mev local strategies

7/27/2019 MEV Local Strategies

1/14

Local StrategiesInternational Ambitions

Modern Art and Central Europe 1918--1968

Papers from the International Conference, Prague, 11 14 June, 2003

The Institute of Art History, Academy of Sciences

of the Czech Republic, Prague / New York University in Prague

edited by

Vojtch Lahoda

ARTEFACTUMSTAV DJIN UMN AV R

Praha 2006


2/14

4

The book was published with nancial support from the ASCR.

Published by ARTEFACTUMInstitute of Art History, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic

Authors, 2006 Institute of Art History, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, 2006

ISBN 80-86890-08-2


3/14

5

Contents

Preface / 7

Vojtch LahodaGlobal Form and Local Spirit: Czech and Central Euro-pean Modern Art / 9

Anna BrzyskiCentres and Peripheries: Language Barriers and the Cul-tural Geography of European Modern Art / 21

Katarzyna Murawska-MuthesiusUnworlding Slaka, or Does Eastern (Central) EuropeanArt Exist? / 29

Eva ForgcsWhose Narrative Is It? / 41

Nicholas Sawicki

Modernist Paradigms After the War: The Case of MaxDvok / 47

Annika WaenerbergNational Features in Modern Art: Edwin Lydn (18791956)and Wassily Kandinsky (1866-1944) / 53

Eduards KaviThe Ambivalence of Ethnography in the Context ofLatvian Modernism / 59

Martina Pachmanov

Les femmes artistes daujourdhui: Czech WomenArtists in the Context of International Modernism / 65

Damjan PrelovekThe Architect Joe Plenik: The Originator of CriticalRegionalism / 71

Andrs ZwicklBetween Conservatism and Modernism: Classicisms andRealisms of the 1920s in Central Europe / 77

Ivanka ReberskiThe Universal and the Regional: Modernism in CroatianPainting in the 1920s and 1950s / 85

Anna WierzbickaArtists from Central and Eastern Europe in the cole de

Paris Milieu (1918-1939): The Problem of Assimilation andIdentity / 93

Maria Elena VersariThe Central European Avant-Garde of the 1920s: The Bat-tleground for Futurist Identity? / 103

Jeremy Howard Andrzej SzczerskiShips in the Night along the Coasts of Bohemia? ModernDesign Aesthetics and the Turn of the Liner / 111

Isabel Wnsche

Biocentric Modernism: The Other Side of the Avant--Garde / 125

Irina GenovaBalkan Modernism / Balkan Modernity: The Difcultiesof Historicizing / 133

Darko imiiThe Case of Dada: Searching through the Archipelago ofthe Avant-Gardes in Central Europe / 141

Myroslava M. Mudrak

Polish Modernism and Ukrainian Artists: Parallel Stra-tegies / 149

Linara DovydaitytConstructing the Local isms: Paradoxes of LithuanianExpressionism / 159

Giedr JankeviitTraditionalism as Modernism: Neo-traditionalism inLithuanian Art / 165


4/14

6

Timothy O. BensonMapping Culture in Central Europe: Dada and Devt-sil / 171

Esther Levinger

Hungarian Constructivism and Totality / 183

Christina LodderInternational Constructivism and the Legacy of Unovis inthe 1920s: El Lissitzky, Katarzyna Kobro and WadisawStrzemiski / 195

Matthew S. WitkovskyThe Cage of the Center / 205

Ljiljana KolenikDangerous Liaisons: The Relationship Between Art and theSocialist State. The Croatian Experience in the 1950s / 213

Deborah SchultzMethodological Issues: Researching Socialist Realist Ro-mania / 223

Marian MazzoneLocation, Process, Identity: Actions and Happenings inthe 1960s / 229

Tomasz GryglewiczIdeology or Culture: On the Art of a Non-Existing CentralEurope at the Time of the Avant-Garde and the Yalta Con-ference / 237


5/14

7

The Institute of Art History of the Czech Academy of Sci-ences, with the support of New York University in Prague,sponsored an international conference in Prague (11-14

June 2003) called Local Strategies, International Ambi-tions: Modern Art and Central Europe 1918-1968.

The aim of the conference was to explore the statusof Modernism and Avant-garde art in Central Europe.The events of 1989 have had an ambiguous inuence onart history research in Central Europe. On the one hand,the internal regional networks in the eld dissolved;indeed, today very few people are interested in cultivat-ing contacts within the region, presenting the questionof whether the idea of Central Europe isnt, perhaps, anarticial construct.

