AT .

NO .

230.

The pictures that Mária Lehel exhibited at this time are among her earliest known creations. Nevertheless, they already display those marks that characterise her art up to the second half of the 1920s, when her Paris period began.

480

‘Nyolcak’ kiállítása a Nemzeti Szalonban. [The exhibition of the Eight at the National Salon] Bev. [Introduction] by Feleky Géza. Budapest, 1911. Her name was inserted in the catalogue only later, meaning that her inclusion was probably the result of a sudden change of plan. Ferenc Lehel (1885–1975) was an artist and writer on art. Pesti Napló, 13 January 1910 issue. 13; ‘Elôadás a Nyolcakról’ [Lecture on the Eight]. Világ, 10 May 1911 issue. 13. – Az Utak III.: 162. Lehel, Ferenc: ‘Lehel Mária’. Nemzeti Mûvészet, 5–6. 1934. 65. In 1906, she featured there under the name of Mária Rell. Although she and Ferenc Lehel married officially only on 28 February 1909 – two years after the birth of their first daughter – (marriage certificate: Jászberény, Hamza Museum, ltsz.: 95.1677.1.), in Réti’s records she features as Mrs. Ferenc Lehel as early as 1908. Réti, István: A nagybányai mûvésztelep. [The Nagybánya colony of artists]. Budapest, 1994. 167–171. She and the husband are mentioned in letters from Irma Seidler in Nagybánya to György Lukács on 17 July and 21 August 1908. Lukács György levelezése (1902–1917). [The correspondence of György Lukács].Ed. Fekete Éva, Karádi Éva. Budapest, 1981. 66. 78. Réti makes no mention of her in his list of names for 1913 – Records in MNG under: 12876/1959. –, but according to a news item she stayed at the colony in that year also. Nagybánya, 17 July 1913. 3.

Letter from Ferenc to Károly Lyka, 4 October 1927. – MTA MKI Records under: MDK–C-I–17/877.1–2. The periodical published three reproductions: Child Playing (today Child with a Ball), a mosaic version of this by József Palka, and a pastel drawing depicting an elderly woman. Ország-Világ, 7 May 1911 issue. 483. Ferenc Lehel, too, remembered the work his wife exhibited alongside works by the Eight: ‘Nándor Katona obtained a grant for her, and also purchased from her a small aquarelle that she exhibited as a guest of the Eight.’ Lehel 1934. Op. cit. 65. Lehel was probably thinking of the picture mentioned as a pastel drawing in Ország-Világ. Pór, Bertalan: The Family; 1909; oil, canvas; 176 x 206 cm; mark bottom right: Pór Bertalan 1909; MNG ltsz.: 60.136 T Tábori, Kornél: ‘Magyar Mûvésznôk’ [Hungarian Lady Artists]. Pesti Napló Karácsonyi melléklete, 25 December 1912. 42. József Palka (1860–1952), stained-glass artist. The subsequent fate of the mosaic is unknown. Letter from Ferenc Lehel to Károly Lyka, 4 October 1927. – MTA MTA MKI Records under MDK–C–I–17/877.1–2; Erdôs, Renée: ‘Lehel Mária’. (7 December 1930.) MNG Records under: 7038/1954 We may discover the painter herself in the physiognomy of the woman featuring in the picture Nude. Identification is helped by a Self Portrait by the painter from around 1910 (image see above)

24_LEHEL_BUTYKA_ENG

2/7/11

5:14 PM

Page 481

481

25_LESZNAI_TOROK_ENG

2/7/11

P E T R A

7:00 PM

Page 482

T Ö R Ö K

ANNA LESZNAI,

LADY OF THE HOUSE FOR THE EIGHT

T HE M OSCOVITZ

MANSION AT

A LSÓKÖRTVÉLYES , 1900 S

Like Vilmos Fémes Beck, Márk Vedres and Mária Lehel, Anna Lesznai (1885–1966) was a guest artist at the second exhibition of the Eight in April 1911. Lesznai recalled the event in 1958 in a letter to István Varró: “You asked me, dear Pista, what I remember about the ‘Eight’ exhibition. I know that the entire group fully expected quite severe criticism and a lack of understanding, and they bore this in mind when they set about preparing the exhibition. After all, they dared, with a new audacity rarely seen in Pest, to overturn methods and trends in art, fashionable at the time. I was at the opening. I was rooting for my friends, and I was happy and proud because, although I wasn’t a member of the Eight, they asked me if I would exhibit my embroidery

482

alongside their works.”1 Her memory of the exhibition and the Eight was vivid. Years later – in a long biographical interview with Erzsébet Vezér – she mentioned the significance and strength of her friendships with the group’s members as one reason they invited her to exhibit with them: “they invited me, they who were so dear to me, my old friends, to exhibit with them.”2 The exhibition served not only as a forum for Lesznai to show her design work, but also as an opportunity for her to declare her solidarity, her “agreeing” with her fellow artists, as expressed by Aladár Bálint: “She poured her sense of belonging to them, her desire to progress with them, into her colourful fabrics and flowing silks.”3 In the first half of the 1910s, Lesznai’s design work was at its peak. Not surprisingly, it was at this time, that her achievements caught the attention of Elek Koronghi Lippich,4 and that she participated in numerous exhibitions.5 Reviews of these shows and Lesznai’s letters6 from this period reinforce the view that the “Lesznai manufactory”7 was thriving during this time. Meanwhile, her theoretical as well as practical grounding qualified her to address the everyday problems associated with the interdependence of industry and folk art and tackle questions concerning the transition from arts and craft design to business.8 Although her family situation left her in no need of any significant

income,9 Lesznai still made good use of her business acumen to take advantage of the extraordinary appetite of contemporary cultures, both in Hungary and the rest of Europe, for handmade embroidered accessories in the field of interior design as well as the world of fashion. Her high quality ornamental creations satisfied contemporary demands for decorative wares. It is not surprising therefore, that inspired by Lesznai’s professional and material success,10 her friend Róbert Berény began designing embroidery, which his wife would execute.11 At the exhibition of the Eight, Lesznai showed embroidery samples and embroidery designs based on folk art ornaments associated with the above-mentioned trends.12 Pieces from the Lesznai bequest, exhibition reviews, and accompanying reproductions held in Hungarian public collections13 – primarily in the Lajos Hatvany Museum – allow us to reconstruct the forms and types of works showed, and the techniques used at the “Eight” exhibition. In the majority of embroideries for home decoration – pillows, wall hangings, wall or table runners, and curtains – flowers and other floral ornaments appear as bouquets, arranged with symmetrically arranged components in jugs, vases or flat decorative platters with handles. A portion of the compositions are enclosed in ornamental rows or floral frames, while in other

25_LESZNAI_TOROK_ENG

2/7/11

7:00 PM

Page 483

A NNA L ESZNAI ’ S COVER DESIGN H AZAJÁRÓ V ERSEK , 1909

A NNA L ESZNAI ,

EARLY

1910 S ( PHOTOGRAPH

A LADÁR S ZÉKELY )

works the frame is not continuous, with one floral ornament in each corner of the composition determining and setting the boundaries of the

image. The flower bouquet, the “fairy” bouquet, or a flowers loosely falling from a bowl or vase, or, more rarely, from a cornucopia or a flower

FOR THE BOOK OF POEMS

holder on the balustrade of a terrace all evoke a connotation of the mystical world tree, which Lesznai used as an analogy for her world view during this period.14 In addition to the embroideries for home decoration, Lesznai also made and put on show folders and accessories (hats, collars and scarves). Her bequest also contains designs for bags and jewellery. Few of her embroidered works from the 1910s have survived, which is why her so-called Ady Pillow (R: 489) has special significance. It is one of the most characteristic pieces from this period, and at the same time, is an objective example of Lesznai’s personal inclinations. Ady was a devoted follower of both Lesznai15 and the Eight.16 Lesznai designed title pages to Ady’s volumes “Magunk szerelme”, in 1913, and “Ki látott engem?” in 1914.17 The motifs of the latter title page can be seen in this pillow. Presumably Ady had seen and admired both the pillow design and the completed work, and then asked Lesznai to design the title pages. Among the items in Lesznai’s bequest now in the Hatvany Lajos Múzeum are two designs for the Ady Pillow,18 which further adds to the importance of this work, since just very few such pair (the design and surviving work) of Lesznai’s is known. Lesznai’s work is mentioned, if sometimes only briefly, in all of the many reviews of ‘Eight’ shows. Critiques focus mainly on two aspects of her work – colour and abstraction.

483

25_LESZNAI_TOROK_ENG

2/7/11

7:00 PM

Page 484

A NNA L ESZNAI : E MBROIDERIES , S TICKEREI -Z EITUNG

UND

S PITZEN -R EVUE , 1912

Rich, deep, strident, sumptuous, strong, full, sunlit, pulsating are the expressions most frequently used to describe the colours of Lesznai’s designs and embroideries. Her work is characterized by the harmonious use of primary colours, although around 1912 – in her exhibition accompanying Adolf Fényes’ show – colours became tamer and their harmony increased. Her playful approach to colours, the momentum of her “sampling” them, appear in later sources too

484

– in reference to her connections with various artists in the Eight. In her recollections to István Varró, talking of Róbert Berény, Lesznai emphasized the significance of colours: “He was always most interested in colour, delighted with a new colour mix or new colour contrast, and for awhile he would attribute an almost redemptive power to it […] I frequently asked him what inspired him to paint this or that picture. He always replied that it was a completely instinc-

tive joy derived from the matching of two or three colours.”19 In her recollections, Magda Csécsy refers also to Lesznai’s artistic methods. Presumably Lesznai always – in the 1910s, too – worked in this manner: “ The pattern was drawn out on the material, yet, Máli picked the yarn from the large basket by her armchair, and tried out the colours against the pattern or the already completed parts.”20 An entry from Lesznai’s diary from the 1920s cites a similar visual game: “I’ll

25_LESZNAI_TOROK_ENG

2/7/11

7:00 PM

Page 485

tell Gerg [Tibor Gergely] that Dezsô Orbán and I were continually comparing and scrutinizing colours from spools of yarn, and it proved a useful eye exercise. Yes, he says, we should use colour spools when planning a still-life. I: ‘that’s impossible, because colour and form are closely interconnected and reinterpret each other; the quality and not just the quantity of a cherry’s worth of pure vermillion means something different in painting than an apple’s worth would. The lines of a vermilion triangle or a vermillion disc or a vermillion scallop all yield a different colour value.’”21 In addition to the question of colour, critics drew attention to the abstract dimensions of the floral ornaments: “Lesznai’s designs […] all take one step away from the task of organizing nature and proceed along the path leading to total abstraction.”22 Lesznai’s working with the Eight was further reinforced by their shared interest in art theory and art criticism. Anna Lesznai’s journal and handwritten notes reveal that her legacy as art theoretician is likewise significant. They explain the foundations of her efforts in the fine and applied arts, and show her ideas as an integral part of the discourse which, at the time, engaged members of the Eight, Vasárnapi Kör and other progressive personalities (such as György Lukács, Leó Popper, and Lajos Fülep) as well as intellectual communities active at the wake of the twentieth century, such as the staff of the journal Huszadik Század and the lecturers of the Szellemi Tudományok Szabadiskolája [The Open School of Humanities]. Lesznai was especially interested in one topic of discourse: the perfect synthesis of content, material and form. For her, the ornament meant the closed, fashioned unit, the totality. According to her theory there exists an eternal absolute outside of time and space, which encloses, intact, within its own spirituality, all that has ever existed and all that will. Here, art and spirit are identical, corresponding to one another in their entirety. The goal of this completeness is its realization, since what potentially exists is anxious to extricate itself from the prison of the absolute. A creator is needed who through creative gestures will transform these contents, these essences, into form: “Every ornament is a projection of the soul; internal emotional expressionism cannot be impressionistic either, the laws of the soul are strictly endowed. Tales do not rape the spirit of reality, since they derive from the identical; they recognize that they are one with the possibility, thus, what they are dealing with falls under the one law. The ornament, likewise, does not ravage with its moods the phenomena, neither with sense, nor with

I NTERIOR

knowledge. But it awakens our sense of human of rhythm and balance, and underscores them in things.”23 The opening of the ‘Eight’ exhibition and the accompanying events24 had an atmosphere of easiness, openness and release, to which Lesznai greatly contributed with her personality and her role as “hostess.”25 She turned these events into cosy, intimate affairs. In her recollections written to István Varró she relates amusing

WITH CUSHIONS BY

A NNA L ESZNAI

M AGYAR I PARMÛVÉSZET , 1912

titbits about the opening.26 In her novel “In the beginning was the garden”,27 Lesznai recalls with similar buoyancy a family scandal caused by a nude – “all balls.”28 Whether Lesznai really sat for a nude painting by one of the Eight is uncertain, but an ink drawing of a reclining female nude by Dezsô Orbán is dedicated to Lesznai.29 At the 1912 exhibition of the Eight, Lesznai did not participate as an exhibitor, although she gladly took part in the related events,30 viewing

485

25_LESZNAI_TOROK_ENG

B ASKET IN

2/7/11

7:00 PM

F LOWERS , C . 1911

THE CENTER AND BELOW :

Page 486

•

C AT . N O . 234

CUSHIONS

I NTERIOR

A NNA L ESZNAI

AND A PAINTING BY J ÓZSEF

R IPPL -R ÓNAI , 1911

ANNA LESZNAI, 1911

the Eight as her spiritual partner and maintaining close friendship with several of its members. In every aspect of her life, as a designer and artist31, when teaching32, and in her personal relationships33 she strove for creating a true spiritual home and community, even after the early 1910s. Meanwhile she consistently undertook what she avowed in 1912: “There are fundamental laws governing us human beings (laws of bal-

ance and harmony, rhythm and order), which […] would like to conquer the world, everything. These unknown […] laws, which need to be explored, are the laws of beauty in us. Now, since we cannot conquer the whole world, we take satisfaction in symbolic Dionysian games. We search for a new plain upon which we can, seemingly, carry out this world conquest. That is art.”34

Notes

486

WITH CUSHIONS BY

Anna Lesznai’s letter to István Varró, [11 November 1958]. “A legkülönbek közé tartozik”. Lesznai Anna visszaemlékezései Berény Róbetre. Közreadja: Török Petra. [“He is among the most excellent.” Anna Lesznai’s recollections about Róbert Berény. Published by Petra Török]. Enigma, 14. No 51. 2007. 113. Conversation with Anna Lesznai, 23 June 1965. Erzsébet Vezér: Megôrzött öreg hangok. Válogatott interjúk [Old voices preserved. Selected interviews]. Budapest, 2004. 161. Bálint Aladár: A „Nyolcak” [The ‘Eight’]. Magyar Nyomdászat, 24, 1911, 5. 136–137. – Az Utak III.: 142. On this see Petra Török: “…kivágás a mágikus végtelen szônyegébôl” Lesznai Anna textilmunkái, hímzései és elfeledett manufaktúrája [“… cutout from the magical endless carpet.” The textiles, embroideries and forgotten creations of Anna Lesznai]. A gödöllôi szônyeg 100 éve. Ed. Cecília Ôriné Nagy. Gödöllô, 2009. 76. Besides the ‘Eight’ exhibition, the Interior Decoration exhibition of December 1911, which opened at the Technológiai és Iparmúzeum, certainly stands out, as do the National Exhibition of Local Industry in Miskolc, at which Lesznai received the “Grand Certificate of Honour,” and her debut at the Ernst Múzeum. Here, in addition to an exhibition of works by Adolf Fényes, two rooms were, according to accounts, filled with pieces by Lesznai, mostly embroidered pillows and curtains. See, for example: Az Utak III: 450, 453.

See: “I don’t write – nor do I live an active life – I produce many pillows – I select silks – this is such a cloistered occupation – which tires me, but does not absorb me.” Anna Lesznai’s letter to György Lukács, September 1910. Lukács György levelezése (1902–1917) [Correspondences of György Lukács (1901–1917)]. Ed. Éva Fekete, Éva Karádi. Budapest, 1981. 245. “while I transported pillows by the deadline.” Anna Lesznai and Margit Kaffka’s letter to György Lukács, early January 1913. Ibid., 513. Lesznai’s active participation in local and international exhibitions and her participation in the art trade were made possible by the establishment of a workshop in Zemplén. According to the sources she provided work for some sixty women for several winters. See Kálmán Brogyányi: Festômûvészet Szlovenszkóban [Painting in Slovakia]. Kassa,1931. 109. The journal A Lakás also mentioned that women from Upper Hungary carried out Lesznai’s designs: “What associations, campaigns and institutions could not achieve over the course of decades, this interesting and brilliant woman managed to do alone in just two years. Her art keeps hundreds of needles busy and provides bread to those energies that had been reduced to indolence for centuries. The work of Anna Lesznai thus has not only artistic, but also social, significance. The women and girls of Körtvélyes and its environs, where the artist lives, work feverishly on these colourful canvases and silks; they take great joy in their work.” A Lakás, 2, 1912, 9–10. 22; Az Utak III: 498. Anna Lesznai: Háziipar és népmûvészet [Home industry and folk art]. Magyar Iparmûvészet, 16. 1913. 369–376.

25_LESZNAI_TOROK_ENG

18 19 20

2/7/11

7:00 PM

Page 487

The family’s solid financial situation – an income from their 4000 square hold property in Zemplén – made circumstances easier for Lesznai, and she was very aware of this: “Her wealth placed a divide between her and her friends. […] They could feel how she dragged the fields of Liszka behind her, like an invisible barge.” Anna Lesznai: Kezdetben volt a kert [In the beginning was the garden]. Budapest, 1966. II.: 159. Many critiques of her work mention her successful sales, too: “I don’t think any of them will remain unsold.” Károly Sztrakoniczky: A “Nyolcak” [The ‘Eight’]. Alkotmány, 29 April 1911. 1-3. Az Utak III: 118; “The audience that crowded to see the ‘Eight’ exhibition, perhaps only instinctively, noticed these qualities and honoured the artist with an unprecedented level of demand for her products.” R. P. [Pál Relle]: Lesznai Anna hímzései [The embroideries of Anna Lesznai]. Aurora, 6 May 1911. 185–186. Az Utak III: 151; “The audience greedily grabs up these embroideries and order dozens of copies of them, and we can only be glad at this popularity, which is rarely so justly and deservedly bestowed as now.” A Lakás, 2, 1912, 9–10. 22. Az Utak III.: 498. Gergely Barki: “A tû Gauguinje” – Berény Róbert hímzései [The Gauguin of the needle. The embroideries of Róbert Berény]. A gödöllôi szônyeg 100 éve. Ed. Cecília Ôriné Nagy. Gödöllô, 86–90. On Anna Lesznai’s approach to ornaments and the sources of the folk art she used, see: Petra Török: Formába kerekedett világ. Lesznai Anna ornamentális világszemlélete irodalmi és mûvészeti hagyatékának és naplójegyzeteinek tükrében [The world taking shape. Anna Lesznai’s ornamental world view as reflected in her literary and artistic legacy and journal entries]. Ornamentika és modernizmus. Ed. Ágnes Szikra. Budapest, 2006. 42–49. Works from the bequest of Anna Lesznai are preserved in the following public collections: Budapest, Budapesti Történeti Múzeum Kiscelli Múzeuma; Budapest, Petôfi Irodalmi Múzeum; Budapest, Magyar Nemzeti Galéria; Budapest, Magyar Zsidó Múzeum és Levéltár; Hatvan, Hatvany Lajos Múzeum; Pécs, Janus Pannonius Múzeum; and Salgótarján, Nógrádi Történeti Múzeum, Ernô Mihályfi collection. See: Mese a nagy fáról [Tale about a large tree]. Excerpt from the journal entries of Anna Lesznai. [c. 1912] PIM Manuscript Archive, inv. no.: V. 3670/43. Sorsával tetováltan önmaga – Válogatás Lesznai Anna naplójegyzeteibôl [Herself, tattooed by her fate. Selected diary entries of A. L.] Ed. Petra Török. Budapest, 2010. 100. Endre Ady also bought works by Lesznai at the ‘Eight’ exhibition. See: A “Nyolcak” [The ‘Eight’].” Világ, 9 May 1911.12. Az Utak III: 157. “During this period, I did a lot of beautiful handiwork, embroideries, and adaptations from folk art. I exhibited these and some of my designs, and Ady came to the exhibition.” Vezér 2004. op. cit. 161. From the Eight circle, not only Lesznai, but Dezsô Czigány also designed a title page for Ady’s volume Vér és arany. Czigány established a close friendship with the poet at this time. Hatvan, Hatvany Lajos Múzeum, inv. no.: 75.77.1 and 75.77.1. Lesznai 2007. i. m. 113. Magda Csécsy, daughter of the radical bourgeois politician Imre Csécsy (who was also secretary to Oszkár Jászi), vacationed in Körtvélyes for several years from 1934 on. Interview with Magda Csécsy. 21 October 2002 (Property of the author). Extract from Anna Lesznai’s journal. PIM Manuscript Archive, inv. no. V. 3670/43/10. Lesznai 2010. op.cit. Géza Feleky: Szobrok, érmék [Sculptures, medals]. Nyugat, 4, 1911, 10. I: 993. Az Utak III: 183. Extract from Anna Lesznai’s journal. PIM Manuscript Archive, inv. no.: V. 3670/43/8. Lesznai 2010. op.cit. Lesznai also took part in the accompanying events of the 1911 exhibition. On 13 May 1911, she read a story in the company of Gyula Szini, Ernô Szép and Frida Gombaszögi. Felolvasás a “Nyolcaknál”-nál [A reading at the Eight]. Világ, 12 May 1911, 12. Az Utak III: 166. “Because she is the hostess of the exhibition, you must bid her farewell with a grateful kiss on the hand,” wrote Géza Feleky. “Nyolcakt” kiállítása a Nemzeti Szalonban [‘Eight’show in the National Salon. Intro. Géza Feleky]. Budapest, 1911. 13.

26 27

28 29

Lesznai 2007. i. m. 113–114. Lesznai 1966. II: 252-261. On the key characters in the novel, see Csilla Markója: Három kulcsregény és három sorsába zárt “Vasárnapos” – Lesznai Anna, Ritoók Emma és Kaffka Margit találkozása a válaszúton [Three key novels and three Sundayists “locked” in their fates. The encounter of Anna Lesznai, Ritoók and Margit Kaffka at the crossroads]. Enigma, 14. No 52. 2007. 67–108. Lesznai’s artistic efforts, connections and her approach to life during this period were reflected in Margit Kaffka’s novel Állomások, in which features of Lesznai’s personality and circumstances are echoed in the figure of Éva Rosztoky. Lesznai 1966. II: 261. Dezsô Orbán: Reclining female nude, 1910. Ink and wash, paper, 162 x 285 mm, j. j. l. (signed lower right) MNG, inv. no.: 60.115 T. “Annának, igaz baráti megbecsüléssel Orbán Dezsô 1910. feb. 3 [To Lesznai Anna, with the appreciation of a true friend, Dezsô Orbán, 3 Feb 1910].” (R: 520) Reading at the Eight exhibition, 28 November 1912. Lesznai read three poems at the event. Elôadás a Nyolcak kiállításán [Performance at the Eight exhibition]. Az Ujság, 29 November 1912. Az Utak III: 496. After 1920, Lesznai’s interests in peasant genre painting took precedence over her work in the applied arts. During this period she participated in several group exhibitions in Vienna and she became a member of Hagenbund. In 1931, after she moved back to Budapest, she took part in a number of exhibitions (such as KUT) in the Nemzeti Szalon, Mûcsarnok, and Ernst Múzeum. In 1919, during the Hungarian Soviet Republic, Anna Lesznai worked for the Commission for Education of the Hungarian Soviet Republic and prepared the art curriculum for primary and secondary schools. In 1931 she returned to Budapest, where she taught design at Dezsô Orbán’s school of applied arts, Atelier. In 1939, Anna Lesznai and Tibor Gergely escaped Nazism by emigrating to the United States. There Lesznai continued her efforts in art education: she held lectures

on Hungarian art and ran courses in applied art. Later, in New York she launched her own school for painting. After the fall of the Hungarian Soviet Republic, Lesznai emigrated to Vienna, where she also lead an active social life. Summers, she spent a great deal of time at her estate in Körtvélyes, where she received as her guests the leading artists and thinkers of the period. Extract from the Anna Lesznai’s journal. PIM Maunscript Archive, inv. no. V. 3670/43/1. (1912). Lesznai 2010. Op.cit.

E RVIN K ÖRMENDI F RIM : C ORNER

A NNA L ESZNAI : C USHION , 1911 A TELIER . A S TILL L IFE , C . 1911

OF AN

487

25_LESZNAI_TOROK_ENG

488

2/7/11

A NNA L ESZNAI : D ESIGN

7:00 PM

FOR THE

Page 488

A DY P ILLOW II, 1910 S

•

C AT . N O . 243

25_LESZNAI_TOROK_ENG

2/7/11

7:00 PM

Page 489

A NNA L ESZNAI : A DY P ILLOW , 1910 S

•

C AT . N O . 253

489

25_LESZNAI_TOROK_ENG

490

2/7/11

A NNA L ESZNAI : E MBROIDERY

7:00 PM

DESIGNS ,

1910 S

Page 490

25_LESZNAI_TOROK_ENG

2/7/11

7:00 PM

Page 491

L ESZNAI A NNA : D ESIGN

FOR THE

A DY P ILLOW I, 1910 S

•

C AT .

NO .

241

491

25_LESZNAI_TOROK_ENG

492

2/7/11

A NNA L ESZNAI : E MBROIDERY

7:00 PM

DESIGNS ,

1910 S

Page 492

25_LESZNAI_TOROK_ENG

2/7/11

7:00 PM

Page 493

493

26_VEDRES_RUM_ENG

2/7/11

3:21 PM

A T T I L A

Page 494

R U M

MÁRK VEDRES

A DOLF F ÉNYES : M ÁRK V EDRES , C . 1908

“Márk Vedres has now granted the Eight their deserved recognition by releasing several of their works to the Budapest public” – wrote Géza Feleky in the May of 1911, thus claiming no less than that the participation of Márk Vedres (1870–1961) was an honour for Kernstok and his associates, and that his statues raised the standard of the Eight-exhibition to a significant extent.2 At this time Vedres had not exhibited in Hungary for years, but news of his activities in Florence was constantly brought to Hungary through the good offices of Hungarians returning from Italy. Around 1911 it appeared most probable that Vedres would remain abroad permanently and due to his extraordinary talent as a sculptor, he had a good chance of aspiring to world renown. The fact that this did not happen is due primarily to personal, political and economic reasons rather than artistic ones.

494

Vedres was born in 1870 in Ungvár (now Uzshorod. The Ukraine), originally under the name of Weinberger. His father Sámuel Weinberger was a well-to-do mill owner and dealer in agricultural produce, so his family was not in need. As his choice of career was left up to him, he was led by his love of drawing to the Ungvár Ceramics Technical College, where he studied for four years. Using his paternal inheritance to travel to Munich in 1889, he began to work in Simon Hollósy’s private school. Here he got to know Károly Kernstok, with whom he formed not just a close friendship, but later on also a family relationship. Neither he nor Kernsok, however, were among Hollósy’s favourites. “He told me I drew like a sculptor. And I did not even dare show him what I had painted.” – recalled Vedres in an interview.3 He studied drawing and painting with Hollósy, and dabbled in sculpting on the side in a Munich private school of sculpture. As a stay of six months in Munich had consumed his inheritance, he was forced to find a position in Fives ceramics works, close to Lille in France. He worked here for several years, then took on ornamentation work alongside a Flemish sculpture, which created a financial basis for his long awaited trip to Paris. At the repeated urgings of Kernstok he arrived in the French capital in 1894, where he apparently enrolled in the Julian Academy.4 In Paris, Vedres was already concentrating exclusively on sculpture. At first he was taught by Denys Puech, a professor of sculpture at the Julian, then he worked alongside an English sculptor living in Paris. His next few years were spent under the enchantment of Auguste Rodin and the creation of a “great work”. His first major success was Cain, which on his own admission was produced under the direct influence of Rodin’s advice.5 The unverifiable story of a close relationship between Vedres and Rodin may be presumed, as this life-sized male nude clearly reflects influence of Saint John the Baptist, created by the French master in 1878.6

According to the story, Vedres’s “nude, reflecting anguish of soul and displaying muscles with naturalistic realism”, only won the approval of Rodin after multiple consultations and modifications.7 Vedres displayed the painted plaster of Paris sculpture first of all in the 1899 annual salon of the Paris Société des Artistes Français, then not much later at the international spring exhibition in the Mûcsarnok.8 The sculpture provided its creator with instant success, not only winning him a scholarship from the onetime Baron József Rudics foundation, but this work was also immediately purchased with state funding for the collection of the Museum of Fine Arts. Perhaps no other young sculptor at the beginning of his career had acquired such rapid success in Hungary as Vedres with this work, clearly created in the style of Rodin. The French master had introduced a radically new vision to European sculpture at the end of the nineteenth century. Whilst the period rewarded and supported plastic arts with historical and literary subjects, Rodin was occupied primarily with questions of form and the problems of surface and contours, at the same time paying attention to the fact that differing materials, such as marble, bronze and plaster of Paris, required different sculptural approaches. As his disciple, Vedres became the first Hungarian sculptor who can be truly called modern. Enthusiastic about the unexpected success, other life-sized sculptures by Vedres were displayed at further exhibitions in the Mûcsarnok. Extremely expensive and labourintensive figures, created under the charm of Rodin, such as the Scythe Beater (1899) or Adam and Eve (1911), in spite of excellent press, did not produce for him the long awaited state commissions.9 In the meantime, the artist who had formerly exhibited as Weinberger magyarised his name to Vedres in the course of the year 1900, as evidenced by the exhibition catalogues. Vedres stated in a later interview, “I did not, however, receive a single commission from the

26_VEDRES_RUM_ENG

2/7/11

3:22 PM

Page 495

functionaries of Old Hungary, and so struggling with financial difficulties, I could only express in small statues, what I had intended as large-sized sculptures.”10 The prelude to this statement reaches back to the turn of the century. The metropolitan administration had decided in 1894 to honour Lajos Kossuth with a worthy tomb.11 The competition for the Kossuth Mausoleum was announced at the beginning of 1900, specifying two years for the completion of the competitive works. Vedres and architects Marcell Komor and Dezsô Jakab submitted a joint competition design with the motto “Hungarian Spirit”, with the sculptural ornamentation including two sculptured figures beside the entrance, as well as a statue group of the family mourning over Lajos Kossuth’s body in front of the main façade. In the end, architect Kálmán Gerster and sculptor Alajos Stróbl were victorious in the competition. The winner Stróbl, however, had participated in the elaboration of the competition and the construction conditions, in fact, he had earlier been a member of the committee which judged the competition, although it is true he did not have a place on the final jury. A good number of the official commissions of the period involved similarly strange circumstances. Vedres did not have much luck with Kossuth, because a few years later he had a similar disappointment in connection with another Kossuth statue.12 On the recommendation of József Rippl-Rónai, in the autumn of 1909 he was asked to produce a sample design for a Kossuth statue to be erected in Kaposvár. Besides him, Ede Kallós and a local sculptor János Kopits received similar requests at the same time. Resigning from the statue committee shortly afterwards, Rónai wrote in a letter to his brother, “I’m very sorry to have led the poor man on, and that Kaposvár cannot claim to have the most artistic statue. [...] Today, I consider Vedres to be the best. I don’t think I’m wrong, in spite of the highly puffed-up names.”13 As numerous relatives of the local sculptor also had places on the so-called collection committee appointed to raise the funds for the statue, in the end the statue committee allowed Kopits’s design, artistically the weakest entry, to be realised.14 Occurrences such as these quite rightly discouraged artists with a similar talent to Vedres, though with a weak tailwind, from taking part in the official competitions. Commuting between Paris and Budapest at the turn of the century, Vedres was seeking the opportunity for a breakthrough. In Paris he regularly attended Rodin’s Saturday gatherings, where he could meet the cream of the French intelligentsia. In the meantime, he was continuously featured in exhibitions at the Mûcsarnok and the National Salon, where with his works in the style of Rodin, he became increasingly

known to the Hungarian public as a representative of the most modern sculptural trend. A point of interest is that the winter exhibition of the Mûcsarnok in 1901–1902, which also featured three works by Vedres, was visited by close to forty thousand people and nine thousand catalogues were sold during opening times.15 And then a change occurred quite suddenly, driving Vedres’s artistic career in an unforeseen and unexpected direction. In 1902 he married Matild Pollacsek, thus acquiring close ties not only with the Pollacseks, but also the Polányi, Seidler, Léderer and Stricker families. These rich and influential Jewish families then provided an excellent cultur-

circle of Rodin whom he so admired and respected, and why was it in Florence that he became the great master of modern small bronzes? Or why did he not settle in Budapest, when at the turn of the century, besides the earlier exclusive state commissions, even here at home new fields were opening up for sculptors, such as the profitable tasks of decorating homes, gardens and cemeteries? Several years later, István Dömötör wrote that the independent genius of Vedres is proven most eloquently by the fact that he managed to break free from the influence of Rodin and so he did not become a Rodin caricature of the Medardo Rosso type.17 Vedres himself

J ÓZSEF R IPPL -R ÓNAI : M ÁRK V EDRES , 1909–1910 (M ISSING )

al and financial basis for the Vedreses to prosper. The young couple travelled to Florence on honeymoon, and an interview with Matild Pollacsek gives information on what happened here, “When they arrived they became very attached to the city, but the wife fell ill not long afterwards. Vedres wandered round the city alone, and when he returned home, he said: - I’ll either commit suicide, or start my art from the beginning. – Then he started working under the influence of the classicists.”16 Besides this beautiful moral story of artistic calling, the real reasons for this radical change have never emerged, or at least they have not been made public. The question is, why did Vedres not remain in Paris in the

recalled this Herculean crossroads in his life in this way, “This path undoubtedly seemed daring at that time: in contrast to the fashionable sculpture reflecting the influence of Rodin, working with picturesque effects and with a powerful literary content, but for this very reason popular, I don’t deny that it was perhaps on the impulse of Maillol and Hildebrand, to set out on a path which in opposition to all this introduced into sculpture reserve instead of broad gestures, monumental materiality instead of literary content, and the hard, static discipline of the rhythmic distribution of masses instead of picturesque softness.”18 Vedres was enthralled by the creations of Donatello and Verrocchio, as well as other mas-

495

26_VEDRES_RUM_ENG

2/7/11

3:22 PM

Page 496

terpieces of the Italian Renaissance which could be studied in the originals. He then set himself the goal of pure sculptural depiction of the human form, free from all genre features. The chief representatives of this fin-de-siècle, modern classicising trend were not contemporary Italians, but German sculptors and painters working in Italy. In Florence, Vedres got to know one of the twentieth-century creators of modern European sculpture, Adolf von Hildebrand. Apparently on his advice, he began to concentrate on small bronzes, which for one thing enabled him to work more rapidly and experiment at a brisker pace, though the easier marketability of small statues may also have been an important factor in the choice. Regardless of his settling in Florence, however, Vedres’s connection with Hungarian art remained unbroken, and in the summer of 1903 he displayed works in the guest exhibition of the Kálmán Könyves Salon in Leipzig. As a pioneering undertaking, the exhibition introduced the German public for the first time to the masterpieces of modern Hungarian pictorial and sculptural art, where Vedres exhibited in the company of others including Károly Ferenczy, Rippl-Rónai and Kernstok.19 From the spring of 1904, he was already sending his small bronzes, conceived in a new, classicising spirit, to the Mûcsarnok exhibitions, thus having one or two of his works featured constantly for the Hungarian public. In 1905, Ödön Gerô wrote the following on his works on show in Budapest,” Vedres […] exhibits classically noble, simple and grandiose bronze nudes”.20 Whilst Vilmos Fémes Beck became acquainted with the Greek-Roman classicists through the mediation of Hildebrand’s disciple Georg Roemer, Vedres’s attention was drawn to antiquity, and to the sculpture of the Italian Renaissance which flourished in its wake, by Hildebrand himself, working each summer in the vicinity of Florence. Acquaintance with Hildebrand and the German sculptors working in his circle, as well as through them with the artistic principles of Hans von Marées, resulted in a fundamental change in the mentality of Vedres as a sculptor. Strange as it may seem, modern visual art at the turn of the century was still multipolar. Around 1910, there still existed a classicising trend in modern art, which for a few years appeared just as self-evident to contemporaries as later the incursion of the avant-garde, taking revenge on tradition and sweeping all before it. The painting of the German Hans von Marées appeared just as modern at that time as the art of Cézanne, Gauguin, Van Gogh or even Matisse, generating a multitude of isms. György Lukács, who occupies a central position in the history of the Eight, said the following in connection with the subject, “I do not consider belonging to the Hildebrand school

496

A UGUSTE R ODIN : S AINT J OHN

THE

B APTIST , 1878

to be a fault; looking down on the Hildebrand circle is a superficial attitude. I cannot adhere to the opinions of today’s art historians on this issue. The effect of Hans von Marées, who was a great artist, and Hildebrand in the course of the different development in Germany, distinct from that of Paris, was like that of Cézanne in France. It is unnecessary to diminish the merits of Hildebrand, and the rehabilitation of Hans von Marées is an essential obligation. [...] Vedres’s classicism was not conservative. [...] we sought the path from impressionism towards composite, synthetic art. Vedres’s type of classicism naturally fits into this line of development. His joining Kernstok’s group was self-evident, we see complete harmony between them.”21 Vedres, who fashioned almost exclusively nudes from 1903, was also modern in his choice of subjects. He was therefore considered a modern artist in his own period, even though this is not quite so obvious in the light of Cubism, Futurism and others isms. Numerous art historians over the last half century, from Károly Lyka to József Vadas, have not known what to do with the fact that Kernstok and his associates chose Vedres (and Fémes Beck) as companions-in-arms at the 1911 exhibition of the Eight, considered a milestone in the history of modern Hungarian art.22 On the basis of all this it can be clearly seen, that for Vedres, a straight road led from the few years of close working relationship with the

