Cultural Mobility in the Interwar Avant-Garde Art Network: Poland, Belgium and the Netherlands 9781138493544, 9781351027908

Table of contents :
Cover
Title
Copyright
Contents
Figures
Plates
Tables
Acknowledgements
Abbreviations of Consulted Institutions and Repositories
Introduction
1 Polish, Belgian and Dutch Avant-Garde Formations, their Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility within the International Network of Groups and Periodicals
1.1. Interwar Avant-Garde Formations of Dutch, Belgian and Polish Provenance
1.2. Cultural Mobility between Polish and Belgian Avant-Garde Formations
1.2.1. Traces of Polish—Belgian Cultural Mobility in Belgian Avant-Garde Periodicals
1.2.2. Traces of Polish—Belgian Cultural Mobility in Polish Avant-Garde Periodicals
1.3. Cultural Mobility between Polish and Dutch Avant-Garde Formations
1.3.1. Traces of Polish—Dutch Cultural Mobility in Dutch Avant-Garde Periodicals
1.3.2. Traces of Polish—Dutch Cultural Mobility in Polish Avant-Garde Periodicals
1.4. Traces of Polish—Dutch and Polish—Belgian Cultural Mobility in Relevant International Avant-Garde Periodicals
1.5. Cross-Referencing
1.6. Preliminary Observations
2 Avant-Garde Manifestos and Programmatic Statements — Inspirations, Parallels and Dissimilarities
2.1. Abstraction as the Idiom of Universal Art
2.2. L'art pour ...?
2.3. Cooperation between Disciplines and across Borders
2.4. Preliminary Conclusions
3 "What we do is no imitation, but an effort parallel to ..." — Selected Works of Art and Architecture as Representation of Mutual Influences and Similarities
3.1. Avant-garde Publications from Poland and the Low Countries in Light of International Trends in Layout and Page Design
3.2. Piet Mondrian, Theo van Doesburg and Henryk Stażewski
3.3. Katarzyna Kobro and Georges Vantongerloo
3.4. Mieczysław Szczuka and Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman
3.5. Henryk Berlewi, Vilmos Huszár and Karel Maes
3.6. Poland, the Low Countries and Foreign Artists: The Examples of El Lissitzky and Pietro (de) Saga
3.7. Interior Design
3.8. Architecture
3.9. Preliminary Conclusions
Plates
Closing Remarks
References
Primary Sources
Secondary Sources
Appendix
Index

Citation preview

Cultural Mobility in the Interwar Avant-Garde Art Network

This book explores the issue of cultural mobility within the interwar network of the European avant-garde, focusing on selected writers, artists, architects, magazines and groups from Poland, Belgium and the Netherlands. Regardless of their apparent linguistic, cultural and geographical remoteness, their mutual exchange and relationships were both deep and broad, and of great importance for the wider development of interwar avant-garde literature, art and architecture. This analysis is based on a vast research corpus encompassing original, often previously overlooked periodicals, publications and correspondence gathered from archives around the world. Michał Wenderski, PhD, is an architect, translator and scholar of modern Dutch literature specialising in the history of European interwar avant-garde. He currently works at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan´, Poland.

Henryk Staz˙ewski, cover design for Grafika 4 from 1931 (detail; Ryszard Cichy Collection) and Theo van Doesburg, Compositie XX from 1920 (detail; © Museo Nacional Thyssen-Bornemisza, Madrid)

Routledge Research in Art History

Routledge Research in Art History is our home for the latest scholarship in the field of art history. The series publishes research monographs and edited collections, covering areas including art history, theory, and visual culture. These high-level books focus on art and artists from around the world and from a multitude of time periods. By making these studies available to the worldwide academic community, the series aims to promote quality art history research. The Société des Trois in the Nineteenth Century The Translocal Artistic Union of Whistler, Fantin-Latour, and Legros Melissa Berry Raymond Jonson and the Spiritual in Modernist and Abstract Painting Herbert R. Hartel, Jr. Radical Marble Architecture and Innovation from Antiquity to the Present Edited by J. Nicholas Napoli and William Tronzo Pop Art and Popular Music Jukebox Modernism Melissa Mednicov Globalizing East European Art Histories Past and Present Edited by Beáta Hock and Anu Allas Visual Typologies from the Early Modern to the Contemporary Local Contexts and Global Practices Edited by Tara Zanardi and Lynda Klich Cultural Mobility in the Interwar Avant-Garde Art Network Poland, Belgium and the Netherlands Michał Wenderski For a full list of titles in this series, please visit https://www.routledge.com/RoutledgeResearch-in-Art-History/book-series/RRAH