On the other hand, since 1989 many political barriershave dissolved and today its possible to look at CentralEuropean art from new angles. New paradigms, such as

Postmodernism came to the fore; the popularity of thistrend resulted subsequently in a Postmodernism hang-over, which is leading to a rediscovery of the values ofModern and Avant-garde art.

Of course we are aware of the importance of modernart of the pre-war period (before 1918) to our study of thepast fty years. Some of the papers dealt with this topic.

Nonetheless, we were mainly interested in the ftyyears of artistic activity that followed the disintegration ofthe Austro-Hungarian monarchy, which is for many peoplea topographic synonym for the idea of Central Europe.

The fty-year time frame covered by this conference

also has much to do with the history of the Institute ofArt History as well. In 2003 we celebrated the ftieth an-niversary of the establishment of this institution, whichis ofcially known today as the Institute of Art History ofthe Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic. Originallycalled the Art History Section, it was initially a part ofthe Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences that was newlycreated in 1953. As if that were not enough as far as an-niversaries go, we must remember yet another. In 1993,upon the division of Czechoslovakia, the Institute of the

Preface

Theory and History of Art of the Academy of Sciencesof the Czechoslovak Republic was renamed the Institutefor Art History of the Academy of Sciences of the CzechRepublic. As one can see, divisions, unions and territorialredistributions enjoy a rich tradition in the area knownas Central Europe.

The conference dealt with questions of identity,regionalism and the interaction between the centre andthe periphery, as well as with the problem of local centres(cities, art groups and institutions) and of local isms. Itwas focused on the questions of how important guresworked in this region and who actually was regarded asimportant. The topic of international and domestic rela-tionships was also explored. In addition, the conferencediscussed the topic of internal Central European networksin the modern art era, but also the development of the his-toriography of modern art throughout the entire Central

European region as a whole.All of these questions and many more, of course,

are considered in recent surveys on Central and EasternEuropean modern art by Steven Mansbach1 and kosMoravnsky,2 as well as the exhibition catalogue CentralEuropean Avant-Gardes: Exchange and Transformation, 1910

1930 (ed. Timothy O. Benson, Cambridge [Mass.] London 2002).

We may understand much more about the inner intel-lectual spirit of the world of locales, as Timothy Bensonput it, by reading the collection of Modernist theory andcriticism that was published as an accompaniment to the

abovementioned exhibition catalogue.3

Equally important in the area of Central and EasternEuropean is the collection edited by Laura Hoptman andTom Pospiszyl entitled Primary Documents: A Sourcebook

for Eastern and Central European Art since the 1950s (NewYork 2002). All of these sources are essential for the arthistorian who wants to learn about the particularitiesof Central and Eastern European modern art and theirrelationship to the so-called Western variety of Mo-dernism.


6/14

8

Nevertheless, despite the interest in Central and East-ern European art represented by these publications, we feltthat there was something missing; namely, direct contactamong researchers who deal with issues of modern art inCentral Europe. This was one of the main reasons behindthis conference. Another aim is to facilitate communica-tion among specialists within the framework of the regionitself. It is paradoxical that we in Prague are often far fa-miliar with the state of research on Modernism in placessuch as Berlin, London and the United States than withpublications and art historical projects on modern andcontemporary art in Krakow, Vilnius, Bucharest or Bel-grade. That is why the Institute for Art History of Praguewould like to focus systematically to the issue at hand,however broad it might seem. We hope this intentionmight serve as the substantial push towards the promo-tion of Central/Eastern European research, which would

lead to a more developed network in Central Europe ofstudies about modernism and the avant-garde.

The three-day session in June 2003 was divided intosections as follows: 1. Regionalism and Identity (chaired

by Jindich Toman, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor),2. East Goes West/West Goes East (chair Timothy Ben-son, LACMA, Los Angeles), 3. Whose Modernism andAvant-garde? Local/other/isms (chair Vojtch Lahoda,Institute of Art History of the Academy of Sciences of theCzech Republic, Prague), 4. Constructing Identities (chairDavid Crowley, Royal College of Art, London), 5. Analo-gous Strategies/Other Histories (chair Lenka Bydovsk,

Institute of Art History of the Academy of Sciences of theCzech Republic, Prague), and nally 6. Whose Construct?

Dilemmas of Central/Eastern/European Modern Art(chaired by Jn Bako, Institute of Art History of Slova-kian Academy of Sciences, Bratislava).

The organizers of the conference were happy theycould gather practically all papers for publishing. Un-fortunately, there are some contributions from 2003 thatare missing for various reasons, the most simple one

being that some manuscripts were not supplied. Theeditor is very sorry for this, however the deadline for thepublication was xed; otherwise this book could not bepublished. In any case, we would like to thank those eagerparticipants who intensively collaborated with the editoron this printed version of the proceedings.