Hildebrand circle of Florence to fusion with the Eight. In the case of Vedres and Fémes Beck, the influence of antiquity filtered through Marées is obvious, but in connection with the contemporary painting of Kernsok, Pór and Márffy from among the other painters, it is also an important trend requiring further research. Czigány and Orbán had attained a distinctive, individual version of Classicism by 1912, whereas on the basis of their known works, Berény, Tihanyi and Czóbel were not touched by this first wave of Neoclassicism at the turn of the century. I consider all this important to establish, so that it can be understood why the role of Vedres (and Fémes Beck) was decisive in the history of the Eight, and how a more accurate knowledge of the lifework of these sculptors shapes earlier ingrained views with regard to the artists’ group. According to the latest research, modern Hungarian visual art was kindled at the joint focus of French and German influences, the beginnings which crystallised out at the beginning of the century displaying the collective incentives of these, the two greatest cultural nations of Europe. The art of the Eight between 1909 and 1912 is one of the most outstanding collections of examples for clear a presentation of these joint roots. The relationship of Vedres and Kernsok as artists and friends, much closer than family ties, was the starting point for the process which reached a peak in the great exhibition of the Eight in the year 1911. Vedres mentioned in several interviews, that Kernstok (who following the death of his father in the autumn of 1906 moved to Paris with his family, and lived there until 1909) sent him a photo-print of one of Aristide Maillol’s works in 1907.23 Maillol’s “ancient, lapidary Egyptian plastic art” was considered at this time in Paris to be one of the chief alternatives to the “impressionist sculpture” represented by Rodin.24 Kernstok paid Vedres a visit in 1908, and here he also met György Lukács who was travelling to Florence for the first time. According to Lukács’s admission, he learnt a lot from conversations with Vedres at this time, but even more on the occasion of his next, longer stay in Florence in the winter of 1910–1911. “I have a lot to thank Márk Vedres for. I was young and not well enough informed on the visual arts. […] During conversations and interchanges with him I acquired many insights which I would only have achieved much more slowly in my own strength. I had to proceed from impressionism towards an art of synthetic character – this was the way out for me. I also expressed this in the contribution I made to Kernsok’s dispute.”25 It appears, therefore, that the aesthetics of the Eight crystallised out chiefly as a result of the time spent together and the friendly interchanges of three men, Kernsok, Lukács and

26_VEDRES_RUM_ENG

2/7/11

3:22 PM

Page 497

Vedres. Also in 1908, Vedres produced the sepulchre for Kernstok’s father, which on his own admission was one of his finest works in this genre. The large-scale bronze relief depicting the intimate duo of father and son combined classics and modernity according to the Hildebrand rules of relief plastics.26 Although Vedres exhibited for the last time in the Mûcsarnok in the spring of 1907, his distancing himself from the citadel of official art did not at all mean that he withdrew from the public life of Hungarian visual arts. In 1909 he entered for and also won the Franz Joseph coronation jubilee prize, which had been announced for sculptors by the capital in that year.27 As an interesting intermezzo, in the spring of 1909 Vedres and others were elected into membership of the MIÉNK, a group wishing to become independent of the Mûcsarnok, but by the time the society held its last exhibition in the following year, Vedres and the other future members of the Eight on display here had already moved in a completely different direction. In 1909 Otília Marchisiu, later the wife of art critic György Bölöni and christened Itóka by Ady Endre, wrote an important article on Maillol in the journal Mûvészet [Art].28 Of the Maillol works reproduced in the piece, the Youth was just as much an effortlessly simple, naturally animated depiction of the human form, free from all false pathos, as any of the works of Vedres created after 1904.29 And although Vedres could have been informed of the activities of Maillol through his friendship with József Rippl-Rónai (as the lives of the latter two artists were closely linked at several points), the desire for style inherent in the spirit of the age appears more determinative in connection with the similar works of the two sculptors.30 Independently of one another, Maillol from the direction of ancient Greek sculpture and Vedres by means of Italian Renaissance art, they arrived at a quintessentially clarified classicising and yet modern sculptural idiom. In her article mentioned above, Itóka appreciated Maillol in 1909 as “the first truly modern, intimate French sculptor”, and on the basis of this, Vedres has the right to be called the first truly modern, intimate Hungarian sculptor. In the October of 1909, Vedres was commissioned to create a commemorative plaque for writer and sociographer Ede Harkány. Harkányi was one of the founder members of the Martinovics Lodge, the most radical body of Freemasonry in Hungary. This Lodge considered its chief Masonic duties to be the achievement of equality of general, secret suffrage, the introduction of compulsory, free public education independently of religious confession, and the democratic transformation of all spheres of society. Károly Kernstok was also a member of the Lodge, as were György

M ÁRK V EDRES : R ELIEF

OF THE MEMORIAL TOMB OF

Bölöni, Ödön Gerõ, József Vágó and Géza Lengyel among the promoters and supporters of the later Eight. This commission also proves that not only was Vedres in close contact with Hungarian Freemasonry, but was also a personal friend of those members urging for the most radical and the most extensive transformation.31 Also in the October of 1909, Vedres visited Kecskemét in the company of Béla Iványi Grünwald and Elek Falus in order to discuss the matter of the artists’ colony to be established there. According to reports in the local papers, they

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOCK S NR , 1908 (M ISSING )

carried out successful negotiations with Mayor Elek Kada, and at that time Vedres is still mentioned as one who would be happy to move from Florence to Kecskemét.32 Subsequently this did not happen, however, and neither did Vedres participate in the first exhibition of the Eight with the title “New Pictures” at the turn of 1909–1910. Although Vedres and Kernstok were very good friends, the sculptor got on just as well with József Rippl-Rónai, whose works at the final exhibition held by the MIÉNK in early 1910 included a portrait depicting Vedres.33 Vedres and Rippl-

497

26_VEDRES_RUM_ENG

2/7/11

3:22 PM

Page 498

A RISTIDE M AILLOL : T HE C YCLIST , 1907

Rónai remained friends despite the misfortune over the Kaposvár Kossuth statue competition, the most eloquent proof of which is the few lines with which Rippl concluded the volume of his Memoires written in 1910, “Unfortunately, our sculptors are diverted from real artistic work and from modelling their own immediate feelings by

498

participation in perpetual great competitions. [...] In their smaller works, in every instance we have come across true artistic intentions, as for instance in Márk Vedres’s small bronzes, who lives far away from our movements and competitions, and freely follows the promptings of his artistic feelings.”34 Furthermore, in 1910 Vedres was probably still a member of the MIÉNK (his membership presumably ceased together with the dissolution of the artists’ society), and although no statues were featured in any of the society’s exhibitions, either by Vedres or by any of the other sculptor members, he still did not wish to participate in the “secession” of Kernstok and his associates. A mere eighteen months later in 1911 he joined the group as a guest artist in their second, most significant exhibition. Both admirers and critics of the 1911 exhibition spoke with recognition of Vedres’s bronze statues depicting female nudes which were displayed at that time.35 Prominent among the many enthusiastic promoters of the exhibition, which aroused a huge press response, was György Bölöni, who introduced the members of the Eight in a series of monographic articles in the art and literature weekly Aurora. He launched this series on the 8th of April with appreciation for Vedres’s art, three weeks before the opening of the Eight exhibition. He wrote, “If we are gripped by bitterness in the midst of Hungarian statues, we are comforted by one hope:- We have someone down in Florence after all. Someone who is an artist and can make statues. And with love and intimacy we utter the name of our Florentine comforter, that of Márk Vedres, whose few, handbreadth statues we rarely come across among Hungarian amateurs. [...] And Márk Vedres’s tiny bronzes, returning home from his Florentine seclusion, signify the whole art of sculpture in Hungary today. [...] Vedres’s statues draw attention to what the human body is, the significance of which has been forgotten by Hungarian sculptors. This crucial and decidedly sculptural research appears in his work as a special goal. [...] A sculptor, who is interested in the real tasks of a sculptor, who works in the most honest way, who in tiny bodies presents us with the splendid monumentality of naked nature, who has no hidden intentions, just a single magnificent goal: the unconditional discovery of bodily forms: this is the Hungarian sculptor Márk Vedres. And these few words that I now say about him are enough to demonstrate: how much Márk Vedres stands alone, pre-eminent and unrivalled in Hungarian sculpture.”36 Bölöni was not exaggerating when he honoured Vedres as the most modern representative of Hungarian sculpture of around 1910, though in the face of the sculptural achievements of Fémes Beck, Fülöp Ö. Beck and Ferenc Medgyessy, just

A RISTIDE M AILLOL : S TANDING N UDE , 1900.

as modern and equally outstanding, the exclusive formulation of the article appears a little unjust. Of the three Vedres statues exhibited at this time, only the larger, bronze variant of the Woman Combing her Hair is accessible today, the present whereabouts of the others is unknown. Unfortunately, the greater number of his works produced

26_VEDRES_RUM_ENG

2/7/11

3:22 PM

Page 499

in this period are only known from photographs, as they fell prey to art collectors on visits to Florence, chiefly Americans. The few dozen small bronzes and reliefs which were produced in the decade between 1904 and 1914 hold their own in every respect when compared with the masterpieces of contemporary European sculpture. As Gábor Goda wrote, “Vedres was one of the best masters of his generation, not only by Hungarian standards, but also internationally.”37 Vedres did not participate in the third and also final exhibition of the Eight, but then neither did Kernstok, the leader of the group, Czóbel “as usual”, or Czigány, Márffy and Anna Lesznai, “due to other artistic engagements” according to the catalogue”.38 With regard to what genuine reasons were glossed over by this diplomatic formulation, for lack of authoritative sources, we can only speculate. Because although it is true that both Kernstok, and Czigány and Márffy were fulfilling commissions for murals at this time, Pór, who was carrying out similar work, was not prevented from taking part in the exhibition. It is true that six of the members of the Eight took part in the great international exhibition of Cologne in 1912, as did Vedres and Fémes Beck, this was not as an independent group, but in the company of Rippl-Rónai, Bornemisza and Perlrott, among others. Besides this, Czigány had exhibited in the Mûcsarnok in spring and then Kernstok presented his latest works in September, and Lesznai at the end of November in the Ernst Museum.39 The conclusion to be drawn from all this is that the Eight as an independent artists’ group fell apart between May of 1911 and November of 1912 due to various reasons, perhaps not public but at the present unknown. Although Vedres continued to live in Florence, his connection with Hungarian artistic life remained unbroken even after the Eight period (1909–1912). In January of 1913, he was elected as a board member at the opening session of the socalled Artists’ Club of the Mûvészház led by Miklós Rózsa, which meeting occurred under scandalous circumstances.40 In the same year, one of the most insider analyses of Vedres’s art appeared in the journal Mûvészet [Art] from the pen of István Dömötör, appreciating his life’s achievements to date accompanied by 9 reproductions.41 Towards the end of his analysis, Dömötör notes the following, “A good few years ago, on two occasions we saw statues by Márk Vedres in the Könyves Kálmán galleries. In the exhibitions “Youth” and “New Pictures.”42 Well, this obvious mistake (as not a single work by Vedres was featured in these exhibitions) also bears witness to the fact that for the professional, Vedres’s art was completely undifferentiated from the early modern movements in Hungarian visual art, and more specifically, from the aspirations of the Eight.

In the next few paragraphs, I will just touch on the junctions in Verdes’s further career which shed light on later connections with members of the Eight. The greatest success in Vedres’s life up till then had been won as a guest of the Mûvészház in Vienna in 1914.43 Among the Hungarian material sent to the 39th spring exhibition of the Künstlerhaus in Vienna, Vedres displayed exclusively bronze statues depicting male and female nudes. The collection, in which works already exhibited with the Eight turned up once again, justifiably won the state small gold medal. Because of the First World War, which broke out not long afterwards, Vedres moved back to Budapest with his family. In 1915 he sent 12 of his works abroad from here, together with his portrait painted by Rippl-Rónai. At the most imposing American presentation of modern Hungarian visual art to date, Vedres’s bronzes were stylishly awarded a bronze medal.44 In 1917, Artúr Elek published an exhaustive analysis of the life’s work of Vedres in the journal Nyugat, which he concluded in the following way, “His art is fully finished and mature. What is lacking for his final break is nothing more than an appropriate challenge. It is sad that a talent such as Vedres’s had to develop in the absence of tasks worthy of it. But it is a much greater joy, that the new challenges of the approaching new age can be met by an artist such as he.”45 In the October of 1917 the Free School of Fine Arts, patterned after the Julian Academy in Paris, opened its doors in Haris Close, Budapest, where Vedres, Kernstok and Rippl-Rónai were engaged in correcting the young students. The three of them also exhibited works together in occupied Belgrade in the autumn of 1918. The exhibition was organised by Egon Kornstein, one of the members of the Waldbauer-Kerpely String Quartet which maintained close relations with the Eight, for the purpose of a peace demonstration desiring the ending of the war as soon as possible.46 In 1919 Vedres took on an active role in artistic life, positioned on new foundations by the Hungarian Soviet Republic. He had previously contributed to the organisation of a Balaton artists’ colony, then he received a commission from the College of Fine Arts to lead their summer retraining course for teachers of sculpture.47 Due to the brevity of existence of the Hungarian Soviet Republic, it was not possible for Vedres to create anything lasting in the spirit of the “new challenges of the new age” mentioned by Artúr Elek. Unfortunately, construction of the Pantheon planned for “the country’s prominent figures in politics, science, literature and the arts” was not carried out, and Vedres monument to Ervin Szabó, which would have been given a place here, also remained at the design stage.48 The “white” terror following the “red” commune

M ÁRK V EDRES : W OMAN C OMBING

HER

H AIR , 1910–1911

•

C AT .

NO .

462

26_VEDRES_RUM_ENG

2/7/11

3:22 PM

Page 500

also checked Vedres’s career. The so-called communist visual artists were all divested of their jobs and positions, and their opportunities to exhibit were greatly restricted. Following the overthrow, he first appeared before the public in an exhibition organised jointly with Czigány and Márffy in 1922.49 Vedres exhibited a collection of his works produced after 1914, in the greatest number to date, and comprising statues and reliefs made of bronze, marble and plaster of Paris, as well as works of applied art and jewellery made of chased silver. Simon Meller wrote of the exhibition in the journal Mûbarát, in which he stressed that Vedres’s adherence to the Hildebrand principles was unchanged, with the not insignificant difference that in contrast to the general practice of the German artists’ circle, he insisted on working from live models.50 As there is no trace in Meller’s piece of Vedres’s living once again in Italy at the time of the exhibition, in contrast to the conflicting details of recollections, the sculptor and his family presumably only moved back to Florence after May 1922. Here they opened an antique shop as a family enterprise together with his wife’s brother, and having become more financially secure, they bought a villa in nearby Fiesole in 1923. During his stay in Paris in 1924, thanks to József Csáky, Vedres became more closely familiar with the artistic principles of Cubism, now finally crystallised after two decades of development. The works of Vedres from the following two decades are hardly known in Hungary today. The greater part of the works produced in this period remained in Italy, or were scattered throughout the world thanks mainly to Swiss and American art collectors. The Great Depression of 1929 also swept the Vedreses into serious financial difficulties. Their businesses went bankrupt, so they were forced to settle back in Budapest for good in 1934. Hungarian critics and writings on art history have dealt relatively little until now with the art of Vedres from the 1930s. The material reproduced in Miklós Rózsa’s 1938 articles presented works with a spirit apparently radically different from earlier times.51 These photographs of works of for the most part unknown whereabouts prove that in the 1930s, Vedres had reached the borderline between depictive and abstract sculpture, although (like Picasso) he never did cross it. With their forms simplified to the extreme yet still classical, these statues convey the impression that their creator had committed their forms to the rounding effects of water from time immemorial, but before the chunks of stone depicting human figures were finally polished into amorphous growths, almost at the last moment, they were displayed as comM ÁRK V EDRES : W OMAN

500

WITH A J UG ,

1907 (M ISSING )

26_VEDRES_RUM_ENG

2/7/11

3:22 PM

Page 501

pleted artworks. Vedres displayed these works to the home audience chiefly at KUT (New Society of Visual Artists) exhibitions following his return to Hungary in 1934. In the 1940s, there was an unexpected return to a more realistic mode of depiction. The surface of the bronze male and female figures, previously polished mirror

smooth, became rougher and at the same time more sensitive. The small bronzes produced by Vedres in the 1940s bear witness to such a high degree of craftsmanship in sculpture, that it continues to provide their creator a place among the most outstanding sculptors in Europe (which was becoming increasingly distant).52 In both 1948

and 1960 Vedres received the Kossuth prize, one of the highest accolades of the Hungarian People’s Republic. The last work of the master who died at the age of 90 was the Well of Peace, begun in 1956, “for which he fashioned young boys in delightful motion”.53 As he had throughout his life.

Notes

2 3 4

6 7 8

14 15 16 17 18 19

One of the most important sources I drew on in the course of my research related to Márk Vedres was a collection of interviews from the estate of Béla Horváth, held in the HAS RIA. See the estate of Béla Horváth, HAS RIA, inv. no.: MDK–C–I–217. This collection is chiefly a treasure trove of information regarding Károly Kernstok, but also the other members of the Eight and guest artists such as Vedres. With respect to Vedres’s biographical data I chiefly relied on interviews in the same collection by Béla Horváth and Gyula Soós. Sources relevant to Vedres preponderantly consist of these post-1945 interviews which presented the artist a brilliant opportunity, consciously or not, to omit or overlook essential information and build and cherish his own myth, so they have to be treated with circumspection. Feleky, Géza: Szobrok, érmék [Sculptures, medals]in Nyugat, 4, 1911, II. 993–996 – Az Utak [The Roads Parted]III, p. 183. Interview by Béla Horváth with Márk Vedres, c. 1959 – the estate of Béla áth, HAS RIA Archives, inv. no.: MDK–C–I–217. Unfortunately the most complete list of the professors and students of the Julian Academy to date does not confirm this information. See Catherine Fehrer: The Julian Academy. Paris 1868–1939, New York, 1989. Márk Vedres: Cain, 1898–1899, painted plaster of Paris, 175 cm. HNG, inv. no.: 1705. Interview of Gyula Soós with Márk Vedres – the estate of Béla Horváth, HAS RIA Archives, inv. no.: MDK–C–I–217. “After Munich I went to Paris and was enchanted by the works of the great master Rodin. I showed him one of my small plastic works and he came to see Cain in my own studio. This work was largely created following his instructions” Artner, Tivadar: Beszélgetés a 85 éves Vedres Márkkal [Interview with the 85-year-old Márk Vedres] in Szabad Nép, 26 February 1956. 4. Auguste Rodin: Saint John the Baptist, 1878, bronze, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek Dömötör, István: Szobrok. Vedres Márk és munkái [Sculptures. Márk Vedres and his work]. Mûvészet, 12, 1913. 332. Société des Artistes Français. Le Salon de 1899, Paris, 1899, No 4006; Az Országos Tavaszi nemzetközi kiállítás, [The national spring international exhibition], Budapest, Mûcsarnok, 1899, No 102. Both works were destroyed. A smaller version (77 cm) of Adam and Eve exists in the collection of the HNG (HNG, inv. no.: 62.5–N.) Nagy, Tibor: Nem érzem magam öregnek, olyan munkaterveim vannak, mint soha – mondja a 80 éves Vedres Márk, Kossuthdíjas szobrászmûvész [I don’t feel old, I have more plans for works than ever before, says 80-year-old Kossuth Prize-winner sculptor Márk Vedres] in Kis Ujság, 17 September 1950, p. 6. Csorba E., Csilla: A Kossuth-mauzóleum építéstörténete” [The story of the construction of the Kossuth Mausoleum] in Ars Hungarica, 11, 1983, pp. 127–158; Réka Várallyay: Komor Marcell – Jakab Dezsô, Budapest, 2006. 63–64. Szilli, Gyula: A kaposvári Kossuth-szobor avatása [Unveiling the statue of Kossuth] in Somogy, 15, 1987, 4, 89–92; Ferenc Gáspár Ferenc: Az elsô szoborvita Kaposváron. A Kossuth szobor története [History of the statue of Kossuth], typed manuscript, 2010. Letter from József Rippl-Rónai to Ödön Rippl-Rónai, Kaposvár, 14 May 1910 – HNG Archives, inv. no.: 20408/1979/18b.; HAS RIA Archives, inv. no.: MKCS–C–I–36/593. Kopits’s work was unveiled on 4 September 1911. Mûvészeti hírek. Mûcsarnok, 13 January 1901. 44. Interview with Mrs Márk Vedres by Gyula Soós – estate of Béla Horváth, HAS RIA Archives, inv. no.: MDK–C–I–217. Dömötör 1913, op. cit. 326–334. Tibor Birkás: Négy Kossuth-díjas [Four Kossuth Prize winners] in Új Budapest, summer 1948. 24-25. Magyar képzômûvészeti kiállítás Lipcsében [Hungarian art exhibition in Leipzig]. Hazánk, 20 August 1903. 9 – Az Utak [The Roads Parted] I, 53–54; Magyar mûvészek Lipcsében [Hungarian artists in Leipzig]. Új Idôk, 15 November 1903. 465–466 and p. 464: interior of the exhibition.

23 24

25 26

27 28 29

32 33

34 35

36 37 38

39 40 41 42 43 44

(g.) [Ödön Gerô]: “Karácsonyi mûkiállítás” [Christmas art exhibition] in Pesti Napló, 24 November 1905.13 – Az Utak [The Roads Parted] I, p. 18. Heitler, László: “Vedres Márkról. Beszélgetés Lukács György akadémikussal” [About Márk Vedres. An interview with academician György Lukács] in Mûvészet, 15, 1971, 4,19–20. “Vedres was lumped under the Eight, yet he was imitating the Florentine quattrocento, so stylistically speaking he had nothing to do with them. I don’t know why [Kernstok] held Vedres’s sculptures in such high esteem given that they did not fit into the trend.” Interview by Béla Horváth with Károly Lyka, January 1957 – the estate of Béla Horváth, HAS RIA Archives, inv. no.: MDK–C–I–217. “Here’s a fact: the Márk Vedres of that time was primarily negation. He refused to fall in line with patriotism and making Millennium sculptures. But then neither was he partial to modernism” in Vadas, József: Vedres. Budapest, 16, 1978, 3, pp, 24-27. An interview by Béla Horváth with Márk Vedres – estate of Béla Horváth, HAS RIA Archives, inv. no.: MDK–C–I–217. –ml. [László Márkus]: Mindenféle kiállítások [All kinds of exhibition] Magyar Hirlap, 20 December 1908. 5 – Az Utak [The Roads Parted] I. 489. Heitler 1971, op. cit. 19–20. Márk Vedres: Relief for the tomb of Károly Alajos Kernstok, 1908, Kerepesi cemetery, lost – a picture of it in Mûvészet, 11, 1912. 112. Erdei, Gyöngyi: Mûpártoló Budapest 1873–1933, [Art patronage in Budapest 1873–1933], Budapest, 2003. 129. Kozmutza, Kornélné: Aristide Maillol. Mûvészet, 8, 1909. 287–295. Aristide Maillol: The cyclist (a statue of the racing cyclist Gaston Collin), 1907, bronze, 98.5 cm. Paris, Fondation Dina Vierny – Musée Maillol. See Bertrand Lorquin: Aristide Maillol, Geneva, 2002. 65 – a picture of it was published, with the title Young man, Mûvészet, 8, 1909. 288. Aristide Maillol: Standing Bather, 1900, bronze, 66 cm. Rotterdam, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, inv. no.: BEK 1281 (MK). A picture of it in Waldemar George: Aristide Maillol. Peintures et dessins, Neuchâtel, 1995, fig. Berényi, Zsuzsanna Ágnes: A Harkányi Ede plakett története [The history of the Ede Harkányi medal] in Numizmatikai Közlöny, 86/87, 1988. 174–177. See Az Utak [The Roads Parted] II, p. 150. 164–165, 194–195. M.I.É.N.K. III-ik kiállítás [The 3rd exhibition of MIÉNK], January–February 1910, Budapest, National Salon, 1910 – No. 45. Sculptor with a Black Beard, oil on canvas, private property. Rippl-Rónai József emlékezései [The recollections of József Rippl-Rónai], Budapest, 1911, p. 159. „Nyolcak” kiállítása a Nemzeti Szalonban [The exhibition of the “Eight” at the National Salon], intr. Géza Feleky, Budapest, 1911, no. 91: Woman with a Jug, [1907] bronze, 1000 crowns [HNG, inv. no.: 9249.]; no. 92: Woman Combing Her Hair, [1910] bronze, 16000 crowns (sic! presumably 1600) [formerly the property of the Ministry of Education, present whereabouts unknown]; no. 93: Woman Combing Her Hair, silver, 500 crowns [whereabouts unknown since 1911]. Bölöni, György: “Vedres Márk” Aurora, 8 April 1911, pp. 1–6 – Az Utak [The Roads Parted] III. 87–89. Goda, Gábor: Érték és mérték [Value and standard] Élet és Irodalom, 11 August 1962. 1. A Nyolcak harmadik tárlatának katalógusa [The exhibition of the third catalogue of the Eight], November–December 1912, Budapest, Nemzeti Szalon, 1912. See Az Utak [The Roads Parted] III. 418, 420 and 490. Új Mûvészet, 1, 1913, 3. 20. Dömötör 1913, op. cit. 326–334. Ibid., 334. Katalog der XXXIX. Jahresausstellung. Vienna, Künstlerhaus, 1914. Catalogue de Luxe of the Departement of Fine Arts Panama-Pacific International Exposition, John E. D. Trask, J. Nilsen Laurvik (eds.), San Francisco, 1915. Elek, Artúr: Vedres Márk. Nyugat, 10, 1917, II. 865–873 – Artúr Elek: Mûvészek és mûbarátok. Válogatott képzômûvészeti írások [Artists and friends of art] coll. and ed. Árpád Tímár, Budapest, 1996. 45.

48 49

50 51 52 53

Exhibition of Hungarian artists, Belgrade, Konak, September– October 1918, see Bálint, Zoltán: Magyar képzômûvészeti kiállítás Belgrádban 1918 ôszén” [Hungarian art exhibition in Belgrade] in Mûvészettörténeti Értesítô, 15, 1966. 119–121. A Magyar Tanácsköztársaság képzômûvészeti élete [Art life during the Hungarian Soviet Republic], Németh Lajos (ed.), Budapest, 1960. 63, 74–76. Ibid., 64. A „Helikon” kiállításai IV. Czigány Dezsô, Márffy Ödön és Vedres Márk kiállítása [The exhibitions of the “Helicon” IV. The exhibition of Dezsô Czigány, Ödön Márffy and Márk Vedres], Budapest, 1922. Meller, Simon:Vedres Márk újabb szobra [The latest sculptures of Márk Vedres]. A Mûbarát, 2, 1922. 85–88. Rózsa, Miklós:Vedres Márk új szobrai [Márk Vedres’s new sculptures]. Magyar Mûvészet, 14, 1938. 201–209. Pogány, Ö. Gábor: Vedres Márk. Tér és Forma, 20, 1947. 88–91. Oelmacher, Anna: Vedres Márk búcsúztatása [Farewell to Márk Vedres]. Magyar Nemzet, 25 August 1961. 4 –Oelmacher, Anna: A szocialista képzômûvészet nyomában [In quest of Socialist art], Budapest, 1975. 100–101.

M ÁRK V EDRES : Y OUNG B OY , 1930 S (M ISSING )

501

26_VEDRES_RUM_ENG

502

2/7/11

3:22 PM

M ÁRK V EDRES : B OY P LAYING

THE

Page 502

P IPE (P AN ), 1916

•

C AT .

NO .

467

26_VEDRES_RUM_ENG

2/7/11

3:22 PM

Page 503

M ÁRK V EDRES : B OY P LAYING

THE

F LUTE , C . 1905

•

C AT .

NO .

456

503

26_VEDRES_RUM_ENG

504

2/7/11

3:22 PM

M ÁRK V EDRES : A THLETE R ESTING , 1910

Page 504

•

C AT .

NO .

459

26_VEDRES_RUM_ENG

2/7/11

3:22 PM

Page 505

M ÁRK V EDRES : B OY W IPING

HIS

F EET ,

BEFORE

1910

•

C AT .

NO .

455

505

26_VEDRES_RUM_ENG

506

2/7/11

M ÁRK V EDRES : B OY

WITH A

3:22 PM

Page 506

P ITCHER , 1914

•

C AT .

NO .

465

•

D ANCER ,

BEFORE

1914

•

C AT .

NO .

464

•

D ANCING W OMAN

WITH

R ATTLE ,

BEFORE

1913

•

C AT .

NO .

463

26_VEDRES_RUM_ENG

2/7/11

3:22 PM

M ÁRK V EDRES : N UDE

Page 507

OF A

B OY , 1914

•

C AT .

NO .

466

•

S ITTING F EMALE N UDE , C . 1910

•

C AT .

NO .

458

•

G IRL

WITH A

P ITCHER (G IRL C ARRYING

P ITCHER ), 1910

•

C AT .

NO .

460

507

27_MUTARGYJEGYZEK_508_531_ENG

2/7/11

10:16 PM

Page 508

2/7/11

10:16 PM

Page 509

INDEX

27_MUTARGYJEGYZEK_508_531_ENG

2/7/11

10:16 PM

List of works Exhibited works

Abbreviations: HNG – Budapest, Hungarian National Gallery JPM – Pécs, Janus Pannonius Museum i. – inscription i. b. – inscription at bottom i. l. l. – inscription at lower left i. l. r. – inscription at lower right i. u. l. – inscription at upper left i. c. l. – inscription at centre left i. c. r. – inscription at centre right i. u. r. – inscription at upper right i. u. c. – inscription at upper centre i. l. c. – inscription at lower centre n. i. – no inscription c. – circa inv. no. – inventory number P. p. – private property

Róbert Berény

Page 510

6. Portrait of György Bölöni, 1906 Oil on canvas, 70 x 46 cm N. i. P. p. Reproduced: 160. 7. Portrait of Bertalan Pór, 1907 Oil on card, 56 x 46 cm I. u. r.: Berény 907 Paris; autograph inscription on reverse: 6. Étude Berény P. p. Reproduced: 159. 8. Montparnasse Nude, 1907 Oil on canvas, 78.5 x 38.5 cm N. i. Dr Thomas A. Sos, New York Reproduced: 175. 9. Woman in Front of a Mirror, 1907 Oil on card, 105.5 x 72.4 cm I. u. r.: Berény 907 Paris; autograph inscription on reverse: 6. Femme nue devant une glace Bereny Lídia Szajkó, San Francisco Reproduced: 170. 10. Nude of an Italian girl, 1907 Oil on canvas, 81 x 44 cm I. l. l.: R Berény Paris 1907 P. p. Reproduced: 144.

1. Garden House, 1906 Oil on card, 38 x 50 cm I. l. r.: Berény 1906 Tótfalu P. p. 2. Still Life, 1906 Oil on card, 58 x 50 cm I. u. l.: Berény 06 Paris P. p. Reproduced: 162. 3. Self Portrait with a Straw Hat, 1906 Oil on canvas, 59.5 x 44.5 cm I. l. l.: BR (individual decorative monogram; autograph inscription on reverse: 1906. 15/X. Paris) HNG, inv. no.: 56.208T Reproduced: 158. 4. In the Street, 1906 Oil on canvas, 80 x 139 cm I. l. l.: Berény 906 VII Saranszki Art Solutions Reproduced: 161. 5. Nude Lying on a Sofa (Woman Lying on a Sofa, Lying Nude), 1906 Oil on canvas, 47 x 61 cm I. l. l.: Berény 1906 Saranszki Art Solutions Reproduced: 164.

510

11. Reclining Nude, c. 1907 Oil on canvas, 33 x 44 cm inscription on reverse in brush: Berény (invisible; traced) HNG, inv. no.: 61.39T Reproduced: 165. 12. Self Portrait with a Top Hat, 1907 Oil on canvas, 79 x 60 cm I. l. l.: Berény Paris 907 JPM, inv. no.: 87.8 Reproduced: 167. 13. Ball Players, 1907–1908 Oil on card, 50 x 61 cm autograph inscription on reverse: (3.) R. Berény Les jouers à la ball P. p. Reproduced: 147. 14. Woman in a Red Dressing-Gown, 1907 Oil on laminated paper, 92 x 58.5 cm I. u. r.: Berény 1907 Paris JPM, inv. no.: 75.215 Reproduced: 171. 15. Still Life, 1909 Oil on canvas, 60 x 72 cm N. i. Miskolc, Ottó Herman Museum, inv. no.: P.77.30 Reproduced: 163.

16. In park (Detail of park), 1909 Oil on canvas, 50.5 x 42.5 cm I. l. l.: Berény 1909 (autograph inscription on reverse: Parkrész. Napsütés, délelôtt. [Detail of Park. Sunshine, morning] 1909 VII. Bpest Berény) P. p. Reproduced: 176. 17. Still Life with Fruit, 1910 Oil on canvas, 70 x 100 cm N. i. P. p. Reproduced: 183. 18. Still Life with Kettle and Fruit, 1910 Oil on canvas, 49 x 62 cm I. l. l.: Berény 910 Saranszki Art Solutions Reproduced: 182. 19. Still Life with a Jug, 1910 Oil on canvas, 50 x 63 cm I. l. l.: BR 1910 Bp.; autograph inscription on reverse: Festettem [I painted it in] 1910 Budapest Letisztították [cleaned in] 1947 Berény 1947 jun. 30. HNG, inv. no.: 58.682 Reproduced: 124, 180. 20. Still Life with a Blue Kettle, 1911 Oil on wood panel, 63 x 48.5 cm I. u. l.: Berény The Hon. Nancy G. Brinker Collection, Washington DC Reproduced: 181. 21. Idyll (Composition), 1911 Oil on canvas, 49.5 x 62 cm I. l. l.: Berény 1911. Bpest HNG, inv. no.: 60.115T Reproduced: 56, 185. 22. Garden (Landscape with a House), 1911 Oil on card, 61 x 50 cm I. l. r.: Berény 1911 HNG, inv. no.: 60.114T Reproduced: 184. 23. Nude Sitting in an Armchair, 1911 Oil on canvas, 128 x 80 cm I. u. l.: Berény 1911 Bpest Gyula Kemény Reproduced: 105, 187. 24. Portrait of Leo Weiner, 1911 Oil on canvas, 63 x 78.5 cm I. u. l.: B. R. 11 Art Collection of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (Milán Füst Foundation for Literary Translation, deposit, 2002) Reproduced: 151. 25. Scene IV., 1912 Oil on canvas, 74 x 94 cm I. b. on reverse: Berény Debrecen, Antal–Lusztig Collection Reproduced: 193.

26. Woman Sitting in an Armchair, 1912 Oil on canvas mounted on fibre-board, 73.4 x 66.5 cm I. u. r.: Berény 1912. IV. Budapest P. p. Reproduced: 155. 27. Landscape, 1912 Oil on canvas, 35 x 46 cm I. l. l.: Berény 1912 Saranszki Art Solutions Reproduced: 196. 28. Christ on the Cross (Christ on the Crucifix, Scene), 1912 Oil on canvas mounted on card, 70 x 60 cm I. l. l.: Berény HNG, inv. no.: 62.143T Reproduced: 60, 92. 29. Portrait of Ignotus, 1912 Oil on canvas mounted on card, 69.8 x 52 cm I. l. l.: Ignotusról Berény 1912 Bpest Kieselbach Gallery Reproduced: 148. 30. Capri (From the Island of Capri, Capri Landscape), 1913 Oil on canvas, 59.5 x 87 cm I. l. l.: Berény Capri 1913 HNG, inv. no.: 5956 Reproduced: 157. 31. Portrait of Léni Somló, 1913 Oil on canvas, 78 x 62 cm I. l. l.: Robert 1913 Miskolc, Ottó Herman Museum, inv. no.: 75.257 Reproduced: 197. 32. Capri Vision, 1913 Oil on card, 67 x 47 cm autograph inscription on reverse: 1913 Capri P. p. Reproduced: 35, 121. 33. Nude, Mirror, Atelier, 1906–1907 Indian ink on paper, 295 x 185 mm N. i. Gergely Barki Reproduced: 145. 34. Singer of the Paris Cabaret, 1906–1907 Indian ink on paper, 265 x 143 mm N. i. Lídia Szajkó, San Francisco Reproduced: 239. 35. Woman in a Red Dress with a Cat, c. 1907 Indian ink on paper, coloured, 311 x 200 mm N. i. Lídia Szajkó, San Francisco Reproduced: 173.

27_MUTARGYJEGYZEK_508_531_ENG

2/7/11

10:16 PM

Page 511

43. Woman with a Vase of Flowers (Sketch for Woman in Front of a Mirror), 1907 Indian ink on paper, 310 x 200 mm N. i. Budapest, Budapest History Museum, inv. no.: 62.58 Reproduced:168. 44. Still Life with an Apple, 1908 Water-colour on paper, 407 x 299 mm I. l. r.: Berény 1908 Bpest HNG, inv. no.: 1954–5095 Reproduced:178.

49. Nude of Boy with a Dumb-Bell, 1907 Brush with Indian ink on paper, 308 x 207 mm I. u. r.: Berény (4 times); i. l. r.: BR 1907 Paris HNG, inv. no.: F. 58.17 Reproduced: 172. 50. Female Nude with her Hands Folded behind her Back, 1907–1908 Indian ink on paper, 380 x 230 mm N. i. Lídia Szajkó, San Francisco Reproduced: 191.

36. Leopard, c. 1907 Brush with Indian ink on paper, 210 x 240 mm N. i. Lídia Szajkó, San Francisco 37. Standing Female Nude (Sketch for the Montparnasse Nude IV), c. 1907 Charcoal on paper, 324 x 164 mm N. i. Lídia Szajkó, San Francisco Reproduced: 174.

57. Female Nude in Tights, c. 1911 Pencil on paper, 350 x 180 mm I. l. l.: BR János Berény 51. Portrait of Young Woman, 1908 Charcoal on paper, 310 x 260 mm I. u. r.: Robert Berény Paris 1908 Karen Spencer, New York 38. Lying Female Nude Covering her Eyes, 1907 Water-colour on paper, 158 x 265 mm I. l. r.: Berény Paris 1907 Dr Thomas A. Sos, New York 39. Sketch for the Montparnasse Nude I, 1907 Charcoal on paper, 320 x 215 mm N. i. Dr Thomas A. Sos, New York Reproduced: 174.

45. Female Nude with an "Aura" Leaning Against a Wall, c. 1907 Indian ink on paper, 265 x 142 mm I. l. l.: BR Dr Thomas A. Sos, New York

40. Sketch for the Montparnasse Nude II,1907 Charcoal on paper, 320 x 240 mm N. i. Dr Thomas A. Sos, New York Reproduced: 174.

46. Female Nude (Sketch for Montparnasse Nude V), 1907 Charcoal on card, 325 x 213 mm I. l. r.: Berény Paris 1907 JPM, inv. no.: 83.8 Reproduced: 176.

41. Sitting Woman, 1907 Brush with Indian ink on paper, 252 x 192 mm I. l. l.: Paris 1907 and i. l. r.: RBerény HNG, inv. no.: F.58.16 Reproduced: 169. 42. Self Portrait with a Top Hat, 1907 Charcoal on paper, 320 x 240 mm N. i. Gergely Barki Reproduced: 166.

47. Female Nude (Sketch for Montparnasse Nude III), 1907 Charcoal on card, 310 x 230 mm I. l. r.: Berény Paris 1907 JPM, inv. no.: 78.260 Reproduced: 174. 48. Sketch for Montparnasse Nude VIII, c. 1907 Brush with brown Indian ink on paper, 325 x 165 mm N. i. Collection of György Gombosi, deposit, HNG, inv. no.: LG. 2009.19 Reproduced: 174.