Cultural Mobility in the Interwar Avant-Garde Art Network Poland, Belgium and the Netherlands Michał Wenderski

First published 2019 by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2019 Taylor & Francis The right of Michał Wenderski to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Wenderski, Michał, author. Title: Cultural mobility in the interwar avant-garde art network : Poland, Belgium and the Netherlands/Michał Wenderski. Description: New York : Routledge, 2018. | Series: Routledge research in art history | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018002567 | ISBN 9781138493544 (hardback) | ISBN 9781351027908 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Arts, Polish—20th century. | Arts, Belgian—20th century. | Arts, Dutch—20th century. | Artists—Social networks—Poland—History— 20th century. | Artists—Social networks—Belgium—History—20th century. | Artists—Social networks—Netherlands—History—20th century. Classification: LCC NX571.P6 W46 2018 | DDC 709.438/0904—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018002567 ISBN: 978-1-138-49354-4 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-351-02790-8 (ebk) Typeset in Sabon by Apex CoVantage, LLC

Contents

Figures Plates Tables Acknowledgements Abbreviations of Consulted Institutions and Repositories Introduction 1

Polish, Belgian and Dutch Avant-Garde Formations, their Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility within the International Network of Groups and Periodicals 1.1. Interwar Avant-Garde Formations of Dutch, Belgian and Polish Provenance 12 1.2. Cultural Mobility between Polish and Belgian Avant-Garde Formations 20 1.2.1. Traces of Polish–Belgian Cultural Mobility in Belgian Avant-Garde Periodicals 20 1.2.2. Traces of Polish–Belgian Cultural Mobility in Polish Avant-Garde Periodicals 26 1.3. Cultural Mobility between Polish and Dutch Avant-Garde Formations 28 1.3.1. Traces of Polish–Dutch Cultural Mobility in Dutch Avant-Garde Periodicals 28 1.3.2. Traces of Polish–Dutch Cultural Mobility in Polish Avant-Garde Periodicals 32 1.4. Traces of Polish–Dutch and Polish–Belgian Cultural Mobility in Relevant International Avant-Garde Periodicals 39 1.5. Cross-Referencing 43 1.6. Preliminary Observations 46

vii ix x xi xii 1

12

vi

Contents

2

Avant-Garde Manifestos and Programmatic Statements – Inspirations, Parallels and Dissimilarities 2.1. Abstraction as the Idiom of Universal Art 52 2.2. L’art pour . . .? 62 2.3. Cooperation between Disciplines and across Borders 67 2.4. Preliminary Conclusions 78

3

“What we do is no imitation, but an effort parallel to . . .” – Selected Works of Art and Architecture as Representation of Mutual Influences and Similarities 3.1. Avant-garde Publications from Poland and the Low Countries in Light of International Trends in Layout and Page Design 81 3.2. Piet Mondrian, Theo van Doesburg and Henryk Staz˙ewski 87 3.3. Katarzyna Kobro and Georges Vantongerloo 88 3.4. Mieczysław Szczuka and Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman 90 3.5. Henryk Berlewi, Vilmos Huszár and Karel Maes 92 3.6. Poland, the Low Countries and Foreign Artists: The Examples of El Lissitzky and Pietro (de) Saga 95 3.7. Interior Design 97 3.8. Architecture 100 3.9. Preliminary Conclusions 106