The texts published in this volume do not followthe structure of the conference sections. The reason wassimple: there were gaps of papers within the sections, sowe decided not to divide the ow of texts.

We instead divided them into three sections by topic:at the beginning there are papers dealing with methodo-logical issues of studying Central/Eastern European mod-ern art, followed by a number of papers dealing especiallywith Modernism and Avant-garde art between the wars,and nally there are several papers that either mix chrono-logical issues, or are focused especially on the post-WWIIsituation of modern art in the region in question.

It is great pleasure to thank to those indispensablepersons whose effort enabled to publish our proceedings.I would especially like to thank the languague editor SethA. Hindin, and Ivo Pur, who patiently designed and ex-

ecuted the layout of the book. The Editor

PREFACE

1. Steven A. Mansbach,Modern Art in Eastern Europe. From theBaltic to the Balkans, ca. 1890 1939, Cambridge 1998.

2. kos Moravnsky, Competing Visions. Aesthetic Invention and

Social Imagination in Central European Architecture, 1867-1918,Cambridge (Mass.) London 1998.

3. Tim Benson Eva Forgcs (eds.), Between Worlds, Cambridge(Mass.) London 2002.


7/14

103

From the end of the First World War until 1921, referencesto Italian Futurism were scarce in many of the central

European avant-garde periodicals. In the journalMa, tocite just one example, only two illustrations of Futuristworks of art were reproduced, one in the May 1918 issueand the other in that of May 1919. Both are by Boccioni,who had died in 1916.1 It would, however, be rash toconsider this lack of international visibility as proof ofa fading historical role and progressive estrangement ofthe Italians from the evolution of the rest of the avant-garde. In fact, they continued to be deeply implicatedin its development.

In this paper, I reconsider the complex system of

propaganda, aesthetic dialogue, and ideological mis-appropriation used by the Italian Futurists in CentralEurope and I underline the strategic value of these con-nections in reshaping the groups international identityafter the First World War.

The emergence of avant-garde productions anddebates in the East became a new pole of attractionfor the Futurists, pulling them away from the Frenchcapital that had so greatly shaped their identity sincethe 1909 publication of their founding manifesto in LeFigaro. Following this line of investigation, this paper

will reveal the increasing importance of Central Europeas a site of contestation for the aesthetic, political, andavant-gardist practices of the Italian Futurist movementduring the 1920s.

Paradoxically, it was the much debated alliance be-tween the Italian Futurists and the newly born Fascistparty an alliance that ended in a colossal defeat in the1919 elections that compelled Marinetti to reach out tothe international revolutionary political scene after World

War I. While it is certainly not my goal here to rehearsethe complex history of the Italian movements connec-

tions to the political Left, it is, nonetheless, important tostress that already by 1918 the Futurist leader had startedto restage the news coming from Revolutionary Russiafor his groups own political goals.

In an attempt to include within their alliance theradical and syndicalist forces estranged from the ItalianSocialist Party, Marinettis coalition stressed the culturaland ideological ideals that could unite a new front ofavant-garde parties in Italy.2

Within this context, Russia was seen as a precedentfor a revolution that, although ideologically quite dis-

tinct, offered a central role to innovative artists in thetransformation of cultural values. Eventually, Marinettiwould indissolubly mix his debacle in the Italian elec-tions with his disenchantment for a Soviet governmentthat, instead of promoting the avant-garde, was, as hestates in his diary, responsible for removing AlexandraExters works from the walls of Russian towns.3

In 1920, he voiced this dual disillusion in a pamphletsignicantly titled Beyond Communism, which was of-cially presented by the Futurist press in the followingterms: Answering the numerous calls made by the Futurist

Bolsheviks of Russia, Hungary and Germany, the direction ofthe Italian Futurist movement prepares an important political

and social manifesto on Bolshevism in order to dene precisely

the revolutionary character proper to Italian Futurism. 4

Among the many calls to which Beyond Communismmay have been intended to answer, Lajos Kassks ap-peal, An die Knstler aller Lnder!,published in the May1920 issue ofMa, seems a likely target. Concluding withthe words Es lebe die gegen jede Tradition kmpfende Revo-

Maria Elena Versari

Institut national d'histoire de l'art, Paris

The Central European Avant-Garde of the 1920s:The Battleground for Futurist Identity?