52. Still Life with a Bottle, 1908 Water-colour on paper, 302 x 498 mm I. l. r.: Berény 1906–1907 HNG, inv. no.: 1954–5094 Reproduced: 179. 53. Parisian Still Life, c. 1909 Pencil on paper, 265 x 350 mm Autograph i. u. r.: Blanche Dupont 83 Avenue de St Ouen Gergely Barki Reproduced: 179. 54. Female Portrait, 1911 Brush with Indian ink on paper, 268 x 183 mm I. l. l.: BR; i. l. r.: Berény 1911 Collection of György Gombosi, deposit, HNG, inv. no.: LG. 2009.20 Reproduced: 59. 55. Sitting Female Nude, 1911 Indian ink on paper, 365 x 275 mm I. l. r.: Berény 1911. XII. Bpest Budapest, Hungarian University of Fine Arts, Collection of Graphic Art, inv. no.: 165/1946 Reproduced: 59. 56. Sketch for Composition with Silhouette, 1911 Indian ink on paper, 264 x 348 mm N. i. Gergely Barki Reproduced: 146.

58. Female Nude with Lines of Force, 1911 Indian ink on paper, 320 x 215 mm I. l. r.: Berény 1911 Bpest Dr Thomas A. Sos, New York 59. Sketch for Nude Sitting in an Armchair, 1911 Indian ink on paper, 205 x 334 mm N. i. Dr Thomas A. Sos, New York Reproduced: 186. 60. Sketch for Idyll, 1911 Indian ink on paper, 264 x 350 mm N. i. Dr Thomas A. Sos, New York Reproduced: 186.

511

27_MUTARGYJEGYZEK_508_531_ENG

2/7/11

10:16 PM

Page 512

61. Female Portrait Study, 1911 Charcoal on paper, 432 x 310 mm I. l. r.: Berény 1911 Lídia Szajkó, San Francisco Reproduced: 194.

74. Self Portrait, 1912 Pen and Indian ink on paper, 330 x 265 mm I. l. r.: Bpest 912. Szept 30 Berény HNG, inv. no.: F63.3 Reproduced: 195.

62. Sketch for Montparnasse Nude VII, 1907 Pencil on paper, 270 x 295 mm N. i. Lídia Szajkó, San Francisco Reproduced: 174. 63. Female Torso, c. 1911 Indian ink on paper, 400 x 300 mm N. i. Lídia Szajkó, San Francisco Reproduced: 189. 64. Female Nude with her Arms Spread out, 1911 Indian ink on paper, 360 x 240 mm I. l. l.: Berény 1911. X. Lídia Szajkó, San Francisco Reproduced: 190.

69. "Futurist” Ageing Self Portrait, 1912 Pencil on paper, 305 x 230 mm I. l. r.: BR 912. II. Lídia Szajkó, San Francisco

65. Still Life with Apple, 1911 Water-colour on paper, 255 x 245 mm I. l. r.: RBerény 1911 Collection of Tamás Kieselbach Reproduced: 178. 66. Female Nude, 1911 Indian ink on paper, 390 x 230 mm I. l. l.: Berény 1911. XII. 15. Bpest. JPM, inv. no.: 70.446 Reproduced: 188. 67. Woman Embroidering (Léni Embroidering), 1912 Indian ink on paper, 204 x 158 mm I. l. r.: Berény 1912 Lídia Szajkó, San Francisco Reproduced: 153.

78. Woman Reading in the Garden of a Villa, 1912 Pastel on cardboard, 64 x 46 cm I. l. r.: Berény 1912; i. l. r.: Berény Buda 1912; i. u. r.: Berény P. p. Reproduced: 154.

75. Lido, 1912 Pastel on paper 66 x 45.5 cm I. l. r.: B. R. 912. Lido. HNG, inv. no.: 60.82 T

79. On the Terrace (Taormina), 1913 Pastel on paper 82 x 63 cm I. l. r.: BR Taormina 913 P. p.

70. Self Portrait Drawing, c. 1912 Charcoal on paper, 370 x 300 mm I. l. l.: BR János Berény

80. Ignotus, 1914 Charcoal on paper, 360 x 248 mm I. c. l.: Ignotus; i. l. l.: Berény 14 Budapest, Petôfi Museum of Literature, inv. no.: 64.1533 Reproduced: 81.

71. In the Garden, 1912 Copper etching on paper, 200 x 275 mm I. l. r. in mirror writing: Berény 1912 Bpest; signed at l. r. in pencil: Berény Róbert Gergely Barki Reproduced: 153.

81. Female Nude Lying in a Bed with a Plaster Sculpture, 1906–1907 Indian ink on paper, 225 x 210 mm N. i. P. p. Reproduced: 145.

72. Village Circus Scene, 1912 Pencil on paper, 260 x 290 mm I. l. r.: Berény 912 Bpest Gergely Barki Reproduced: 152.

82. Léni's Bag, c. 1912 Silk embroidery on canvas, with frame, 58 x 51 cm I. u. r.: R Dr Thomas A. Sos, New York Reproduced: 152.

76. Seaside Landscape, 1912 Pastel on paper 63.5 x 44.5 cm I. l. l.: B. R. 912. Lido. HNG, inv. no.: 60.81T

83. Circus Scene, 1912–1914 Silk embroidery on canvas, with frame, 52 x 56 cm N. i. Gergely Barki Reproduced: 152.

Paul Cézanne

68. Nude of Léni in a Gown, 1912 Indian ink on paper, 280 x 155 mm I. l. r.: Berény 1912. IX. Bpest Lídia Szajkó, San Francisco

512

73. Female Nude (Léni and Pluto), 1912 Copper etching on paper, 195 x 280 mm I. l. r. in mirror writing: Berény 1912 VII. Bpest; signed at l. r.: RBerény 1912; i. l. l.: No. 1/10 HNG, inv. no.: 1954/4177

77. Lido, 1912 Pastel on paper 46 x 67 cm I. l. l.: BR 912-LIDO P. p.

84. The Buffet, 1877 Oil on canvas, 65.5 x 81 cm N. i. Budapest, Museum of Fine Arts, inv. no.: 371. B Reproduced: 209.

27_MUTARGYJEGYZEK_508_531_ENG

2/7/11

85. The Bibémus Quarry, 1900–1904 Oil on canvas, 61 x 50.5 cm N. i. Paris, Musée des Beaux-Arts de la Ville de Paris – Petit Palais, inv. no.: PPP02101 Reproduced: 58. 86. Bathers with the Mont Sainte Victoire, 1896–1897 Coloured lithography, 410 x 500 mm I. l. r.: P. Cézanne, Tirage à cent exemplaires no, P. Cézanne Budapest, Museum of Fine Arts, inv. no.: 1912–93 Reproduced: 58.

Dezsô Czigány 87. Actress, c. 1907 Oil on canvas, 53.5 x 40 cm N. i. Kaposvár, Rippl-Rónai Museum, inv. no.: 55.385 Reproduced: 219. 88. Portrait of Endre Ady, 1907 Oil on canvas mounted on card, 38.5 x 36.5 cm I. u. l.: Adynak Czigány Dezsô 1907 Kecskemét, József Katona Museum, inv. no.: 85.141.1 Reproduced: 77.

10:16 PM

Page 513

93. Details of "Female Nude with a Mirror”, 1908–1909 Oil on canvas, 94 x 83.5 cm N. i.; on front: Woman with a Guitar, c. 1912 Esztergom, Bálint Balassa Museum, inv. no.: 68.2.1 Reproduced: 203. 94. Details of "Female Nude with a Mirror”, 1908–1909 Oil on canvas, 103 x 93 cm N. i. P. p. Reproduced: 203. 95. Self Portrait, 1909 Oil on canvas, 58 x 40 cm I. l. r.: Czigány Kaposvár, Rippl-Rónai Museum, inv. no.: 55.371 Reproduced: 202. 96. Portraits of Two Women, 1909 Oil on canvas, 54.8 x 40 cm I. l. r.: Czigány 1909 Kaposvár, Rippl-Rónai Múzeum, inv. no.: 55.372 Reproduced: 212. 97. Self Portrait, 1909 Oil on canvas mounted on card, 52 x 39 cm I. u. r.: Czigány Jill A. Wiltse & H. Kirk Brown III., Denver Reproduced: 218. 98. Portraits of Two Women, 1909 Oil on laminated paper, 80 x 61.5 cm I. l. r.: Czigány Dezsô JPM, inv. no.: 62.7 Reproduced: 215. 99. Woman among Trees, 1909–1910 Oil on canvas, 57.5 x 47 cm I. l. l.: Czigány Saranszki Art Solutions Reproduced: 214.

89. Woman Doing Needlework, 1907–1908 Oil on canvas, 37 x 25 cm I. u. r.: Czigány Collection of László Práger Reproduced: 152.

100. Woman in the Flowery Courtyard, 1909–1910 Oil on canvas, 58 x 39 cm I. l. r.: Czigány Ferenc Apró Reproduced: 213.

90. End of the Village, c. 1908 Oil on canvas, 54.5 x 47.8 cm I. l. l.: Czigány MKB Bank Collection Reproduced: 216.

113. Lying Female Nude, c. 1912 Oil on canvas, 121 x 161.5 cm I. l. r.: Czigány D. Kaposvár, Rippl-Rónai Museum, inv. no.: 55.606 Reproduced: 233.

103. Still Life with Flowers, c. 1910 Oil on canvas, 58 x 48 cm I. l. l.: Czigány Budapest, Petôfi Museum of Literature, inv. no.: 65.23.1 Reproduced: 228.

114. Still Life of Table with Apples (Still Life), 1912–1913 Oil on canvas, 58 x 51.3 cm I. l. l.: Czigány HNG, inv. no.: 57.123T Reproduced: 229.

104. Still Life, c. 1910 Oil on canvas, 55.5 x 65.5 cm I. u. r.: Czigány Gyula Kemény Reproduced: 222.

115. Self Portrait, c. 1913 Oil on canvas, 75.3 x 65.8 cm I. l. c.: Czigány HNG, inv. no.: F.K.10.146 Reproduced: 230.

105. Still Life, c. 1910 Oil on canvas, 92 x 80.5 cm N. i. Kaposvár, Rippl-Rónai Museum, inv. no.: 55.602 Reproduced: 205.

116. Still Life with Apples and Pans (Still Life), 1913–1915 Oil on canvas, 62.5 x 62.7 cm I. u. r.: Czigány D. HNG, inv. no.: 60.137T Reproduced: 231.

106. Still Life, c. 1910 Oil on canvas, 57 x 53 cm I. l. l.: Czigány P. p. Reproduced: 227.

101. Woman in the Avenue, 1909–1910 Oil on canvas, 60 x 70.5 cm I. l. r.: Czigány András Józsa

117. Self Portrait, 1913 Oil on canvas, 95 x 69.5 cm I. u. r.: Czigány 13 HNG, inv. no.: F.K.928 Reproduced: 232.

107. Still Life with Water Jug, c. 1910 Oil on card, 57 x 45 cm N. i. P. p. Reproduced: 223. 108. Still Life, c. 1910 Oil on canvas, 58 x 48.7 cm I. l. r.: Czigány Judit Blastik Reproduced: 224. 109. Portrait of Pablo Casals, 1911 Oil on canvas mounted on card, 60 x 47 cm I. u. r.: à Pablo Casals Czigány D. 1911 Miklós Kaplany Reproduced: 204.

118. Self Portrait in a Monk's Habit, undated Indian ink on paper, 284 x 200 mm I. l. r.: Czigány Sümeg, City Museum, inv. no.: Msz. 2000/217.

110. Still Life, 1911–1912 Oil on canvas, 55 x 61 cm I. l. r.: Czigány HNG, inv. no.: F.K.918 Reproduced: 208.

119. Self Portrait, 1911 Indian ink on paper, 170 x 130 mm I. l. r.: Cz Dr Péter Virág Reproduced: 210.

111. Still Life with a Sculpture, 1911–1912 Oil on canvas mounted on card, 64 x 69.5 cm I. l. r.: Czigány P. p. Reproduced: 225.

91. Landscape with Haystacks, 1908 Oil on canvas mounted on card, 47.5 x 59 cm I. l. r.: Czigány P. p. Reproduced: 217. 92. Portrait of Irén Jakab, 1908 Oil on canvas, 95 x 72.5 cm I. u. r.: Czigány 908 JPM, inv. no.: 81.31 Reproduced:220.

102. Still Life, c. 1910 Oil on canvas, 74.5 x 66 cm I. l. l.: Czigány D. HNG, inv. no.: 78.104T Reproduced: 226.

112. Still Life with a Homespun Rug, 1911–1912 Oil on canvas mounted on card, 67.5 x 56 cm I. u. l.: Czigány P. p. Reproduced: 221.

Béla Czóbel 120. Courtyard at Nyergesújfalu, c. 1906 Oil on canvas, 72 x 80 cm I. l. r.: Czóbel JPM, inv. no.: 62.6 Reproduced: 246. 121. Nudes of Boys (Boys Sitting), 1906–1907 Oil on canvas, 67 x 97 cm I. u. r.: Czóbel JPM, inv. no.: 78.150 Reproduced: 247.

513

27_MUTARGYJEGYZEK_508_531_ENG

2/7/11

10:16 PM

122. Fauve Still Life, 1907 on reverse: Cabaret Theatre in Paris, 1907 Oil on card, 60 x 48 cm I. u. r.: Czobel 907 Paris P. p. Reproduced: 239, 249. 123. Still Life, 1908 Oil on canvas, 73.5 x 59 cm I. l. r.: Czobel Jill A. Wiltse & H. Kirk Brown III. Denver Reproduced: 251. 124. Still Life (Still Life with Flowers), 1908 Oil on canvas mounted on card, 81 x 50 cm I. l. r.: Czobel 908. P. p. Reproduced: 250. 125. Red Nude Sculpture II, 1909 Oil on canvas, 87 x 58 cm I. l. r.: (in traces): Czóbel 909 P. p. Reproduced: 240. 126. In the Park, 1910 Oil on canvas, 79 x 65 cm, I. l. r.: Czóbel; i. l. r.: Sajnos tôlem van Czóbel [Unfortunately by me Czóbel] 1910 1963 Saranszki Art Solutions Reproduced: 253. 127. Interior, 1910 Oil on card, 71 x 50 cm I. l. c.: Czobel 1910 P. p. Reproduced: 252. 128. Harbour, 1909–1912 (?) Copper etching on paper, 230 x 300 mm N. i., embossed in centre: Czóbel hagyaték [Estate of Cz.] P. p. Reproduced: 244. 129. Sitting Woman, c. 1912 Copper etching on paper, 230 x 170 mm I. l. r.: Czóbel 1908 [incorrect date] JPM, 68. 452 Reproduced: 238. 130. Bathers, 1910 Oil on canvas, 65.5 x 54.5 cm I. l. l. (etched in): Czobel 1910, i. l. r.: 1910 CZOBEL P. p. Reproduced: 242.

Page 514

131.2. Lying Nude, 1909–10 Oil on canvas, 64.7 x 91.7 cm n. i. Paris, Musée National d'Art Moderne, Centre Pompidou, Reproduced: 243.

147. Sitting Female Nude with a Bird (Squatting Woman with a Bird), 1911 Gipsz, 32 x 27 cm N. i. Székesfehérvár, King Saint Stephen Museum, inv. no.: 82.117.1.

Vilmos Fémes Beck 132. Dancing Bacchus, 1909–1910 Bronze, one-sided cast medal, 5.8 x 5.2 cm I.: FBV HNG, inv. no.: 56.1397–P (copy) Reproduced: 468.

148. Female Nude (Woman Holding Ears of Wheat), 1911–1912 Bronze, 23.5 cm N. i. HNG, inv. no.: 56.107–N Reproduced: 474.

133. Dancing Female Nude, 1909–1910 Bronze, one-sided cast plaquette, 8.4 x 6.5 cm I.: FBV HNG, inv. no.: 55.108–P (copy) Reproduced: 465. 134. Portrait of Lajos Tihanyi, 1910 Bronze, 45 cm, HNG, inv. no.: 91.5–N Reproduced: 471. 135. Portrait of Jenô Tersánszky Józsi, 1910 Bronze, 49.5 cm I. b. on pedestal: FVB 1910 HNG, inv. no.: 91.6–N Reproduced: 470. 136. Singing Girl, 1910 Bronze, 39 cm I.: Fémes Beck Vilmos szobrászmûvész I. [Sculptor V. F. B.] Krisztina krt 167. HNG, inv. no.: 6398 Reproduced: 472. 137. Three Male Nudes, 1910–1911 Bronze, one-sided cast plaquette, 6.8 x 7.6 cm N. i. HNG, inv. no.: 56.916–P Reproduced: 468.

141. To the Goddess of the Pleasure of Sight, 1910–1911 Bronze, one-sided cast medal, diameter: 7.4 cm I.: FBV; A LÁTÁSGYÖNYÖR ISTENNÔJÉNEK [To the Goddess of the Pleasure of Sight] HNG, inv. no.: 55.107–P, 54.607 (copies) Reproduced: 464. 142. Dancer, 1910–1911 Bronze, 25.4 cm N. i. P. p. 143. Nude of a Young Man Kneeling on a Cube, (Nude of Man with a Bow), 1911 Bronze, one-sided cast plaquette, 5.6 x 3.8 cm I.: FBV, 1911 HNG, inv. no.: 55.106–P (copy) Reproduced: 468.

149. Female Nude (Dancing and Singing Woman), 1911–1912 Bronze, 31.5 cm N. i. HNG, inv. no.: 56.106–N Reproduced: 474. 150. Woman with a Bird, 1912 Bronze, 41.5 cm I. b. on pedestal: 1912 Fémes Beck Vilmos B. P. HNG, inv. no.: 56.108–N Reproduced: 475. 151. Kneeling Nude of a Boy, 1912 Bronze, 62 cm I. b. on pedestal: Fémes B. Vilmos 1912 HNG, inv. no.: 52.26 Reproduced: 463. 152. Kneeling Woman (Crouching Woman), 1912 Bronze, 56 cm N. i. Székesfehérvár, King Saint Stephen Museum, inv. no.: 68.901.1 Reproduced: 469.

138. Kneeling Female Nude with a Bird (Female Nude with a Parrot), 1910–1911 Bronze, hexagonal, one-sided cast plaquette, diameter: 6.1 cm N. i. HNG, inv. no.: 58.1–P Reproduced: 468.

Raoul Dufy

139. Woman Dipping, 1910–1911 Bronze, one-sided cast medal, diameter: 8 cm I.: FBV HNG, inv. no.: 56.1395–P (copy) Reproduced: 465.

131. Provence Landscape, 1905 Oil on canvas, 65.5 x 54.5 cm I. l. r.: Raoul Dufy Paris, Musée d'Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris, inv. no.: AMVP 1719 Reproduced: 243.

140. Woman with a Bough in Bloom and a Bird, 1910–1911 Bronze, one-sided cast medal, diameter: 8.5 cm j:. FBV HNG, inv. no.: 55.109–P (copy) Reproduced: 464.

514

146. Sitting Female Nude with Bird, 1911 Bronze relief, 31 x 26 cm I. c. r.: FVB HNG, inv. no.: 98.5–N Reproduced: 473.

144. Female Bust, 1911 Bronze, one-sided cast medal, diameter: 8.1 cm I.: FBV, MÁRIA 1911 HNG, inv. no.: 55.103–P (copy) 145. Ödön Lechner Commemorative Medal, 1911 Bronze, double-sided cast medal, diameter: 7.2 cm I.: FBV (on both sides) HNG, inv. no.: 55.105–P (copy) Reproduced: 458, 464.

153. Beatrice, 1913 Bronze, 24.2 cm • N. i. • P. p. 154. Dante, 1913 Bronze, 24.5 cm • N. i. • P. p.

27_MUTARGYJEGYZEK_508_531_ENG

2/7/11

155. Margit Kaffka, 1913 Haraszt stone, 49 cm N. i. Budapest, Petôfi Museum of Literature, inv. no.: 1958/581

10:16 PM

Page 515

163. Standing Female Nude, 1908 Oil on canvas, 116 x 42 cm I. l. r.: Kernstok Károly 908 Sümeg, City Museum, inv. no.: 2005/381 Reproduced: 272.

171. Landscape, c. 1910 Oil on canvas, 69 x 100 cm I. l. r.: Kernstok Károly HNG, inv. no.: F.K.7016 Reproduced: 279.

164. Nude of a Boy Leaning against a Tree (Nude of a Boy, Youth), 1909 Oil on laminated paper, 67 x 42.5 cm I. l. l.: Kernstok Károly 909 (?) (inscription disappeared) HNG, inv. no.: 9035 Reproduced: 271.

172. Horsemen at the Water, 1910 Oil on canvas, 215 x 294 cm I. l. r.: Kernstok Károly 910 HNG, inv. no.: 59.34T Reproduced: 108, 285.

165. Youths 1909 Oil on canvas, 166 x 126.5 cm I. l. r.: Kernstok 909 Sümeg City Museum, inv. no.: 2005/374 Reproduced: 111, 286.

175. Detail of Forest II (The Garden at Nyerges), c. 1910 Oil on canvas, 83 x 110 cm N. i. Esztergom, Bálint Balassa Museum, inv. no.: 65.12. Reproduced: 277.

157. Kneeling Female Nude, 1912 Walnut dye on paper, 275 x 229 mm I. l. l.: Bp. 1912 Fémes Beck Vilmos P. p. Reproduced: 466.

Emile Othon Friesz

166. Coloured Head of a Girl (Female Portrait), c. 1909 Oil on card, 48 x 35 cm I. l. r.: Bárdos A-nak K. K. Kaposvár, Rippl-Rónai Museum, inv. no.: 55. 33

159. Spring (Golden Age), 1908 Oil on canvas, 81 x 100 cm I. l. r.: Othon Friesz Paris, Musée d'Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris, Reproduced: 120.

167. Sitting in the Park (Afternoon Rest), c. 1909 Oil on canvas, 42 x 51.5 cm I. l. r.: Kernstok Károly Saranszki Art Solutions Reproduced: 274.

Károly Kernstok 160. Portrait of Béla Czóbel, 1907 Oil on canvas, 101 x 70 cm I. l. l.: K.K. HNG, inv. no.: 6826 Reproduced: 256. 161. Bank of the Stream, c. 1908 Oil on canvas, 67 x 81 cm I. l. l.: Kernstok Kieselbach Collection Reproduced: 275. 162. Standing Female Nude, 1908 Oil on canvas, 210 x 98 cm I. l. r.: Kernstok Károly 908, Tata Tata, Domonkos Kuny Museum, inv. no.: 64.1.8 Reproduced: 273.

180. Profile of a Man's Head, c. 1910 Indian ink on paper, 323 x 297 mm I. u. r.: KK Gyôr, City Museum, inv. no.: K. 2005. 339.1

174. Landscape with Trees (Detail of Forest I), c. 1910 Oil on canvas, 65.5 x 88 cm N. i. Debrecen, Antal–Lusztig Collection Reproduced: 276.

156. Sketch, 1910 Indian ink on paper, 330 x 235 mm I. l. l.: Fémes Beck Vilmos Bp 1910 Árpád Tóth Reproduced: 467.

158. Female Portrait, 1911 Bronze, one-sided cast medal, diameter: 10 cm I.: FBV, LIDINEK SZERETETTEL [To Lidi with love] P. p. (Missing) Reproduced: 465.

173. Nude of a Boy in the Garden at Nyerges, c. 1909 Oil on canvas 80 x 48 cm I. l. l.: Kernstok; i. on reverse: Nyilassy Sándor P. p. Reproduced: 270.

168. Landscape at Nyergesújfalu, c. 1909 Oil on canvas, 55.5 x 68.3 cm I. l. l.: Kernstok Károly HNG, inv. no.: 83.5T Reproduced: 278. 169. Forest Landscape with Water, 1910 On reverse: Landscape with Stream, c. 1910 Oil on canvas, 73.5 x 89 cm I. l. r.: Kernstok Károly 910 HNG, inv. no.: 4052.T Reproduced: 280, 281.

176. Horseman at Dawn (Solitary Horseman, Solitary Horseman at Dawn, Aurora), 1911 Oil on canvas, 141.2 x 135.4 cm I. l. l.: Kernstok Károly HNG, inv. no.: 68.47T Reproduced: 64, 287.

181. Study of Léda(?), c. 1907 Black chalk on paper, 322 x 240 mm I. l. r.: KK Sümeg, City Museum, inv. no.: Msz. 2000/260

177. Equestrian Composition with the Esztergom Cathedral in the Background, 1912 Oil on paper, 111 x 218.5 cm I. l. l.: Kernstok Károly 912. HNG, inv. no.: 67.69T Reproduced: 65. 178. Sketch for the Panel at the Schiffer Villa, 1912 Oil on canvas mounted on paper, 37 x 72 cm I. l. l.: Kernstok Károly 1912 Budapest, Budapest History Museum, inv. no.: KM 69. 111.1 Reproduced: 284.

182. Mrs. Kernstok with Károly Kernstok Jnr, c. 1907 Pen and Indian ink on paper, 210 x 320 mm I. l. r.: KK Budapest, Budapest History Museum, inv. no.: KM 69. 20.1

179. Horseman, c. 1910 Indian ink on paper mounted on card 247 x 218 mm I. l. r.: KK JPM, inv. no.: 80.82 Reproduced: 282.

170. Youth Leading a Horse (Horsemen), c. 1912 Oil on canvas, 55 x 67.5 cm I. l. l.: Kernstok Károly Saranszki Art Solutions Reproduced: 257.

515

27_MUTARGYJEGYZEK_508_531_ENG

2/7/11

10:16 PM

Page 516

188. Standing Nude of a Youth, c. 1908 Indian ink on paper, 450 x 202 mm N. i. Sümeg, City Museum, inv. no.: Msz. 2000/263

192. Mother with her Child on her Arm, 1908–1909 Indian ink on paper, 270 x 277 mm N. i. Sümeg, City Museum, inv. no.: Msz. 2000/257

202. Study of a Head (Study for the Komor Head of a Youth), 1909 Indian ink on paper, 253 x 175 mm I. l. r.: KK 909 Sümeg, City Museum, inv. no.: Msz. 2000/258 Reproduced: 59.

193. Study of a Nude of a Boy, c. 1909 Indian ink on paper, 330 x 160 mm N. i. Sümeg, City Museum, inv. no.: Msz. 2000/277 194. Two Horsemen, c. 1909 Indian ink on paper, 277 x 362 mm, I. l. l.: Weiser Kálmánnak barátja [Friend of K. W.] Sümeg, City Museum, inv. no.: Msz. 2000/284

183. Sitting Female Nude, 1907–1908 Indian ink wash on paper, 318 x 250 mm I. l. c.: KK Gyôr, City Museum, inv. no.: K. 2005. 334.1. 184. Lying Female Nude, 1907–1908 Indian ink on paper, 450 x 325 mm I. l. r.: KK Gyôr, City Museum, inv. no.: K. 2005. 379.1 Reproduced: 269.

195. Youth. Study, 1909 Pen and Indian ink on paper, 342 x 210 mm I. l. r.: K.K. 909 HNG, inv. no.: 1912–39 Reproduced: 266. 189. Head of a Man, c. 1908 Indian ink on paper, 160 x 122 mm I. l. c.: KK Sümeg, City Museum, inv. no.: Msz. 2000/266

196. Study for Saint John the Baptist, 1909 Pen and Indian ink on paper, 420 x 202 mm I. l. c.: K.K. 909 HNG, inv. no.: 1912–40 Reproduced: 267. 197. Nude of a Boy, c. 1909 Pen and Indian ink on paper, 387 x 185 mm I. l. c.: KK Budapest, Budapest History Museum, inv. no.: 62. 537 Reproduced: 59.

203. Study for the picture Horsemen at the Water, 1910 Indian ink on paper, 196 x 313 mm I. l. r.: KK Gyôr, City Museum, inv. no.: K. 2005. 356.1 204. Youth on Horseback, c. 1910 Indian ink on paper, 360 x 439 mm I. l. r.: KK Gyôr, City Museum, inv. no.: K. 2005. 325.1 Reproduced: 282.

198. Nude of a Man, 1909 Pen and Indian ink on paper, 355 x 200 mm I. l. l.: KK 909 JPM, inv. no.: 83.11 Reproduced: 264. 199. Nude of a Man Stepping, 1909 Indian ink on paper, 350 x 210 mm I. l. c.: Kernstok Károly 909 Gyôr, City Museum, inv. no.: K. 2005. 331.1 Reproduced: 268. 190. Study, 1908 Charcoal on paper, 320 x 240 mm I. l. c.: Paris, 1908 I/16. kk. JPM, inv. no.: 57.200

200. Nude of a Boy by the Water, c. 1909 Indian ink on paper, 450 x 318 mm I. l. c.: KK Gyôr, City Museum, inv. no.: K. 2005. 327.1 Reproduced: 265.

191. Boy's Head Facing Viewer, 1908–1909 Indian ink on paper, 223 x 213 mm I. l. r.: Kernstok Károly Sümeg, City Museum, inv. no.: Msz. 2000/276

201. Head of a Boy, c. 1909 Indian ink wash on paper, 265 x 178 mm I. l. l.: KK Gyôr, City Museum, inv. no.: K. 2005. 372.1

205. Bathing Women, c. 1910 Indian ink on paper, 373 x 550 mm I. l. r.: KK Gyôr, City Museum, inv. no.: K. 2005. 384.1 206. Horsemen at the Water, 1910 Paper mounted on card, 238 x 370 mm I. l. r.: K.K. HNG, inv. no.: F58.488 Reproduced: 283.

185. Standing Female Nude, 1908 Brown Indian ink on paper, 317 x 135 mm I. u. r.: K and i. l. l.: 1908 Sümeg, City Museum, inv. no.: Msz. 2000/274 186. Female Semi-Nude, c. 1908 Indian ink on paper, 360 x 305 mm N. i. Sümeg, City Museum, inv. no.: Msz. 2000/265 187. Female Nude Leaning Forward, 1908 Indian ink on paper, 425 x 342 mm I. l. l.: KK 1908 Sümeg, City Museum, inv. no.: Msz. 2000/237

516

207. Waterside Horsemen, 1910 Indian ink on paper, 360 x 535 mm I. l. r.: KK Budapest, Budapest History Museum, inv. no.: KM 63. 30

27_MUTARGYJEGYZEK_508_531_ENG

2/7/11

208. Study of a Horseman, c. 1910 Pen and brush and Indian ink on paper, 181 x 177 mm I. l. r.: KK HNG, inv. no.: 1940–3579 Reproduced: 67, 282. 209. Horseman, c. 1910 Pen and brush and Indian ink on paper, 300 x 425 mm I. l. r.: K.K. HNG, inv. no.: F.K.8920 Reproduced: 282. 210. Design for a Stained Glass Window at the Schiffer Villa, bottom light, 1911 Indian ink, water-colour and tempera on paper and canvas, 122 x 77 cm I. l. c.: Kernstok Károly JPM, inv. no.: 82.318.3 211. Design for a Stained Glass Window at the Schiffer Villa, bottom light, 1911 Indian ink, water-colour and tempera on paper and canvas, 125.5 x 78 cm I. l. r.: I. Kernstok Károly JPM, inv. no.: 82.318.5 Reproduced: 288.

10:16 PM

Page 517

217. Design for a Stained Glass Window at the Schiffer Villa I, 1911 Indian ink, water-colour and tempera on paper and canvas, 255 x 77 cm I. c. r.: üveg carton Kernstok Károly [cartoon drawn, painted by K. K.] I.-sô mezô [light no. 1] JPM, inv. no.: 82.283 Reproduced: 289.

224. Design for a Stained Glass Window (Study for the upper row of the large stained glass windo at the Schiffer Villa), 1912 Tempera on paper, 95 x 119 cm I. l. l.: (in each band) Kernstok Károly 912 HNG, inv. no.: F.K.10.290 Reproduced: 261.

218. Design for a Stained Glass Window at the Schiffer Villa III, 1911 Tempera and Indian ink on paper, 255 x 77 cm I. c. r.: üveg cartonok Kernstok Károly [cartoons by K. K.] 1911 III-ik [light no. 3] JPM, inv. no.: 59.118 Reproduced: 289.

225. Design for a Stained Glass Window, 1912 Tempera on paper 120 x 96.4 cm I. l. c.: Kernstok Károly HNG, inv. no.: F.K.10.199

219. Cartoon of the Stained Glass Window I–IV, 1912 Tempera on paper, 123 x 65 cm N. i. Debrecen, Antal–Lusztig Collection Reproduced: 290-291.

213. Design for a Stained Glass Window at the Schiffer Villa, bottom light, 1911 Indian ink, water-colour and tempera on paper and canvas, 122 x 77 cm I. l. r.: Kernstok Károly JPM, inv. no.: 82.318.1 214. Design for a Stained Glass Window at the Schiffer Villa, bottom light, 1911 Indian ink, water-colour and tempera on paper and canvas, 122 x 77 cm I. c. r.: Kernstok Károly 1911 JPM, inv. no.: 82.318.2 215. Design for a Stained Glass Window – Spring II, 1911 Tempera on paper, 250 x 74 cm I. c. r.: Üveg-carton Kernstok Károly [Cartoon by K. K.] 911 II-ik mezô [light no. 2] JPM, inv. no.: 68.587 Reproduced: 289. 216. Design for a Stained Glass Window at the Schiffer Villa IV, 1911 Indian ink and tempera on paper, 260 x 80 cm I. c. r.: üveg carton rajzolta, festette Kernstok Károly [cartoon drawn, painted by K. K.] 1911 IV. JPM, inv. no.: 59.117 Reproduced: 289.

227. Primeval Hunters, 1912 Copper etching on paper, 140 x 289 mm I. l. r.: Kernstok Károly Sümeg, City Museum, inv. no.: Msz. 2000/238

220. Design for a Stained Glass Window at the Schiffer Villa, 1911 Water-colour and Indian ink on paper, 540 x 460 mm N. i. JPM, inv. no.: 68.588 221. Horsemen at the Water, 1912 Copper etching on paper, etching-needle, 155 x 295 mm I l. r.: Kernstok Károly, b. l.: 5/XXVI HNG, inv. no.: 1912–648 Reproduced: 258. 222. Horsemen, 1912 Indian ink wash on paper, 224 x 388 mm I. l. r.: Kernstok Károly 1912 HNG, inv. no.: 1912–42 Reproduced: 283.

233. Yellow Flowers, 1912 Oil on canvas, 58 x 45 cm I. l. l.: Lehel (dated on vase: 1912) P. p. Reproduced: 481.

234. Basket of Flowers (Design for an Embroidery), c. 1911 Indian ink, water-colour and pencil on tracing paper, 277 x 202 mm N. i. Budapest, Budapest History Museum, inv. no.: KM 78.21 Reproduced: 486. 235. Basket of Flowers (Design for an Embroidery), c. 1911 Indian ink, water-colour and pencil on tracing paper, 280 x 250 mm N. i. Budapest, Budapest History Museum, inv. no.: KM 78.22 236. Design for a Chinese Biedemeyer Embroidery, 1st half of 1910s Water-colour on paper, 425 x 425 mm N. i. JPM, inv. no.: 77.9 Reproduced: 490.

228. Primeval Hunters, 1912 (?) Water-colour on paper, 20 x 70 cm N. i. Sümeg, City Museum, inv. no.: Msz. 2005/376

237. Design for the large Andrássy Embroidery, 1st half of 1910s Water-colour on paper, 605 x 485 mm N. i. JPM, inv. no.: 77.8 Reproduced: 490.

Oskar Kokoschka 229. Italian Girl, 1909 Oil on canvas, 65 x 54 cm I. c. l.: OK Wuppertal, Von der Heydt-Museum, inv. no.: G 1486 Reproduced: 432.

Mária Lehel 223. Horsemen, 1912 Copper etching on paper, 200 x 275 mm I. l. r.: Kernstok Károly 1912 HNG, inv. no.: 1912–646 Reproduced: 259.

232. Child with a Ball, c. 1911 Oil on canvas, 82.5 x 72.5 cm N. i. Kieselbach Collection Reproduced: 479.

Anna Lesznai

226. Primeval Hunters – Sketch, 1912 Indian ink and water-colour on paper, 200 x 300 mm b. l. Kernstok's note: „ez jobb, mert a fejek egy magasságúak!” [This one's better because the heads are aligned!] Budapest, Budapest History Museum, inv. no.: KM. 63.31

212. Design for a Stained Glass Window at the Schiffer Villa, bottom light, 1911 Indian ink, water-colour and tempera on paper and canvas, 122 x 76.5 cm N. i. JPM, inv. no.: 82.318.4 Reproduced: 288.

231. Grandmother with her Grandchild, c. 1911 Oil on canvas, 74 x 60 cm N. i. P. p. Reproduced: 478.

230. Nude, c. 1913 Oil on canvas, 140 x 45 cm I. l. l.: Lehel Mária Kaposvár, Rippl-Rónai Museum, inv. no.: 55.615 Reproduced: 480.

238. Design for a Flower Ornament, 1st half of 1910s Water-colour on paper, 330 x 430 mm N. i. Hatvan, Lajos Hatvany Museum, inv. no.: 75.18.1.a. Reproduced: 492. 239. Design for a Flower Ornament, 1st half of 1910s Water-colour on paper, 430 x 570 mm N. i. Hatvan, Lajos Hatvany Museum, inv. no.: 75.18.1.b.

517

27_MUTARGYJEGYZEK_508_531_ENG

2/7/11

10:16 PM

240. Design for an Ornament, 1910s Water-colour on paper, 410 x 590 mm N. i. Hatvan, Lajos Hatvany Museum, inv. no.: 75.23.1 Reproduced: 493. 241. Design for the Ady Pillow I, 1st half of 1910s Water-colour on paper, 650 x 700 mm N. i. Hatvan, Lajos Hatvany Museum, inv. no.: 75.37.1 Reproduced: 491. 242. Design for an Ornament, 1910s Water-colour on paper, 410 x 530 mm N. i. Hatvan, Lajos Hatvany Museum, inv. no.: 75.53.2 Reproduced: 492. 243. Design for the Ady Pillow II, 1st half of 1910s Water-colour and Indian ink on paper, 630 x 680 mm N. i. Hatvan, Lajos Hatvany Museum, inv. no.: 75.77.1 Reproduced: 488.

Page 518

247. Design for the Embroidered Centrepiece of a Table Cloth, 1910s Water-colour on paper, 460 x 650 mm N. i. Hatvan, Lajos Hatvany Museum, inv. no.: 83.1.2192 Reproduced: 493. 248. Design for an Embroidery, 1910s Water-colour on paper, 570 x 660 mm N. i. Hatvan, Lajos Hatvany Museum, inv. no.: 83.1.2207 Reproduced: 492. 249. Design for an Embroidery of the Garden of Eden with Animals, 2nd half of 1910s Water-colour on paper, 580 x 700 mm N. i. Hatvan, Lajos Hatvany Museum, inv. no.: 83.1.2208 Reproduced: 492.

