The journal is included in Web of Science (ISI Web of Knowledge) | Scopus | EBSCO | ARTbibliographies Modern | Design and Applied Arts Index | European Science Foundation (European Index for the Humanities – ERIH)

4/2017

Articles

Jakub Adamski

Böhmische Einflüsse in der schlesischen Kirchenbaukunst des mittleren 14. Jahrhunderts. Der Fall Schweidnitz und Striegau

O českých vlivech na slezskou chrámovou architekturu poloviny 14. století. Případy farních kostelů ve Svídnici a Střihomi

pp. 330–346

The present article is devoted to the analysis of two splendid parish churches in the former Duchy of Świdnica and Jawor in Silesia (German Herzogtum Schweidnitz-Jauer, Polish Księstwo świdnicko-jaworskie), located at Świdnica (German Schweidnitz) and Strzegom (German Striegau), especially in the context of the political and foundational activity of the rulers of that territory, i.e. Duke Bolko II and his wife Agnes of Habsburg. The paper brings a new reconstruction of the building history of both churches, based on an analysis of the written sources and historical circumstances of the Duchy in the middle 14th Century, after the annexation of Silesia to the Crown of the Kingdom of Bohemia (1348). It may be assumed that the construction of the churches began around 1350, which can be perceived as a sign of the self-confidence of both the local bourgeoisie and the ducal couple, who were seeking to establish their position within the Bohemian Crown. The gigantic scale and opulent sculptural decoration of the buildings were means to achieve the aforementioned goal. In this context it is no surprise that in both churches it is possible to trace some peculiar architectural solutions (such as pier ground plans, types of vaulting shafts, window traceries) of evident Bohemian origin. All these elements are discussed in detail in the present article.

< back
| summary |

Jana Zapletalová

(Art) Agents: Giovanni Petignier and the Network of Agents of the Olomouc Bishop Karl von Lichtenstein-Castelcorno

(Umělečtí) agenti. Agentská síť olomouckého biskupa Karla z Lichtensteinu-Castelcorna a Giovanni Petignier

pp. 347–362

In the past, the art history of the early modern period focused primarily on the research of works of art, artists, commissioners and collecting. The phenomenon of (art) agents, however, has recently begun to make its way into the field of study focused on European cultural centres. Issues concerning how the artwork is acquired and the role of agents and dealers in the mechanism of art patronage have become more apparent. The results of this quite demanding archival research, in which sociological, politological and economic aspects prevail over the historical interest, can provide us with valuable insights into the issue of patronage in the early modern, art dealing, the network of agents, their competencies and methods of communication, mechanisms of acquiring artworks, transport of the artworks, and patronage strategies. The agents’ letters are able to convey the colourful life of the patrons, the breadth of their interests, an awareness of current events and, last but not least, they provide new findings about individual artworks. In some cases, the letters can reveal the importance of agents who were not just mere executors of the artistic and collecting goals of their patron but who often participated in shaping and giving a character to their artistic and sponsorship activities. The presented study analyses the network of agents of the Olomouc bishop Karl von LichtensteinCastelcorno (1624–1695), primarily focusing on Giovanni (Jean) Petignier, who was located in Rome. This agent mainly followed political and cultural events at the Holy See but occasionally fulfilled the bishop’s wishes in the area of patronage. More than seven hundred surviving letters allows us to follow the acquisitions of individual artworks — mainly albums of prints and books but also the commission of a large painting from Luigi Garzi (1638–1721). The correspondence provides a rich understanding of the relationship between agent and patron and the role agents played during the decision-making process when acquiring specific works of art.

< back
| summary |

Petra Kolářová

Od Rodina k performanci. Tělo jako umělecké dílo u mima Étienna Decrouxe

From Rodin to Performance: Étienne Decroux and the Body as a Work of Art

pp. 363–376

When the Habsburg dynasty came to the Czech throne in 1526 and then ruled the lands of the Czech Crown for almost four centuries, its first member, Ferdinand I, entered a splendid royal palace in Prague, standing in the centre of the extensive area of Prague Castle. Less than a century later, however, the situation there was completely different. The Czech King and Roman Emperor Rudolf II resided on the very edge of Prague Castle, in a topographically unsuitable place, and the Old Royal Palace was left to the Czech Royal and professional offices and traders. Even though this was a radical change and one of the most important events in the history of Prague Castle, the questions of why, when and how this great transfer of residence took place, fundamental to the understanding of this central location of the Czech State, have not yet been asked. The most important action was the relocation of the vice-regent of the government of Archduke Ferdinand II of Tyrol around 1555 to a small palace by the White Tower. The Habsburg architects Hans Tirol and Bonifaz Wohlmut unsuccessfully proposed linking the small palace with the Old Royal Palace by means of a new wing and thus building a worthy residence with a sufficient number of rooms. After ascending to the throne in 1576 the Emperor Rudolf II returned to this idea and had two Florentine architects (Antonio Lupicini in 1579 and Giovanni Gargiolli in 1586) carry out the new proposal, which was consulted in Florence with Francesco I de’Medici and in the second case also adjusted by Bernardo Buontalenti. In the end, however, Rudolf selected a different strategy and concentrated only on extending the palace by the White Tower to the areas of the former ditches, where he built wings containing areas for his collections. It was Rudolf II, then, who moved the Royal and Imperial Residence in Prague Castle to a new location, quite apart from the historical centre of the Castle.