8/14

104

lution! Es lebe das verantwortliche kollektive Individuum! Es

lebe die Diktatur der Idee! the Hungarians plea to theartists of the world quite possibly compelled the Italiansto take a more active role in the community that Kassk

was endeavouring to build.5

Abandoning momentarily the prospect of partici-

pating directly in Italian politics, Futurism shifted its

energies to engaging in dialogue with the newer intel-

lectual and artistic forces inuenced by the Russian

Revolution. The goal of such a shift was to form an

international set of alliances that would reinforce the

groups primacy in the avant-garde. Engaged in a heated

rivalry with the Valori Plastici group in Italy and with

the Dadaists in Germany, Switzerland, and France both

of which had written off Futurism as a dead movement

Marinetti shifted his attention to the East with the

intention of capitalizing on the political turmoil ema-

nating from there.

According to this new strategy, the Italians self-imposed avant-garde distinctiveness, which had servedas a guarantee of their politically revolutionary attitudetoward possible allies for the Italian elections, wouldnow be used as a bridge toward the Futurist Bolsheviksof Central Europe.

Finally, the Futurists hoped that through theseinternational alliances, they might also be able to estab-lish a wider patronage system that would eliminate the

Italian artists dependency on the State and its limitednetwork of public and private galleries.

Consequently, the Futurists political project ofsocial and cultural renewal did not disappear entirelybut rather shifted toward a narrower, more operativedenition.

In the elections of 1919, Marinetti had presentedhis program as a struggle for the younger, poor-but-en-terprising generation of veterans, whose right to havea place in the national elite had been shredded by thestatic, nepotistic structure of Italian society. To give this

generation a concrete identity, Marinetti, in his 1919 workFuturist Democracy, coined the slogan proletariat of theminds,which by 1920 had been transformed into theproletariat of the avant-garde artists.6

In Beyond Communism, Marinetti still refers to theRussian model, stating: Futurist art was, for a limited pe-riod of time, arte di stato in Russia .7 And he later adds:Yes! Artists to power! [It is in this way that] the proletariatof the minds will rule!8Later that same year, he was to

explain: Futurism is not a party, it is a ag around whichall the young forces of the world gather, united by an ardent

ideal.9

The Futurists return to artistic activity therefore didnot completely derail the ideology behind their unfor-tunate electoral adventure. The groups energy focused

instead on the politicization of artists, who became anabstract counterpart to the civic body they had not beenable to co-opt and rule by means of the 1919 elections.In this sense, the Futurists re-structured the role of theirartistic group as a political and ideological avant-gardethat was acting inside the democratic society.

In those same years, there was a perceived need topromote political consciousness among artists as wellas an international system of artistic collaboration. This

1. Leaet for the Italian Exhibition of Avant-garde Art in Prague,1921. Courtesy Archivio Enrico Prampolini, Centro Ricerca

e Documentazione Arti Visive [CRDAV] della Galleria Comunale

dArte Moderna e Contemporanea, Roma.

MARIA ELENA VERSARI


9/14

105

viewpoint, which was shared, among others, by mem-bers of the Novembergruppe in Germany and the Clartgroup in France, had important repercussions in Italy.The Futurist Enrico Prampolini, in particular, organizedseveral exhibitions of the Novembergruppes membersin his gallery, giving them a space in which to voice theirpolitical opinions.10

Prampolinis position on the issues of an artist class

and its dependency on governments was, however, de-cidedly ambivalent. A member of the Novembergruppehimself, he did not actually disparage the ofcial supportof the Liberal State. This became evident when, in 1920,he was asked by the Italian government to organize itssection at the International Modern Art Exhibition inGeneva a task that he freely accepted.

In January 1921, Marinetti joined Prampolini inGeneva. While there, he organized a Futurist soire in

which he recited for the rst time his new manifesto ofTactilism, thus symbolically planting the Futurist agin the middle of the Italian display at the InternationalExhibition. Marinettis exchange with the pacist and

leftist artist Masereel, reported by a Swiss newspaper, il-lustrates the polemical and strategic uses of his supposedSoviet leanings in relation to Futurisms artistic achieve-ments. To Masereels question What do you think of theSoviets?, Marinetti is reported to have answered Thattheyll conquer the world. And we will follow them.11

Although Marinettis quip to the international pressin Geneva may have been more than simply ironic, itwas, however, at this point, and again with the ofcialsupport of the State Secretary of the Arts, that an Exhibi-tion of Modern Italian Art was planned for the followingfall in Prague.