262. Old Vác Customs (Suburban), 1910 Oil on canvas, 69.5 x 90 cm I. l. r.: Márffy Ödön HNG, inv. no.: F.K.1065 (1965,10.140) Reproduced: 323.

257/A. Sea at Collioure, 1905 Water-colour on paper, 175 x 250 mm Cateau-Cambrésis, Musée Matisse, inv. no.: 2008–5

250. Design for an Embroidery, 1910s Water-colour on paper, 470 x 630 mm N. i. Hatvan, Lajos Hatvany Museum, inv. no.: 83.1.2214 Reproduced: 492. 251. Design for an Embroidery (Spiral), 1910s Water-colour on paper, 660 x 690 mm N. i. Hatvan, Lajos Hatvany Museum, inv. no.: 83.82.3 Reproduced: 493.

244. Béla Bartók: Four Dirges for Piano (cover design), c. 1910 Paper, 300 x 240 mm N. i. P. p.

254. Pillow (Embroidery), 1910s Thread on black basket cloth, 404 x 255 mm N. i. Hatvan, Lajos Hatvany Museum, inv. no.: 2008.4.1 Reproduced: 487.

Henri Matisse 245. Design for the Embroidery of the Körtvélyes Vase, 1910s Water-colour on paper, 390 x 490 mm N. i. Hatvan, Lajos Hatvany Museum, inv. no.: 75.90.1 Reproduced: 490.

255. Portrait of André Derain, 1905 Oil on canvas, 55 x 47.1 cm I. l. r.: HM London, Tate Collection, inv. no.: 6241 Reproduced: 54.

246. Black Basket, 1910s Indian ink and water-colour on tracing paper, 254 x 190 mm N. i. Hatvan, Lajos Hatvany Museum, inv. no.: 75.40.01

256. Standing Female Nude, 1907 Oil on canvas, 92.1 x 64.8 cm I. l. l.: Henri Matisse 1907 London, Tate Collection, inv. no.: T00368 Reproduced: 55.

518

264. ‘Kaposvár’ Nude (Female Nude), 1910 Oil on canvas, 166 x 90 cm I. l. l.: Márffy Ödön Estate of Ödön Rippl-Rónai, Kaposvár, Rippl-Rónai Museum, inv. no.: 55.605 Reproduced: 305. 265. Still Life, c. 1910 Oil on canvas, 44 x 55 cm I. u. r.: Márffy Jill A. Wiltse & H. Kirk Brown III., Denver Reproduced: 315.

257/B. La Moulade, c. 1905 Water-colour on paper, 175 x 251 mm Cateau-Cambrésis, Musée Matisse, inv. no.: 1996–3–3

252. Design for an Embroidery, 1910s Water-colour on paper, 480 x 510 mm N. i. Hatvan, Lajos Hatvany Museum, inv. no.: 83.82.4 Reproduced: 490. 253. Ady Pillow, 1910s Embroidery, 700 x 700 mm N. i. P. p. Reproduced: 489.

263. Bathing Women (Composition with Nudes), 1909. Oil on canvas, 79.5 x 98.5 cm I. l. r.: Márffy JPM, inv. no.: 74.453 Reproduced: 299.

266. Landscape with a Factory (Zebegény Brick Factory II), c. 1910 Oil on canvas, 102 x 81 cm I. l. l.: Márffy Ödön Sümeg, City Museum, inv. no.: Msz. 2005/385. Reproduced: 317. 267. Zebegény Brick Factory (Landscape with a Chimney, View from the Studio), c. 1910 Oil on canvas, 96.5 x 130.5 cm I. l. l.: Márffy Ödön Collection of Tamás Kieselbach Reproduced: 316.

258. Schiedam Still Life, 1896 Oil on canvas, 29 x 35 cm I. l. l.: Henri Matisse Cateau-Cambrésis, Musée Matisse, inv. no.: 1982-53

Ödön Márffy 259. Landscape, 1st half of 1910s Oil on canvas, 54.5 x 64.5 cm I. l. l.: Márffy JPM, inv. no.: 79.368 Reproduced: 320. 260. Girl from Nyerges, 1908 Oil on card, 88.5 x 62 cm I. u. r.: Márffy P. p. Reproduced: 296. 261. Coloured Female Nude, c. 1908 Oil on canvas, 64 x 49 cm I. l. l.: Márffy Estate of Ödön Rippl-Rónai, Kaposvár, Rippl-Rónai Museum, inv. no.: 55.367 Reproduced: 298.

268. Bay with a Sailing Boat, c. 1909 Oil on canvas, 53 x 76 cm I. l. r.: Márffy Ödön Szombathely, Szombathely Art Gallery, inv. no.: F 87.6 Reproduced: 320. 269. Female Portrait, c. 1911 Oil on canvas, 65 x 54 cm I. u. r.: Márffy Saranszki Art Solutions Reproduced: 313. 270. Hilly Landscape, c. 1911 Oil on canvas, 73 x 100 cm I. l. l.: Márffy Ödön HNG, inv. no.: F.K.917T Reproduced: 319. 271. Forest Road, c. 1909 Oil on canvas, 64 x 77.5 cm I. l. l.: Márffy Ödön HNG, inv. no.: 57.54T Reproduced: 320.

27_MUTARGYJEGYZEK_508_531_ENG

2/7/11

272. Table Still Life with Fruit and a Sculpture, 1911 Oil on canvas, 72 x 95 cm I. l. r.: Márffy Ödön P. p. Reproduced: 314. 273. On Forest Road, 1911 Oil on canvas, 61 x 80.5 cm I. l. r.: Márffy Ödön P. p.

274. Sketch in oil for the Fresco of Nursery School on Kiscelli út, 1911 Oil on canvas mounted on thin card, 37 x 93 cm I. l. r.: Márffy Ödön Tamás Kolosi 275. Winter Landscape (Snowy Landscape), 1911 Oil on canvas, 50 x 68 cm I. l. r.: Márffy Ödön Sümeg, City Museum, inv. no.: Msz. 2005/383. Reproduced: 322. 276. Salome (Nude), 1911–1921 Oil on canvas, 200.5 x 67.5 cm I. l. r.: Márffy Ödön 1911 (signature original, dated later) Collection of Tamás Kieselbach Reproduced: 304. 277. Constructive Landscape (Landscape, Dalmatian Landscape), 1913 Oil on canvas, 60 x 75 cm I. l. r.: Márffy Ödön; on stretcher bar: M. Ö. tul.; on frame: Márffy; on upper edge of canvas folded over stretcher bar: 1913. HNG, inv. no.: 97.4 Reproduced: 318. 278. Lying Nude, 1913 Oil on canvas, 57 x 89 cm I. l. r.: Márffy Ödön HNG, inv. no.: 97.2.T. Reproduced: 325. 279. Portrait of Jenô Kerpely, c. 1913 Oil on canvas, 127 x 97.5 cm N. i. Saranszki Art Solutions Reproduced: 85. 280. Pine, 1913 Oil on canvas, 56 x 69 cm I. l. l.: Márffy Ödön P. p. Reproduced: 321.

10:16 PM

Page 519

281. Nudes by the Water, c. 1913 Oil on canvas, 72 x 92 cm I. l. l.: Márffy Ödön Kovács Dezsô gyûjtemény Reproduced: 311.

292. Nude, c. 1911 Pen and Indian ink on paper, 340 x 210 mm I. l. r.: Márffy JPM, inv. no.: 79. 320 Reproduced: 307.

282. Portrait of Mrs Dezsô Kosztolányi, c. 1913 Oil on canvas, 70 x 54 cm I. u. r.: Márffy Ödön P. p. Reproduced: 80, 318.

293. Kneeling Female Nude, c. 1911 Pen and Indian ink on paper, 370 x 230 mm I. l. l.: Márffy JPM, inv. no.: 79.321 Reproduced: 306.

283. Constructive Self Portrait (Self Portrait, Portrait of the Artist), 1914 Oil on canvas, 92 x 69.5 cm I. l. r.: Márffy Ödön HNG, inv. no.: 4659 Reproduced: 324.

294. Nude Back of a Standing Woman, c. 1911 Indian ink wash on paper, 453 x 295 mm I. l. r.: M. Ö. Collection of Tamás Kieselbach

284. Danube Mills (Waterside Landscape with Houses), 1914 Oil on canvas, 49 x 59.5 cm I. l. r.: Márffy Ödön Gyula Kemény Reproduced: 318. 285. Lying Nude in a Landscape, c. 1908 Indian ink on paper, 225 x 370 mm I. u. r.: Márffy P. p. Reproduced: 308. 286. Sitting Female Nude (Female Nude Sitting on a Chair), c. 1908 Pencil on paper, 470 x 365 mm I. l. r.: Márffy Sümeg, City Museum, inv. no.: Msz. 2000/221 287. Kneeling Female Nude, c. 1910 Pencil and water-colour on paper, 280 x 210 mm I. u. r.: Márffy Ödön Miklós Bay Reproduced: 310. 288. Squatting Child, c. 1908 Indian ink on paper, 418 x 315 mm I. l. r.: Márffy Kaposvár, Rippl-Rónai Museum, inv. no.: 55. 160 289. Standing Female Nude, 1911 Brush and ink on paper, 369 x 169 mm I. l. r.: Márffy Ödön HNG, inv. no.: 1912–414 Reproduced: 303. 290. Head of a Woman, 1911 Brush and Indian ink on paper, 321 x 295 mm I. l. r.: Márffy HNG, inv. no.: 1912–415 291. Design for a secco at the Nursery School on Kiscelli út, 1911 secco, 75.5 x 100 cm N. i. Budapest, Budapest History Museum, inv. no.: 99.2

295. Nude Back of a Standing Woman, c. 1911 Indian ink wash on paper, 453 x 295 mm I. l. r.: M. Ö. P. p. Reproduced: 309. 296. Male Nude, 1912 Brush and Indian ink on paper, 370 x 213 mm I. l. r.: Márffy Ödön HNG, inv. no.: 1912–413 Reproduced: 302. 297. Woman with Flowers (Flowery Window), c. 1912 Indian ink on paper, 310 x 300 mm I. l. r.: Márffy Ödön P. p. 298. Lying Female Nude, c. 1912 Walnut dye on paper, 295 x 395 mm I. l. r.: M. Ö. László Jurecskó Reproduced: 308.

Max Oppenheimer 299. Heinrich Tannhauser, 1911–1912 Oil on canvas, 100 x 80 cm I. l. r.: M. OPP. München, Pinakothek der Moderne, inv. no.: NP 15364 Reproduced: 427.

Dezsô Orbán 300. Still Life with Sculptures (Cactus, Books, Pots), c. 1910 Oil on canvas, 71 x 87 cm I. l. r.: Orbán HNG, inv. no.: 5484 Reproduced: 354. 301. Landscape with Pink Road, c. 1908 Oil on canvas, 50 x 60 cm I. l. r.: Orbán Estate of Ödön Rippl-Rónai, Kaposvár, Rippl-Rónai Museum, inv. no.: 55.373 Reproduced: 344.

302. Houses at Charenton, 1908 Oil on canvas, 54.5 x 68 cm I. l. r.: Orbán Charenton 1908 Székesfehérvár, City Gallery, Deák Collection, inv. no.: 89.28.1 Reproduced: 335. Female Nude, painted on reverse of Houses at Charenton, c. 1908 303. Churchyard, c. 1908 Oil on canvas, 56 x 69 cm I. l. r.: Orbán D. JPM, inv. no.: 69.148 Reproduced: 345. 304. Still Life with Apples and Flowers, c. 1912 Oil on canvas, 80 x 63 cm I. l. l.: Orbán Collection of Tamás Kieselbach Reproduced: 357. 305. Vase and Fruit Bowl, 1909 Oil on canvas, 45 x 52 cm I. l. l. : Orbán 1909 Collection of Tamás Kieselbach Reproduced: 125, 347. 306. Still Life with a Green Pear, 1909 Oil on canvas, 56 x 69 cm I. l. l.: Orbán 1909 Collection of Tamás Kieselbach Reproduced: 338. 307. Solitary Tree, c. 1910 Oil on canvas, 72 x 97 cm I. l. r.: Orbán Budapest, MKB Bank Reproduced: 342. 308. Still Life with Pears and Apples, c. 1910 Oil on canvas, 47 x 63.5 cm I. l. l.: Orbán P. p. Reproduced: 348. 309. Still Life with Fruit, c. 1910 Oil on canvas, 60 x 80 cm I. l. l.: Orbán P. p. Reproduced: 346. 310. Detail of a Park, c. 1911 Oil on canvas, 59 x 68 cm I. l. l.: Orbán P. p. Reproduced: 352. 311. Leafy Trees in front of a Hill (Landscape), c. 1910 Oil on canvas, 62.5 x 78.5 cm I. l. l.: Orbán Anita Kieselbach Reproduced: 356. 312. Little Nude, c. 1910 Oil on canvas, 54 x 34 cm I. l. r.: Orbán P. p. Reproduced: 355.

519

27_MUTARGYJEGYZEK_508_531_ENG

2/7/11

10:16 PM

Page 520

313. Still Life with Pitcher, 1910 Oil on canvas, 75 x 90 cm I. l. r.: Orbán Paris 910 P. p. Reproduced: 125, 359. 314. Still Life with a Green Jug, 1911 Oil on canvas, 64 x 80 cm I. l. r.: Orbán Paris 911 HNG, inv. no.: 59.80T Reproduced: 124, 359. 315. Still Life (Peasant Still Life), c. 1911 Oil on canvas, 55.5 x 74 cm I. l. r.: Orbán HNG, inv. no.: F.K.10.321 Reproduced: 358.

332. Moustachioed Self Portrait, 1909 Oil on canvas, 66 x 52 cm I. l. r.: Pór 1909 P. p.

323. Lying Nude (Dedicated Anna Lesznai), 1910 Indian ink wash on paper, 162 x 285 mm I. l. r.: Lesznai Annának, igaz baráti megbecsüléssel [To A. L. truly with friendly respect] Orbán Dezsô 1910 febr. 3 HNG, inv. no.: 1955–536

Pablo Picasso 316. Park, 1911 Oil on canvas, 59 x 73 cm I. l. l.: Orbán Dezsô 1911 HNG, inv. no.: 68.63T Reproduced: 351. 317. Still Life with Pears, c. 1911 Oil on canvas, 75.5 x 75.5 cm I. l. r.: Orbán Gundel Collection Reproduced: 124, 349. 318. Detail of Park with Purple Flowers, 1911 Oil on canvas, 62.5 x 80 cm I. l. r.: Orbán Jill A. Wiltse & H. Kirk Brown III., Denver Reproduced: 353. 319. House Hidden among the Foliage, c. 1911 Oil on canvas, 39 x 51 cm I. l. r.: Orbán P. p. Reproduced: 351. 320. Trees, c. 1912 Woodcut on paper, 210 x 270 mm I. l. l.: Eredeti fametszet [original woodcut] 1. JPM, inv. no.: 83.42 Reproduced: 350. 321. The Mansion and Garden at Körtvélyes (Country Mansion), c. 1912 Woodcut on paper, 250 x 290 mm I. l. l.: Eredeti fametszet [original woodcut] no. 2. JPM, inv. no.: 83.43 Reproduced: 350. 322. Sketch for the Woodcut Country Mansion (Körtvélyes), c. 1912 Pencil and Indian ink on paper, 238 x 317 mm I. l. r.: Orbán 1917 [a later, probably erroneous, dating in pencil] Gergely Barki Reproduced: 334.

520

324. Horses Bathing, 1906 Etching-needle on paper, 122 x 188 mm I. l. l.: Picasso Budapest, Museum of Fine Arts, inv. no.: BI.8. Reproduced: 258.

Bertalan Pór 325. Self Portrait, 1906 Oil on paper, 42 x 34 cm I. l. r.: Pór 1906 Kaposvár, Rippl-Rónai Museum, inv. no.: 55.548 Reproduced: 370. 326. Lying Man (Róbert Berény), 1907? Oil on canvas mounted on card, 25 x 30 cm I. u. l.: Pór HNG, inv. no.: 75.45T Reproduced: 142. 327. Still Life with a Painter's tools, 1907 Oil on canvas, 63.5 x 50 cm I. u. l.: Pór 1907 Kecskemét, József Katona Museum, inv. no.: 91.88 Reproduced: 371.

333. Sun-lit Landscape with Bridge, 1909 Oil on canvas mounted on card, 44 x 63 cm I. l. r.: Pór 1909 P. p. Reproduced: 376. 334. The Family, 1909–1910 Oil on canvas, 176.5 x 206 cm I. l. r.: Pór Bertalan 1909 HNG, inv. no.: 60.136T Reproduced: 365. 335. Yearning for Pure Love (Sketch), 1910 Oil on canvas, 52 x 67 cm I. l. l.: Pór 1910 Collection of Tamás Kieselbach Reproduced: 387. 336. Gypsy Boy, 1910 Oil on canvas, 77 x 62.5 cm I. l. l.: Pór 1910 Collection of Tamás Kieselbach Reproduced: 373.

342. Sermon on the Mount (sketch), 1911 Oil on canvas, 50 x 63.5 cm I. l. r.: Doktor. Ciaclan Virgil…szeretettel [with love] Pór Bertalan Collection of Tamás Kieselbach Reproduced: 386. 343. Sketch for the Panel Painting of the People's Opera, 1911 Oil, pastel and chalk on canvas and card, 84 x 53.5 cm I. l. r.: Pór Bertalan Sümeg, City Museum, inv. no.: Msz. 2005/390 344. Self Portrait, 1912 Oil on canvas, 69.5 x 55.5 cm I. l. r.: Pór 1912 Collection of Tamás Kieselbach Reproduced: 390. 345. Self Portrait, 1912 Oil on canvas, 61.5 x 49.8 cm I. l. l.: Pór 1912 HNG, inv. no.: F.K.1057 Reproduced: 391.

337. Sketch for the Panel Painting of the People’s Opera, 1911 Oil on canvas, 32.5 x 100 cm I. u. l.: Pór B. 1911 HNG, inv. no.: 75.38T Reproduced: 366. 338. Sketch for the Fresco in a Dining Room II., 1913 Oil on card, 180 x 100 cm N. i. HNG, inv. no.: 75.37T Reproduced: 368.

346. Lying Nude, c. 1910 Charcoal on paper, 200 x 240 mm I. l. r.: Pór JPM, inv. no.: 72.60 347. Study for a Male Nude, c. 1911 Charcoal on paper, 450 x 316 mm N. i. JPM, inv. no.: 74.388 Reproduced: 383.

328. By the Stone Bridge (Edge of the Forest), 1908 Oil on canvas, 48 x 59 cm I. l. r.: Pór 1908 P. p. Reproduced: 375. 329. Shady Riverbank, 1909 Oil on canvas mounted on card, 47 x 62 cm I. l. r.: Pór B. 1909 P. p. Reproduced: 374.

339. Sketch for the Panel Painting of the People's Opera, 1911 Oil on canvas, 46 x 77 cm N. i. Budapest, Budapest History Museum, inv. no.: 62.1.

330. Light by the River, 1909 Oil on canvas mounted on card, 46.5 x 42 cm I. l. r.: Pór P. p. Reproduced: 378.

340. Yearning for Pure Love, 1911 Oil on canvas, 238 x 350 cm N. i. JPM, inv. no.: 74.451 Reproduced: 389.

331. By the Stream, 1909 Oil on card, 44 x 59 cm I. l. l.: Pór 1909 Collection of Tamás Kieselbach Reproduced: 379.

341. Forest Road, 1911 Oil on canvas, 73 x 60 cm I. l. l.: Pór 1911 P. p. Reproduced: 377.

348. In the Forest, c. 1910 Graphite pencil on paper, 120 x 179 mm I. l. r.: Pór HNG, inv. no.: 1911–164

27_MUTARGYJEGYZEK_508_531_ENG

2/7/11

10:16 PM

Page 521

349. Female Nudes, c. 1910 Pen and Indian ink on paper, 253 x 362 mm I. l. r.: Pór HNG, inv. no.: F. 75. 352 350. Standing Female Nude, c. 1910 Charcoal on paper, 250 x 130 mm N. i. HNG, inv. no.: F.75.368 Reproduced: 369.

356. Sitting Female Nude Outdoors, c. 1910 Indian ink on paper, 43 x 35 cm I. l. l.: Pór Balázs Jáky 357. Study for a Nude, 1911 Brush and Indian ink wash on paper mounted on board, 423 x 318 mm I. l. r.: Pór Bertalan. Budapest, 1911. Május hó 27.-én HNG, inv. no.: F.75.391 Reproduced: 383. 358. Two Studies, 1911 Brush with Indian ink on brown card, 395 x 295 mm I. l. r.: 1911 Pór Bertalan Herrn Armin Sp...yer zur freundlichen Erstimmung HNG, inv. no.: F.75.398 Reproduced: 383.

364. Design for a Panel for the People’s Opera, 1911 Pencil on paper, 220 x 275 mm I. l. r.: Pór Bertalan P. p. 360. Study for the painting Sermon on the Mount, 1911 Pencil on paper, 396 x 295 mm N. i. Budapest, Budapest History Museum, inv. no.: 62.150.12 361. Sketch for the Picture Yearning for Pure Love, 1911 Pencil on paper, 215 x 275 mm N. i. Budapest, Budapest History Museum, inv. no.: 62.148.2 Reproduced: 385.

365. Sketch for Yearning for Pure Love, 1911 Walnut dye on paper, 210 x 340 mm N. i. JPM, inv. no.: 74.376 Reproduced: 384. 366. Sketch for Yearning for Pure Love, 1911 Walnut dye on paper, 210 x 340 mm N. i. JPM, inv. no.: 74.377 Reproduced: 384. 367. Sketch for the Painting Sermon on the Mount, 1911 Oil on canvas, 37 x 58 cm N. i. Budapest, Jewish Museum, inv. no.: 64.2062 Reproduced: 386.

351. Male Nude, 1910 Chalk on paper, 398 x 294 mm I. l. l.: Pór 1910 HNG, inv. no.: F. 75.389 Reproduced: 383. 352. Self Portrait, 1910 Oil on canvas, 63.5 x 50 cm I. l. r.: Pór 1910 Kecskemét, József Katona Museum, inv. no.: 56.69

362. Sketch for the Picture Yearning for Pure Love, 1911 Pencil on paper, 270 x 210 mm N. i. Budapest, Budapest History Museum, inv. no.: 62.148.1

353. Sketches for Portraits, 1910 Pencil on paper, 280 x 215 mm N. i. JPM, inv. no.: 74.423 Reproduced: 372. 354. Studies for Portraits, 1910 Pencil on paper, 280 x 215 mm N. i. JPM, inv. no.: 74.424 Reproduced: 372. 355. Composition with Five Figures, c. 1910 Chalk on paper, 184 x 260 mm I. l. l.: Pór HNG, inv. no.: 1911–165 Reproduced: 382.

368. Shepherds, 1912 Etching-needle on paper, 190 x 270 mm I. l. l.: Pór 1912. Január HNG, inv. no.: G–57.1

359. Study for a Male Nude, 1911 Pencil on paper, 295 x 188 mm N. i. HNG, inv. no.: F.88.211

363. Composition with a Figure, 1911 Pencil on paper, 223 x 280 mm I. l. r.: Pór 1911 JPM, inv. no.: 83.16

521

27_MUTARGYJEGYZEK_508_531_ENG

2/7/11

10:16 PM

Page 522

374. Nudes in the Landscape, c. 1912 Indian ink on paper, 192 x 285 mm I. l. r.: Pór B. Salgótarján, Nógrád County History Museum, inv. no.: 81.496 Reproduced: 382. 375. Bulls and Shepherds, c. 1912 Indian ink on paper, 190 x 285 mm I. l. r.: Pór B. Salgótarján, Nógrád County History Museum, inv. no.: 81.494 Reproduced: 382.

Lajos Tihanyi 380. Gypsy Woman with her Child (Gypsy Madonna), 1908 Oil on canvas, 84 x 75 cm I. u. l.: Tihanyi L. 08 JPM, inv. no.: 68.679 Reproduced: 424. 381. Landscape, 1909 Oil on canvas, 40 x 47 cm I. l. r.: Tihanyi L. 909 Nagybánya JPM, inv. no.: 68.729 Reproduced: 404. 382. Pont Saint-Michel, 1908 Oil on canvas, 55 x 65 cm I. l. r.: Tihanyi Paris 08. P. p. Reproduced: 399.

369. Sketch for a Composition, 1912 Indian ink wash on paper, 395 x 295 mm I. l. r.: Pór Bertalan; i. l. l.: Pór 1912 HNG, inv. no.: F.75.405

383. Still Life with a Green Bottle, 1908 Oil on canvas, 60 x 66 cm I. l. l.: Tihanyi Lajos 1908 Saranszki Art Solutions Reproduced: 410. 376. Sketches for Frescoes, 1913 Pen and Indian ink on paper, 288 x 217 mm N. i. HNG. inv. no.: F. 75.446 377. Self Portrait, 1913 Indian ink on paper, 388 x 298 mm I. l. r.: Pór 1913 nyarán [summer] JPM, inv. no.: 74. 404 Reproduced: 381.

370. Picture of a Nude Youth, 1912 [From the series of etchings of Six Hungarian Painters] Copper etching on paper, 277 x 197 mm I. l. r.: Pór 1912 HNG, inv. no.: G.86.26 371. Sketch for the Mosaic of the School in Vas utca, 1912 Water-colour on paper, 230 x 170 mm I. l. r.: Mozaikhoz tervezte [Designed for the mosaic by] Pór B. 1912 Budapest, Budapest History Museum, inv. no.: 62.161.3 Reproduced: 368.

378. Self Portrait, 1913 Pencil on paper, 245 x 225 mm I. b.: Pór Bertalan önarckép [self portrait] 1913 Salgótarján, Nógrád County History Museum, inv. no.: 81.227 Reproduced: 380.

522

385. Still Life with a Potted Plant and Pear, c. 1908 Oil on canvas, 66.5 x 60.2 cm N. i. HNG, inv. no.: 68.51T Reproduced: 402. 386. Nagybánya Landscape (Landscape with Trees and a Stream), 1909 Oil on canvas, 54 x 62 cm I. l. l.: Tihanyi L. HNG, inv. no.: 57.55T Reproduced: 404.

Jean Puy 387. Landscape with a Bridge, 1909 Oil on canvas, 81 x 82 cm I. l. l.: Tihanyi L. 09 Budapest Budapest, Budapest History Museum, inv. no.: KM. 68.57 Reproduced: 397. 388. Small Park Landscape (Landscape with Winding Road), c. 1909 Oil on canvas, 53 x 60 cm I. l. l.: Tihanyi Lajos Miskolc, Ottó Herman Museum, inv. no.: 77.43 Reproduced: 419.

372. Resting Shepherds, 1912 Etching-needle and Indian ink wash on paper, 275 x 190 mm I. l. r.: Pór Bertalan Salgótarján, Nógrád County History Museum, inv. no.: 81.735 373. Grazing Horses, c. 1912 Indian ink on paper, 204 x 284 mm I. l. r.: Pór B. Salgótarján, Nógrád County History Museum, inv. no.: 81.152 Reproduced: 382.

384. Nagybánya Landscape, 1909 Oil on canvas, 50 x 60 cm I. l. r.: Tihanyi L. P. p. Reproduced: 405.

389. Still Life with a Large Yellow Tablecloth, 1909 Oil on canvas, 87 x 97.5 cm I. l. l.: Tihanyi 909 P. p. Reproduced: 122, 409.

390. Still Life with a Blue Bottle, c. 1909 Oil on canvas, 64 x 70.5 cm N. i. P. p. Reproduced: 411. 391. Boy in a Red Shirt, 1909 Oil on canvas, 70.5 x 48.5 cm N. i. P. p. Reproduced: 440. 392. Still Life with a Potted Plant, 1909 Oil on canvas, 75.5 x 63.5 cm I. l. l.: Tihany L. 1909 Kieselbach Collection Reproduced: 403. 393. Nagybánya Landscape (Landscape), 1909 Oil on canvas, 50 x 60 cm I. l. r.: Tihanyi 09 József Doszpod Reproduced: 404. 394. Worker Family, 1909–1910 Oil on canvas, 114 x 99 cm I. l. l.: Tihanyi HNG, inv. no.: 64.107T Reproduced: 439. 395. Compositional Sketch Female and Male Figure, c. 1911 Oil on canvas, 100 x 78 cm I. l. r.: Tihanyi L. HNG, inv. no.: 70.151T Reproduced: 431. 396. Nagybánya Landscape with the Kereszthegy, c. 1911 Oil on canvas, 55 x 67 cm N. i. HNG, inv. no.: F.K.9447 Reproduced: 404. 397. Landscape (Szepes-county Landscape, Szomolnok), 1911 Oil on canvas, 65.5 x 79.5 cm I. l. r.: TIHANYI L. 911 HNG, inv. no.: F.K.10.480 Reproduced: 416. 398. Landscape with Woods, 1911 Oil on canvas, 56 x 65.5 cm I. l. l.: Tihanyi Lajos 1911 P. p. Reproduced: 417. 399. Still Life with a Blue Vase, 1911 Oil on canvas, 62.5 x 75.5 cm I. u. r.: Tihanyi L. 911 P. p. Reproduced: 408. 400. Portrait of Jenô Miklós, 1911 Oil on canvas, 61 x 49 cm I. u. r.: M 11 Debrecen, Antal–Lusztig Collection Reproduced: 26, 442.

27_MUTARGYJEGYZEK_508_531_ENG

2/7/11

401. Landscape with a Winding Road, 1911 Oil on canvas, 59.5 x 73 cm I. l. l.: Tihanyi L. KOGART Reproduced: 418.

10:16 PM

Page 523

409. Landscape (the Chateau Grounds at Körtvélyes), 1912 Oil on canvas, 56 x 65 cm I. l. r.: Tihanyi L. 912 Debrecen, Antal–Lusztig Collection Reproduced: 422. 410. Trencsén Street, 1912 Oil on canvas, 58 x 45 cm I. l. r.: Tihanyi Lajos Trencsén Debrecen, Antal–Lusztig Collection Reproduced: 415.

419. Rocky Landscape, 1915 Oil on canvas, 56.5 x 70 cm I. l. l.: Tihanyi Lajos HNG, inv. no.: 5273 Reproduced: 420. 420. Portrait of Lajos Fülep, 1915 Oil on canvas, 77.5 x 95 cm I. l. l.: Tihanyi L. 1915 HNG, inv. no.: 70.152T Reproduced: 434.

411. Trencsén Street (Townscape), 1912 Oil on canvas, 55 x 50 cm I. l. r.: Tihanyi Lajos P. p. Reproduced: 413.

402. Hilly Landscape (Trencsén Landscape), 1911 Oil on canvas, 61 x 66 cm I. l. r.: Tihanyi L. 911 David Korda, London 403. Self Portrait, 1909 Oil on canvas, 89 x 56 cm N. i. Art Collection of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Milán Füst Foundation for Literary Translation, deposit, 2002 Reproduced: 441. 404. Compositional Sketch, 1911–1912 Oil on canvas, 119 x 90 cm I. l. l.: Tihanyi L. 1911-1912 P. p. Reproduced: 452. 405. Suburban Townscape, c. 1912 Oil on canvas, 80 x 65 cm I. b.: Tihanyi Lajos P. p. Reproduced: 412. 406. Trencsén Landscape, 1912 Oil on canvas, 61.5 x 79.5 cm I. l. r.: Tihanyi L Trencsén 912 HNG, inv. no.: F.K.43 Reproduced: 423. 407. Self Portrait, 1912 Oil on canvas, 71 x 58 cm I. l. l.: Tihanyi L. 1912 HNG, inv. no.: 70.132T Reproduced: 443. 408. Trencsén Castle, 1912 Oil on canvas, 66.5 x 53.5 cm I. l. r.: Tihanyi Lajos Trenice Szombathely, Szombathelyi Art Gallery, inv. no.: F. 85.2 Reproduced: 414.

412. Compositional Sketch (Two Figures), 1912 Oil on canvas, 78 x 86 cm N. i. Art Collection of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Milán Füst Foundation for Literary Translation, deposit, 2002 Reproduced: 453.

424. Wrestlers, 1908–1910 Pen and Indian ink on paper, 237 x 163 mm N. i. JPM, inv. no.: 66.81

413. Portrait of Andor Gross, c. 1913 Oil on canvas, 82 x 66.5 cm I. l. l.: Tihanyi Lajos P. p. Reproduced: 444. 414. Summer at Szécsénykovács, 1913 Oil on canvas, 62 x 59 cm I. l. r.: Tihanyi L. 1913 P. p. Reproduced: 421.

421. Sketch for a Landscape, c. 1909 Ink wash on paper, 268 x 208 mm N. i. HNG, inv. no.: F.68.33 425. Lying Female Nude, 1908–1910 Pencil on paper, 277 x 372 mm N. i. JPM, inv. no.: 66.82

415. Still Life with a Sculpture, 1913 Oil on canvas, 60.5 x 50.5 cm I. c. r.: Tihanyi Lajos 1913 Budapest HNG, inv. no.: 70.213T Reproduced: 406.

426. Study for a Male Nude, 1908–1910 Ink on paper, 368 x 275 mm N. i. JPM, inv. no.: 66.85 Reproduced: 407.

416. Self Portrait, 1914 Oil on canvas, 56 x 45 cm I. l. l.: Tihanyi Lajos HNG, inv. no.: 62.31T Reproduced: 433. 417. Portrait of Ciaclan Virgil, 1914 Oil on canvas, 107 x 79.5 cm I. l. r.: 1914 Tihanyi Lajos HNG, inv. no.: 70.135T Reproduced: 429. 418. Portrait of a Girl (Portrait of Magdolna Leopold), 1914 Oil on canvas, 70.5 x 59.7 cm I. l. l.: Tihanyi Lajos 1914 Székesfehérvár, City Gallery, Deák Collection, inv. no.: 89.117.1 Reproduced: 445.

422. Composition, c. 1912 Graphite pencil on paper, 220 x 275 mm N. i. HNG, inv. no.: F.68.21 423. Gypsy Woman with her Child (Sketch), 1908 Ink on paper, 352 x 278 mm N. i. JPM, inv. no.: 2000.5 Reproduced: 425.

427. Leaning Female Nude, 1909 Pencil on paper, 220 x 316 mm I. l. l.: Tihanyi 09. HNG, inv. no.: F.68.19/3 428. Standing Female Nude, c. 1909 Pencil on paper, 314 x 243 cm N. i. HNG, inv. no.: F.68.19/25 Reproduced: 401.

523

27_MUTARGYJEGYZEK_508_531_ENG

2/7/11

10:16 PM

Page 524

432. Lying Nude Woman with Clasped Hands and Legs, c. 1909 Purple ink on paper, 243 x 320 mm N. i. HNG, inv. no.: F.68.19/47 Reproduced: 446.

436. Sketch for a Still Life, c. 1910 Graphite pencil on paper, 160 x 203 mm N. i. HNG, inv. no.: F.68.45

437. Lying Female Nude, 1910 Indian ink on paper, 220 x 320 mm I. l. r.: TL 910; i. l.: Bölöninek barátsággal és szeretettel [To Bölöni with friendship and love from] Tihanyi Lajos 1910./X. P. p. 429. Leaning Female Nude, c. 1909 Pencil on paper, 350 x 215 mm N. i. HNG, inv. no.: F.68.19/50

433. Back of a Female Nude Leaning on a Chair, c. 1909 Purple ink on paper, 315 x 243 mm N. i. HNG, inv. no.: 70.152T

438. Wrestlers, c. 1910 Pen and Indian ink on paper, 260 x 314 mm N. i. JPM, inv. no.: 66.75 Reproduced: 450.

444. Nude, 1912 Pen and Indian ink on paper, 337 x 209 mm I. u. l.: Tihanyi Lajos 912 HNG, inv. no.: 1912–422

439. Figures in a Landscape, c. 1910 Pen and Indian ink on paper, 220 x 275 mm N. i. JPM, inv. no.: 66.79 Reproduced: 451. 440. Study for Nude, c. 1910 Pen and Indian ink on paper, 427 x 280 mm N. i. JPM, inv. no.: 66.84 Reproduced: 431. 441. Sketch for a Composition, 1911–1912 Graphite and chalk on paper, 235 x 340 mm N. i. HNG, inv. no.: F.68.37 Reproduced: 450.

430. Female Nude Sitting and Leaning against the Back of a Chair, c. 1909 Ink on paper, 370 x 275 mm N. i. HNG, inv. no.: F.68.19/13 431. Profile of a Nude Woman Down on One Knee, c. 1909 Blue ink on paper, 315 x 240 mm N. i. HNG, inv. no.: F.68.19/21 Reproduced: 447.

524

442. Sketch for a Composition, 1911–1912 Pen and Indian ink on paper, 297 x 393 mm N. i. HNG, inv. no.: F.68.38 Reproduced: 431.

434. Study for a Female Nude, 1909 Charcoal on paper, 345 x 208 mm I. l. l.: Tihanyi L. 09 JPM, inv. no.: 66.77 435. Composition (Family), 1910 Pencil on paper, 314 x 243 mm N. i. HNG, inv. no.: F.68.20 Reproduced: 438.

443. Female Nude Sitting on a Chair, c. 1912 Pen and Indian ink on paper, 425 x 278 mm N. i. HNG, inv. no.: F.68.19/18 Reproduced: 430.

445. Female Nude (Study), 1912 Pen and Indian ink on paper, 340 x 209 mm I. l. r.: Tihanyi L. 912 HNG, inv. no.: 1912–423 446. Nude Composition (Sketch), c. 1912 Pen and Indian ink wash on paper, 222 x 274 mm N. i. HNG, inv. no.: F.68.24 Reproduced: 431.

27_MUTARGYJEGYZEK_508_531_ENG

2/7/11

10:16 PM

Page 525

461. Mór Révai, 1910 Bronze, double-sided cast plaquette, 9 x 7 cm I.: V Székesfehérvár, City Gallery, Deák Collection, inv. no.: 89.121.1 462. Woman Combing her Hair, 1910–1911 Bronze, 67 cm I. b. on pedestal: Vedres Márk HNG, inv. no.: 9249 (56.703–N) Reproduced: 499. 463. Dancing Woman (with a Rattle), before 1913 Bronze, 49 cm I. b. on pedestal: Vedres Márk HNG, inv. no.: 75.7–N Reproduced: 506.

447. Back of a Nude, 1912 Indian ink on paper, 395 x 290 mm I. l. r.: Tihanyi Lajos 912 Salgótarján, Nógrád County History Museum, inv. no.: 81.286

451. Portrait of Dezsô Kosztolányi, 1914 Pencil on paper, 445 x 310 mm I. l. r.: Tihanyi Lajos 1914. Bpest Studium Kosztolányi D. portréjához [Study for a portrait of D. K.] HNG, inv. no.: F.70.112

453. Self Portrait, 1915 Lithograph on paper, 417 x 277 mm I. l. r.: Tihanyi Lajos 1915/VI JPM, inv. no.: 69.135

Márk Vedres 448. Female Nude, 1912 Indian ink on paper, 288 x 230 mm I. u. l.: Tihanyi Lajos 912 JPM, inv. no.: 70.310 Reproduced: 448.

