This study deals with the interpretation of the late art-historical thoughts of Max Dvořák (1874–1921) on the basis of his text from 1921 on the art of Pieter Bruegel the Elder (1525–1569). After 1914 Dvořák developed a new method of research into art and its history, linking up with the theoretical considerations on art-historical development of his teachers at the University of Vienna, Franz Wickhoff (1853–1909) and especially Alois Riegl (1858–1905). In historiographical literature Dvořák’s late method of art-historical research is represented in particular by Dvořák’s lecture on the art of El Greco (1541–1614) or his unfinished project on the interpretation of the painting of Tintoretto (1518–1594). Dvořák’s late art-historical method is linked in this context mainly with pre-war expressionism and with his interest in the internal meaning of artistic creativity, as also handled by Dvořák in his text on the drawings of Oskar Kokoschka (1886–1980). As this study shows, a further dimension of Dvořák’s later thoughts on art history can, alongside his texts on El Greco, Tintoretto and Kokoschka, be traced in his interpretation of the art of Pieter Bruegel the Elder, which can place Dvořák’s thinking closer to the philosophy of Georg Simmel (1858–1918) from the same period or in the direction of the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl (1859–1938). Using the example of Dvořák’s interpretation of Bruegel’s painting, it is therefore possible to open up further questions about his history of art as an expression of the ‘spirit’, with the indication and also the overcoming of the ‘human’ aspect of artistic creation.

In the Old Royal Palace in the Middle Ages and early Modern Age cycles of rulers evolved, the idea of which was to confirm the legitimacy of the ruling monarch. Around 1360 Charles IV, after being crowned Emperor in Rome in 1355, had a large cycle of world rulers placed in the Throne Room. Two inscriptions found on the south side designated the panel paintings of Emperors Leo IV and Charles III the Fat. According to this it is possible to determine that the cycle ran clockwise and probably began next to the entrance to the hall on the north side.. The basis for its compilation was probably a list, stored now in the Třeboň archive (A 7). The panels, possibly 104 in all, were of a similar size to the panel paintings in the Holy Cross Chapel at Karlstein Castle and possibly also executed by Master Theodoricus and his workshop. During the construction of the Vladislav Hall the cycle vanished, but a new one was created elsewhere, evidently in 1502 by a painter named Hans, perhaps Hans Elfelder. The cycle was placed in the antechamber of the Royal Apartment in the west wing of the Palace and represented Czech rulers, beginning with Přemysl the Ploughman. It perished following the fire in 1541, but we know of it from the codex created by order of Jan Zajíc of Házmburk (ÖNB, Cod. 8043). In 1548 Paolo della Stella, the architect and sculptor of King Ferdinand I, proposed the renovation of this cycle in the Vladislav Hall, where the cycle was to be bordered by the symbols of the Order of the Golden Fleece. The splendid design, comprising forty rulers and a hundred figures in the vaulting, was not adopted for financial reasons and in its place a greatly reduced cycle was started in 1561, consisting of perhaps only seventeen monarchs on the west façade of the wing of the New Office of the Land Rolls. Because of improper technique, the work was stopped before it was even completed and the paintings were whitewashed over. Subsequent proposals for the interior of the Old Diet were not realised either and so the Palace remained without its cycle of rulers. It was not until the arrival of Rudolf II in the new Castle Palace that there were several cycles, but these comprised emperors only.

This study focuses on the programme of artistic decoration of the first stages of Lines A and C of the Prague Metro, built in the course of the seventies of the 20th century. It deals with the status of the Metro in the symbolical framework of the city and the ways in which the transition from the relaxed sixties to the period of normalisation was reflected in its decor. Continuity was preserved in the orientation towards the building of the environment as the socialist response to the anonymity of the public spaces of the cities of the West, but together with the weakening of the utopian dimension of socialism art no longer had the task of sharing in the education of New Man, who was meant in particular to work hard and to fight for socialism. The normalisation ideals had arrived of calm cooperation, leisure time and family life. At the same time, even in the socialist context, the consumer lifestyle was gaining strength, implemented in the Metro in the shape of a number of shops and advertising panels. The conservative commission responsible for the decoration of the Metro as a construction of Czechoslovak-Soviet cooperation had difficulty finding a way for works of art to present this theme convincingly, and in the end it was suppressed in the decoration. The text follows the decision-making processes of the members of the Art Council of the National Committee of Prague, responsible for the ideological concepts and approval of the realisations for the Metro. The study of the records of their meetings was complicated by the entrenched requirement that commissions for public spaces were acquired in the normalisation period exclusively by politically loyal artists creating monumental figural works, or else that the central motivation of the members of such commissions was personal profit. The members of the council were certified conservative figures, active in leading cultural institutions, but nevertheless progressive artists were also given space in the contests. Although the focal point of the decoration was works expressing concrete socialist ideas and reacting to the names of the stations, space was also reserved for abstract works, defined here as “applied art”. The members of the Art Council gradually developed a strategy through which they were able to restrict the realisation of concrete works for the Metro. They did not implement this with regard to works that were insufficiently realistic, idealised or monumental, but on the contrary often for works that were ideologically direct or simply unsuitably located in a concrete space.

The tragic fate of the village of Lidice and its population is an important part of the narrative of modern Czech history. After the exemplary massacre of the population and physical destruction of the village, Lidice quickly became an international symbol of Nazi brutality. After the war, this was exploited by the Czechoslovak government to its own advantage. But besides the public speeches of politicians, there arose the real problem of how to provide decent accommodation for the women and children of Lidice who survived the massacre. Building a new village became one of the architectural priorities of post-war Czechoslovakia. Architects were able to apply to this construction process practical and theoretical experience they had acquired before the war, and under the Protectorate, as it was in that period that the concept of the modern village became the subject of professional interest among many Czech architects who took part in ‘regional competitions’. Architects therefore had the qualified training with which to solve the relatively unusual task in 20th-century architecture of creating a new village. They had the chance to present their visions in 1945 in a public competition whose purpose was to find the proper location and the best urban design and architectural concept for the new village and an adjacent memorial site. The complex nature of this exacting assignment required a realistic plan for the optimal form of future settlement for the women of Lidice, which would neighbour a memorial site to commemorate for the tragedy in their lives. It is possible to identify in the plans and in the many ideas for the new settlement the traces of principles inspired by the concept of a garden city.

The last contribution from the cycle Looking Back is devoted to one of the most influential ever art-historical books of the second half of the 20th century. Art and Illusion by Ernst H. Gombrich was published in Czech translation in the middle of the eighties and was reviewed three times in the periodical Umění/Art (1966, 1969 and 1986). This contribution recapitulates these reviews and other theoretical studies directly devoted to this book. It also investigates the question of the overall influence of Gombrich’s theory of art history in the Czech art-historical environment and shows that Gombrich was read here paradoxically not in confrontation with the influential theories of Hans Seldmayr, but in hybrid fashion through them. It also deals with the political circumstances that influenced the reception of Gombrich’s thinking in our country, especially in connection with his close relationship to the ideas of Karl Popper (which were explicitly censored by the regime of the communist party dictatorship).