The choice of Prague as the second stage from whichto re-launch internationally Italian Futurism owed nodoubt to contacts that were established with certainCzech artists, most notably with Josef apek, who, itshould be noted, had also shown at the Geneva exhibi-tion.12 The Prague project signalled an important shiftfrom the traditional association with Paris, which hadmarked the history of the Italian movement from its be-ginnings. Moving to Central Europe, Marinetti hoped tond a cultural and political context better suited to hisconception of a progressive, revolutionary avant-garde.

Central Europe, with its new political climate, thus be-came, for Marinetti, the site on which a progressive ideaof art could ourish.

The Prague exhibition took place at the Rudolnumfrom 8 October to 6 November 1921 and staged mainlya selection of the works that had already been exhibitedin Geneva the year before, with Boccionis drawings act-ing as the focal point. Most of the artists were unknownoutside of Italy; many were very young. Among thelatter, the twenty-one-year-old Ivo Pannaggi quicklybecame the star of the show, selling two works and be-

ing acclaimed as the heir to Boccioni.13 The exhibitionwas also marked by the mise en scene of twelve Futuristssyntheses/performances at the vanda Theater, whichwere introduced by a speech from Marinetti that earnedhim the praise of Josef Kodek, an important critic fromthe journal Tribuna.14

The friendship established between Kodek andthe Futurists became a central element to the Futur-ist revival that followed the 1921 show. The next year,

2. Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, Osvobozen slova, Czech translationof Parole in Libert, 1922, Private Collection, Forl

THE CENTRAL EUROPEAN AVANT-GARDEOFTHE 1920S: THE BATTLEGROUNDFOR FUTURIST IDENTITY?


10/14

106

a second series of Futurist pantomimes were staged inPrague to great acclaim. Once again, Prampolini playedan integral role in the event by designing the sets andcostumes. In addition, he also designed the sets and

costumes for Marinettis latest play, The Fire Drum.15

Atroughly the same moment, J. Macks Czech translationof Marinettis Parole in libert was published by Nak-ladatel Petr a Tvrd in Prague, with an original printcover by Josef apek. A second edition followed in thatsame year.16

The overall success of the enterprise was augmentedby a number of important contacts made between theFuturists and the local artistic milieu. A group show ofthe Devtsil artists was planned for the following seasonin Rome, and associations were made with the painterEmil Filla.17

At the beginning of the following year the exhibition

travelled to Berlin. In Berlin, the testimony of Prampolini

gave way to that of the young Futurist poet Ruggero Vasari,

who had certain connections to Expressionism and was

more familiar with the German language. Signicantly,

what in Prague had been billed as An Exhibition of Modern

Italian Art was changed in Berlin to Die Grosse Futuristische

Ausstellung. Taking place in the Kabinett J. B. Neumann,

the show also featured new works by a small group of

artists depicted as International Futurists, among whom

were Vera Steiner from Russia, the Japanese artists Nagano

and Murayama, and the German Alexander Mohr.18

But there was another, more interesting element thatdiffered from the previous show. Moving away from thesemi-ofcially sanctioned Italian Modern exhibitionof Prague, the presence of the Italians in Berlin quicklyevolved into the creation of a stable Futurist House ofArtists, supported by Der Sturms director HerwarthWalden and by the sculptor and Novembergruppe as-sociate Rudolf Belling.

This time, the Futurist works of art had founda permanent home.

In addition, a new journal, Der Futurismus, waslaunched, adding to the already existing Il Futurismo andLe Futurisme. The geography of Futurism was thus devel-oping around this new Milan-Paris-Berlin triangle.

The drive to create a visible Italian artistic pres-ence in the middle of Europe in 1922 revealed theincreasing importance of Berlin as the new capital ofthe international avant-garde. What is striking here isthe concerted, and essentially unique, effort to establish

a centre of operations for an avant-garde movement ina foreign country.

It is possible that the main goal of this enterprise wasinitially to limit the international spread of Dadaism. ThePrague exhibition had been staged more or less at thesame time as the planned Antidada-Merz-Presentismustour of Kurt Schwitters and Raul Haussmann, while the

Berlin show was set in the Kabinett J. B. Neumann thathad hosted a famous dada soire in 1918.

This being said, the Futurists primary interlocu-tors in Berlin quickly revealed themselves to be the lo-cal colony of Russian artists. The evolution of the ItalianCasa internazionale degli artisti paralleled the increasingdevelopment of its Russian counterpart in Berlin, theDom Iskussv. Among the latter groups members, IvanPuni was clearly Vasaris most important ally and friend.

3. Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, SKRABrrRrraaNNk, Czech trans-

lation of a tavola parolibera from Osvobozen slova, 1922, PrivateCollection, Forl

MARIA ELENA VERSARI


11/14

107

As early as 1922, he and his wife, Xenia Boguslawskaya,appear in the pages ofDer Futurismus as new artists ex-hibiting in Vasaris gallery. Their works were also quicklyreproduced in a series ofFuturistische Postkarten, featur-

ing Italian as well as International artists. In additionto Russian connections, Vasari also developed contacts

The connections established in Prague and Berlinclearly had the effect of promoting a more vibrant imageof Italian Futurism in Central Europe, but were also atthe heart of a radical renewal inside the movement itself.

These events were in fact decisive for the developmentof a new generation of Italian avant-garde artists. Two

4. Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, Bitva v 9 poschodch Mont Altissima, Czech translation of a Tavola parolibera from Osvobozen slova, 1922,

Private Collection, Forl

with two young Latvian artists residing in Berlin at thetime, Karlis Zale and Arnolds Dzirkals. Later, in theirown journal, Laikmets, the two would reproduce Futuristand Italian artworks, thereby increasing the conuencebetween Italian and Central European artists.

young artists, Vinicio Paladini and the aforementionedPannaggi, offer a symptomatic example of the ongoingcontradictions inside Italian Futurism.

Inuenced in all likelihood by artistic reports fromRussia that they ltered ideally with the tradition of



12/14

108

Balla and Deperos Futurist ballets, Pannaggi and hisfriend Paladini, in the spring of 1922, decided to stageaMechanical Futurist Ballet at Bragaglias gallery. TwoRussian dancers, Ikar and Ivanoff, dressed as a robot

and a proletarian worker, danced on the stage to theFuturist music of two motorcycles. Pannaggis cos-tume of the Mechanical Man and Paladinis costume ofThe Proletarian testify to the confused mix of politicaland aesthetic issues that had characterized the Futur-ists leftist leanings in the years before and that werenow regarded as the ideological ground for a so-calledmechanical aesthetics.

Moreover, following the example of Punis decors forthe Sturm-Ball, Pannaggi covered the walls of BragagliasFuturist bar in Rome with enormous human gures ofJazz musicians, drawn in a synthetic, robot-like style.Finally, in May 1922, Paladini and Pannaggi publishedaManifesto of Mechanical Art in which they offered therst attempt to dene a new aesthetic based on the mod-ern mechanical environment. The brief text groundedin BoccionisModernolatriaand recalling in part the Aufrufzur Elementaren Kunst signed by Hausmann, Arp, Puniand Moholy-Nagy the year before states the necessityof a clearer stylistic trend moulded on the geometricexample of the machine. Even in the confused andsomehow ingnue form of this Mechanical Manifesto,Italian Futurism had now to face the spread inside its

own ranks of themes from what would be called Inter-national Constructivism. Shortly thereafter, the profounddivision on the question of the status of artistic praxis,which would radically separated the Constructivists andthe other art groups at the Dsseldorf Congress, wouldovertly reveal the unstable foundations of the Italiansinternational ambitions.

Recalling the Novembergruppe debates on the ne-cessity of an International Union for the artists, the ItalianFuturists had approached the Central European artisticcontext with a somewhat pragmatic attitude of collabo-

ration between different stylistic trends and groupings.The Prague experience had signalled a pivotal momentin this dialogue. The contacts with the Devtsil group,and in particular with Karel Teige, had shown the persist-ence of a common ground shaped by Futurist modernideology, even when counterbalanced by Marxist tenetsand a more direct call for a Proletarian art.

Things took another turn in Dsseldorf. Derisivelycalling it an international trade for the exhibition of paint-

ing that only reinforced bourgeois colonial policy,19 theInternational Faction of Constructivists refused to discussthe project of an international system of nance for artexhibitions, on which the Futurists had hoped to base

their system of connections in Central Europe. Paradoxi-cally, the idea of an International Institution of EconomicSponsorship for the Avant-garde had arisen directly fromissues brought up in Italy by the Novembergruppe a fewyears before and by the example of early Soviet artisticpolitics.

In addition, facing the Constructivists stylistic state-ments, the Italian Futurists found themselves in a dif-cult position. On one hand, they too wanted a clearerdenition of the avantgardistic style, in order to excludefrom it all reactionary manifestations of nostalgia found,for example, in the works of their Italian antagonists,the Valori Plastici group. On the other hand, the wide,often contradictory plurality of styles that had alwayscharacterized the Futurist movement could hardly t intoEl Lissitzkys puritanical canons of collectivism.

The Dsseldorf experience had two signicant con-sequences for Futurist identity.