455. Boy Wiping his Feet, before 1910 Bronze, 21 x 8 x 10 cm I. b. on pedestal: Vedres Márk Székesfehérvár, City Gallery, Deák Collection, inv. no.: 89.115.1 Reproduced: 505.

449. Two Nudes, 1913 Indian ink on paper, 302 x 420 mm I. l. r.: Tihanyi Lajos Budapest, 1913. I. Salgótarján, Nógrád County History Museum, inv. no.: 81.289 Reproduced: 449.

456. Boy Playing the Flute, c. 1905 Bronze, 36 cm I. on back of pedestal: Márk Vedres JPM, inv. no.: 70.340 Reproduced: 503.

452. Portrait of Lajos Fülep, 1915 Charcoal on paper, 430 x 345 mm I. l. r.: Tihanyi Lajos Debrecen, Antal–Lusztig Collection

457. Ede Harkányi, 1909 Bronze, double-sided cast plaquette, 5.5 x 5 cm I.: V M Székesfehérvár, City Gallery, Deák Collection, inv. no.: 89.122.1 458. Sitting Female Nude, c. 1910 Bronze, 59 cm N. i. HNG, inv. no.: 64.55–N Reproduced: 507. 459. Athlete Resting, 1910 Bronze, 72 x 38 x 21 cm I. b. on pedestal: Vedres Márk Székesfehérvár, City Gallery, Deák Collection, inv. no.: 94.407.1 Reproduced: 504.

450. Nude, 1913 Indian ink on paper, 400 x 290 mm I. l. l.: Tihanyi Lajos 913. JPM, inv. no.: 70.455

460. Girl with a Pitcher (Girl Carrying a Pitcher), 1910 Bronze, 46 x 10.5 x 13 cm I. b. on pedestal: Vedres Márk Székesfehérvár, City Gallery, Deák Collection, inv. no.: 94.398.1 Reproduced: 507.

464. Dancer, before 1914 Bronze, 37.7 cm I. on pedestal: Vedres Márk HNG, inv. no.: 4701 (copy inv. no.: 56.705–N) Reproduced: 506. 465. Boy with a Pitcher, 1914 Bronze, 37.7 cm I. b. on pedestal: Vedres Márk HNG, inv. no.: 4883 Reproduced: 506. 466. Nude of a Boy, 1914 Bronze, 63 cm I. at back: Vedres Márk JPM, inv. no.: 74.372 Reproduced: 507. 467. Boy Playing the Pipe (Pan), 1916 Bronze, 52 x 18 x 25.5 cm I. b. on pedestal: Vedres Márk Székesfehérvár, City Gallery, Deák Collection, inv. no.: 94.399.1 Reproduced: 502.

Maurice de Vlaminck 468. Sailing Boats, 1909–1910 Oil on canvas, 64.5 x 80.5 cm I. l. l.: Vlaminck Wuppertal, Von der Heydt-Museum, inv. no.: G 0701 Reproduced: 300.

Sonia Delaunay 469. Young Girl Asleep, 1907 Oil on canvas mounted on wood, 46 x 55 cm N. i. Paris, Musée National d'Art Moderne, Centre Pompidou, inv. no.: AM 4086 P Reproduced: 63.

525

27_MUTARGYJEGYZEK_508_531_ENG

2/14/11

11:15 PM

Documents published in the studies and works of art reproduced in this catalogue but not exhibited, by chapter

Page 526

László Zolnay: Márffy. Budapest, 1966 (front page) Krisztina Passuth: Dezsô Orban, Budapest, 1977 (front page)

Abbreviations: BHM KM – Budapest History Museum, Kiscell Museum Photographic Archives MESL – Metropolitan Ervin Szabó Library, Budapest JPM – Janus Pannonius Museum, Pécs DKM – Domokos Kuny Museum, Tata HNG – Hungarian National Gallery, Budapest HNM HPA – Hungarian National Museum, Historical Photographic Archives, Budapest HAS RIP – Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Research Institute for Philosophy, Budapest HAS RIA – Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Research Institute for Art History, Budapest NSL – National Széchényi Library, Budapest PML AC – Petôfi Museum of Literature, Art Collection, Budapest MFA – Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest

Krisztina Passuth: The Eight – Research and Discovery Recollections Page 10 Lajos Kassák opens the exhibition The Eight and the Activists at the István Csók Gallery in Székesfehérvár, 1965 (photograph) P. p. Page 11 Detail of the exhibition The Eight and the Activists in Székesfehérvár, 1965 (photograph) P. p. Page 12 Iván Hevesy: The Art of Post-Impressionism, Gyoma, 1922 (front page) Gábor Ö. Pogány: The Revolutionaries of Hungarian painting, Budapest, [1947] (front page) Ernô Kállai: New Hungarian Painting 1900–1925, Budapest, 1925 (front page) Page 13 Krisztina Passuth: The Painting of the Eight, Budapest, 1967 (front page) Page 14 The Eight and the Activists, HNG, 1961 (front page) Béla Szíj: Róbert Berény, Budapest, 1964 (front page)

The Eight and the Activists, Budapest – Pécs, HNG – JPM, 1981 (front page) Page 15 Iván Dévényi: Kernstok Budapest, 1970, (front page)

526

Iván Dévényi: Tihanyi, Budapest, 1968 (front page) Page 16 Detail of the exhibition The Eight and the Activists in Székesfehérvár, 1965 (photograph) P. p. Page 17 Krisztina Passuth with György Szûcs and Péter Molnos installing the HNG exhibition Hungarian Fauves from Paris to Nagybánya 1904–1914, 2006 (photograph by Gergely Barki)

Gergely Barki: Chiefs, organisers, curators. A glimpse behind the scenes of the Eight

Jenô Miklós in the company of writers and poets, 1923 In the photograph taken on 20 May 1923 at an event commemorating the 25th literary anniversary of poet Gyula Juhász: Jenô Miklós with, among others, Lôrinc Szabó, Dezsô Kosztolányi, Gyula Juhász, Mihály Babits, Attila József, Sophie Török Babits and Ferenc Móra NSL Archives, Fond III/2260/4.

Invitation to the 1911 exhibition of the Eight PIM, inv. no.: V. 4330/167–7

Page 27 Róbert Berény: Pál Relle and His Wife Blanka Péchy with Their Child, 1926–1928 Oil on canvas, 90 x 114 cm I. l. r.: Berény JPM, inv. no.: 2003.1 (Estate of Blanka Péchy)

Page 33 Zoltán Felvinczi Takács, c. 1910 (photograph) Ferenc Hopp Museum of Eastern Asiatic Arts, Archives, Budapest

Pál Relle and Blanka Péchy with friends at the café Japán Kávéház, 1930s (photograph) BHM KM Page 28 Humorous commentary about the exhibition of New Pictures in the satirical paper Urambátyám, 9 January 1910.

Page 32 Front page of the catalogue of the 1911 exhibition of the Eight Exhibition of the “Eight” in the National Salon, introduction by Géza Feleky, Budapest, 1911 Estate of Desiderius Orban

Walter Cohen’s postcard to Zoltán Felvinczi Takács with the Sonderbund letterhead, 1912 Ferenc Hopp Museum of Eastern Asiatic Arts, Archives, Budapest The Munch room at the Sonderbund exhibition in Cologne, 1912 (photograph) P. p.

Page 21 Caricature of the exhibition of the Eight on the front cover of the satirical paper Fidibusz, 5 May 1911

Viktor Wollemann: Caricature of Károly Kernstok's work Youths, 1910 Az Üstökös, 9 January 1910

Page 34 Front page of the third exhibition catalogue of the Eight, 1912 Catalogue of the third exhibition of the Eight, November and December 1912 Budapest, National Salon, 1912

Page 22 Károly Kernstok in 1911 (photograph by Erzsi Gajdusek)

Viktor Wollemann: Caricature of Lajos Tihanyi’s work Wrestlers, 1910 Az Üstökös, 9 January 1910

Károly Kernstok’s mural Primitive Hunters in the gym hall of Dugonics utca school, 1912 HAS RIAH Archives, estate of Béla Horváth

György Bölöni and József Rippl-Rónai, c. 1910 PML AC

Page 29 Letter from Csaba Vilmos Perlrott, 1909 HNG Archives, inv. no.: 4579/a.

Károly Kernstok’s stained-glass window at the Debrecen county hall, 1912 (detail)

Page 23 Caricature of the second exhibition of MIÉNK in the satirical paper Borsszem Jankó, 1909. Borsszem Jankó, 1909. február 21. 7. Page 24 Letter by Miklós Rózsa mentioning the Eight. HAS RIAH Archives, estate of Béla Horváth Front page of the catalogue of New Pictures The exhibition New Pictures at the Könyves Kálmán Salon [Budapest], [1909] Page 25 Inner pages in the catalogue of New Pictures The exhibition New Pictures at the Könyves Kálmán Salon [Budapest], [1909] The large exhibition room of the Könyves Kálmán Salon, 1904 Kiváló mûlapok jegyzéke, Budapest, 1904, VI Entrance of the Könyves Kálmán Salon, 1904 Kiváló mûlapok jegyzéke, Budapest, 1904, I Jenô Miklós, in the 1920s (photograph) PML AC

The hanging committee of the Berlin Secession, 1904 (photograph) P. p. Page 30 Károly Kernstok, Róbert Berény, Dezsô Czigány, Béla Czóbel, Ödön Márffy, Dezsô Orbán, 1911 (photographs by Aladár Székely) Aurora, 1911 Jules Pascin: Horseman, c. 1912 P. p. Jules Pascin (?) and Lipót Herman: Lajos Tihanyi riding the Kernstok Kentaur, c. 1912 P. p. Caricatures of paintings at the exhibition of the Eight on a card addressed to István Réti, 1911 P. p. Page 31 Bertalan Pór, Lajos Tihanyi, Márk Vedres, Mária Lehel, Vilmos Fémes Beck, Anna Lesznai, 1911 (photographs by Aladár Székely) Aurora, 1911

Page 35 Béla Déry’s letter to Vilmos Fémes Beck on the National Salon’s letterhead paper for the exhibition of the Eight, 1912 HNG Archives, inv. no.: 23256/1991/6 Invitation to the third exhibition of the Eight, 1912 PML AC, inv. no.: V. 4330/167–21 Page 36 The building of the Brüko Salon in Vienna today (photograph by Gergely Barki) Catalogue and invitation of the exhibition at the Brüko Salon in Vienna for Berény, Pór and Tihanyi, 1914 P. p. Page 37 Newspaper article about the Artist House’s exhibition in Vienna, 1914 Érdekes Újság, 1914. no. 14, p. 23 Page 38 The Panama-Pacific International Exposition during the day and at night, 1915 (photograph) The Futurists’ room at the Panama-Pacific International Exposition, 1915 (photograph)

27_MUTARGYJEGYZEK_508_531_ENG

2/7/11

Page 39 Elma Pálos and John Nilsen Laurvik in 1915 (photograph) Judith Dupont Archives Page 40 Róbert Berény: To arms! To arms!, 1919 Litograph on paper, 124 x 194 cm I. l. l.: Berény R. HNG, inv. no.: XY 61.01 Page 43 Kiscelli út nursery school (photograph by Mór Erdélyi)

Katalin Gellér: The art scene at the time of the emergence of the Eight Artists’ colonies, associations, exhibition venues Page 44 Painter at Nagybánya, 1920s (photograph by Rudolf Bedô) P. p. Page 45 Vilmos Perlrott Csaba at the Kecskemét artists’ colony, 1913 Érdekes Ujság, 12 October 1913, p. 1 József Rippl-Rónai: The members of MIÉNK on an outing, c. 1909 Pencil and water-colour on paper; 227 x 287 mm I. l. r.: Petrovics Eleknek Rippl-Rónai J HNG, inv. no.: 1930–2182 Page 46 Taking inventory of pictures arriving from abroad at the Mûcsarnok, 1903. (photograph by Ödön Békei) Új Idôk, 1903, p. 297

10:16 PM

Page 527

Page 50 Interior of The Eight – A centenary exhibition at Janus Pannonius Museum Modern Hungarian Gallery, Pécs, 10 December 2010 – 27 March 2011 (photograph by József Sárkány) Page 51 Béla Czóbel: Painters in Open Air, 1906 Oil on canvas, 79 x 79.5 cm I. u. r.: Czobel P. p. Csaba Vilmos Perlrott: Self Portrait with a Sculpture, c. 1910 Oil on canvas, 76.5 x 64 cm N. i. Collection of Tamás Kieselbach Béla Iványi Grünwald: Nude with a Parrot, c. 1909 Oil on canvas, 82.5 x 103.5 cm N. i. P. p. Page 52 Endre Ady, 1912 (photograph by Aladár Székely) PML AC, inv. no.: 2150 Leó Popper with an unknown person, c. 1910 (photograph) HAS RIP, Lukács Archives Page 53 György Lukács, 1910s (photograph) HNM HPA Béla Balázs: “Georg von Lukács – writing an article on Ady”, 1909 HAS RIP, Lukács Archives Édouard Manet: Breakfast in Open Air, 1863 Oil on canvas, 208 x 264 cm Musée du Louvre, Paris

Exhibition of László Kézdi-Kovács at the Kálmán Könyves Salon, 1906 Új Idôk, 1906, p. 478.

Paul Cézanne: Pastorale (Idyll), c. 1870 Oil on canvas, 65 x 81 cm Musée d'Orsay, Paris

Exhibition of József Rippl-Rónai at the Mûvészház, 1911 (photograph by Gyula Jelfy) Vasárnapi Újság, 1911. p. 230.

Henri Matisse: Joy of Life, 1905–1906 Oil on canvas, 175 x 241 cm The Barnes Foundation, Merion

Page 47 Detail of the Urania Nude exhibition, 1907 Új Idôk, 1907, p. 377.

Page 57 Kernstok and Oszkár Jászi in the company of unknown persons, c. 1910 (photograph) HAS RIAH Archives, estate of Béla Horváth

Csilla Markója: The Tact of the Painter. The place of the Eight in the history of Hungarian modernism

Page 60 Róbert Berény: Golgotha (Station V), 1912 Oil on canvas I. u. c.: Berény 1912 P. p.

Page 49 Róbert Berény: Grumpy Self-Portrait, c. 1907 Water-colour on paper, 217 x 186 mm N. i. Gergely Barki

Page 61 Francis Bacon: Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion, 1944 Oil on wood, each 94 x 73.7 cm Tate Modern, London

Mihály Munkácsy: Golgota, 1884 Oil on canvas, 460 x 712 cm I. l. r.: Munkácsy Déri Museum, Debrecen (loan until 2002) Page 64 The salon of the villa of József Lukács, 1920s (photograph) HAS RIP, Lukács Archives Hans von Marées: Youth leading a Horse, with a Nymph, 1881–1883 Mixed media on wood, 188.5 x 145 cm Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, Neue Pinakothek, Munich Page 66 Hans von Marées: Three Men in a Landscape, 1875 Oil on canvas, 80 x 100 cm Museum Kunst Palast, Düsseldorf Paul Gauguin: Faa Iheihe, 1898 (detail) Oil on canvas, 54 x 169.5 cm Tate Modern, London Paul Gauguin: The White Horse, 1898 Oil on canvas, 140 x 91 cm Musée d'Orsay, Paris Paul Gauguin: Horsemen on the Beach, 1902 (detail) Oil on canvas, 73 x 92 cm P. p. Page 68 Károly Kernstok: Horseman Raising his Sword, 1911 (Missing) The front page of the periodical Szabadgondolat Géza Faragó: Caricature of Károly Kernstok’s painting Solitary Horseman at Dawn, 1911 (Missing), Magyarország, 24 December 1911

Zoltán Rockenbauer: New pictures, new poems, new music. Allies of the Eight, from Ady to Bartók Page 70 Dezsô Czigány: Portrait of Endre Ady (“Ady with Wine”), 1907–1908 (Missing) Oil on canvas, 76 x 61.5 cm Metropolitan Gallery, Budapest, inv. no.: 921 (War loss) Page 71 Endre Ady, 1908 (photograph by Aladár Székely) PML AC, inv. no.: 2398 Page 72 György Lukács, Anna Hamvassy and Béla Balázs, c. 1915 PML AC Page 73 Front page of the anthology Holnap, 1908

Page 74 György Bölöni, 1910s HNM HPA Ödön Márffy: Portrait of Lajos Gulácsy, 1907 Oil on card, 63 x 52 cm I. l. r.: Ödön Márffy HNG, inv. no.: 58.126T Page 75 Tamás Emôd, Endre Ady and Mihály Nagy at Nagyvárad with the first issue of the literary periodical Nyugat, 1908 (photograph by Ede Lembert) HNM HPA, inv. no.: 67.2379 Page 76 Dezsô Czigány: Endre Ady, 1908 (Missing) I. u. l.: Czigány 1908 Inner front page of Ede Ady’s book Blood and Gold with Dezsô Czigány’s portrait of the poet, 1908 Page 77 Front page of Endre Ady’s New Poems with a drawing by Elek Falus, 1906 Ady and Léda, 1907 (photograph by Aladár Székely) PML AC, inv. no.: 2005 Page 78 Front page of the first issue of Nyugat, 1 January 1908 Page 79 Mihály Bíró: Poster for the periodical Aurora, 1911 Litograph on paper, 96 x 61 cm I. c. r.: Bíró HNG, inv. no.: XY58.181 Page 80 Dezsô Kosztolányi, 1915 (detail) (photograph by Dénes Rónai) PML AC, inv. no.: 2231/1 Lajos Tihanyi: Portrait of Dezsô Kosztolányi, 1914 (Missing) Robert Desnos: Tihanyi. Peintures 1908–1922 Paris, 1936. Page 82 Invitation to the concert hosted during the exhibition of the Eight on 18 May 1911 PIM, inv. no.: V. 4330/167–8 Page 83 Dezsô Czigány, c. 1920 (photograph) HNG Archives, inv. no.: 15534/62 Page 84 Dezsô Orban, 1930s (photograph) P. p. The Waldbauer–Kerpely String Quartet, 1910s (photograph by Olga Máté) HNM HPA

527

27_MUTARGYJEGYZEK_508_531_ENG

2/7/11

10:16 PM

Jenô Kerpely, 1910s (photograph) P. p. Page 86 Béla Bartók, c. 1915 (photograph by Aladár Székely) PML AC Page 87 Róbert Berény: Portrait of Béla Bartók, 1913 Oil on canvas, 67.5 x 46 cm I. u. r.: Berény OP. 3 1913 P. p. Page 88 Béla Bartók and Zoltán Kodály with the members of the Waldbauer–Kerpely Quartet, 1910 (photograph by Aladár Székely) P. p.

Péter Molnos: Behind the Eight. The social basis for the new Hungarian painting Page 91 Baron Sándor Hatvany-Deutsch with his sons, the painter Ferenc and the writer Lajos, 1901 (photograph) PML AC, inv. no.: 14953 Page 92 In the study of Count Gyula Andrássy’s palace in Fô utca, 1914 (photograph by Révész and Bíró) HNM HPA, inv. no.: 181/1951 Page 93 József Rippl-Rónai: Elek Petrovics and Simon Meller, 1910 Oil on card, 83.5 x 104 cm I. l. l.: Rónai 1910 MFA Adolf Kohner, c. 1910 (photograph) HNM HPA, inv. no.: 67.2913 Page 94 The Moscovitz mansion at Alsókörtvélyes, 1900s (photograph) P. p. Károly Ferenczy: Portrait of József Lukács, 1905 Oil on canvas, 114 x 88 cm HNG, inv. no.: 64.21T Page 95 Baron Sándor Hatvany-Deutsch, c. 1910 PML AC, inv. no.: 14936–41 Fülöp Weiss, 1920s HNM HPA, inv. no.: 62.3100 György Lukács, Béla Balázs and Anna Hamvassy in Béla Balázs’s flat in Naphegy utca, c. 1915 PML AC

528

Page 528

Page 96 A room in the Lukács villa, 1920s (photograph) HAS RIP, Lukács Archives Interior of the salon of the Lukács villa, 1920s (photograph) HAS RIP, Lukács Archives Page 97 Ciaclan Virgil in his study in Nagyvárad with sculptures by Vilmos Fémes Beck, a drawing by Lajos Tihanyi and the Self Portrait of Dezsô Czigány, 1922. (photograph) HNG Archives, inv. no.: 23279/1991 Ciaclan Virgil, 1930s Lajos Tihanyi’s painting Landscape with a Winding Road (photograph) P. p. Page 98 József Vágó, c. 1920 (photograph by Olga Máté) HNM HPA, inv. no.: 67.575 Page 99 The editors of Budapesti Napló. Left: Gyula Erôs, Ignác Pfeiffer, Géza Lengyel, Miklós Rózsa, Lajos Bíró, Ede Kabos, Géza Csáth, Gyula Hegedûs, Dezsô Kosztolányi, 1907 (photograph by Lipót Strelisky) MESL, inv. no.: PAZ. 010900 Page 100 Endre Ady, 1913. (photograph by Aladár Székely) PML AC, inv. no.: 2022 Page 101 György Bölöni with an unknown lady, 1910s HNM HPA Page 102 Béla Bartók at Gyergyószentmiklós, 1907 (photograph by István Kováts) MTA Musicological Institute, Bartók Archives

Gyula Kemény: Approaches to the Group of Eight through Pictures Hans von Marées: Narcissus (right wing of the triptych The Wedding), 1885–1887 (detail) Oil and tempera on canvas; the entire triptych measures 184 x 303 cm, the right wing 184 x 61.3 cm. Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, Neue Pinakothek, Munich inv. no.: 7855 c Page 110 Ferdinand Hodler: The Chosen One, 1893–1894 Oil and tempera on canvas, 219 x 296 cm Bern, Kunstmuseum

Hans von Marées: Two Youths in a Landscape, 1875–1883 Oil on wood, 96 x 68.5 cm Städel Museum, Frankfurt am Main, inv. no.: SG 293 Page 112 Ödön Márffy: Three Nudes (Three Graces), 1911 (detail) Márffy cut up the painting prior to 1921 Page 113 Hans von Marées: The Praise of Modesty, 1885. Oil on canvas, 118.5 x 119.5 cm Museum der bildenden Künste, Leipzig Hans von Marées: The Hesperides, 1884–1885. Oil on wood, the central panel of the triptych measures 175 x 205 cm Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, Neue Pinakothek, Munich, inv. no.: 7854 b Ödön Márffy: Three Nudes (Three Graces), 1911 (detail) Márffy cut up the painting prior to 1921 Page 115 Dezsô Czigány: Still Life with a Picture of Napoleon, 1912–1913 Oil on canvas, 61 x 72 cm I. u. r.: Czigány P. p. Page 116 Róbert Berény: Composition with Silhouette, 1911 (present whereabouts unknown) Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec: Moulin Rouge, 1891. (detail) Litograph on paper, 168 x 118 cm P. p. Luigi Russolo: The Revolt, 1911 (detail) Oil on canvas, 150 x 230 cm Gemeentemuseum, The Hague, inv. no.: SCH–1955–0012 Paul Cézanne: Bathers (Les Grandes Baigneuses), 1898–1905 (detail) Oil on canvas, 208.3 x 251.5 cm Philadelphia Museum of Art, Philadelphia, inv. no.: 857 Page 122 El Greco: Saint Peter and Saint Paul, 1605–1608 (detail) Oil on canvas, 124 x 93 cm National Museum, Stockholm, inv. no.: NM 2070 Page 126 Caricature in the satirical paper Fidibusz, 7 July 1911, p. 10 Caricature in the satirical paper Fidibusz, 2 June 1911, p. 9

Vojtech Lahoda: Seekers, Preachers and Warriors: The Eight in Prague and Budapest Page 128 György Lukács, 1910s (photograph) P. p. Page 129 Béla Czóbel: In the Square (On the Corner of the Marketplace), 1905–1906 Oil on canvas, 56.8 x 50.4 cm I. u. r.: Czóbel P. p. Page 130 Max Oppenheimer: The Scourging of Jesus, 1913. Oil on canvas, 195 x 152.5 cm I. l. c.: MOPP P. p. André Derain: Bathers, 1907 Oil on canvas, 180 x 230 cm National Gallery, Prague Page 131 Edvard Munch: Melancholy (Laura), 1899. Oil on canvas, 110 x 126 cm N. i. Munch Museum, Oslo György Lukács, c. 1910 (photograph) HAS RIP, Lukács Archives Emil Filla: Reader of Dostoevski, 1907. Oil on canvas, 98.5 x 80 cm National Gallery, Prague Page 132 Irma Seidler, 1900s (photograph) HAS RIP, Lukács Archives István Csók: Shokac Funeral, 1909 Oil on canvas, 66.5x86 cm I. l. l.: Csók, Darázs, 1930 JPM, inv. no.: 52.58.1 Page 133 Dezsô Czigány: Funeral of a Child, 1907 Oil on card, 60.7 x 76.2 cm I. l. r.: Czigány HNG, inv. no.: 89.52T Page 134 Bohumil Kubisˇta: Portrait of Arthur Schopenhauer, 1908 Oil on canvas, 91.5 x 71.5 cm Brno, Moravská Galerie Page 135 El Greco: Prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, 1610 Oil on canvas, 170 x 112.5 cm MFA, inv. no.: 51.2827 Page 136 El Greco: The Immaculate Conception, 1605–1610 Oil on canvas, 108 x 82 cm Lugano-Castagnola, Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection

27_MUTARGYJEGYZEK_508_531_ENG

2/7/11

Gergely Barki: Róbert Berény

10:16 PM

Page 529

Page 140 Róbert Berény with his mother and sibling, 1907 (photograph) P. p.

Page 152 Róbert Berény: Embroidery, 1912 (present whereabouts unknown) Catalogue of the third exhibition of the Eight, November and December 1912 Budapest, National Salon, 1912.

Page 141 Róbert Berény with his wife in the company of unknown people on the Island of Capri, 1913 (photograph) P. p.

Page 154 Róbert Berény’s wife Léni Somló in the garden of their villa in Városmajor, c. 1912 (photograph) P. p.

Page 142 Róbert Berény: Portrait of my Father, 1906. Oil on canvas, 62 x 41 cm J.j.l.: Berény 06 P. p.

Róbert Berény with his wife, father, an unknown person and their dog Pluto in the garden of their villa in Városmajor, c. 1912 (photograph) P. p.

Page 143 Róbert Berény by his painting In a Paris Brothel, c. 1906 (photograph) P. p.

Page 174 Róbert Berény: Sketch for the Montparnasse Nude VI, 1907 (Missing) Charcoal on paper I. l. l.: Berény 1907

Róbert Berény: Woman with Glass, 1905 Oil on canvas, 61 x 46 cm I. l. l.: Berény 1905 Collection of Tamás Kieselbach

Page 177 Róbert Berény: Mediterranean Landscape, 1907 Oil on canvas, 62.5 x 78.5 cm I. l. l.: R. Berény P. p.

Page 146 Caricatures of paintings by Róbert Berény, 1911 Borsszem Jankó, 7 May 1911 Róbert Berény: Composition with Silhouette, 1911 (Missing) Aurora, 15 April 1911 Page 149 Róbert Berény: Portrait of Ignotus, 1912 (Missing) Indian ink on paper I. u. l.: fejtanulmány a Nyugatnak Budapest [Study of a Head for Nyugat Budapest] 1912. XI. Berény Róbert Nyugat, 1912, no. 22. Róbert Berény: Riding a Coach with Ignotus, 1912 Ink and coloured chalk on paper, 215 x 284 mm I. l. l.: A 20adiki autózás emlékére Ignotusnak sok szeretettel Robert [In memory of the car ride on 20th with love Robert]; i. u. r.: 1912. VII. 22. PIM, inv. no.: 83. 161.1 Ignotus with his wife, Lili Somló in the company of two strangers, 1920s (photograph) Dr Thomas A. Sos, New York Page 150 Reproduction of Berény’s Portrait of Bartók on the front page of the October 1956 issue of High Fidelity magazine Leó Weiner and Róbert Berény, c. 1907 (photograph) Ferenc Liszt Academy of Music, Library, estate of Leó Weiner

Attila Rum: Dezsô Czigány Page 200 Dezsô Czigány: Self Portrait, 1912 Oil on canvas, 71 x 45 cm I. l. r.: Czigány D. 1902 HNG, inv. no.: 64.20T Page 201 Dezsô Czigány, c. 1920 (photograph) HNG Archives, inv. no.: 15535/62 Page 203 Viktor Wollemann: Caricature of the exhibition of MIÉNK, 1909 Üstökös, 21 February 1909 Dezsô Czigány: Female Nude with a Mirror, 1909. A Ház, 1909, no. 69 Page 206 Dezsô Czigány: Two Female Nudes, 1911 (Missing) I. l. r.: Czigány Aurora, 1911, no. 11, p. 280. Dezsô Czigány: Two Female Nudes, 1911 (Missing) I. l. l.: Cz D. Exhibition of the “Eight” in the National Salon. Introduction by Géza Feleky, Budapest, 1911 Page 207 Dezsô Czigány: Woman Combing Her Hair, 1909 (destroyed) (photograph) Oil on canvas, 95 x 110 cm I. u. l.: Czigány ELTE Institute for Art History, Slides Archives

Dezsô Czigány: The Paintress, 1909 (Missing) Oil on canvas Aurora, 1911, no. 11. p. 276 Page 208 Dezsô Czigány in his studio on Százados út, 1912 (photograph by Mór Erdélyi) BHM KM, inv. no.: 62.192.45 Page 210 Dezsô Czigány and his wife Boriska Szilasi, 1925 (photograph by Olga Máté) HAS RIP, Lukács Archives

Czóbel outside his studio in Paris in spring 1908 The Architectural Record, May 1910, p. 409 Béla Czóbel: Lisa, 1910s (Missing) Formerly in Dutch private property Béla Czóbel: Detail of Nyergesújfalu, 1913. (present whereabouts unknown) (photograph) HAS RIAH Archives, estate of Béla Horváth Béla Czóbel: Study, c. 1913 (Missing) Nyugat, 1913

Page 211 Dezsô Czigány: Self Portrait with a Book, 1910–1911. Aurora, 1911, no. 11, p. 279.

Page 248 Béla Czóbel: Man in a Straw Hat, c. 1907 Oil on canvas, 58 x 60 cm I. l. r.: Czobel P. p.

Gergely Barki: Béla Czóbel

Bernadett Kovács: Károly Kernstok

Page 235 Béla Czóbel in Montmorency, 1911. (photograph) P. p.

Page 254 Károly Kernstok’s pass with his photograph to the exhibition of the 1896 Paris Salon HAS RIAH Archives, estate of Béla Horváth

Page 236 Gelett Burgess, c. 1910 (photograph) P. p.

Page 255 Károly Kernstok, c. 1910 (photograph) HAS RIAH Archives, estate of Béla Horváth

Busy street on Montparnasse, 1906–1907 (photograph) NSL Archives, bequest of György Bölöni

Page 257 Károly Kernstok with his family and Bertalan Pór at a Paris air show, 1906 (photograph) DKM

Page 237 Béla Czóbel (?): Parisian Street, c. 1906 Oil on card, 58 x 51 cm N. i. P. p. Page 238 Béla Czóbel: Female Portrait, 1907 (Missing) I. l. r.: Czobel The Architectural Record, May 1910, p. 409 Béla Czóbel and his wife Isolde Daig and their daughter Lisa, 1910s (photograph) P. p. Béla Czóbel: Lying Female Nude, 1907 (Missing) (photograph) NSL Archives, estate of György Bölöni Page 239 Béla Czóbel: Moulin de la Galette, 1907–1908 (present whereabouts unknown) The Architectural Record, 1910 May, 403. Page 241 Béla Czóbel: Nude Study, 1910 (Missing) L’avant garde en Hongrie 1910–1930, Galerie Arts et Civilisations, Quimper, 1984 Béla Czóbel: Red Nude Sculpture I, 1908 Oil on canvas, 78 x 40 cm I. l. r.: Czóbel 908 P. p.

Károly Kernstok at Nyergesújfalu, 1910s (photograph) DKM Page 259 Károly Kernstok: Landscape with Trees, early 1910s (present whereabouts unknown) (photograph) HAS RIAH Archives, estate of Béla Horváth Károly Kernstok: By the Stream, 1910 (Missing) Guide to the retrospective exhibition of Károly Kernstock at the Artist House, Budapest, 1911 Károly Kernstok: Detail of a Park, 1908–1909 (Missing) Oil on canvas, 71 x 87.5 cm I. l. c.: Kernstok Károly BÁV 89th art auction, No 177. Page 260 Hall of Miksa Schiffer’s villa, 1912 Magyar Iparmûvészet, 1912. Page 262 Károly Kernstok and his son in their garden at Nyergesújfalu, c. 1910 (photograph) DKM Endre Ady’s postcard to Károly Kernstok, 1913 HAS RIAH Archives, estate of Béla Horváth

529

27_MUTARGYJEGYZEK_508_531_ENG

2/7/11

10:16 PM

Page 530

Page 292 Károly Kernstok: Young Peasant Woman with her Child, c. 1907 (Missing) Múlt és Jövô, 1914, p. 367

Page 327 Ödön Márffy: The Amateur, c. 1905 (Missing) Ország-Világ, 1907, 253

Page 338 Dezsô Orban by his Still Life with a Green Pear, c. 1909 (photograph) P. p.

Károly Kernstok: Portrait of Mrs Ödön Révai, 1907 (Missing)

Ödön Márffy: Nude, 1911–1921 (Missing) Mûvészettörténeti Értesítô, 2005, 316

Károly Kernstok: In the Garden, 1906 (Missing) A Ház, 1910, 48.

Ödön Márffy: Three Nudes, 1911. (Missing) Aurora, 1911, 123

Page 339 Henri Matisse: The Dance II, 1909–1910 Oil on canvas, 260 x 391 cm Hermitage, St. Petersburg

Károly Kernstok: Mr and Mrs Artúr Lederer, 1908 (Missing) A Ház, 1910. 54. Page 293 Károly Kernstok: Youth, 1909 (present whereabouts unknown) A Ház, 1910. 50. Károly Kernstok: Saint John the Baptist, 1909 (Missing) HAS RIAH Photographic Archives

Page 328 Ödön Márffy: Landscape, 1909 (present whereabouts unknown) Aurora, 1911. 122 Ödön Márffy: Green Room, 1906 (present whereabouts unknown) Ország-Világ, 1907, 252 Ödön Márffy: Factory Grounds, c. 1910 (present whereabouts unknown) Aurora, 1911, 122

Zoltán Rockenbauer: Ödön Márffy’s Eight Period

Ödön Márffy: Kôbánya, 1910 (painter over at a later time) (present whereabouts unknown) Aurora, 1911, 122

Page 295 Ödön Márffy, 1911 (photograph by Aladár Székely) MESL, inv. no.: 040022

Page 329 Ödön Márffy: Constructive Landscape with a Church, 1913 (Missing) Nyugat, 1913, II, p. 448

Page 297 Ödön Márffy: Boy and Girl on a Green Bench, 1908 Oil on canvas, 95 x 115 cm I. l. r.: Márffy P. p.

Ödön Márffy: Woman Riding a Horse, 1913 (Missing) Nyugat, 1913, I, p. 216

Page 300 Georges Braque: Houses at L’Estaque, 1908 Oil on canvas, 73 x 60 cm N. i. Hermann und Margrit Rupf-Stiftung, Bern

Ödön Márffy: Female Nude, 1911 (Missing) Exhibition of the “Eight” in the National Salon, introduction by Géza Feleky, Budapest, 1911, 28

Page 301 Ödön Márffy: Village on the Hillside, c. 1912 Oil on canvas, 65 x 82 cm I. l. r.: Márffy Ödön P. p. Page 326 Ödön Márffy: Cherry and Oranges, before 1907 (Missing) Ország-Világ, 1907, 253 Ödön Márffy: Still Life with Pots, c. 1910 (Missing) BÁV 40th art auction, Ödön Márffy: Still Life with a White Jug, before, c. 1907 (Missing) Ország-Világ, 1907, 253 Ödön Márffy: Room with Green Wallpaper, 1906 (Missing) Ország-Világ, 1907, 252

530

Ödön Márffy: Female Nude, 1911 (Missing) Aurora, 1911, 117.

Péter Molnos: The Eighth: Dezsô Orbán Page 331 Dezsô Orban wearing a uniform, c. 1913 (photograph by Erzsi Gajdusek) P. p. Page 332 Dezsô Orban as a child with his family, c. 1895 (photograph) P. p. Page 333 Detail of the collection of Leo and Gertrude Stein at rue de Fleurus 27 in Paris, 1910s (photograph) P. p. Page 336 Paul Cézanne: Still Life with a Jug, c. 1868 Oil on canvas, 64 x 81 cm Musée d'Orsay, Paris

Dezsô Bér: Caricature of the exhibition of the Eight, 1912 Indian ink on paper, 240 x 298 mm I. u. l.: Bér Gergely Barki Borsszem Jankó, 17 November 1912 Page 340 Dezsô Orban: Decorative Composition, 1911–1912 (Missing) Catalogue of the third exhibition of the Eight, November and December 1912 Budapest, National Salon, 1912 Page 341 Dezsôs Orban: Still Life, 1911 Oil on canvas, 94 x 128.5 cm I. l. r.: Orban 1911 National Gallery of Australia, inv. no.: NGA 77.29 Page 343 Dezsô Orban: French Landscape, c. 1910 Oil on canvas, 66 x 82.5 cm I. l. l.: Orbán D P. p. Page 360 Dezsô Orban: Still Life with Vases, Cups and Fruit, c. 1909 (Missing) Hungarian modernism 1900–1950, György Szûcs (ed.), Budapest, 1999, p. 62. Dezsô Orban: Gloxinia, 1915 (Missing) Oil on canvas, 60 x 80 cm Krisztina Passuth: Orbán Dezsô, Budapest, 1977, p. 15 Dezsô Orban: Still Life, c. 1910 (Missing) Oil on canvas, 60 x 65 cm Krisztina Passuth: Orbán Dezsô, Budapest, 1977, p. 5

Dezsô Orban: Large Nude, 1912 (Missing) Oil on canvas, 92 x 140 cm I. l. l.. Orbán Krisztina Passuth: Orbán Dezsô, Budapest, 1977, p. 16

Csilla Vágó: Bertalan Pór Page 362 Bertalan Pór in the early 1900s (photograph) P. p. Page 363 Bertalan Pór in 1911 (photograph by Aladár Székely) HNG, Archives Page 364 Bertalan Pór’s family in the 1920s (photograph) P. p. Page 366 The People’s Opera at the inauguration in 1911 (photograph by Rudolf Balogh) Vasárnapi Újság, 1911, 981. Page 367 Bertalan Pór: Sketch for the Panel Painting of the People’s Opera, 1911 (Missing) Photograph taken at the commorative exhibition of Pór in 1966 HNG Archives, inv. no.: Pór 23009/1989/I/129 Bertalan Pór in his studio on Százados út, 1912 (photograph by Mór Erdélyi) BHM KM Page 368 Bertalan Pór and Miksa Róth: The Mosaic of the School in Vas utca (photograph) Bertalan Pór: Sketch for the Mosaic of the School in Vas utca, 1912. BHM KM Bertalan Pór’s family in front of the same-size coloured design of the mosaic of the Vas utca school, 1910s (photograph) P. p.