< back
| summary |

Reports

Petr Uličný

The Making of the Habsburg residence in Prague Castle. History of the Journey of the Imperial Palace  from the Centre to the Periphery 

Vznik habsburské rezidence na Pražském hradě. Historie cesty císařského paláce z centra na periferii

pp. 377–395

When the Habsburg dynasty came to the Czech throne in 1526 and then ruled the lands of the Czech Crown for almost four centuries, its first member, Ferdinand I, entered a splendid royal palace in Prague, standing in the centre of the extensive area of Prague Castle. Less than a century later, however, the situation there was completely different. The Czech King and Roman Emperor Rudolf II resided on the very edge of Prague Castle, in a topographically unsuitable place, and the Old Royal Palace was left to the Czech Royal and professional offices and traders. Even though this was a radical change and one of the most important events in the history of Prague Castle, the questions of why, when and how this great transfer of residence took place, fundamental to the understanding of this central location of the Czech State, have not yet been asked. The most important action was the relocation of the vice-regent of the government of Archduke Ferdinand II of Tyrol around 1555 to a small palace by the White Tower. The Habsburg architects Hans Tirol and Bonifaz Wohlmut unsuccessfully proposed linking the small palace with the Old Royal Palace by means of a new wing and thus building a worthy residence with a sufficient number of rooms. After ascending to the throne in 1576 the Emperor Rudolf II returned to this idea and had two Florentine architects (Antonio Lupicini in 1579 and Giovanni Gargiolli in 1586) carry out the new proposal, which was consulted in Florence with Francesco I de’Medici and in the second case also adjusted by Bernardo Buontalenti. In the end, however, Rudolf selected a different strategy and concentrated only on extending the palace by the White Tower to the areas of the former ditches, where he built wings containing areas for his collections. It was Rudolf II, then, who moved the Royal and Imperial Residence in Prague Castle to a new location, quite apart from the historical centre of the Castle.

< back
| summary |

Archives

Markéta Svobodová

Peter Bücking — Werner David Feist — Friedl Dickerová v meziválečném Československu. Texty tří absolventů Bauhausu

Peter Bücking — Werner David Feist — Friedl Dicker  in Czechoslovakia  between the Wars.  Articles by Three Bauhaus Graduates

pp. 396–405

This contribution focuses on three Bauhaus graduates who worked in Czechoslovakia in the 1930s. Between the wars, Germans and Austrians arrived there in two waves: around 1930 they came primarily for existential reasons — the financial crisis in Germany was reaching its peak — while after 1933 their emigration was caused by political and racial policies. We find among them architects, designers, photographers, painters and stage designers, mostly committed left-wingers; some were only passing through Czechoslovakia, others spent several years there and left their traces in the local Czech and German press. The author has chosen three texts from different artistic disciplines — architecture (Peter Bücking), photography (Werner David Feist) and art education (Friedl Dicker Brandejs). Two of the articles — one published in the Czech left-wing journal Levá fronta (Left Front), the other in the German-Hungarian periodical Fórum — were written in the 1930s, in the pre-war period when the avant-garde advocated a radical reconstruction of society and the use of new techniques and technology. The third, a typescript with a theoretical analysis on how to teach art to children, was written during Friedl Dicker’s imprisonment in the Terezín ghetto after the break-up of Czechoslovakia. The article is nevertheless imbued with the humanist ideals of the previous years. This Austrian artist tried to apply new educational ideas to make life more bearable for the children in the ghetto. All three texts document the plurality of the intellectual currents of that time. Their authors have one thing in common — study at the Bauhaus. The radical left-wing architect Bücking, the more complex and industrially focused graphic artist Feist, and the psychologically oriented artist and teacher Friedl Dicker are here presented side by side.

< back
| summary |

Reviews

Ivo Hlobil

Jiří Fajt a Markus Hörsch (edd.), Kaiser Karl IV. 1316–2016

pp. 406–410

Przemysław Strożek

Rostislav Švácha (ed.), StArt: Sport as a Symbol in the Fine Arts

pp. 412–415

Ondřej Váša

Tomáš Jirsa, Tváří v tvář beztvarosti. Afektivní a vizuální fi gury v moderní literatuře

pp. 415–417

Hubert Guzik

Milena Bartlová a Jindřích Vybíral (edd.), Budování státu. Reprezentace Československa v umění, architektuře a designu

pp. 417–421

Antonín Dufek

Ann Thomas — Vladimír Birgus — Ian Jeffrey (edd.), The Intimate World of Josef Sudek

pp. 422–424

Annotations

pp. 425–428

Acquisitions of Art History Sources

pp. 429–430

Česká resumé / English Summaries

pp. 431–435