First, Pannaggi and Paladinis manifesto was com-pletely rewritten by Prampolini and Marinetti, becom-ing the Futurist Manifesto of Mechanical Art.20 Sensing thedocuments timeliness, Prampolini and Marinetti trans-formed the younger artists proclamation into a Futurist

response to Constructivism, emphasizing the machinesvalue as a reference that could in some way bind the ob-ject to the ideal of the painter. In other words, Prampoliniwas trying to save the principle of individual creationand plurality of styles refused by the Constructivists atthe Congress.

A few months later, in November 1922, an exhibitionin Rome of works by Rena Ztkov would present an-other opportunity to restate these principles. The show,which hosted some outstanding sculptural assemblages,like theMacchina-piantapalatte [Pile -planting machine],

was introduced by a long, strategically cunning essay byPrampolini that depicted Ztkovs as a formal subjectiveexpression and her constructions as the most recent de-velopments of Umberto Boccionis plastic assemblages.21The emigre Czech artist was thus held up as proof notonly of Futurist aesthetics validity in the 1920s, but alsoof its international language and appeal.

Eventually, the Dsseldorf congress resulted in thewaning of the Futurists international coalition project.

MARIA ELENA VERSARI


13/14

109

At the end of the year, the Fascists would March on Romeand seize power in Italy. Forgetting his previous disen-chantment with the Soviet example of a State-sponsoredavant-garde as well as with his own previous alliance

with Mussolini that had ended in failure, Marinetti, in1923, took the whole program presented in Dsseldorf,renamed it The Artistic Rights Sustained by the Italian Fu-turists and presented it to Mussolini as a Manifesto tothe Fascist government.22

This political move created a denitive fracturebetween the old and the new generations of Futuristartists. The Mechanical Aesthetics conceptualized in1922 as a possible convergence and, later, as a responseto the internationalization of Constructivism, would beprogressively relegated to the margins of ofcial Futur-ist production, as one of many possible styles. However,it would still survive throughout the 1920s as a sort offoreign identity of the Italian movement, still vital andrecognizable on the pages of international magazines.Prampolinis journal Noi would serve as an ofcial in-terlocutor with the international avant-garde while inBlok,Ma, and Contimpuranul, many of the illustrationsof Futurist works of art would still be offered by Pan-naggi or Paladini.

Signicantly, this sort of underground interna-tional network would still promote the birth of localFuturist periodicals willing to establish a more resolute

stylistic dialogue with contemporary Eastern Europeanexamples. This was the case, for instance, of the journalscreated and directed by young artists such as Pocarini

and Camerlich in the frontier region of Friuli VeneziaGiulia.23

Abandoning the ambition to maintain a predomi-nant place in the capitals of the modern art debate, and

refusing to compete with an ideological trend that wouldhave disrupted its internal eclecticism, Futurisms choicewas to capitalize on the ongoing international artisticvitality for achieving a stronger local identity policy.

Eventually, at the end of the 1920s, Pannaggi wouldenroll in the Bauhaus and Paladini would start an in-dependent avant-garde movement the Immaginismo strongly inuenced by Teiges Poetism. This nal de-fection from Italian Futurism illustrates clearly the extentof the inuence exercised among the Futurist ranks bythe Central European debates of 1922 in the battle forcompeting visions and theories of the avant-garde.

However, the broader Mechanical Art trend estab-lished in those very years, with its ideological hesitancytoward Constructivism, would still prove effective inthe following decade to provide a wider spectrum ofcontinuous interest and dialogue with the Polish, Czechand Romanian groups. In time, these connections wouldprove pivotal in the development of the movements newinterest in the elds of public arts and exhibition displaytechniques during the 1930s.

Racing to gain a local predominance in arts of theItalian regime, Futurism would maintain a vital channel

of contacts with the ongoing Central European scene,thus creating an internal, international periphery to itsown new nationalistic ambitions.

1. Respectively published inMa, Vol. 3, No. 5, 1 May 1918, p. 54(Boccioni: Szobor) and inMa, Vol. 4, No. 5, 15 May 1919, p. 91(Boccioni: Festmny).

2. See, for instance, the title of the article published by MarioCarli only two months before the vote, in which he pro-posed an alliance with the Italian Left: Mario Carli, Partitidavanguardia: se tentassimo di collaborare? (Avant-GardeParties: What If We Would Try to Collaborate?), Roma Fu-turista, Vol. 2, No. 28, 13 July 1919, p. 3.

3. Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, [April 20th 1920], in: Idem, Tac-cuini. 1915-1921, Bologna 1987, pp. 478-479.