Dezsô Orban: Still Life with Pots, c. 1910 (Missing) Oil on canvas, 52 x 66 cm Gil Docking: Desiderius Orban His Life and Art, North Ryde, NSW, 1983, plate 6

Krisztina Passuth: Lajos Tihanyi

Page 361 Dezsô Orban: Still Life with a Jug and Vase, c. 1910 (Missing) Aurora, 1911, pp. 241–249

Page 394 Lajos Tihanyi: Bathers, 1907 Oil on canvas, 80 x 73 cm N. i. HNG, inv. no.: 68.50T

Dezsô Orban: Lying Nude, c. 1910 (Missing) Aurora, 1911, pp. 241–249 Dezsô Orban: Still Life with a Fruit Bowl, c. 1910 (Missing) Aurora, 1911, pp. 241–249.

Page 393 Lajos Tihanyi, 1910s HNG, Archives, inv. no.: 18782/73–18

Page 395 Lajos Tihanyi, Jenô Józsi Tersánszky and their friends in the Balaton Coffee House, 1910s (photograph) PIM, inv. no.: 5926

27_MUTARGYJEGYZEK_508_531_ENG

2/7/11

Lajos Tihanyi: Wrestlers, 1909 (Missing) (photograph by Dénes Rónai) Hungarian Museum of Photography, Kecskemét Lajos Tihanyi: Still Life, 1909 (Missing) Robert Desnos: Tihanyi. Peintures 1908–1922, Paris, 1936, IV Page 396 Lajos Tihanyi: Portrait of Tibor Szamuely, 1913 (Missing) Robert Desnos: Tihanyi. Peintures 1908–1922, Paris, 1936. VIII. Page 398 Lajos Tihanyi: Pont Saint-Michel, 1910 (Missing) Robert Desnos: Tihanyi. Peintures 1908–1922, Paris, 1936. III. Page 400 Lajos Tihanyi in his Berlin studio, 1922 (photograph) PML AC, inv. no.: 4432 Page 401 Lajos Tihanyi, c. 1920 (photograph by André Kertész) HNG, Archives, inv. no.: 18782

József Sárkány: On the portraits by Lajos Tihanyi Page 425 Pablo Picasso: Mother and Child, 1905 Indian ink and water-colour on paper, 353 x 253 mm I. l. l.: Picasso MFA, inv. no.: 1918–461 Page 426 Lajos Tihanyi: Portrait of György Bölöni, 1912 Oil on canvas, 86 x 70 cm I. c. l.: Tihanyi Lajos 912 P. p. Page 427 György Bölöni, 1900s (photograph) HNM HPA Page 428 Lajos Tihanyi in his Berlin studio, 1922 (photograph) PIM, inv. no.: 4433 Page 429 Front page of Ma with a detail of the Portrait of Ciaclan Virgil, 1918 Ma, 10 March 1918, front page

10:16 PM

Page 531

Ciaclan Virgil with Ödön Márffy’s 1912 drawing Horseman and Vilmos Fémes Beck’s sculpture, 1910s (photograph) P. p.

Page 430 Pablo Picasso: Nude with Drapery, 1907–1908 Oil on canvas, 152 x 101 cm Hermitage, St. Petersburg Page 435 Lajos Tihanyi, 1927 (photograph by Miklós Jutka) HNG, Archives, inv. no.: 18782/73-9

Attila Rum: Vilmos Fémes Beck Page 459 Vilmos Fémes Beck, c. 1910 (photograph by Aladár Székely) P. p. Page 460 Hans von Marées: The Hesperides, 1884–1885. Oil on wood, the central panel of the triptych measures 175 x 205 cm Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, Neue Pinakothek, Munich, inv. no.: 7854 b Page 461 Adolf von Hildebrand: Young Man, 1877–1884 Marble Nationalgalerie, Berlin Page 462 Vilmos Fémes Beck’s sculpture Kneeling Woman in Miksa Schiffer’s villa, 1912 Magyar Iparmûvészet, 1912, 300 Auguste Rodin: L'Âge d'airain, 1875–1877 Bronze; 174 x 42 x 42 cm Galleria Nazionale d 'Arte Moderna, Rome Page 463 Apollonios: Belvedere Torso, middle of 1st century B. C. marble; 159 cm Musei Vaticani, Rome Page 465 Vilmos Fémes Beck: “For Lidi with love”, 1911 Cast bronze medal, diameter: 100 mm P. p. A Ház, 1911, 192

Péter Molnos: The Ninth. Artúr Jakobovits and the Eight Page 477 Artúr Jakobovits: Self Portrait, c. 1910 (Missing) Magyar Mûvészet, 1934. p. 363.

Eszter Butyka: Mária Lehel Page 478 Mária Lehel, 1920s. (photograph) Hamza Collection and Jász Gallery, Jászberény Mária Lehel: Grandmother and Grandchild, c. 1910 (photograph) Hamza Collection and Jász Gallery, Jászberény Page 480 Mária Lehel: Self Portrait, c. 1910 (Missing) (photograph) Hamza Collection and Jász Gallery, Jászberény

Petra Török: Anna Lesznai, lady of the house for the Eight Page 482 The Moscovitz mansion at Alsókörtvélyes, 1900s (photograph) Dr Thomas A. Sos, New York Page 483 Anna Lesznai, early 1910s (photograph by Aladár Székely) P. p. Anna Lesznai’s cover design for the book Poems that Keep Going Home, 1909 Page 484 Embroideries by Anna Lesznai, 1912 Stickerei-Zeitung und Spitzen-Revue, 1912, 77–83. Page 485 Interior with cushions by Anna Lesznai, 1912 Magyar Iparmûvészet, 1912, 142 Page 486 Interior with cushions by Anna Lesznai and a painting by József Rippl-Rónai, 1911 (photograph by Gyula Jelfy) Vasárnapi Újság, 1911, 992

Anna Lesznai: Cushion, 1911 Aurora, 1911 Anna Lesznai: Cushion, 1911 Aurora, 1911 Page 487 Ervin Körmendi Frim: Corner of an Atelier with a Still Life, c. 1911 Oil on canvas, 100 x 120 cm I. l. r.: Körmendi Frimm P. p.

Attila Rum: Márk Vedres Page 494 Adolf Fényes: Márk Vedres, c. 1908 Oil on canvas, 52 x 43 cm I. l. r.: Fényes A. HNG, inv. no.: 55.37 Page 495 József Rippl-Rónai: Márk Vedres, 1909–1910 (Missing) Catalogue de luxe of the Department of Fine Arts, Panama-Pacific International Exposition, John E. D. Trask, J. Nilsen Lawrik (eds.), San Francisco, 1915, 264 Page 496 Auguste Rodin: Saint John the Baptist, 1878. Fin-de-siècle postcard Page 497 Márk Vedres: Relief of the memorial tomb of Károly Kernstock Snr, 1908 (present whereabouts unknown) Mûvészet, 1912, 112 Page 498 Aristide Maillol: The Cyclist, (The Ephebe) 1907 Bronze, 98.5 cm Fondation Dina Vierny – Musée Maillol, Paris Aristide Maillol: Standing Nude, 1900 Bronze, 80 cm Page 500 Márk Vedres: Woman with a Jug, 1907 (Missing) A Ház, 1911, supplement Page 501 Márk Vedres: Young Boy, 1930s (Missing) Magyar Mûvészet, 1938, 204

531

28 IRODALOMJEGYZEK_ENG

2/8/11

2:07 AM

Page 532

BIBLIOGRAPHY A BBREVIATIONS HNG – Hungarian National Gallery HAS RIAH Department of Records – Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Research Institute for Art History NSL – National Széchenyi Library PML – Petôfi Museum of Literature The Roads Parted – “The roads parted.” Press reactions to the new trends in Hungarian art. An anthology, I. 1901–1908; II. 1909–1910; III. 1911–1912; collected, compiled, ed. and intro Árpád Tímár, Budapest–Pécs, 2009.

S ELECT

BIBLIOGRAPHY

C OLLECTIONS

OF CONTEMPORARY TEXTS ABOUT THE E IGHT M.I.É.N.K. elsô kiállítása [The first exhibition of the Circle of Hungarian Impressionists and Naturalists], January 1908, Budapest, National Salon, 1908. M.I.É.N.K. második kiállítása [The second exhibition of Circle of Hungarian Impressionists and Naturalists], February–March 1909, Budapest, National Salon, 1909. Új Képek kiállítása a Könyves Kálmán szalonjában [Exhibition of new pictures in the salon of K. K.], [Budapest], [1909]. “Nyolcak” kiállítása a Nemzeti Szalonban [Exhibition of the “Eight” in the National Salon] intro. by Géza Feleky, Budapest, 1911. A Nyolcak harmadik tárlatának katalógusa [Catalogue of the third exhibition of the Eight], November–December 1912, Budapest, National Salon, 1912. Bölöni, György: Képek között [Among pictures], collected and intro. Edit Erki, Budapest, 1967. (Bölöni György mûvei [The works of György Bölöni]) Kortársak szemével. Írások a magyar mûvészetrôl 1896–1945 [With the eyes of contemporaries. Writings on Hungarian art], compiled and intro. Géza Perneczky, Budapest, 1967. (A mûvészettörténet forrásai [The sources of art history])

532

Bölöni, György: Friss szemmel [With a fresh eye], collected and ed. Erki Edit, Budapest, 1968. (Bölöni György mûvei [The works of György Bölöni]) Kernstok Károly írásaiból. A kutató mûvészettôl a Vallomásig 1911–1939 [Selected writings by K. K. From “Inquisitive art” to “Confession”], collected and ed. Ferenc Bodri, Tatabánya, 1997. (Kernstok-füzetek [Kernstok booklets], 2) Valéria Majoros, Vanília: Tihanyi Lajos írásai és dokumentumok [Writings and documents of L. T. ], Budapest, 2002. “Az utak elváltak”. A magyar képzômûvészet új utakat keresô törekvéseinek sajtóvisszhangja. Szöveggyûjtemény [“The Roads Parted.” Press reactions to the new trends in Hungarian art. An anthology], I. 1901–1908; II. 1909–1910; III. 1911–1912; collected, compiled, ed. and intro Árpád Tímár, Budapest–Pécs, 2009.

G ENERAL

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Gombosi, György: Új magyar rajzmûvészet. Rippl-Rónaitól a Nyolcakig [New Hungarian drawing. From R.-R. to the Eight], Budapest, 1945. Kállai, Ernô: “A magyar festômûvészet Nagybányától napjainkig” [Hungarian painting from Nagybánya to our day] in Demokrácia és köznevelés, Budapest, 1945, pp. 646–661. Kassák, Lajos: Képzômûvészetünk Nagybányától – napjainkig [Hungarian art from Nagybánya to our day], Budapest, 1947. Pogány, Ö. Gábor: A magyar festészet forradalmárai [The revolutionaries of Hungarian painting], Budapest, [1947]. (Ars mundi, 10) A magyarországi mûvészet története [The history of Hungarian art] I–II, general ed. Lajos Fülep; eds. Dezsô Dercsényi, Anna Zádor, Budapest, 1956–1957 [2nd abridged ed. Budapest, 1961–1962; 3rd abridged ed. Budapest, 1964; 4th abridged ed. Budapest, 1970; 5th abridged ed. Budapest, 1973]

Rózsa, Miklós: A magyar impresszionista festészet [Hungarian Impressionist painting], intro. Károly Lyka, Budapest, 1914.

Lyka, Károly: Festészeti életünk a millenniumtól az elsô világháborúig. Magyar mûvészet 1896–1914 [Hungarian painting from the Millennium to WWI. Hungarian art, 1896–1914], Budapest, 1953 – 2nd ed. Budapest, 1983.

Kállai, Ernô: Neue Malerei in Ungarn. Leipzig, 1925 – 2nd ed., Budapest, 1999, Kállai, Ernô: Összegyûjtött írások / Gesammelte Werke 2, pp. 83–167.

Körner, Éva: “Künstler der Ungarischen Räterepublik. Zum Andenken der vierzigjährigen Wiederkehr der Räterepublik” in Acta Historiae Artium, 6, 1959, pp. 169–191.

Kállai, Ernô: Új magyar piktúra 1900–1925 [New Hungarian painting 1900–1925], Budapest, 1925 – 2nd ed. Budapest, 1990; 3rd ed. Budapest, 1999, Kállai Ernô: Összegyûjtött írások / Gesammelte Werke 1, pp. 123–216.

Horváth, Zoltán: Magyar századforduló. A második reformnemzedék története 1896–1914. [The Hungarian fin-de-siècle. The history of the second reform generation 1896–1914], Budapest, 1961 [2nd ed. 1974.]

Ybl, Ervin: Az utolsó félszázad mûvészete [The art of the last half-century], Budapest, 1926.

Horváth, Zoltán: Die Jahrhundertwende in Ungarn. Geschichte der zweiten Reformgeneration 1896-1914, Budapest, 1966.

Péter, András: A magyar mûvészet története [The history of Hungarian art] I–II, Budapest, 1930. Genthon, István: Az új magyar festômûvészet története 1800-tól napjainkig [The history of new Hungarian painting from 1800 to our day], Budapest, 1935. (A Magyar Szemle könyvei [Hungarian Review Books], 11) Nagy, Zoltán: Új magyar mûvészet. Száz év szobrászata és festészete [New Hungarian art. The sculpture and painting of a hundred years], Budapest, 1941.

Kampis, Antal: A magyar mûvészet a XIX. és a XX. században [Hungarian art in the 19th and 20th centuries], Budapest, 1968. (Minerva zsebkönyvek [Minerva pocket books]) Németh, Lajos: Modern magyar mûvészet [Modern art in Hungary], Budapest, 1968. Németh, Lajos: Modern Art in Hungary, Budapest, 1969. Szabó, Júlia: Magyar rajzmûvészet 1890–1919 [Drawing in Hungary 1890–1919], Budapest, 1969.

28 IRODALOMJEGYZEK_ENG

2/8/11

2:07 AM

Page 533

Aradi, Nóra: A szocialista képzômûvészet története. Magyarország és Európa [The history of Socialist art. Hungary and Europe], Budapest, 1970 [2nd exteded ed. 1980].

Passuth, Krisztina: Avantgarde kapcsolatok Prágától Bukarestig, 1907–1930 [Avant-Garde connections from Prague to Bucharest], Budapest, 1998.

Fauvism in the Mirror of his Early Portraits”, pp. 133–148. Barki, Gergely: Róbert Berény, the ‘Apprenti Fauve’”, pp. 149–166. Boros, Judit: “The Synthesizer. Vilmos Perlrott Csaba’s Painting”, pp. 167–179.

Galambos, Ferenc: “Képzômûvészeti élet a bécsi magyar emigrációban (1919–1928)” [The artistic life of Hungarian émigrés in Vienna (1919–1928)] in Mûvészettörténeti Értesítô, 20, 1971, pp. 1–10.

Andrási, Gábor – Pataki, Gábor – Szücs, György – Zwickl, András: Magyar képzômûvészet a 20. században [Hungarian art in the 20th century], Budapest, 1999. (Egyetemi könyvtár [University library])

Forgács, Éva: “Vadak vagy koloristák?” [Fauves or Colourists?] in Holmi, 19, 2007, pp. 310–314.

Szabó, Júlia: A magyar aktivizmus története [The history of Hungarian Activism], Budapest, 1971, (Mûvészettörténeti füzetek [Booklets of art history], 3)

Beke, László – Gábor, Eszter – Prakfalvi, Endre – Sisa, József – Szabó, Júlia: Magyar mûvészet 1800-tól napjainkig [Hungarian art from 1800 to our day], Budapest, 2002.

Perneczky, Géza: “Revízió a magyar avantgárd kezdeteinek kérdésében” [Revising issues regarding the beginnings of the Hungarian Avant-Garde] in Holmi, 19, 2007, pp. 296–309.

Németh, Lajos: Modern magyar mûvészet [Modern Hungarian art], 2nd extended ed. Budapest, 1972.

Modern magyar festészet 1892–1919 [Modern Hungarian art, 1892–1919], ed. Tamás Kieselbach, Budapest, 2003 [includes Rum, Attila: “A Nyolcak története” [The history of the Eight], pp. 50–51]

Sármány, Ilona: “Marginalizált magyar festôk, avagy egy közép-európai festészeti kánon kérdései” [Marginalised Hungarian painters or issues of the Central European painterly canon] Holmi, 19, 2007, pp. 315–327.

Passuth, Krisztina: Magyar mûvészek az európai avantgarde-ban. A kubizmustól a konstruktivizmusig 1919–1925 [Hungarian artists in the European Avant-Garde. From Cubism to Constructionism], Budapest, 1975. L’art en Hongrie 1905–1930. Art et révolution, intro. Júlia Szabó et al., Paris, Musée d’Art moderne de la ville, 1980 Magyar mûvészet 1890–1919 [Hungarian art 1890–1919] I–II, eds. Lajos Németh, Mária Bernáth, Budapest, 1981. (A magyarországi mûvészet története [The history of Hungarian art], 6/1–2) Szabó, Júlia. A magyar aktivizmus mûvészete 1915–1927 [The history of Hungarian Activism 1915–1927], Budapest, 1981. Gábor, Eszter – Nagy, Ildikó – Sármány, Ilona: “A budapesti Schiffer-villa (Egy késô szecessziós villa rekonstrukciója)” [The Schiffer villa in Budapest. (Reconstruction of a late Secessionist villa)] in Mûvészettörténeti Értesítô, 31, 1982, pp. 74–88. Passuth, Krisztina: Les avant-gardes de l’Europe Centrale. Flammarion, Paris, 1988. A mûvészet története Magyarországon a honfoglalástól napjainkig [The history of art in Hungary from the Conquest to our day], ed. Nóra Aradi, Budapest, 1983. L’avant garde en Hongrie 1910–1930, Quimper, Galerie Arts et Civilisations, 1984. Szabó, Júlia: “European art centers and Hungarian art (1890–1919)” in Hungarian Studies, 9, 1994, pp. 41–64. Modernité hongroise et peinture européenne, Dijon, Musée des Beaux-Arts de Dijon, 1995. Budapest 1869–1914. Modernité hongroise et peinture européenne, Commissariat général: Emmanuel Starcky, László Beke, Dijon, Musée des Beaux-Arts de Dijon, 1995.

Passuth, Krisztina: Treffpunkte der Avantgarden Ostmitteleuropa 1907–1930, Budapest – Dresden, 2003. Szabó, Júlia: “A magyar avantgárd Budapesten és Bécsben” [The Hungarian Avant-Garde in Budapest and Vienna] in Az áttörés kora. Bécs és Budapest a historizmus és avantgárd között (1873–1920) [The age of breakthrough. Vienna and Budapest between Historicism and the Avant-Garde (1873–1920)], ed. Katalin F. Dózsa, Budapest, Budapest History Museum – Hungarian National Gallery – National Széchényi Library, 2004, I, pp. 483–497. Hungarian Fauves from Paris to Nagybánya, eds. Krisztina Passuth, György Szücs. Budapest, Hungarian National Gallery, 2006. Flam, Jack: “Foreword”, p. 9. Passuth, Krisztina: “Wild Beasts of Hungary Meet Fauves in France”, pp. 11–36. Flam, Jack: “Fauvism, Cubism, and European Modernism”, pp. 37–46. Szücs, György: “Dissonance or New Harmony? The Art of the Nagybánya ‘Neos’”, pp. 47–60. Barthélémy, Sophie: “Pan! Dans l’œil… The Paris Salons’ Reception of the Hungarian Fauves in the Mirror of Contemporary French Critiques 1904–19142, pp. 61–69. Passuth, Krisztina: “Café Dôme”, pp. 71–76. Barki, Gergely: “From the Julian Academy to Matisse’s Free School”, pp. 77–86. Passuth, Krisztina: “Hungarian Artists at the Salons of Paris”, pp. 87–92. Pápai, Emese: “The Stein Family in Paris”, pp. 93–97. Passuth, Krisztina: “The Poor Patron of Fauve Painting: Berthe Weill and her Gallery”, pp. 98–100. Molnos, Péter: Budapest: “The ‘Paris of the East’ in the Hungarian Wilderness”, 101–116. Szücs, György: “Nagybánya, a Regional Centre”, 117–124. Rockenbauer, Zoltán: “The Fauves by the Danube, or Could Nyergesújfalu Have Been Hungary’s Collioure?”, pp. 125–131. Barki, Gergely: “The Evolution of Czóbel’s

Fauves Hongrois 1904–1914, conçu par Sophie Barthélémy, Paris, Biro, 2008. Passuth, Krisztina: “La Hongrie au tournant du siècle. Un histoire en mutation”, pp. 21–27. Barthélémy, Sophie: “Fauves d’ouest en est. La leçon de Matisse et de son cercle”, pp. 29–39. Szymusiak, Dominique: “L’académie Matisse. ‘Prendre ces mouons et les transformer en lions’”, pp. 41–47. Barki, Gergely: “De l’académie Julian à l’académie Matisse”, pp. 49–55. Passuth, Krisztina: “Le Café du Dôme, les salons des Stein et la boutique de la ‘Mère Weill’”, pp. 61–69. Barthélémy, Sophie: “Pan! Dans l’œil… La réception critique des fauves hongrois au Salon parisien de 1904 à 1914”, pp. 71–83. Rum, Attila: “Les fauves hongrois dans leur contexte national”, pp. 85–93. Szücs, György: “Dissonance ou nouvelle harmonie? L’art ‘néo’ à Nagybánya”, pp. 95–103. Matamoros, Joséphine: “De Collioure à Nyergesújfalu. Incidence des dites français et hongrois sur la naissance du fauvisme”, pp. 105–111. Rockenbauer, Zoltán: “Les fauves au bord du Danube. Nyergesújfalu peut-il être considéré comme un Collioure hongrois?”, pp. 113–117. Molnos, Péter: “Budapest. Les Paris oriental dans le ‘désert hongrois’”, pp. 119–127. Barki, Gergely: “De Paris à l’Arcadie. Autour des nus des fauves hongrois”, pp. 139–147. Szücs, György: “Paysage et nature, homme et métropole”, pp. 149–153. Rockenbauer, Zoltán: “Les influences fauves dans le peinture hongroise de nature morte”, pp. 155–159. Barki, Gergely: “‘Tableaux d’amitié’ et autoportraits provocateurs. Les caractéristiques des portraits des fauves hongrois”, pp. 161–165. Barki, Gergely: “‘Évolution vers le fauvisme’ dans les œuvres de jeunesse de Béla Czóbel. 185–199. Barki, Gergely: “Róbert Berény, ‘l’apprenti fauve’”, pp. 201–207. Boros, Judit: “La peinture synthétisante de Vilmos Perlrott Csaba”, pp. 209–217.

533

28 IRODALOMJEGYZEK_ENG

2/8/11

2:07 AM

Page 534

Tímár, Árpád: “A MIÉNK mûvészegyesület története a korabeli sajtóban” [The history of the Circle of Hungarian Impressionists and Naturalists in the contemporary press] I–II in Mûvészettörténeti Értesítô, 57, 2008, pp. 47–82, 249–286. Balázs, Eszter: “A Magyar Figyelô frontembereinek bírálata és az értelmiségi szolidaritás példái a Nyugat íróinál” [The critique of the front men of Magyar Figyelô and examples of solidarity among the writers of Nyugat] in Nyugat népe. Tanulmányok a Nyugatról, eds. Gergely Angyalosi et al., Budapest, 2009, pp. 163–177. Bellák, Gábor – Jernyei Kiss, János – Keserü, Katalin – Mikó, Árpád – Szakács, Béla Zsolt: Magyar mûvészet [Hungarian art], Budapest, 2009. A Mûvészház 1909–1914. Modern kiállítások Budapesten [The Artist House 1909–1914. Modern exhibitions in Budapest], eds. Judit Gömöry, Nóra Veszprémi, Budapest, Hungarian National Gallery, 2009. Schiller, Erzsébet: “A kortárs képzômûvészet megjelenési módjai a korai Nyugatban [Representation of modern art in the early issues of Nyugat]” in Nyugat népe. Tanulmányok a Nyugatról, eds. Gergely Angyalosi et al., Budapest, 2009, pp. 263–270. Szívós, Erika: A magyar képzômûvészet társadalomtörténete 1867–1918 [The social history of Hungarian art 1867–1918], Budapest, 2009. (Habsburg történeti monográfiák [Monographs in Habsburg history])

STUDIES

ABOUT THE

EIGHT

A Nyolcak és Aktivisták [The Eight and the Activists], intro. Dénes Pataky, Budapest, Hungarian National Gallery, 1961. (Magyar Nemzeti Galéria. A Grafikai Osztály kiállításai [Hungarian National Gallery. Exhibirions of the Graphic works department], 1) Passuth, Krisztina: “Les ‘Huit’. Le premier groupe hongrois de tendance constructive. Analyse par genres de leur peinture” in Acta Historiae Artium, 8, 1962, pp. 299–318. Passuth, Krisztina: “A Nyolcak, az elsô magyar konstruktív törekvésû csoport” [The Eight – the first Hungarian Constructivist group] in Mûvészettörténeti Értesítô, 13, 1964, pp. 110–124. A Nyolcak és aktivisták köre [The circle of the Eight and the Activists], ed. Márta K. Kovalovszky, intro. Krisztina Passuth, Márta K. Kovalovszky, Székesfehérvár, Csók István Képtár, 1965. (A huszadik század mûvészete. István Király Múzeum közleményei [The art of the twentieth century. Publications of the King Stephen Museum], series D, 44)

534

Le cercle des Huits et des activistes, cataogue, ed. and intro, Krisztina Passuth, Márta K. Kovalovszky, Székesfehérvár, Galerie István Csók, 1965. (Bulletin du Musée Roi Saint Étienne, 44) Passuth, Krisztina: A Nyolcak festészete [The painting of the Eight], Budapest, 1967. Passuth, Krisztina: “The Group of the ‘Eight’” in Hungarian Survey, 3, 1968, pp. 43–55. Passuth, Krisztina: “A Nyolcak forradalmasító kísérlete” [The revolutionary experiment of the Eight] in Új Írás, 8, 1968, 10, pp. 106–111. Dévényi, Iván: “Márffy Ödön levele a Nyolcak törekvéseirôl” [Letter by Ödön Márffy about the ambitions of the Eight] in Mûvészet, 10, 1969, 8, p. 10. Kontha, Sándor: “Szocialista hagyományaink. A ‘Nyolcak’ mûvészetének kora” [Our Socialist traditions. The age of the art of the Eight] in Pártélet, 1969, 7, pp. 69–71. Passuth, Krisztina: A Nyolcak festészete [The painting of the Eight], 2nd ed., Budapest, 1972. Horváth, Béla: “Bartók és a Nyolcak” [Bartók and the Eight] in Mûvészettörténeti Értesítô, 23, 1974, pp. 328–332. A Nyolcak festészete, kiállítás Magyar Nemzeti Galéria anyagából [The painting of the Eight. An exhibition of works from the Hungarian National Gallery], ed. and intro. László Borbély, Mezôkövesd, Városi és Járási Mûvelôdési Központ, 1974. Passuth, Krisztina: “Les Huit en Hongrie et en Bohème” in Cahier du Musée National d’Art Moderne, 3, 1980, pp. 116–121. Sarkadi, Eszter: “Gondolatok a “Nyolcak” mûvészcsoport tudománytörténeti értékeléséhez” [Thoughts on the scientific-historical appraisal of the Eight group of artists] in Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve, 1980 (1981), pp. 337–349. Nyolcak és aktivisták. / The Eight and the activists, eds. Éva Bajkay et al., Budapest – Pécs, Hungarian National Gallery – Janus Pannonius Museum, 1981. Passuth, Krisztina: “Die erste ungarische Gruppe konstruktivistischer Richtung” in Dezennium 3, Dresden, 1986, pp. 242–280. Barki, Gergely: “Párizsi elôzmények és a modern francia mûvészet hatása a Nyolcak aktfestészetében. / The Influence of Parisian Studies and Modern French Art on the Nude Painting of the Eight” in A modell. Nôi akt a 19. századi magyar mûvészetben. [The model. The female nude in nineteenth-century Hungarian art], ed. Györgyi Imre, Budapest, Hungarian National Gallery, 2004, pp. 462–468.

Einspach, Gábor: “‘Amikor a színek dinamittá válnak’ – Matisse és a magyar fauve-ok” [“When colours become dynamites” – Matisse and the Hungarian Fauves] in Artmagazin, 2, 2004, 3, pp. 4–7. Barki, Gergely: “Wanted” in Artmagazin, 3, 2005, 1. 48–51. Barki, Gergely: “The Hungarian Fauves and Matisse” in Artmagazin. English Edition, 2005. 22–25. Ébli, Gábor: “A Nyolcak Torontóban. Forbáth Péter gyûjteménye” [The Eight in Toronto. The collection of Péter Forbáth] in Artmagazin, 3, 2005, 1, pp. 54–56. A Nyolcak és az aktivisták. Válogatás az Antal–Lusztiggyûjteménybôl [The Eight and the Activists. Selected works from the Antal–Lusztig Collection], Debrecen, Medgyessy Ferenc Emlékmúzeum, 2005. Kovács, Bernadett: “Képek a ‘nevetôkabinetbôl’, avagy a Nyolcak festészete a karikatúrák tükrében” [Pictures from the “laughing cabinet” or the painting of the Eight mirrored in caricatures] in Artmagazin, 4, 2006, 2, pp. 54–59. Barki, Gergely: “A magyar mûvészet elsô reprezentatív bemutatkozása(i) Amerikában” [The first representative introduction(s) of Hungarian art in America] in Nulla dies sine linea. Tanulmányok Passuth Krisztina hetvenedik születésnapjára [Studies on the seventieth birthday of K. P.] eds. Ágnes Berecz Ágnes, Mária L. Molnár, Erzsébet Tatai, Budapest, 2007, pp. 99–113. Rockenbauer, Zoltán: “A Nyolcak egymás közt” [The Eight among themselves] in Nulla dies sine linea. Tanulmányok Passuth Krisztina hetvenedik születésnapjára [Studies on the seventieth birthday of K. P.] eds. Ágnes Berecz Ágnes, Mária L. Molnár, Erzsébet Tatai, Budapest, 2007, pp. 82–89. Rockenbauer, Zoltán: “The Eight with a Gift for Music. Rendezvous of the Muses in the Cafés of Budapest” in Hungarian Art and Music. Music, rhythm, sound, picture, photo, fancy, ed. Tamás Kieselbach, Budapest, 2007, pp. 58–71. Barki, Gergely: “The Panama-Pacific International Exposition: Hungarian Art’s American Debut or Its Bermuda Triangle?” in Centropa, 10, 2010, 3, pp. 259–271. Barki, Gergely: “Wanted. A Nyolcak lappangó mûvei” [Wanted. The missing works of the Eight] in Artmagazin, 8, 2010, 1, pp. 72–79. Passuth, Krisztina: “The Eight and the European Avant-garde” in The Hungarian Quarterly, 51, no. 199, 2010, pp. 114–124.

28 IRODALOMJEGYZEK_ENG

2/8/11

2:07 AM

Page 535

P UBLICATIONS

ABOUT THE EXHIBITORS OF THE E IGHT

Barki, Gergely: “‘Aki a szférák zenéjére figyelt’ – Berény Róbert és Lesznai Anna kapcsolatáról [“Who listened to the music of the spheres.” The relationship of Róbert Berény and Anna Lesznai] in Enigma, 17, 2007, 51, pp. 117–134.

R ÓBERT B ERÉNY

Barki, Gergely: “‘A tû Gauguinje’. Berény Róbert hímzései [The “Gauguin of the needle” Embroideries by R. B.] in A Gödöllôi szônyeg 100 éve. Tanulmányok a 20. századi magyar textilmûvészet történetéhez [A century of Gödöllô carpets. Studies in the history of 20th century Hungarian textile art.], ed. Cecília Nagy Ôri, Gödöllô, 2009, pp. 86–90.

Szíj, Béla: “Berény Róbert fejlôdése legkorábbi mûveitôl Bartók Béla portréjáig” [The development of Róbert Berény from his earliest works to his portrait of Béla Bartók] in Mûvészettörténeti Értesítô, 10, 1961, pp. 215–223. Berény Róbert emlékkiállítása [Róbert Berény. A commemorative exhibition], compiled and ed. Béla Szíj Béla, Budapest, Hungarian National Gallery, 1963. Szíj, Béla: “La vie de Róbert Berény, de son enfance à son émigration à Berlin. / Berény Róbert életútja gyermekéveitôl a berlini emigrációig” in Bulletin de la Galerie Nationale Hongroise. / A Hungarian National Gallery Közleményei, 4, Budapest, 1963, pp. 5–30, 113–124. Szíj, Béla: Berény Róbert, Budapest, 1964. (A mûvészet kiskönyvtára [Little library of art], 56) Szíj, Béla: “Róbert Berény” in Acta Historiae Artium, 12, 1966, pp. 155–202. Horváth, Béla: “Weiner Leó arcképe Berény Róberttôl” [The portrait of Leo Weiner by Róbert Berény] in Mûvészettörténeti Értesítô, 16, 1967, pp. 116–121. Kontha, Sándor: “Két mûvész a Tanácsköztársaságban. Berény Róbert és Beck Ö. Fülöp” [Two artists at the time of the Hungarian Soviet Republic. Róbert Berény and Fülöp Ö. Beck] in Ars Hungarica, 7, 1979, pp. 95–101.

Rockenbauer, Zoltán: “Berény Róbert Bartók-portréja – A magyar mûvészet csillagórája” [Róbert Berény – Portrait of Bartók a mystery of Hungarian art] in Muzeumcafé, 4, 2010, no. 17, pp. 44–46.

D EZSÔ C ZIGÁNY Horváth, Béla: “‘Én mámor-fejedelem’” [“I, Prince Rapture”] in Mûvészettörténeti Értesítô, 12, 1963, pp. 165–167. Horváth, Béla: Czigány Dezsô Ady-képei [Portraits of Ady by Dezsô Czigány], Budapest, 1977. (Gyorsuló idô [Accelerating time]) Horváth, Béla: “Czigány Dezsô 1908-as Adyképe” [A 1908 portrait of Ady by Dezsô Czigány] in Mûvészettörténeti Értesítô, 27, 1977, pp. 49–50. Czigány Dezsô (1883–1938) és Czóbel Béla (1883–1976) festômûvészek emlékkiállításának katalógusa [Catalogue of the commemorative exhibition of Dezsô Czigány and Béla Czóbel], includes Rum, Attila: “Czigány Dezsô pályafutása” [The career of Dezsô Czigány], Budapest, László Galéria, 2002. Rum, Attila: Czigány Dezsô, Budapest, 2004.

Szíj, Béla: Berény, Budapest, 1981. Berény Róbert emlékkiállítás [Róbert Berény. A commemorative exhibition], Szekszárd, Mûvészetek Háza, 1987. (A szekszárdi Mûvészetek Háza kiállításai [Exhibitions of the Szekszárd House of Art], 13) Berény Róbert a Magyar Tudományos Akadémián [Róbert Berény at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences] Összeáll. Majoros Valéria. Budapest, Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Mûvészettörténeti Kutató Intézet, 2000. Barki, Gergely: “Children in Garden, 1906” in Annales de la Galerie Nationale Hongroise. / A Magyar Nemzeti Galéria Közleményei, 2002/2004, Budapest, 2005, pp. 71–72. Barki, Gergely: “Korai Berény Róbert képek felbukkanása” [How the early works of Róbert Berény turned up] in Artmagazin, 1, 2003, 1, pp. 72–74.

B ÉLA C ZÓBEL

Philipp, Clarisse: Czóbel, Budapest, 1970. Czóbel Béla Kossuth díjas festômûvész kiállítása [An exhibition of Kossuth Award-winning painter Béla Czóbel], catalogue, comp. Mimi Kratochwill, Budapest, Mûcsarnok, 1971. Czóbel Múzeum Szentendre [The Czóbel Museum in Szentendre], comp. András Mucsi, Szentendre, 1975. Sin, Edit: Czóbel Béla bibliográfia [A Béla Czóbel bibliography], Szentendre, Pest Megyei Könyvtár, 1983. (Pest megyei téka [Pest county library]) Frank, János – Kratochwill, Mimi: Czóbel, Budapest, 1983. Czóbel Béla festômûvész emlékkiállítása [A commemorative exhibition of painter Béla Czóbel], comp. Mimi Kratochwill, Budapest, Vigadó Gallery, 1983 Mûvész és mecénás. Kiállítás a Fruchter-gyûjtemény Czóbel képeibôl a mûvész születésének 100. évfordulóján [Artist and patron. An exhibition of pictures by Czóbel in the Fruchter Collection on the centenary of the artist’s birth], eds. Gyöngyi Éri, Gizella Szatmári, Budapest, Hungarian National Gallery, 1984. Van der Sterren, Virág: “Czóbel Béla és Hollandia” [Béla Czóbel and Holland] in Mûvészettörténeti Értesítô, 49, 2000, pp. 197–215. Kratochwill, Mimi: Czóbel Béla (1883–1976) élete és mûvészete [The life and art of Béla Czóbel], Veszprém – Budapest, 2001. Czóbel Béla emlékkiállítás halálának 25. évfordulója alkalmából [A commemorative exhibition of Béla Czóbel on the 25th anniversary of his death], comp. Mimi Kratochwill, Budapest, Hegyvidéki Helytörténeti Gyûjtemény és Kortárs Galéria, 2001. Béla Czóbel peintre hongrois (1883–1976), Mimi Kratochwill, intro. Zoltán Rockenbauer. Paris, Salle d'exposition du vieux colombier, 2001.

Kállai, Ernô: Czóbel Béla, Budapest, 1934. Genthon, István: Czóbel, Budapest, 1961. (A mûvészet kiskönyvtára [Little library of art], 24.) Philipp, Clarisse: “Les oeuvres du jeune Béla Czóbel. / Czóbel Béla fiatalkori képei.” in Bulletin de la Galerie Nationale Hongroise. / A Hungarian National Gallery Közleményei, 4, Budapest, 1963, pp. 31– 44, 125–130. Czobel, intro. Waldemar George, Paris, Galerie Zak, 1964.