51

80

Plates (between 108 and 109) Closing Remarks

109

References Primary Sources 113 Secondary Sources 127 Appendix Index

113

144 164

Figures

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18

19

20

H.N. Werkman’s list of addresses to congenial formations and artists Jan Brze˛kowski’s article on modern Polish art Note criticising Brze˛kowski’s articles in foreign magazines Cover of Anthologie du Groupe Moderne d’Art de Liège 3/4 from 1925 dedicated to Polish art Berlewi’s card to Van Doesburg ordering the subscription of De Stijl One of the covers of De Stijl with the mention of Warsaw Blok’s manifesto “Co to jest konstruktywizm” Photo album with Dutch-written birthday wishes dated 4 July 1937 and a postcard from 2 September 1937 from Tołwin´ski and the Syrkuses to Cornelis van Eesteren Photo from the Cercle et Carré exhibition in Paris (1930) with works by Werkman, Mondrian and Staz˙ewski Photo of Mondrian, Rafałowski, Seuphor, Staz˙ewski, Vantongerloo and others at Paul Dermée’s in 1928 Photo of the Łódz´ collection taken in 1932 with works of among others Van Doesburg and Werkman List of congenial formations “Het netwerk” Lists of like-minded magazines published in The Next Call and in Blok in 1924 The first manifesto of De Stijl from 1918 Theo van Doesburg’s Composition XIV (1924) used by Kobro and Strzemin´ski as an example of wrongly based composition in painting The manifesto of Art Concret from 1930 Jalu Kurek’s Manifest poetycki o Rzeczypospolitej. Poeci na front. S´piewajcie o Rzeczypospolitej. Społeczen´stwo czeka na wasze usta from 1929 Cover of De Stijl 6, 6/7 featuring a photo of Theo van Doesburg and Cornelis van Eesteren working on one of their collective projects Vers une construction collective (Manifeste V du Groupe ‘De Stijl’) published by Theo van Doesburg, Cornelis van Eesteren and Gerrit Rietveld in 1923 Blok’s editorial statement published in Polish and French in 1924

14 22 23 25 29 30 33

37 40 42 43 44 45 54 61 62

65

68

69 72

viii

Figures

21 Manifesto of “Konstruktivistische Internationale Beeldende Arbeidsgemeenschap” from 1922 22 Fragments of the front page of De Driehoek from 1925 and of “Drukarstwo. O układzie graficznym” from 1924 23 “Bilanz des Staatlichen Bauhauses Weimar” and back cover of Blok 2 from 1924 24 Guillaume Apollinaire, “Il pleut” from 1918 and Bruno Jasien´ski, “Morze” from 1923 25 I.K. Bonset, “X-Beelden” from 1920 and Paul van Ostaijen, Bezette Stad (fragment) from 1921 26 Paul van Ostaijen, Bezette Stad (fragment) from 1921 and Edmund Miller, “Stara historia” from 1924 27 I.K. Bonset, “Letterklankbeelden” from 1921 and Edmund Miller, concrete poem from 1924 28 Theo van Doesburg and Kurt Schwitters, “Die Scheuche Märchen” (fragment) from 1924 and Tytus Czyz˙ewski, “Hamlet w piwnicy” from 1923 29 Georges Vantongerloo, Construction of Volumetric Interrelationships Derived from the Inscribed Square and the Square Circumscribed by a Circle from 1924 and Construction xy = k from 1929 30 Katarzyna Kobro, spatial composition 1 from 1925 31 Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman, Compositie met letters en haken from 1932 and Mieczysław Szczuka, Montaz˙ fotograficzny from 1924 32 Karel Maes, linocut from 1921 and Henryk Berlewi, Siedza˛ca kobieta from 1922 33 Karel Maes, linocut published in 1926 and Henryk Berlewi, Kontrasty mechanofakturowe from 1923 34 Pietro de Saga, Typo-Plastique VII and Dactyloplastique from 1925 35 Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman, Tiksels 10 and 12 from ca. 1926 36 Gerrit Rietveld, interior design for Goud- en Zilversmidscompagnie from 1921 and the Syrkuses in their study in 1927 37 Mieczysław Szczuka, interior design from 1924 and Bohdan Lachert, interior design from 1926 38 J.J.P. Oud, design for a factory in Purmerend from 1919 and Teresa Z˙arnower, composition from 1924 39 One of numerous reproductions of Rietveld’s house in Utrecht in Polish magazines and the Brukalskis’ house in Warsaw 40 J.J.P. Oud, Hoek van Holland estate from 1924 and B. Pniewski, PWK pavilion of Bogusław Herse Company from 1929 41 B. Lachert and J. Szanajca, Szyller’s villa in Warsaw from 1928 and a row house in Warsaw from 1928 42 L.H. De Koninck, Dr. Ley’s House in Uccle from 1934 and B. Lachert and J. Szanajca, villa in Gdynia from 1926 43 J.A. Brinkman and L.C. van der Vlugt: Van der Leeuw Huis in Rotterdam from 1921–1928 and H. Syrkus and S. Syrkus, villa in Skolimów from 1931