4. Anonymous, I fasci futuristi (nostro servizio telefonico - 10gennaio 1920), [clipping from unidentied newspaper],Getty, Libroni Slides, 920092 Box 45, Vol. 2.

5. L. K. [Lajos Kassk], An die Knstler aller Lnder!,Ma, Vol.5, No. 1-2, 1 May 1920, pp. 2-4.

6. Marinetti writes: Occorre un pi sistematico intervento delle

forze del paese per salvare, riaccendere e utilizzare tutto il

vasto proletariato dei geniali. See: Filippo Tommaso Marinetti,Democrazia Futurista. Dinamismo politico, Milano 1919, p. 140.

7. Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, Al di l del Comunismo, Milano1920. Now in: Idem, Teoria e invenzione futurista, Milano 1968,p. 481.

8. Ibidem, p. 485.9. Propagandistic card of the Futurist movement; Getty, Libroni

Slides, 920092, Box 45, Vol. 2.10. In the catalogue of the Expressionist exhibition in June 1920, Elli

Hiserkon, a member of the Union of German Artists, argues for



14/14

110

the necessity of binding the artistic revolution to the political

one, intervening in the social eld through the renewal of art

schools and academies. A growing debate about these state-

ments subsequently appeared on the pages of the Anglo-Italian

journal Atys, where Sebastien Voirol launched the slogan Sunir

ou disparatre and Charles Tardieu proposes the creation ofa Confederation of the Intellectuals associated to the Union

of the Technical Workers. SeeMostra espressionisti tedeschi Casa

dArte Italiana [Roma], 16 June 22 July 1920, p. 2.

11. Aldo Dami, (Chronique Suisse-Romande) La visite de Marinetti

Genve. Rexions daprs coup, [clipping from unidentied

journal], Getty, Libroni Slides, 920092, Box 55, Vol. 2.

12. See the catalogue: Exposition internationale dart moderne:peinture, sculpture, etc., Btiment lectoral, Genve, 26 dcembre

1920 25 janvier 1921, Genve 1920.13. See Pannaggi e larte meccanica futurista, ed. Enrico Crispolti,

Milano 1995 and also the interview with Pannaggi concern-ing his participation to the Prague show, originally published

in 1921 and now partially reprinted in Daniela Scarinzi, Pan-naggi e la mostra di Praga del 1921, ON. Otto/Novecento, No.1-2, 1999, pp. 88-91.

14. See Mahulena Nelehov, Impulses of Futurism and CzechArt, in: International Futurism in Arts and Literature, ed.Gnther Berghaus, Berlin 2000, pp. 133-136.

15. See Futuristick rekonstrukce vesmru, ed. Enrico Crispolti andDiego Arich De Finetti, Praha 1994.

16. Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, Osvobozen slova, Nakladatel

Petr a Tvrd, Praha 1922. The rst edition was publishedwith a red cover print, whereas the second edition hasa violet cover.

17. Letter by Enrico Prampolini to Theo Van Doesburg in: En-rico Prampolini. Carteggio Futurista, ed. Giovanni Lista, Roma

1992, p. 217.18. Die grosse Futuristische Ausstellung in Berlin, Mrz 1922.

Verzeichnis der ausgestellten Kunstwerken, Der Futurismus.Monatliche Zeitschrift, Vol. 1, No. 1, May 1922, pp. 3-5.

19. The statement by the International Faction of Constructivistsat the congress is reported in English translation in: The Tradi-tion of Constructivism, ed. by Stephen Bann, New York 1974,pp. 68-69. An abridged version of Prampolini's statement isreported in: De Stijl, Vol. 5, No. 8, August 1922, p. 123.

20. Enrico Prampolini, Ivo Pannaggi, Vinicio Paladini, Lartemeccanica. Manifesto futurista, Noi, Series 2, Vol. 1, No. 2,May 1923, pp. 1-2.

21. Enrico Prampolini, Presentazione, in: Invito. Bragaglia Casa

dArte Casa Teatrale. 90a Esposizione. Mostra personale di RugenaZatkov, November 1922, p. 2.22. Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, I diritti artistici propugnati dai

Futuristi Italiani. Manifesto al Governo Fascista, Noi, Series2, Vol. 1, No. 1, April 1923, pp. 1-2.

23. See for instance the journals LAurora and Energie Futuriste in:Bruno Passamani, Umberto Carpi, Frontiere davanguardia. Glianni del Futurismo nella Venezia Giulia, Provincia di Gorizia,Gorizia 1985.

MARIA ELENA VERSARI