Czóbel Béla tizenöt ismeretlen rajza [Fifteen unknown drawings by Béla Czóbel], ed. Lajos Csáky, Kecskemét, Erdei Ferenc Mûvelôdési Központ és Mûvészeti Iskola, 2002. Czigány Dezsô (1883–1938) és Czóbel Béla (1883–1976) festômûvészek emlékkiállításának katalógusa [Catalogue of the commemorative exhibition of Dezsô Czigány and Béla Czóbel], with an article on Czóbel by Mimi Kratochwill, Budapest, László Galéria, 2002.

Czobel, Geneva, Galerie Georges Moss, 1965.

Czóbel Béla, ed. Kálmán Makláry, Budapest, Erdész & Makláry Fine Arts, 2007.

Hommage à Bela Czobel, exhibition curated R. S. Johnson, Paris, Galerie René Drouet, 1969.

Kratochwill, Mimi: Czóbel, Budapest, 2009. (Metropol könyvtár [Metropol library])

535

28 IRODALOMJEGYZEK_ENG

2/8/11

2:07 AM

Page 536

V ILMOS F ÉMES B ECK Kontha, Sándor: “Fémes Beck Vilmos húsz levele” [Twenty letters by Vilmos Fémes Beck] in Ars Hungarica, 4, 1976, pp. 147–158. Nagy, Ildikó: “Fémes Beck Vilmos kiadatlan írása Hans von Marées-rôl” [An unpublished writing on Hans von Marées by Vilmos Fémes Beck] in Ars Hungarica, 12, 1984, pp. 103–109.

Horváth, Béla: “Kernstok Károly (1873–1940)” in Komárom Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei, 1, Tata, 1968, pp. 437–468.

Babucsik, Anna: “Morzsái az eltörött világkalácsnak” [Crumbs of the broken world-loaf] in Artmagazin, 4, 2006, 5, pp. 60–62.

Dévényi, Iván: Kernstok, Budapest, 1970. (A mûvészet kiskönyvtára [Little library of art], 55)

Szilágyi, Judit: “Lesznai Anna a ‘misztikus vulkán’” [Anna Lesznai, the “mystical volcano”] in Artmagazin, 4, 2006, 5, pp. 63–65.

Horváth, Béla: “A ‘Dózsa-gondolat’ Kernstoknál’ [Kernstok’s “Dózsa idea”] in Mûvészettörténeti Értesítô, 23, 1974, pp. 55–58. Kernstok Károly emlékkiállítás. / Kernstok Károly Gedenkausstellung, Szombathely, Savaria Museum, 1982. (Vas megyei múzeumok katalógusai) [Catalogues of Vas county museums])

Fémes Beck Vilmos 1885–1918 emlékkiállítás [Commemorative exhibition of Vilmos Fémes Beck], intro. Ildikó Nagy, Székesfehérvár, István Király Múzeum, 1985. (Az István Király Múzeum közleményei [Publications of the King Stephen Museum], series D, 160)

Horváth, Béla: Kernstok Károly, Tatabánya, 1993. (Kernstok-füzetek [Kernstok booklets], 1)

Nagy, Ildikó: “Fémes Beck Vilmos (1885–1918)” in Mûvészettörténeti Értesítô, 34, 1985, pp. 97–118.

Horváth, Béla: Kernstok Károly. (Tanulmányok) [Károly Kernstok (Studies)], Budapest, 1997.

Nagy, Ildikó: “Tersánszky Józsi Jenô és Tihanyi Lajos portréja Fémes Beck Vilmostól. (Adatok egy mûgyûjtô arcképéhez)” [A portrait of Jenô Tersánszky Józsi and Lajos Tihanyi by Vilmos Fémes Beck (Information about the portrait of an art collector)] in Mûvészettörténeti Értesítô, 42, 1993, pp. 40–47.

Kernstok Károly és vendégei, látogatói Nyergesújfalun [Károly Kernstok and his guests and visitors at Nyergesújfalu], collected and ed. Ferenc Bodri, Tatabánya, 2000. (Kernstok-füzetek [Kernstok booklets], 3)

Nagy, Ildikó: “Fémes Beck Vilmos (1885–1918): Tersánszky Józsi Jenô képmása, 1910” [Vilmos Fémes Beck (1885–1918): A portrait of Jenô Tersánszky Józsi] in A Mûvészház 1909–1914. Modern kiállítások Budapesten, eds. Judit Gömöry, Nóra Veszprémi, Budapest, Hungarian National Gallery, 2009, pp. 46–47.

Kovács, Brigitta: “Wanted. Kernstok Károly elfeledett képei” [The forgotten pictures of Károly Kernstok] in Artmagazin, 3, 2005, 4, pp. 49–51.

A NNA L ESZNAI Lesznai, Anna: Kezdetben volt a kert [In the beginning was the garden] I–II, Budapest, 1966.

K ÁROLY K ERNSTOK Körmendi, András: Kernstok Károly, Budapest, 1936. (Ars Hungarica)

Lesznai, Anna: A tervezés mûvészete. Elôadások [The art of design. Lectures], tr. Katalin Néray, Budapest, 1976. (Hatvany Lajos Múzeum füzetei) [Booklets of the Lajos Hatvany Museum])

Horváth, Béla: “Kernstok Károly rajzmûvészetérôl” [The drawing of Károly Kernstok] in Mûterem, 1, 1958, 10, pp. 26–28.

Lesznai Anna emlékkiállítás [Commemorative exhibition of Anna Lesznai], intro. Erzsébet Vezér Erzsébet, Júlia Szabó, Ákos Kovács, Hatvan, Hatvany Museum, 195.

Horváth, Béla: “Kernstok, a demokratikus forradalmár” [Kernstok, the democratic revolutionary] in Esztergom Évlapjai. Az Esztergomi Múzeumok Évkönyve, 1, Esztergom, 1960, pp. 105–115.

Lesznai Anna kiállítása [An exhibition of Anna Lesznai], comp. Éva R. Bajkay, Budapest, Hungarian National Gallery, 1976.

Horváth, Béla: “Kernstok Károly dokumentumok” [Károly Kernstok documents] in Mûvészettörténeti tanulmányok. A Mûvészettörténeti Dokumentációs Központ Évkönyve [Studies in art history. Annals of the Centre for Documents of Art History], 1959/1960, Budapest, 1961, pp. 269–278. Horváth, Béla: “Kernstok Károly ‘Este’ címû képérôl” [“Evening” by Károly Kernstok] in Mûvészettörténeti Értesítô, 14, 1965, pp. 148–154. Horváth, Béla: “Károly Kernstok (1873–1940)” in Acta Historiae Artium, 13, 1967, pp. 353–388.

536

Vezér, Erzsébet: Lesznai Anna élete [The life of Anna Lesznai], Budapest, 1979. (Nôk a történelemben) [Women in history]) Lesznai képeskönyv. Lesznai Anna írásai, képei és hímzései [Anna Lesznai album. The writings, pictures and embroideries of Anna Lesznai], comp. Tibor Gergely, afterword Judit Szabadi, Erzsébet Vezér, Budapest, 1981. Török, Petra: Formába kerekedett világ. Lesznai Anna mûvészete és hagyatéka a hatvani Hatvany Lajos Múzeumban [The world takes a form. The art and bequest of Anna Lesznai in the Lajos Hatvany Museum in Hatvan], Hatvan, 2001.

Markója, Csilla: “Három kulcsregény és három sorsába ‘zárt’ vasárnapos – Lesznai Anna, Ritoók és Kaffka Margit találkozása a válaszúton” [Three key novels and three Sundayists “locked” in their fates. The encounter of Anna Lesznai, Ritoók and Margit Kaffka at the crossroads] in Enigma, 17, 2007, 52, pp. 67–108. Bajkay, Éva: “‘Ott van a szépség, ahol az egyéniség’ – Lesznai Anna a bécsi mûvészkörökben” [“Where there is personality there is beauty” – Anna Lesznai in Viennese artist circles] in Enigma, 17, 2007, 52, pp. 109–117. Gellér, Katalin: “Lesznai Anna könyvmûvészete” [The artist’s books of Anna Lesznai] in Enigma, 17, 2007, 52, pp. 118–127. “Lesznai Anna élete és mûvészete I–II” [The life and art of Anna Lesznai], eds. Petra Török, Judit Szilágyi, in Enigma, 14, nos. 51, 52, 2007, pp. 5–173, 5–181. Lesznai Anna. Lesznai Anna emlékkiállítás [Commemorative exhibition of Anna Lesznai], Bratislava, Hagyományok és Értékek Polgári Társulás – Szlovákiai Magyar Kultúra Múzeuma [Traditions and Values Civilian Society and the Slovakian Museum of Hungarian Culture], 2008. Sorsával tetováltan önmaga. Válogatás Lesznai Anna naplójegyzeteibôl [Herself, tattooed by her fate. Selected diary entries of A. L.], comp. and ed. Petra Török, Budapest – Hatvan, 2010.

Ö DÖN M ÁRFFY Márffy Ödön mûvészete [The art of Ödön Márffy], intro. Pál Pátzay, Berlin, 1928. Márffy Ödön festômûvész gyûjteményes kiállítása [Exhibition of the collected works of Ödön Márffy], exhibition curated by Pál Gegesi Kiss; intro. Gábor Ö. Pogány], Budapest, Ernst Múzeum, 1958. (A Mûcsarnok kiállítása [Exhibition of the Mûcsarnok]) Zolnay, László: Márffy, Budapest, 1966. (A mûvészet kiskönyvtára [Little library of art], 7) Passuth, Krisztina: Márffy Ödön, Budapest, 1978. Márffy Ödön emlékkiállítás [A commemorative exhibition of Ödön Márffy], comp. Mimi Kratochwill, Szekszárd, Szekszárdi Mûvészetek Háza, 1985. (A szekszárdi Mûvészetek Háza kiállításai [Exhibitions of the Szekszárd House of Arts], 4)

28 IRODALOMJEGYZEK_ENG

2/8/11

2:07 AM

Page 537

Márffy magángyûjteményekben [Ödön Márffy in private collections], comp., ed. Árpád Polgár, Budapest, Polgár Gallery and Auction House, 1998.

Passuth, Krisztina: Orbán Dezsô, Budapest, 1977. (A mûvészet kiskönyvtára [Little library of art], 109)

L AJOS T IHANYI

Márffy és múzsái [Ödön Márffy and his muses], intro. and cat. entries Zoltán Rockenbauer, Budapest, Ernst Múzeum, 2003.

Orbán Dezsô festômûvész (Ausztrália) gyûjteményes kiállítása [Exhibition of the collected works of painter Dezsô Orban (Australia)], catalogue, eds. Gábor Bellák, László Szabó, Budapest, Hungarian National Gallery, 1984. (A Magyar Nemzeti Galéria kiadványai [Publications of the Hungarian National Gallery], 1984/5)

Dévényi, Iván: Tihanyi, Budapest, 1968. (A mûvészet kiskönyvtára [Little library of art], 29)

Rockenbauer, Zoltán: “A ‘Három akt’, avagy elveszett-e Márffy Ödön korai fômûve?” [“Three nudes” or has Ödön Márffy’s early masterpiece been lost?] in Mûvészettörténeti Értesítô, 54, 2005, pp. 309–318. Rockenbauer, Zoltán: “Márffy, vad színekkel. Egy életmû átértékelôdése az aukciók tükrében” [Ödön Márffy in wild colours. The re-evaluation of an oeuvre in the light of auctions] in Artmagazin, 3, 2005, 1, pp. 38–40. Rockenbauer, Zoltán: “Márffy feketén-fehéren. Amirôl a Rónai Dénes-negatívok mesélnek” [Ödön Márffy in black and white. Tales of the negatives of Dénes Rónai] in Artmagazin, 3, 2005, 1, pp. 41–44. Rockenbauer, Zoltán: “Márffy Ödön tanulóévei. A párizsi ösztöndíj (1902–1906)” [The student years of Ödön Márffy. The Paris scholarship (1902–1906)] in Ars Hungarica, 33, 2005, pp. 109–140. Rockenbauer, Zoltán. “Wanted. Az eltûnt Márffyk nyomában” [Wanted. In search of lost works by Ödön Márffy] in Artmagazin, 3, 2005, 2, pp. 50–52. Rockenbauer, Zoltán: Márffy. Életmûkatalógus [Ödön Márffy. A catalogue of his oeuvre], Budapest – Paris, 2006.

Orbán Dezsô festômûvész kiállítása [Exhibition of the works of painter Dezsô Orban], catalogue, comp. Emília Földes, Budapest, Budapest History Museum, Kiscelli Museum, 1986. Orbán Dezsô festômûvész emlékkiállítása [Commemorative exhibition of Dezsô Orban], catalogue, Gallery of Gyôr Municipal Library, comp., Nándor Salamon, Gyôr, 1990. (Gyôri Városi Könyvtár kiállítási katalógusai [Catalogues of the Gyôr Municipal Library], 39) Egy európai, vándorúton. Orbán Dezsô 1884–1987 [An itinerant European. Dezsô Orban], eds. György Horváth, Júlia N. Mészáros, Katalin Gereben, Gyôr, Municipal Art Gallery, 2009.

B ERTALAN P ÓR

Desnos, Robert: Tihanyi. Peintures 1908–1922, Paris, 1936.

Passuth, Krisztina: “Tihanyi Lajosról” [On Lajos Tihanyi] in Kritika, 1973, 1, pp. 23–24. Tihanyi Lajos emlékkiállítása [A commemorative exhibition of Lajos Tihanyi], intro Zsuzsa D. Fehér, Budapest, Hungarian National Gallery, 1973. Passuth, Krisztina: “La carrière de Lajos Tihanyi” in Acta Historiae Artium, 20, 1974, pp. 125–150. Passuth, Krisztina: Lajos Tihanyi, Dresden, 1977. (Maler und Werk) E. Csorba, Csilla: “Tihanyi Lajos levelei Tersánszky Józsi Jenôhöz” [The letters of Lajos Tihanyi to Jenô Tersánszki Józsi] in Kritika, 1981, 8, pp. 21–26. Szabó, Júlia: “A lidércnyomás igazságáig” [To the truth of the nightmare] in Évfordulók 1985, Budapest, 1984, pp. 343–349. Majoros, Valéria: “Berlin et Paris de Lajos Tihanyi” in Hungarian Studies, 11, 1996, pp. 97–113. Majoros, Valéria Vanília: Tihanyi Lajos. A mûvész és mûvészete [Lajos Tihanyi the man and his art], Budapest, 2004. Passuth, Krisztina: “Back home again. The Paris – Budapest Odyssey of the Tihanyi Estate. / Újra itthon. A Tihanyi-hagyaték kalandos hazatérése Párizsból” in Annales de la Galerie Nationale Hongroise. / A Hungarian National Gallery Évkönyve, 2005/2007, Budapest, 2008, pp. 32–43.

Rockenbauer, Zoltán: Márffy, Budapest, 2008. (Magyar mesterek [Hungarian masters])

Pór Bertalan festômûvész grafikai kiállítása [Exhibition of the graphic works of Bertalan Pór], intro. Kálmán Pogány, Budapest Független Nyomda, 1947.

Rockenbauer, Zoltán: A halandó múzsa. Ady özvegye, Babits szerelme, Márffy hitvese [The mortal muse. Ady’s widow, Babits’s love, Márffy’s wife], Budapest, 2009.

Pór Bertalan gyûjteményes kiállítása [Exhibition of the collected works of Bertalan Pór], intro. Anna Oelmacher, Budapest, Ernst Múzeum, 1953.

M ÁRK V EDRES

Rockenbauer, Zoltán: “Wanted. Márffy Ödön festményei a Nyolcak idôszakából” [Watned. The paintings of Ödön Márffy from the period of the Eight] in Artmagazin, 7, 2009, 3, pp. 62–66.

Oelmacher, Anna: Pór Bertalan, Budapest, 1955. (Új magyar mûvészet [New Hungarian art])

F., J. [Frank, János]: “Vedres Márknál” [In Márk Vedres’s aterlier] in Mûterem, 1, 1958, 3, pp. 26–28.

Pór Bertalan kétszeres Kossuth-díjas kiváló mûvész emlékkiállítása [A commemorative exhibition of the double Kossuth Award winner and Merited Artist Bertalan Pór], comp., intro. Anna Oelmacher, Budapest, Hungarian National Gallery, 1966.

Vedres Márk emlékkiállítása [A commemorative exhibition of Márk Vedres], intro. Erzsébet Csap, Budapest, Hungarian National Gallery, 1962.

Rockenbauer, Zoltán: A másik Csinszka. Márffy Ödön múzsája. / Other Csinszka. Muse of Ödön Márffy, Debrecen, Modem, 2010.

D EZSÔ O RBÁN Kolb, Eugen: Progressive art. Nine pictures of Desiderius Orbán, Budapest, [1939] Orbán, Desiderius: Understanding art, Sydney – London, 1968. Orbán, Desiderius: What is art all about?, Sydney – Richmond – Brisbane, 1975.

Kovalovszky, Márta: Kozma Lajos, Ferenczy Béni, Pór Bertalan, Budapest, 1974. (Az én múzeumom [My museum]) Oelmacher, Anna: Pór Bertalan, Budapest, 1980. Kiss-Szemán, Zsófia: “A szlovák Lohengrin. Pór Bertalan Kompozíció címû képérôl” [The Slovak Lohengrin. Bertalan Pór’s Composition] in Fórum, 9, 2007, pp. 137–146.

Heitler, László: “Vedres Márkról. Beszélgetés Lukács György akadémikussal” [Márk Vedres. An interview with academician György Lukács] in Mûvészet, 15, 1971, 4, pp. 19–20. Heitler, László: Vedres, Budapest, Corvina, 1973. (A mûvészet kiskönyvtára [Little library of art], 80) Vedres Márk firenzei szobrai 1925–1934 [The Florentine sculptures of Márk Vedres], catalogue, ed. Erzsébet Csap; intro Lajos Kassák, Budapest, Hungarian National Gallery, 1974. Vadas, József: “Vedres” in Budapest, 16, 1978, 3, pp. 24–27

537

NEVMUTATO

2/15/11

5:38 PM

Page 538

INDEX OF NAMES A Aczél, György 10 Ádám, Dezsô 42, 211 Ady, Endre 32, 41, 42, 52, 53, 70, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81, 82, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 92, 94, 98, 100, 101, 103, 121, 157, 202, 206, 207, 209, 211, 262, 294, 296, 297, 396, 437, 483, 487, 497, 513, 518 – wife: Boncza Berta (Csinszka) 78 Ady, Lajos 211 Ahlers-Hestermann, Friedrich 237, 245 Aknai, Katalin 69 Alcsúti, Ágoston 37 Alcsúti (Altschul) Gizella > Ferenczi Sándor Alexandre, Paul 238, 240, 245 András, Edit 41, 262, 301 Andrási, Gábor 137 Andrássy, Gyula, ifj. 37, 92, 94 Angyalosi, Gergely 89 Antal, Péter 103 Apollóniosz 463, 464 Apponyi, Albert 94 Apró, Ferenc 513 Arany, János 70 Archipenko, Alexander 464 Artner, Tivadar 501 Augustin, Saint 128

B Babits, Mihály 81, 82, 83, 89, 101, 103, 121, 434, 526 – wife: Török, Sophie 526 Bacon, Francis 61 R. Bajkay, Éva 17, 69, 263 Bajomi Lázár, Endre 245 Balabán, Imre 84 Balabán, Péter 127 Balázs Béla 50, 53, 70, 72, 73, 84, 89, 95, 121, 334, 396, 434 – wife: Hamvassy, Anna 72, 95 Balázs, Eszter 78, 89, 103

538

Bálint, Aladár 53, 60, 69, 79, 80, 82, 83, 86, 89, 100, 109, 115, 127, 146, 152, 157, 263, 462, 464, 465, 482, 486 Bálint, Dezsô 263 Bálint, Jenô 42, 156, 211 Bálint, Lajos 57, 69, 157 Bálint, Rezsô 69, 81 Bálint, Zoltán 43, 211, 259, 263, 501 Balla, Béla 69, 127 Balló, Ede 476 Bán D., András 103 Bánffy, Miklós 86 Bányász, László 41, 42, 78, 89, 157, 211, 263, 341, 465, 477 Bárczy, István 209, 261, 300 Barcs, Emery 340 Barcsay, Jenô 15 Bardoly, István 41, 103, 245 Bárdos, Artúr 53, 89, 109, 127 Barki, Gergely 41, 42, 48, 50, 56, 69, 89, 103, 127, 137, 157, 245, 263, 369, 401, 437, 487, 510, 511, 512, 526, 527 Barta, Lajos 78, 83 Barthélémy, Sophie 245, 301 Bartók, Béla 38, 57, 72, 78, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 101, 102, 103, 132, 137, 150, 156, 294, 518 Bartók, Béla, ifj. 89 Bartosˇ, Frantisˇek 132 Basler, Adophe 240 Batizfalvy, Elza 73 Bató, József 32 Bätschmann, Oskar 127 Batthyány, Gyula 37 Batthyány, Lajos (1860–1951) 93 Baumann, Felix 69 Bay, Miklós 519 Beardsley, Aubrey 45 Bebel, August 211 Beck, Márton 458 Beck Ö., Fülöp 458, 460, 465, 498, 501 Bedô, Rudolf 16, 44 Behrens, Peter 458

Békei, Ödön 46, 527 Bellák, Gábor 340 Bellmann, Karl 137 Benedek, Katalin 301 Benczúr, Béla 37 Benczúr, Gyula 210 Bende, János 42 Bendl, Júlia 88, 103 Benedek Katalin 301 Benesˇ, Vincenc 130, 136, 137 Benesch, Evelin 69 Benson, Timothy O. 69, 137 Bér, Dezsô 339, 341 Berde, Mária 74 Berecz, Ágnes 69, 103, 156, 262, 301 Berenson, Bernhard 59 Berény, János 511, 512 Berény Róbert 12, 13, 14, 15, 22, 24, 27, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 69, 74, 76, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 109, 111, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, 138–199, 202, 204, 208, 209, 210, 240, 242, 245, 254, 294, 296, 300, 332, 333, 335, 340, 341, 362, 364, 364, 368, 369, 396, 399, 400, 424, 429, 437, 482, 484, 496, 510, 511, 512 – wife: Somló, Léni 141, 152, 154, 157, 197, 510, 512 – wife: Breuer, Eta 86 Berényi Zsuzsanna, Ágnes 501 Berg, Alban 85 Bergson, Henri 121, 127 Berman, Emanuel 42 Bernard, Émile 107, 127 Bernáth, Mária 41, 262, 301 Birkás, Tibor 501 Birnbaum, Martin 42, 245, 369 Bíró, Lajos 99, 202 Bíró, Mihály 79 Bischitz, Gyula 92 Blanc, Levee 137

Blanche, Jacques Émile 200, 294 Blastik, Judit 513 Boccioni, Umberto 82 Bodri, Ferenc 16, 17, 88, 127, 263 Boncza, Berta > Ady, Endre Bónis, Ferenc 103 Bonnard, Pierre 62, 131, 294, 299 Borbély, Károly 301 Bornemisza, Géza 22, 27, 41, 42, 44, 81, 127, 240, 334 Boromisza, Tibor 23, 27, 32, 41, 44, 46, 47, 69, 114, 130, 396, 463, 499 – wife: Torday, Mária 127 Bortnyik, Sándor 103 Bosznay, István 31 Botticelli 108 Bölöni, György 22, 23, 26, 31, 33, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 46, 53, 73, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 83, 87, 88, 89, 98, 72, 76, 82, 101, 103, 125, 143, 144, 154, 156, 157, 160, 202, 207, 211, 239, 241, 242, 243, 245, 258, 263, 263, 296, 334, 336, 341, 362, 364, 369, 396, 398, 399, 400, 401, 426, 427, 428, 432, 434, 435, 437, 497, 498, 501 – wife: Márkus (Marhis¸iu), Otília (Itóka) 39, 89, 101, 103, 362, 497 Brabant, Eva 157 Brachfeld, Ferenc 157 Braque, Georges 131, 236, 240, 245, 296, 298, 300, 437 Brassai (Halász Gyula) 394, 432 Breuer, János 89 Brinker, Nancy G. 510 Brod, Max 134, 136 Brogyáni, Kálmán 486 Brueghel, Pieter, id. 67, 129 Brummer, József 239, 245, 333, Brüll, Adél (Léda) 77, 78, 515 Bukovac, Vlaho 130 Burgess, Gelett 236, 237, 238, 245 Burty-Haviland, Frank 37 Busch, Werner 127

NEVMUTATO

2/15/11

5:38 PM

Page 539

C Camoin, Charles 245 Cˇapek, Josef 136, 137 Cˇapek, Karel 136, 137 Carrà, Carlo 82 Carrière, Eugène 79, 121, 362, 365 Casals, Pablo 86, 121, 204, 510, 513 Cassirer, Paul 29, 30 Cézanne, Paul 12, 29, 32, 39, 50, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 65, 66, 67, 73, 79, 80, 86, 93, 96, 106, 107, 108, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 129, 130, 131, 133, 135, 136, 142, 143, 145, 147, 153, 154, 207, 209, 236, 244, 256, 257, 294, 296, 298, 299, 301, 330, 332, 333, 335, 336, 364, 395, 425, 427, 428, 430, 432, 435, 436, 461, 463, 476, 477, 496, 512, 513 Chochol, Josef 137 Cholnoky, Jenô 90, 92 Chorin, Ferenc 94, 95, 337, 341 Ciaclan, Virgil 32, 42, 97, 103, 157, 367, 429, 435, 437, 463, 464, 523 Cimabue 60 Clark, Arthur B. 38, 43 Clegg, Elizabeth 137 Cohen, Walter 33 Collin, Gaston 501 Cooper, Douglas 437 Cormon, Fernand 294 Courbet, Gustave 133 Crane, Walter 45 Cross, Henri 32 Czell, Lôrinc 245 Czigány, Dezsô 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 26, 27, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, 39, 41, 42, 45, 46, 47, 50, 69, 70, 74, 76, 77, 78, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 96, 97, 99, 100, 103, 106, 115, 116, 119, 120, 121, 125, 126, 127, 131, 132, 133, 143, 151, 200–233, 294, 300, 334, 341, 362, 397, 487, 496, 499, 500, 501, 513 – wife: Trebitzky, Mária 202, 204, 208 – wife: Szilasi, Borbála 86, 210 Czigány, Judit 204 Czigány, László 202 Czóbel, Béla 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 50, 50, 69, 73, 74, 77, 81, 87, 88, 99, 106, 107, 114, 125,

126, 127, 129, 130, 131, 137, 143, 151, 152, 200, 202, 204, 208, 209, 210, 211, 234–253, 254, 256, 263, 294, 296, 297, 300, 334, 339, 362, 424, 476, 477, 496, 499, 513, 514, 515 – wife: Isolde Daig 238 Czóbel, Lisa 238 Csáktornyai, Zoltán 22, 27 Csáky, József 500 F. Csanak, Dóra 245, 262, 301 Csapó, György 245 Csáth, Géza 85, 89, 99, 398 Csécsy, Magda 484, 487 Cserna, Andor 53, 243 Csók, István 66, 69, 94, 132, 207, 245, 259, 362, 369 Csont, Ferenc 27, 208 Csontváry Kosztka, Tivadar 101 E. Csorba, Csilla 401, 501

D Dagen, Philippe 156, 245 Daig, Isolde > Czóbel Béla Daubigny, Charles-François 95 Daumier, Honoré 130 Dávid, Katalin 14, 17 Debussy, Claude 84, 99 Degas, Edgar 143 Delacroix, Eugène 57 Delunay, Robert 61, 153 Delaunay, Sonia 63 Dénes, Valéria > Galimberti, Sándor Denis, Maurice 62, 127, 144, 156 Dér, Zoltán 89 Derain, André 51, 130, 131, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 298 Déri, Imre 127 Déry, Béla 35, 41, 42, 43, 157, 211, 263, 341, 401, 465, 477 Déry, Tibor 392, 401, 436 Desnos, Robert 401 Dévényi, Iván 15, 16, 17, 41, 69, 89, 103, 211, 262, 301, 334, 340, 341, 341, 369, 437, 476, 477 Dezséri, Emma 74 Dienes, Valéria 121 Diez, Wilhelm von 234 Diner-Dénes, József 53, 263 Diner-Dénes, Rudolf 41, 53 Diósi, Nusi 73 Disraeli, Benjamin 94 Donatello 59, 495 Donath, Adolph 29, 42 Dongen, Kees van 245 Doszpod, József 522

Dosztojevszkij, Fjodor Mihajlovics 62, 131, 137, 211, 437 Doucet, Henri 240 Dömötör, István 499, 501 Dufy, Raoul 243, 298, 514 Dunoyer de Segonzac, André 240 Dupont, Blanche 511 Dupont, Judith 157 Durand-Ruel, Paul 333, 340 Dutka, Ákos 73, 74, 75, 88, 401 Dürer, Albrecht 107

E, É Éber, László 477 Egry, József 47 Eisemann, György 81, 89 Elek, Artúr 100, 437, 458, 465, 499, 501 Emôd, Tamás 73, 75 Eörsi, István 89 Eötvös, József 103 Erdei, Gyöngyi 263, 369. 501 Erdei, Viktor 202 Erdélyi, Ágnes 69 Erdélyi, Mór 43, 208, 367, 527 Erdôs, Renée 90, 480 Erki, Edit 41, 21, 245, 437 Ernst Lajos 47 Ernst, Paul 131 Erôs, Gyula 99

F Faistauer, Ludwig 437 Falus, Elek 497 Falzeder, Ernst 69 Faragó, Géza 68 Farkas, Zoltán 465, 501 Fehér, Gyula 74 Fehrer, Catherine 501 Le Fauconnier, Henri 240 Feigl, Friedrich 130, 131, 136, 137 Feininger, Lyonel 437 Fekete, Éva 69, 103, 263, 480, 486 Fekete, Ignác 37 Feld, Zsigmond 259 Feleky, Géza 26, 53, 58, 60, 65, 69, 79, 80, 89, 100, 127, 157, 206, 211, 263, 301, 336, 341, 401, 461, 462, 465, 480, 487, 494, 501 Fellner, Henrik 92 Felvinczi Takács, Zoltán 33, 42, 53, 60, 69, 80, 89, 98, 121, 124, 127, 153, 157, 211, 369, 431, 437

Fényes, Adolf 29, 45, 93, 94, 151, 245, 484, 486, 494 Fémes Beck, Vilmos 32, 34, 50, 81, 93, 97, 98, 103, 204, 209, 210, 364, 396, 401, 429, 437, 458–475, 482, 496, 498, 499, 514, 515 – wife: Fridrik, Mária (Fémes Beck, Mária) 461 Fenyô D., Márió 103 Fenyô, György 156, 434 Fenyô, Miksa 83, 95 Fenyves, Katalin 102, 103 Ferencz, Zsuzsa 17, 437 Ferenczi, Sándor 37, 43, 61, 69, 148, 149, 157, 400, 437 – wife: Alcsúti (Altschul) Gizella 37 Ferenczi, Sári 72, 82 Ferenczy, Béni 90, 93, 100, 103 Ferenczy, Károly 22, 45, 47, 62, 73, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96, 101, 103, 104, 106, 200, 202, 203, 257, 262, 263, 297, 301, 478 Ferenczy, Lajos 37 Ferenczy, Noémi 96 Ferenczy, Valér 263 Feszty, Árpád 263 Feszty, Masa 263 Fiedler, Konrad 66, 460, 461 Filla, Emil 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137 Fitz, Jenôné Petrás Éva 10 Flam, Jack 69, 127 Flandrin, Jules 238, 240, 245 G. Fodor, Gábor 69 Fodor, Ilona 401, 437 Fónagy, Aladár 263 Forbáth, Péter 369 Forgács, Éva 50, 51, 67, 69, 127, 137, 437 Forgács Hann, Erzsébet 8 France, Anatole 211 Franz Joseph, I., King of Hungary 95, 96 Freud, Sigmund 61, 69, 148, 156, 157 Fridrik, Mária > Fémes Beck, Vilmos Friesz, Othon Emile 120, 240, 245, 298, 398, 401, 515 Frigyesi, Judit 137 Fry, Edward 245 Fülep, Lajos 50, 76, 114, 115, 120, 125, 127, 245, 262, 296, 298, 301, 362, 392, 401, 432, 434, 435, 436, 437, 485, 523, 525 Füst, Milán 16 – wife: Helfer, Erzsébet 16, 157

539

NEVMUTATO

2/15/11

5:38 PM

Page 540

G Gábor, Eszter 103, 263 Gajdusek, Erzsi 22, 330, 526 Galimberti, Sándor 27, 46, 69, 74, 76, 127, 131 – wife: Dénes, Valéria 27, 69, 127 Galimbertiová, Marie 131, 137 Gantner, Brigitta Eszter 103 Gáspár, Ferenc 501 Gauguin, Paul 32, 62, 63, 66, 67, 73, 76, 79, 96, 114, 123, 125, 130, 131, 136, 143, 152, 236, 294, 296, 333, 362, 365, 395, 424, 463, 476 Géber, Antal 95, 103 Gegesi Kiss, Pál 8 Gellért, Hugó 396 Gellért, Oszkár 396 Genthon, István 12, 13, 17, 103, 245, 330, 340 George, Waldemar 501 Gergely, Tibor 485, 487 Gerhardt, Gusztáv 92 Gerle, János 263 Gerô, Ödön 41, 53, 82, 89, 109, 112, 127, 208, 210, 263, 398, 497, 501 Gerster, Kálmán 495 Geskó, Judit 103 Giorgione 56 Giotto di Bondone 60, 133 Glatz ,Oszkár 45 Gocˇár, Josef 137 Goda, Gábor 499, 501 Gogh, Vincent van 29, 32, 55, 60, 76, 93, 121, 125, 130, 131, 136, 143, 236, 294, 332, 333, 437, 463 Golan, Romy 245 Gombaszögi, Frida 42, 72, 82, 487 Gombosi, György 263, 477, 511 Gomperz, Károly 337 Goncsarova, Natalia 133 Gosztonyi, Ferenc 103, 127 Goya, Francisco de 82, 117, 130 Goyen, Jan van 130 Gömöry, Judit 41, 263, 465 Götz B., Ernô 341 Greco, El 115, 122, 123, 124, 129, 135, 136, 429 Gréczi, Emôke 69 Gross, Andor 436, 444 Grünfeld, Vilmos 86 Grünwald, Mór 98 Guendet, Paul 294, 296 Gulácsy, Lajos 22, 46, 47, 73, 74, 75, 76, 121, 202, 296, 330, 333 Gúthi, Imre 263

540

Gütersloh, Albert Paris 437 Gysis, Nikolaus 200 Gyáni, Gábor 103 Gyenes, Gitta 69 Gyergyai, Albert 96, 103 Gyöngyösi, Nándor 144, 156 Gyulai, István 298, 301 Gyurgyák, János 103

H Haas, Mór 41 Hablik, Wenzel 130 Hacker, Franciska > Márffy, Ödön Hackl, Gabriel von 362 Hajsˇman, Jan 137 Halmos, Károly 103 Hamvassy, Anna > Balázs, Béla Hanák, Péter 92, 101, 102, 103 Harkányi, Ede 497, 525 Harkányi, Frigyes 362 Harsányi, Zsolt 74 Härterich, Johann 476 Hartmann, Artúr 85 Harmos, Ilona > Kosztolányi, Dezsô Hatvany, Ferenc 32, 37, 91, 93, 103, 237 Hatvany, Hermina 94, 341 Hatvany, Irén > Hirsch Albert Hatvany, Lajos 29, 41, 80, 81, 86, 89, 91, 95, 103, 203, 204, 206, 211 Hatvany, Sándor 94 Hatvany-Deutsch, József 94 Hatvany-Deutsch, Sándor 91, 94, 95, 337, 341 Háy, János 69 Heckel, Erich 464 Hegedûs, Gyula 99 Hegedûs, László 476 Hein, Béla 239, 245, 333 Heitler, László 501 Helfer, Erzsébet > Füst, Milán Heller, Hugo 156 Herczeg, Ferenc 31, 76, 79, 398 Herczinger, Ferenc 210 Herman, Lipót 30, 333, 340 Herterich, Johann Caspar 234, 245 Hervay, Frigyes 41 Herzog, Mór Lipót 93, 96, 115 Hettyei, Aranka 74 Heverdle, László 401 Hevesi, Gusztáv 73 Hevesi, Sándor 296 Hevesy, Iván 12, 17, 330, 340 Hévizi, Ottó 69

Hildebrand, Adolf 41, 64, 66, 69, 458, 460, 461, 464, 465, 495, 496, 497, 500, Hirsch, Albert 94, 103 – wife: Hatvany, Irén 103 Hodler, Ferdinand 109, 110, 111, 114, 127, 300, 362 Hofmann, Werner 127 Hollósy, Simon 47, 137, 200, 362, 369, 494 Holzel, Adolf 131 Horb, Max 136 Hornyik, Sándor 69 Horváth, Béla 15, 16, 17, 41, 42, 43, 89, 103, 137, 153, 157, 211, 244, 245, 256, 263, 301, 501, 526, 527, 528, 529 Horváth, János 101, 102 Horváth, László 103 Horváth, Zoltán 92 Huszár, Vilmos 69, 127

I Ignotus 72, 79, 80, 81, 89, 121, 148, 157, 510 – wife: Somló, Lily 32, 42, 81, 149 Imre, Györgyi 41, 69 Iványi Grünwald, Béla 22, 29, 41, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 69, 73, 74, 81, 94, 127, 157, 204, 259, 478, 497

J Jakab, Dezsô 98, 206, 495 Jakab, Irén 121, 125, 214 Jakobovits, Artúr 27, 41, 50, 476–477 Jakobovits, Jenô 477 Jáky, Balázs 521 Jámbor, Lajos 37, 259, 263 Jammes, Francis 401 Janák, Pavel 137 Jász, Dezsô 85 Jászai, Géza 369 Jászi, Oszkár 57, 68, 78, 82, 94, 98, 103, 398, 487 Jávor, Pál 341 Jawlenskiy, Alexej von 464 Jelfy, Gyula 46, 527 Jeszenszky, Sándor 369 Jovánovics, György 341 Józsa, András 513 József, Attila 526 Juhász, Árpád 103

Juhász, Gyula 73, 75, 88, 526 Jung, Werner 137 Junger, Ervin 103 Jurecskó, László 69 Jurkovicˇ, Dusˇan 132 Justh, Gyula 398