76 82 83 84 85 85 86

87

89 90

91 93 94 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104

105

Plates

(between pages 108 and 109) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16

Selected avant-garde periodicals of Polish, Dutch and Belgian provenance Piet Mondrian and Michel Seuphor’s Tableau-poème (Textuel) from 1928 Georges Vantongerloo, cover design for the Polish edition of L’art et son avenir from 1927 The nexus of relationships between selected representatives of the avant-garde in Poland and the Low Countries Front cover of De Stijl from 1922 and back cover of Berlewi’s Prospekt biura Reklama Mechano from 1924 Covers of Documents Internationaux de l’Esprit Nouveau 1 from 1927 and of L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna 2 from 1930 Theo van Doesburg, Compositie XXII from 1922 and Henryk Staz˙ewski, Kompozycja from 1930 Henryk Staz˙ewski, cover designs for Anielski Cham and Niedziela Piet Mondrian, Compositie from 1929 and Tableau 2 from 1922 Theo van Doesburg, Compositie XX from 1920 and Henryk Staz˙ewski, cover design for Grafika 4 from 1931 Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman, typographical composition from 1926 and Mieczysław Szczuka, Typografja from 1924 Vilmos Huszár, advertisement for Miss Blanche from 1926 and Henryk Berlewi, Prospekt Czekolada Plutos from 1925 El Lissitzky, Pro dva kvadrata. Suprematicheskii skaz v 6-ti postroikakh (fragment) from 1920/1922; El Lissitzky and Theo van Doesburg, Suprematisch worden van twee kwadraten in 6 konstrukties (fragment) from 1922; Władysław Strzemin´ski and Witold Kajruksztis, two pages from the catalogue of the Vilnius exhibition from 1923 Samuel Szczekacz, Konstrukcja from ca. 1937 Theo van Doesburg, colour composition for a university hall in Amsterdam from 1923 Sala Neoplastyczna, Muzeum Sztuki Łódz´, designed by Władysław Strzemin´ski

Tables

1 2 3 4

Written contributions of Polish, Dutch and Belgian provenance in the analysed books and periodicals Reproductions of artworks of Polish, Dutch and Belgian provenance in the analysed books and periodicals Mentions of books of Polish, Dutch and Belgian provenance in the analysed periodicals Mutual references between the analysed periodicals

144 149 157 158

Acknowledgements

This book would not have come to fruition without the help and support of numerous individuals and institutions. First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to various organisations which awarded me scholarships and grants that enabled me to conduct the necessary research related to this study: a research project of the Polish National Science Centre (nr. 2014/13/N/HS2/02757), two grants from the Dutch Language Union, a scholarship from the Adam Mickiewicz University Foundation in Poznan´. I would also like to thank the very helpful staff from numerous American, Belgian, Dutch, French, German and Polish institutions, who enabled me to gather the necessary archival material for this study. The completion of this work would be impossible without the guidance and support from my doctoral supervisors Paweł Zajas and Przemysław Stroz˙ek whose comments and input were of great value to this work. I would also like to thank Hubert van den Berg, Geert Buelens, Camiel Hamans and Jerzy Koch, who offered me their scientific guidance and help at various stages of this process. Moreover, I am particularly grateful to Cecilia Gallardo-Rioseco, Jan Willem Hoekstra, Krzysztof Koczorowski, Cyprian Kos´cielniak, Robert de Louw, Dariusz Nowak, Celine Postma, Peter Schoenaerts, Wim Troch, Peter Van Kemseke and Joanna Wnuk for all their support.