K Kabdebo, Gyula 263 Kabos, Ede 99, 202, 334, Kada, Elek 497 Kádár, Béla 47, 81, 208, Kaffka, Margit 82, 148, 334, 486, 487, 515 Kafka, Franz 134, 137 Kalivoda, Kata 41 Kállai, Ernô 12, 17, 62, 63, 66, 69, 106, 114, 126, 127, 243, 299, 301, 330, 338, 340, 432, 437 Kallós, Ede 495 Kalmár, Hugó 206 Kandinsky, Wassily Wassilyevich 63, 83, 130, 133, 136 Kanizsai, Ferenc 78, 89, 341, 401, 477, 477 Kaplany, Miklós 513 Kappanyos, András 89 Karádi, Éva 69, 103, 263, 480, 486 Kardos, András 263 Kardos, Tatjana 42 Karinthy, Frigyes 82, 89 Kármán, Ivor 150, 157 Károlyi, Mihály 398 Károlyi, Tibor 93 Kars, Georg 137 Kassák, Lajos 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 103, 142, 156, 432, 435, 437, 526 Katona, Nándor 480 Kellner, Adolf 37 Kemény, Gyula 55, 56, 58, 69, 156, 510, 513, 519 Kemény, Zsigmond 103 Kende, Ferenc 89 Kerékgyártó, Béla 437 Kernstok Károly 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 52, 53, 54, 57, 58, 59, 60, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 73, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 85, 87, 88, 93, 94, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112, 113, 119, 123, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 131,

NEVMUTATO

2/15/11

5:38 PM

Page 541

133, 134, 135, 137, 140, 142, 145, 146, 151, 153, 156, 202, 203, 204, 209, 210, 211, 234, 239, 240, 242, 245, 245, 254–293, 296, 298, 299, 300, 301, 333, 336, 338, 339, 340, 362, 364, 365, 366, 369, 437, 460, 461, 462, 464, 465, 480, 494, 496, 497, 498, 499, 501, 515, 516, 517 – wife: Ujváry, Ilona 515 Kernstok, Károly, id. 497 Kernstok, Károly, ifj. 85, 515 Kerpely, Jenô 39, 72, 84, 85, 85, 88, 102, 118, 119, 210, 341, 499 Kertész, André 394, 401 Kézdi-Kovács, László 41, 46, 82, 88, 99, 100, 103, 156, 245, 263, 298, 301, 369 Kieselbach, Tamás 42, 89 Kirchner, Ernst Ludwig 63 Kiss, Endre 401 Kiss, Ferenc 42 Kiss, József Mihály 43 Klima, Ladislav 131 Klimt, Gustav 79 Kmetty, János 81, 103, 461, 465 Kodály, Zoltán 57, 72, 84, 88, 101, 103 Kohn, Adolf 34, 156 Kohn, Alfred 34, 156 Kohn, Salomon 34, 156 Kohner, Adolf 92, 93, 96 Kokoschka, Oscar 61, 131, 136, 153, 156, 399, 432, 437, 517 Kollányi, Boldizsár 73 Kolosi, Tamás 519 Komlós, Aladár 78 Komor, Marcell 30, 206, 263, 495, 516 Konta, Sándor 465 Kopits, János 495 Korb, Erzsébet 465 Korda, David 523 Kornfeld, Móric 95, 96 Kornstein, Egon 39, 210, 499 Koronghi Lippich, Elek 482 Koronghy, Dénes 341 Kossuth, Lajos 495, 498 Kosztolányi, Dezsô 72, 80, 82, 99, 119, 133, 137, 202, 437, 526 – wife: Harmos, Ilona 16, 83, 119, 126, 312, 519 Kosztolányi Kann, Gyula 29, 57, 263, Kovács, Bernadett 157, 262, 263,

Kovács, Dezsô 519 Kovács, Györgyné 263 Kovács, Péter 10, 11 Kovács M., Mária 103 Kovalovszky, Márta 10, 11, 16, 17, 245 Kovalovszky, Miklós 88, 211 Kováts, István 102 Kozmutza, Kálmánné 501 Kôhalmi, Béla 211 Körmendi, András 156, 263, Körmendi-Frim, Ervin 41, 46, 47, 74, 76, 237, 464, 487 Körmendi-Frim, Jenô 32, 76, 237 Körner, Éva 52, 69 Kövér, György 103 Kövesházi Kalmár, Elza 27, 28, 32, 464 Kratochwill, Mimi 137, 245, Krén, Katalin 17 Krisztinkovics, Béla 157, 157 Kubin, Otakar 136, 137 Kubisˇta, Bohumil 129, 130, 131, 134, 135, 136, 137 Kukovetz, Nana 69 Kunfi, Zsigmond 39 Kupeczky, Jan 95 Kupka, Frantisˇek 129

L Lakatos, András 69 Lakatos, László 156, 341 Lambert, Ede 75 Lambrichs, Anne 103, 263, Lánczy, Leó 300 Láng, József 89, 103 Larinov, Mihail 133 László, Philip de 96 Laurens, Jean-Paul 142, 143, 200, 234, 294, 332, 362, 476 Laurvik, John Nilsen 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 156, 245, 501 – wife: Pálos, Elma 37, 38, 39, 43, 149, 157 Lavotta, Rezsô 85, 262, 362 Lázár, Béla 28, 38, 245, 369 Lechner, Ödön 37, 364, 458, 464, 514 Léderer, Artúr 258, 292 Léger, Ferdin 131 Lehel, Ferenc 42, 72, 478, 480 Lehel, Károly 73 Lehel (Rell), Mária 31, 32, 42, 50, 72, 81, 462, 478–481, 517 Lembert, Ede 75 Lendvai, Károly 476, 477

Lendvai L., Ferenc 88 Lengyel, Géza 42, 53, 72, 79, 80, 89, 99, 100, 108, 112, 127, 147, 334, 476, 477, 497 Lengyel, István 89 Lengyel, Menyhért 42 Leonardo da Vinci 146, 156 Leopold, Magda 445, 523 Lesznai, Anna 31, 32, 34, 50, 62, 66, 67, 69, 72, 82, 94, 96, 102, 103, 109, 132, 148, 204, 336, 337, 341, 398, 462, 464, 482–493, 499, 517, 518 Lhévinne, Joseph 86 Liebermann, Max 136 Ligeti, Ernô 74 Litván, György 69 Lorquin, Bertrand 501 Lotz, Károly 73 Löwenstein, Arnold 157 Lukács, György 50, 53, 54, 55, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 74, 80, 87, 89, 95, 96, 108, 127, 128, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 157, 203, 211, 263, 297, 396, 425, 436, 480, 485, 486, 496, 501 Lukács, Hugó 74, 88 Lukács, József 64, 65, 94, 95, 96, 102, 103, 157, 263 Lukács, Mici 96, 103 Lyka, Károly 13, 17, 41, 42, 68, 69, 72, 146, 156, 210, 480, 496, 501

M Macharacˇkova, Marcela 137 Magyar, Elek 69 Magyar, Lajos 150 Magyar Mannheimer, Gusztáv 200 Maillol, Aristide 55, 59, 62, 65, 299, 495, 496, 497, 501 Mainssieux, Lucien 237, 238, 240, 245 Majoros, Valéria 42, 43, 89, 103, 211, 400, 401, 432, 437, Mallarmé, Stéphane 123 Malpel, Charles 245 Manet, Édouard 56, 57, 93, 117, 133, 336 Manguin, Henri 240, 245 Mann, Thomas 240 Mantegna 80 Marc, Franz 63, 133, 464 Marées, Hans von 33, 65, 66, 106,

112, 113, 127, 300, 437, 460, 461, 465, 496 Márffy, Károly 296, 301 Márffy, Ödön 12, 13, 14, 20, 22, 26, 27, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 41, 42, 45, 47, 50, 52, 53, 69, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 80, 83, 84, 87, 88, 89, 96, 97, 99, 101, 103, 106, 109, 112, 113, 114, 115, 118, 119, 120, 121,123, 125, 126, 127, 129, 131, 142, 151, 152, 202, 204, 208, 209, 211, 239, 245, 254, 256, 262, 263, 294–329, 338, 362, 364, 424, 429, 476, 496, 499, 500, 501, 518, 519 – wife: Hacker, Franciska 16 Margitay, Ernô 41, 157, 211, 263, 341, 465, 477 Marinetti, Filippo Tommaso 82 Marinot, Maurice 294, 301 Márk, Lajos 94, 332, 362, 478 Markója, Csilla 41, 69, 103, 245, 334, 341, 487 Márkus, László 245, 501 Márkus (Marhis¸iu), Otília > Bölöni, György Marosvölgyi, Gábor 340 Marquet, Albert 240, 245, Marvall, Jacquline 237, 240, 245 Matamoros, Joséphine 301 Máté, Olga 84, 98, 210, 527 Mateˇjcˇek, Antonín 131, 132, 136, 137 Matisse, Henri 22, 41, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 60, 65, 66, 69, 106, 109, 114, 117, 125, 126, 130, 131, 136, 143, 237, 239, 240, 254, 256, 262, 294, 296, 297, 299, 301, 332, 333, 338, 339, 461, 464, 518 McCagg, William 92, 101, 103 McKay, Andrew 340 Medgyessy, Ferenc 498 Mednyánszky, László 47, 63, 66, Meier-Graefe, Julius 29, 42, 54, 129, 136 Meller, Simon 30, 42, 93, 203, 500, Mendöl, Zsuzsa 245 Merleau-Ponty, Maurice 60, 69 Mestrovicˇ, Ivan 461 Mészáros, Judit 157 Mészöly, Géza 93, 95 Metzinger, Jean 236, 240 Meunier, Constantin 73 Mezei, Ottó 41, 428, 437 Mezey, Zsigmond 73, 74

541

NEVMUTATO

2/15/11

5:38 PM

Page 542

Michelangelo Buonarroti 109, 133, 464 Miklós, Jenô 25, 26, 28, 125, 157, 428, 437, 442, 522, 526 Miklós, Jutka 73, 435, 531 Mikó, Árpád 465 Mikola, András 41, 46, 47, 69 74, 76, 127 Millet, Jean-François 63, 95 Modigliani, Amedeo 238, 240, 245, 333, 338 Molnár, Antal 85, 89, 102, 103, 341 L. Molnár, Mária 69, 103, 156, 262, 301, Molnár, Viktor 26 Molnos, Péter 17, 41, 42, 43, 48, 50, 103, 245, 263 Monet, Claude 133, 294 Móra, Ferenc 526 Morice, Charles 127 Móricz Zsigmond 83, 103, 116 Moris, Charles 123 Moscovitz, Geyza 93, 94, 102, 337, 341 Mueller, Otto 132 Munch, Edvard 32, 130, 131 Munkácsy, Mihály 41, 61, 62, 95, 142, 362 Murádin, Jenô 88 Murányi, Ernô 204 Murányi-Kovács Endre 294, 301 Murillo, Bartolomé Esteban 72

Nowak, Willy 134, 135, 136 Nyilassy, Sándor 515 Nyíry, Kristóf 401 Nyitray, József 200, 211

O Oelmacher, Anna 42, 369, 501 Oesterreicher, Adolf 330, 332 – wife: Scharfer, Júlia 330, 332 Ogburn, John 340, Okányi Swarcz, Vera 127 Olbrich, Joseph Maria 458, 465 Olgyai, Viktor 37, 478 Oltványi-Ártinger Imre 140, 156 Oppenheimer, Max 130, 137, 427, 437, 519 Oppler, Ellen C. 245 Orbán, Dezsô 12, 13, 14, 15, 23, 25, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 50, 66, 69, 70, 81, 84, 85, 87, 89, 93, 95, 100, 103, 106, 113, 114, 117, 119, 124, 125, 126, 127, 131, 140, 143, 153, 204, 208, 209, 211, 294, 300, 330–361, 364, 400, 476, 480, 485, 487, 519, 520 Orbán, Lívia 156 Ormay, Imre 89 Osvát, Ernô 86, 460

Ô N Nádai, Pál 261, 263 Nádas, Péter 68 Nágel, Ignác 157 Nagy, Csaba 88, 103, 211 Nagy, Endre 9, 82, 89, 369 Nagy, Gyula 88 Nagy, Ildikó 41, 42, 103, 263, 463, 464, 465 Nagy, István 47 Nagy, Lajos 369 Nagy, Mihály 75 Nagy, Tibor 501 Nemes Lampérth, József 69, 81, 103, 127 Nemes, Marcell 37, 39, 136 Németh, Antal 245, 401 Németh, Gyula 73, 88 Németh, Lajos 88, 127, 211, 330, 340, 501 Noël, Alxandre 245 Novák, Zoltán 401

542

Ôriné Nagy, Cecília 157, 486, 487

P Paál, László 76, 95 Paku, Imre 88 Palka, József 478, 480 Pálos, Elma > Laurvik, John Nilsen Parádi, Judit 401 Pártos, Jenô 157 Pascin, Jules 30 Passuth, Krisztina 13, 15, 17, 41, 48, 69, 88, 127, 137, 140, 156, 211, 242, 245, 262, 294, 301, 330, 336, 340, 341, 369, 401, 432, 436, 437, 477, 477 Pásztor-Freund, Mária 89 Pataki, Gábor 137 Pataky, Dénes 17 Patissou, Jacques 294, 301 Pátzay, Pál 434, 435, Pechán, József 47,

Pechstein, Max 63, 66, 464 Péchy, Blanka > Relle, Pál Pellerin, August 236 Pentelei Molnár, János 39 Perlrott Csaba, Vilmos 22, 27, 28, 29, 32, 41, 44, 46, 47, 50, 51, 69, 74, 81, 127, 130, 240, 301, 333, 364, 399, 463, 499 Perneczky, Géza 48, 69 Péter, András 330, 340 Petôfi, Sándor 103, 211, Petrovics, Elek 26, 41, 93, 94, 95, 96, 245, 334 Petrov-Vodkin, Kuzma 362 Pfeiffer, Ignác 99 Philipp, Clarisse 15, 17 Picabia, Francis 294 Picasso, Pablo 32, 41, 60, 66, 76, 82, 124, 126, 130, 137, 143, 237, 238, 239, 240, 254, 256, 262, 294, 333, 333, 398, 424, 425, 429, 430, 436, 437, 463, 464, 500, 520 Pick, Terézia > Pollacsek, Mór Pidoll, Karl von 460, 465 Pittermann, Artur 137 Pogány, Kálmán 37 Pogány Ö., Gábor 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 501 Polányi, Károly 72 Pollacsek, Matild > Vedres, Márk Pollacsek, Mór 362, 365 – wife: Pick, Terézia 362, 364 Pollaiulo, Antonio del 109, 111 Pólya, Tibor 69, 156 Popper, Leó 52, 53, 54, 55, 64, 65, 67, 96, 128, 129, 131, 134, 136, 137, 147, 157, 485 Popper, Ottóné 263 Pór, Bertalan 12, 13, 22, 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 47, 50, 62, 69, 77, 79, 80, 81, 85, 86, 89, 97, 98, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 123, 125, 126, 131, 135, 142, 153, 156, 156, 159, 202, 204, 207, 208, 209, 245, 254, 257, 294, 299, 300, 333, 338, 339, 340, 362–391, 396, 400, 427, 437, 464, 480, 496, 510, 520, 521 Pór, Ferenc 364, 365, 369 Pór, Géza 364, 365, 369 Pór, Hermina 364, 365 Pór, Janka 364, 365 Pór, Károly 364, 365 Pór, Lajos 364, 365 Pór, Margit 364, 365, 369

Práger, László 513 Pringsheim, Klaus 241 Procházka, Antonín 129, 130, 135, 136, 137 Prucha, Jindrˇich 136 Puccini, Giacomo 82 Puech, Denys 495 Puvis de Chavannes, Pierre 108, 365, 476 Puy, Jean 245, 522 Puy, Michel 245

R Rabinovszky, Máriusz 33, 42, 98, 99, 103, 477 Rácz, Zoltán 89 Radnóti, Sándor 263 Radó, Sándor 148 Rafael, Irma 74 Raffaello 56, 62 Raimondi, Marcantonio 56 Rajna, Ferenc 157 Rakusˇanová, Marie 137 Raupp, Karl 476 Redô, Ferenc 103 Reichel, Oscar 432 Reiner, Frigyes 85 Reinitz, Béla 74 Reinitz, Ernô 39 Reiter, László 263 Relle, Pál 25, 27, 28, 41, 53, 72, 80, 100, 150, 297, 334, 341, 369, 401, 487 – wife: Péchy, Blanka 27, 150 Rembrandt, Harmenszoon van Rijn 97, 130, 142, 202 Remsey, Jenô 92 Renoir, Auguste 96, 294, 298 Réth, Alfréd 47 Réthy, Károly 70, 72 – wife: Seidler, Irma 70, 72, 88, 127, 132, 480 Réti, István 30, 45, 66, 103, 262, 297, 301, 362, 369, 478, 480 Révai, Mór 525 Révai, Ödönné 292 Révész, Béla 53, 83, 434 Révész, Imre 478 Révész, Imre & Bíró 92 Reviczky, Gyula 74 Rippl-Rónai, József 22, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 41, 42, 45, 46, 47, 62, 66, 73, 74, 75, 77, 80, 81, 93, 96, 101, 106, 121, 131, 145, 151, 152, 156, 157, 206, 207, 234, 242, 245, 257, 259, 263,

NEVMUTATO

2/15/11

5:38 PM

Page 543

296, 297, 299, 301, 339, 365, 463, 465, 486, 495, 497, 497, 498, 499, 501 Rippl-Rónai, Ödön 518, 519, 530 Ritoók, Emma 90, 92, 103 Robotos, Imre 89 Rockenbauer, Zoltán 31, 34, 42, 48, 69, 88, 89, 103, 113, 156, 262, 263, 301, 341 Rodin, Auguste 65, 79, 130, 137, 294, 462, 464, 494, 495, 496, 501, Roemer, Georg 458, 460 Romváry, Ferenc 245 Rónai, Dénes 80 Rónai, György 211 Rosenhagen, Hans 29, 42 Ross, Medardo 495 Róth, Miksa 368 Rouault, Georges 294, Rousseau, Henri 239, 245 Roussier, François 245 Rózsa, Miklós 17, 24, 41, 47, 73, 84, 86, 99, 211, 297, 301, 339, 340, 364, 369, 499, 500, 501 Rózsaffy, Dezsô 53, 300, 369 Rubens, Peter Paul 130 Rudics, József 494 Rudnay, Gyula 47 Rum, Attila 31, 41, 42, 48, 88, 127, 211, 263, 341, 369 Russolo, Luigi 82, 117 Ruysdael, Salamon van 95

S Sármány-Parsons, Ilona 50, 69, 103, 263 Sassetta 125 Sassy, Attila 47 Scharfer, Júlia > Oesterreicher, Adolf Scheithauerová, Linka 136 Schiffer, Miksa 98, 259, 260, 261, 284, 288, 289, 290, 291, 462, 464, 465, 515, 517 Schmidt, Katharina 127 Schnitzler, Arthur 102 Schoenberg, Arnold 85, 111, 126, 127 Schopenhauer, Arthur 134 Schorske, Carl 101 Schönberger, Armand 69 Schöpflin, Aladár 101, 103 Schulz 400, 437 Schweiger, Werner J. 42 Sebôk, Marcell 103

Seidler, Irma > Réthy, Károly Signac, Paul 32 Signorelli, Luca 109, 111, 135 Siklós, István 89 Silver, Kenneth E. 245 Simmel, Georg 65 Simon, Lucien 294 Sinkó, Katalin 17, 51, 69, 465 Sisley, Alfred 95 Slavícˇek, Antonín 129, 131, 137 Solow, Herbert 103 Somfai, László 132, 137 Somló, Ilona (Léni) > Berény, Róbert Somló, Lily > Ignotus Somogyi, Árpád 89, 301 Soós, Gyula 5, 501 Sós, Tamás 15, 157, 510, 511 Soutine, Chaïm 294 Spencer, Karen 511 Stahl, Fritz 29, 42 Stein, Gertrude 143, 237, 240, 245, 254, 262, 333, 364 Stein, Leo 240, 254, 262, 333, 363 Steiner, Bernát 262 Stracky, Emmanule 437 Strasserné, Chorin Désy 103 Stravinsky, Igor 86 Strelisky, Lipót 99 Stróbl, Alajos 495 Sˇalda, Xaver 130, 137 Sˇpála, Václav 136, 137 Szablya-Frischauf, Ferenc 45, 82 Szabó, Dezsô 89 P. Szabó, Ernô 69 Szabó, Ervin 84, 499 Szabó, Júlia 13, 15, 432, 437 Szabó, László 340 Szabó, Lôrinc 526 Szabolcska, Mihály 78 Szajkó, Lídia 156, 510, 511, 512 Szalay, Károly 17 Szamuely, Tibor 396, 398 Szatmári, Jenô 41 Szávai, Nándor 127 Szegedy-Maszák, Mihály 137 Székely, Aladár 52, 70, 71, 77, 88, 100, 148, 210, 295, 363, 437, 459, 483, 526, 527, 528 Székely, György 263 Székely, Miklós 465, Szekfû, Gyula 103 Szendrei, János 210, 211 Szenes, Fülöp 100 Szentiványi, Gyula 210, 211 Szép, Ernô 72, 82, 89, 202, 487 Szíj, Béla 13, 14, 17, 89, 156, 157, 336, 340, 341

Szikra, Ágnes 487 Szilágyi, Judit 103 Szilasi, Borbála > Czigány, Dezsô Szili, Gyula 501 Szili, József 89 Szini, Gyula 72, 82, 487 Szinyei Merse, Anna 69 Szinyei Merse, Pál 22, 26, 31, 42, 45, 46, 47, 62, 79, 80, 93, 95, 96, 203, 207, 257 Szögi, László 43 Sztrakoniczky, Károly 72, 157, 487 Szücs, György 17, 41, 69, 127, 137, 156, 245, 262, 301, 369, 401, 477 P. Szûcs, Julianna 127

T Tábori, Kornél 210, 211 Tango, Egisto 85, 86, 87 Tannhauser, Heinrich 427 Tarján, Tamás 69 Tatai, Erzsébet 69, 103, 156, 262, 301, Temesváry, János 84 Tersánszky, Józsi Jenô 41, 81, 83, 127, 395, 396, 398, 401, 434, 470, 461, 462, 514 Tetinszky, Edit 127 Thiele, Franz 130, Thomán, István 86 Thorma, János 41, 103, 362, 369 Tihanyi, József 382 Tihanyi, Lajos 12, 13, 14, 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 50, 66, 69, 74, 76, 78, 80, 81, 83, 87, 94, 97, 98, 106, 109, 114, 115, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 131, 132, 136, 140, 142, 153, 156, 204, 210, 294, 341, 362, 364, 367, 368, 392–455, 461, 463, 464, 471, 496, 514, 522, 523 Tímár, Árpád 10, 17, 28, 41, 42, 65, 67, 69, 75, 127, 137, 301, 334, 341, 401, 437, 465, 501 Tímár, Szaniszló 334 Tintoretto, Jacopo 130 Tisza, István 30, 31, 42, 79, 80, 83, 84, 89, 93, 96, 99, 207, 211, 242, 341 Tolnay, Charles de 137 Tolsztoj, Lev Nyikolajevics 56 Torday, Mária > Boromisza, Tibor Tornyai, János 47

Torossi, Antonio 198 Tóth, Melinda 103 Toulouse-Lautrec, Henri de 116, 117, 143, 294 Török, Petra 69, 103, 486, 487 Török, Sopie > Babits, Mihály 526 Török, Tibor 42 Trask, John 42, 245, 501 Trebitzky, Mária > Czigány, Dezsô

U Ujvári, Péter 127 Ullmann, Móric 96

V Vadas, József 496, 501 Vágó, József 47, 98, 157, 203, 206, 259, 263, 464, 497 Vágó, László 47, 259, 263, Vajda, János 74 Vajda, Mihály 263 Vajda, Zsigmond 478 Vallotton, Felix 121 Valtat, Louis 130, 240, 245 Vályi, Félix 362 Vandrák, László 458 Várallyay, Réka 501 Varga, József 88, 211 Várnai, Dániel 69 Varró, István 140, 143, 156, 157, 332, 341, 482, 484, 485, 486 Varsányi, Gyula 69 Vaszary, János 47, 69, 81, 106, 145, 156 Vauxcelles, Louis 143, 237 Vay, Péter 73 Veblen, Thorsten 102 Vécsey, Mikós 103 Vedres, Márk 22, 31, 32, 37, 42, 50, 68, 96, 98, 101, 204, 208, 209, 210, 462, 463, 464, 482, 494–507 – wife: Pollacsek, Matild 495 Velázquez, Diego 117 Vereshsagin, Vasliy 330 Verrocchio 495 Veronese, Paolo 115, 118 Vészi, József 42, 203 Vészi, Margit 77 Veszprémi, Nóra 41, 263, 465 Vezér, Erzsébet 88, 89, 103, 482, 486 Vildrac, Charles 240 Virág, Péter 514

543

NEVMUTATO

2/15/11

5:38 PM

Page 544

Vlaminck, Maurice de 130, 131, 238, 294, 298, 300 Vollard, Ambroise 143, 236, 294, 299, 332, 333, 336 Vörösmarty, Mihály 103

W Waldbauer, Imre 39, 72, 84, 88, 102, 210, 341, 499 Warburg, Aby 56 Weber, Max (1881–1961) 143, 156, 237, 238, 239, 240 Webern, Anton 85

Weill, Berthe 239, 241, 245 Weinberger, Sámule 494 Weiner, Leó 60, 84, 85, 86, 150, 151, 154, 157, 204, 510 Weiser, Kálmán 516 Weiss, Fülöp 95 Weiss, Manfréd 95 Weissová, Julie 137 Wieniawski, Henryk 74, 75 Wilde, Ferenc 90, 103 Wilde, János 69 Wilde, Oscar 74 Wimmer, Ignác 200 Winckelmann, Johann 464 Wollemann, Viktor 28, 203

Worringer, Wilhelm 66, 69 Wucher, Monika 69

Y Yartin, József 398, Ybl, Ervin 42

Ziffer, Sándor 22, 27, 41, 44, 47, 69, 74, 76, 127, 130, 395, 401 Zilzer, Antal 200 Zimmermann, Bénédicte 51 Zola, Émile 211 Zolnay, László 15 Zurbaran, Francisco 117 Zwickl, András 41, 135, 137, 263 Zsákovics, Ferenc 157

Z Zala, György 369 Zeke, Gyula 103 Zempléni, Tivadar 142

A RECONSTRUCTION OF THE ’EIGHT’ EXHIBITIONS On the next pages there follow the works which were presented to the public during the ‘New Pictures’ show in 1909 and the 1911, 1912 exhibitions respectively: a certain visual reconstruction, through which, so we hope, the overall impact of the exhibition, their inherent proportions as well as that of known and yet missing works can be demonstrated at one and the same time. The thorough analysis of available sources – catalogues, studies, reviews, recollections, contemporaneous reproductions, caricatures and inscriptions on the works themselves – prove to be insufficient, as yet, for the identification of all the works exhibited on the three occasions. Therefore it was necessary to distinguish between the individual groups of woks.

544

Works which were definitely exhibited, or in the case of those where this can be supposed with nearly 100% certainty, are reproduced against a black background, whereas supposedly exhibited works in the case of the first show appear against blue, in the second against red, and in the third against viola. Those works which are today missing, and known only from reproductions, are presented in black – and – white photographs, or by way of caricatures. A grey rectangle indicates those cases in which no source whatsoever is available for identification, and none of the known contemporaneous works are likely to have been exhibited. Graphics in the catalogues had normally no numbers; therefore they are presented here

in a separate group after the reconstruction of the three exhibitions, and only those works feature which were certainly exhibited. Embroideries, and designs for them, by Róbert Berény exhibited in 1912 were not considered in the reconstruction because of their detailed discussion in the studies of the catalogue, and the work of Anna Lesznai is presented only restrictedly. The numbers indicated under the pictures are not those of the original catalogues, and are only to help orientation. Our reconstruction is, naturally, determined by the present (2010.) state of research, and shall have to be updated as, with the progress of time, new data emerge.

REKON

2/5/11

4:00 PM

Page 545

1ST EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 1.

1ST EXHIBITION, D. CZIGÁNY 1.

1ST EXHIBITION, D. CZIGÁNY 2.

1ST EXHIBITION, D. CZIGÁNY 3.

1ST EXHIBITION, D. CZIGÁNY 4.

1ST EXHIBITION, D. CZIGÁNY 5.

1ST EXHIBITION, D. CZIGÁNY 6.

1ST EXHIBITION, D. CZIGÁNY 7.

1ST EXHIBITION, B. CZÓBEL 1.

1ST EXHIBITION, B. CZÓBEL 2.

1ST EXHIBITION, B. CZÓBEL 3.

1ST EXHIBITION, A. JAKOBOVITS 1.

1ST EXHIBITION, K. KERNSTOK 1.

1ST EXHIBITION, K. KERNSTOK 2.

1ST EXHIBITION, K. KERNSTOK 3.

1ST EXHIBITION, K. KERNSTOK 4.

1ST EXHIBITION, Ö. MÁRFFY 1.

1ST EXHIBITION, Ö. MÁRFFY 2.

1ST EXHIBITION, Ö. MÁRFFY 3.

1ST EXHIBITION, Ö. MÁRFFY 4.

1ST EXHIBITION, Ö. MÁRFFY 5.

1ST EXHIBITION, Ö. MÁRFFY 6.

1ST EXHIBITION, Ö. MÁRFFY 7.

1ST EXHIBITION, D. ORBÁN 1.

1ST EXHIBITION, D. ORBÁN 2.

1ST EXHIBITION, D. ORBÁN 3.

1ST EXHIBITION, D. ORBÁN 4.

1ST EXHIBITION, B. PÓR 1.

1ST EXHIBITION, L. TIHANYI 1.

1ST EXHIBITION, L. TIHANYI 2.

1ST EXHIBITION, L. TIHANYI 3.

1ST EXHIBITION, L. TIHANYI 4.

REKON

2/5/11

4:02 PM

Page 546

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 1.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 2.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 3.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 4.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 5.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 6.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 7.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 8.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 9.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 10.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 11.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 12.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 13.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 14.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 15.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 16.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 17.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 18.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 19.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 20.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 21.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 22.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 23.

I2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 24.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 25.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 26.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 27.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 28.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 29.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 30.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 31.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 32.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 33.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 34.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 35.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 36.

REKON

2/5/11

4:02 PM

Page 547

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 37.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 38.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 39.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 40.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 41.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 42.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 43.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 44.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 45.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 46.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 47.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 48.

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 49.

2ND EXHIBITION, D. CZIGÁNY 1.

2ND EXHIBITION, D. CZIGÁNY 2.

2ND EXHIBITION, D. CZIGÁNY 3.

2ND EXHIBITION, D. CZIGÁNY 4.

2ND EXHIBITION, D. CZIGÁNY 5.

2ND EXHIBITION, D. CZIGÁNY 6.

2ND EXHIBITION, K. KERNSTOK 1.

2ND EXHIBITION, K. KERNSTOK 2.

2ND EXHIBITION, K. KERNSTOK 3.

2ND EXHIBITION, K. KERNSTOK 4.

2ND EXHIBITION, Ö. MÁRFFY 1.

2ND EXHIBITION, Ö. MÁRFFY 2.

2ND EXHIBITION, Ö. MÁRFFY 3.

2ND EXHIBITION, Ö. MÁRFFY 4.

2ND EXHIBITION, Ö. MÁRFFY 5.

2ND EXHIBITION, Ö. MÁRFFY 6.

2ND EXHIBITION, Ö. MÁRFFY 7.

2ND EXHIBITION, Ö. MÁRFFY 8.

2ND EXHIBITION, D. ORBÁN 1.

2ND EXHIBITION, D. ORBÁN 2.

2ND EXHIBITION, D. ORBÁN 3.

2ND EXHIBITION, D. ORBÁN 4.

2ND EXHIBITION, D. ORBÁN 5.

REKON

2/5/11

4:05 PM

Page 548

2ND EXHIBITION, D. ORBÁN 6.

2ND EXHIBITION, D. ORBÁN 7.

2ND EXHIBITION, D. ORBÁN 8.

2ND EXHIBITION, B. PÓR 1.

2ND EXHIBITION, B. PÓR 2.

2ND EXHIBITION, B. PÓR 3.

2ND EXHIBITION, B. PÓR 4.

2ND EXHIBITION, B. PÓR 5.

2ND EXHIBITION, L. TIHANYI 1.

2ND EXHIBITION, L. TIHANYI 2.

2ND EXHIBITION, L. TIHANYI 3.

2ND EXHIBITION, L. TIHANYI 4.

2ND EXHIBITION, L. TIHANYI 5.

2ND EXHIBITION, L. TIHANYI 6.

2ND EXHIBITION, V. FÉMES BECK 1.

2ND EXHIBITION, V. FÉMES BECK 2.

2ND EXHIBITION, V. FÉMES BECK 3.

2ND EXHIBITION, V. FÉMES BECK 4.

2ND EXHIBITION, V. FÉMES BECK 5.

2ND EXHIBITION, V. FÉMES BECK 6.

2ND EXHIBITION, V. FÉMES BECK 7.

2ND EXHIBITION, V. FÉMES BECK 8.

2ND EXHIBITION, V. FÉMES BECK 9.

2ND EXHIBITION, V. FÉMES BECK 10.

2ND EXHIBITION, V. FÉMES BECK 11.

2ND EXHIBITION, V. FÉMES BECK 12.

2ND EXHIBITION, V. FÉMES BECK 13.

2ND EXHIBITION, V. FÉMES BECK 14.

2ND EXHIBITION, M. VEDRES 1.

2ND EXHIBITION, M. VEDRES 2.

2ND EXHIBITION, M. VEDRES 3.

2ND EXHIBITION, M. LEHEL 1.

2ND EXHIBITION, M. LEHEL 2.

2ND EXHIBITION, A. LESZNAI 1.

2ND EXHIBITION, A. LESZNAI 2.

2ND EXHIBITION, A. LESZNAI 3.

REKON

2/5/11

4:05 PM

3RD EXHIBITION, B. PÓR 3.

Page 549

3RD EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 1.

3RD EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 2.

3RD EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 3.

3RD EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 4.

3RD EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 5.

3RD EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 6.

3RD EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 7..

3RD EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 8.

3RD EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 9.

3RD EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 10.

3RD EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 11.

3RD EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 12.

3RD EXHIBITION, D. ORBÁN 1.

3RD EXHIBITION, D. ORBÁN 2.

3RD EXHIBITION, D. ORBÁN 3.

3RD EXHIBITION, D. ORBÁN 4.

3RD EXHIBITION, D. ORBÁN 5.

3RD EXHIBITION, D. ORBÁN 6.

3RD EXHIBITION, D. ORBÁN 7.

3RD EXHIBITION, D. ORBÁN 8.

3RD EXHIBITION, D. ORBÁN 9.

3RD EXHIBITION, D. ORBÁN 10.

3RD EXHIBITION, D. ORBÁN 11.

3RD EXHIBITION, D. ORBÁN 12.

3RD EXHIBITION, D. ORBÁN 13.

3RD EXHIBITION, D. ORBÁN 14.

3RD EXHIBITION, D. ORBÁN 15.

3RD EXHIBITION, B. PÓR 1.

3RD EXHIBITION, B. PÓR 2.

3RD EXHIBITION, B. PÓR 3.

REKON

2/5/11

4:09 PM

Page 550

3RD EXHIBITION, B. PÓR 3.

3RD EXHIBITION, B. PÓR 4.

3RD EXHIBITION, B. PÓR 5.

3RD EXHIBITION, B. PÓR 6.

3RD EXHIBITION, B. PÓR 7.

3RD EXHIBITION, B. PÓR 8.

3RD EXHIBITION, B. PÓR 9.

3RD EXHIBITION, L. TIHANYI 1.

3RD EXHIBITION, L. TIHANYI 2.

3RD EXHIBITION, L. TIHANYI 3.

III3RD EXHIBITION, L. TIHANYI 4.

3RD EXHIBITION, L. TIHANYI 5.III. 3RD

EXHIBITION, L. TIHANYI 6.

3RD EXHIBITION, L. TIHANYI 7.

3RD EXHIBITION, L. TIHANYI 8.

3RD EXHIBITION, L. TIHANYI 9.

3RD EXHIBITION, L. TIHANYI 10.

3RD EXHIBITION, L. TIHANYI 11.

3RD EXHIBITION, L. TIHANYI 12.

3RD EXHIBITION, L. TIHANYI 13.

3RD EXHIBITION, L. TIHANYI 14.

3RD EXHIBITION, L. TIHANYI 15.

3RD EXHIBITION, V. FÉMES BECK 1.

3RD EXHIBITION, V. FÉMES BECK 2.

3RD EXHIBITION, V. FÉMES BECK 3.

3RD EXHIBITION, V. FÉMES BECK 4.

3RD EXHIBITION, V. FÉMES BECK 5.

3RD EXHIBITION, V. FÉMES BECK 6.

REKON

2/5/11

4:09 PM

Page 551

2ND EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 1.

2ND EXHIBITION, D. CZIGÁNY 1.

2ND EXHIBITION, K. KERNSTOK 1.

2ND EXHIBITION, K. KERNSTOK 2.

2ND EXHIBITION, Ö. MÁRFFY 1.

2ND EXHIBITION, Ö. MÁRFFY 2.

2ND EXHIBITION, D. ORBÁN 1.

2ND EXHIBITION, D. ORBÁN 2.

2ND EXHIBITION, D. ORBÁN 3.

2ND EXHIBITION, B. PÓR 1.

2ND EXHIBITION, B. PÓR 2.

2ND EXHIBITION, B. PÓR 3.

2ND EXHIBITION, B. PÓR 4.

2ND EXHIBITION, B. PÓR 5.

2ND EXHIBITION, L. TIHANYI 1.

2ND EXHIBITION, L. TIHANYI 2.

2ND EXHIBITION, L. TIHANYI 3.

3RD EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 1.

3RD EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 2.

3RD EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 3.

3RD EXHIBITION, R. BERÉNY 4.

3RD EXHIBITION, D. ORBÁN 1.

3RD EXHIBITION, D. ORBÁN 2.

REKON

2/5/11

I NTERIORS

4:09 PM

Page 552

T HE E IGHT – A

CENTENARY

E XHIBITION

AT J ANUS

P ANNONIUS M USEUM M ODERN H UNGARIAN G ALLERY , P ÉCS , 10 D ECEMBER 2010 – 27 M ARCH 2011 (P HOTOS : J ÓZSEF S ÁRKÁNY )

2/7/11

2:01 PM

Page 2

THE

EIGHT RÓBERT BERÉNY

DEZSÔ CZIGÁNY

BÉLA CZÓBEL

JANUS PANNONIUS MUSEUM

KÁROLY KERNSTOK

EIGHT

8AK_B1_4_PROD_ENG

THE ÖDÖN MÁRFFY

DEZSÔ ORBÁN

BERTALAN PÓR

LAJOS TIHANYI

THE

EIGHT R Ó B E R T B É L A

C Z Ó B E L

Ö D Ö N

PÉCS 2010

B E R É N Y •

M Á R F F Y

B E R T A L A N

P Ó R

•

D E Z S Ô

K Á R O L Y •

•

C Z I G Á N Y

K E R N S T O K

D E Z S Ô L A J O S

O R B Á N T I H A N Y I

JANUS PANNONIUS MUSEUM PÉCS