Abbreviations of Consulted Institutions and Repositories

AA-SL – Architecture Archive – Sint-Lukasarchief in Brussels AMA – Archieven voor Moderne Architectuur/Archives d’Architecture Moderne in Brussels AO-NI – Archief J.J.P. Oud, Nieuwe Instituut in Rotterdam ARA – Antykwariat Rara Avis in Cracow ATNvD – Archive of Theo and Nelly van Doesburg, RKD Nederlands Instituut voor Kunstgeschiedenis in The Hague AvE-NI – Archief Cornelis van Eesteren, Nieuwe Instituut in Rotterdam AWM – Archief van de Werkgroep Mondriaan correspondentieproject, RKD Nederlands Instituut voor Kunstgeschiedenis in The Hague BCPW – Biblioteka Cyfrowa Politechniki Warszawskiej BK – Bibliothèque Kandinsky, Centre de documentation et de recherche du Musée national d’art moderne – Centre de création industrielle, Centre Pompidou in Paris BN – Biblioteka Narodowa, Polona collection BPP – Bibliothèque Polonaise de Paris, archive of Jan Brze˛kowski CMU – Centraal Museum in Utrecht, archive of Gerrit Rietveld DBNL – Digitale Bibliotheek voor de Nederlandse Letteren EHC – Erfgoedbibliotheek Hendrik Conscience in Antwerp FC – Fondation Custodia in Paris FVB – Fonds Victor Bourgeois, Archief voor Hedendaagse Kunst in België/Archives d’Art Contemporian en Belgique in Brussels GM – Groninger Museum in Groningen GRI – Getty Research Institute in Los Angeles IADDB – International Advertising & Design DataBase IBL PAN – Instytut Badan´ Literackich Polskiej Akademii Nauk in Warsaw, archive of Jalu Kurek IDA – International Dada Archive, University of Iowa Libraries IS PAN – Instytut Sztuki Polskiej Akademii Nauk in Warsaw, archive of Polish Institute for Art Propaganda, Special Collections JBC – Jagiellon´ska Biblioteka Cyfrowa KB – Koninklijke Bibliotheek van België/Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique in Brussels KMSKA – Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten in Antwerp

Abbreviations

xiii

KMSKB – Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van België/Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique in Brussels LH – Letterenhuis in Antwerp, archive of Michel Seuphor MBC – Mazowiecka Biblioteka Cyfrowa MLAA – Marquand Library of Art and Archaeology, Princeton University MLAM – Muzeum Literatury im. Adama Mickiewicza in Warsaw, archives of Jan Brze˛kowski and Julian Przybos´ MNW – Cyfrowe Zbiory Muzeum Narodowego w Warszawie MoMA – Museum of Modern Art in New York MSL – Muzeum Sztuki in Łódz´ NAC – Narodowe Archiwum Cyfrowe RCE – Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, Instituut Collectie Nederland RCIN – Repozytorium Cyfrowe Instytutów Naukowych RKD – Nederlands Instituut voor Kunstgeschiedenis in The Hague RLK – Rotterdamsch Leeskabinet, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam SBC – S´la˛ska Biblioteka Cyfrowa SGM – Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in New York SMA – Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam UCL – Ústav pro cˇeskou literature, Digitalizovaný archiv cˇasopisuº ULB – Archives & Bibliothèques de l’Université Libre de Bruxelles VAM – Van Abbemuseum in Eindhoven WA – Werkman Archief, Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam

Introduction

Over one century ago, the autumn of 1917 witnessed two events of immense importance for the history of the European avant-garde, in particular with regard to Poland and the Low Countries. Namely, in October that year the first issue of the magazine De Stijl was published in the Dutch city of Leiden, which later became one of the most long-lasting and influential avant-garde periodicals. Only one month later, more than a thousand kilometres away in Krakow, Poland, the First Exhibition of Polish Expressionists was inaugurated, which is symbolically perceived as the beginning of the Polish avant-garde movement. One hundred years later various events were organised both in Poland and in the Netherlands to commemorate this anniversary, including art exhibitions, scholarly conferences and numerous publications, which shed some new light on this meaningful coincidence. These particular circumstances are, then, a backdrop to this study devoted to the historical avant-garde of Polish, Belgian and Dutch provenance which aims to explore, analyse and describe the issue of cultural mobility within the interwar network of the European avant-garde. For more than a decade, since the so-called “spatial turn”, the avant-garde network has gradually come to be mapped by various scholars who have analysed and described its nodes (artistic formations, galleries, magazines, exhibitions, etc.) and the connecting lines between them. Among contributions to the long-lasting process of revising and re-writing the history of the European avant-garde are exhibitions such as Central European Avant-Gardes: Exchange and Transformation, 1910–1930 (Los Angeles 2002), or Inventing Abstraction, 1910–1925 (New York 2012), as well as scholarly publications attempting to ‘decentralise’ the avant-garde historiography (e.g. Veivo 2012; Bäckström and Hjartarson 2014b or Joyeux-Prunel 2015a, 2015b, 2016). Similarly, studies on selected particular transnational dimensions of the avantgarde network facilitate its gradual mapping – so far described have been for instance the influences and relationships between France and Germany, Germany and Italy or Belgium, as well as between Belgium and the Netherlands.1 When it comes to Poland, its artistic relationships to countries such as France, Germany and Russia have been the main centres of scholarly attention, yet other countries such as Italy or Spain have not remained unnoticed.2 Following the above-mentioned attempts to map the history and development of modern art, this study aims to contribute to the historiography of the interwar avantgarde as a multifaceted transnational network of artists, formations and periodicals by exploring a case study of Poland and the Low Countries. The necessity of tackling this particular area might be illustrated by the diagram made for the occasion of a 2012/2013 exhibition held at the Museum of Modern Art in New York entitled

2

Introduction

Inventing Abstraction, 1910–1925.3 This diagram is a very interesting visualisation of contemporary approaches to research on artistic networks which concentrate on representatives, nodes, and the relationships between them. It also indicates a certain research lacuna on the interwar avant-garde network, namely the Polish–Dutch and Polish–Belgian dimension, which will be tackled in this study, Although those areas may seem distant in terms of geography, language and history, the relationships and cultural mobility between them were quite intense, which I aim to demonstrate here. So far no thorough description of the mutual relationships between the avant-gardes in Poland and the Low Countries has appeared, even though some studies offer scattered but very valuable information on such contact. Andrzej Turowski (1979, 1981, 1990a, 2000) for instance pointed to the influence of De Stijl on the Polish Blok, Praesens and a.r. groups, and Joanna Kleiverda-Kajetanowicz (1985, 1989) analysed theoretical affinities between Piet Mondrian and Henryk Staz˙ewski. Their findings were often repeated in other works on De Stijl and its influences abroad, for instance by Krisztina Passuth (1988, 2009) and Sjarel Ex (1996, 2000). A recent and very valuable initiative shedding fresh light on the Polish–Dutch avant-garde relationships was the exhibition “Organizatorzy z˙ycia. De Stijl, polska awangarda i design” [Organizers of Life. De Stijl, the Polish Avant-Garde, and Design] which took place in 2017/2018 in Muzeum Sztuki in Łódz´ (cf. Kurc-Maj and Saciuk-Ga˛sowska 2017). Few and far between are also works devoted to Polish–Belgian avant-garde relationships. Scholars have indeed pointed to some parallels in the works of Georges Vantongerloo and Katarzyna Kobro and to the exchange between Polish and Belgian periodicals.4 The Polish–Belgian dimension, however, is sometimes missing even in the most recent publications dealing with the international connections of the Polish avantgarde (e.g. Rypson 2015). When it comes to the relationships and cooperation between Polish, Dutch and Belgian architects, they have been mostly described in relation to the CIAM organisation (Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne), which united progressive architects from across the globe. In this context it has also been acknowledged that Polish architects, especially Szymon and Helena Syrkus, were particularly active in CIAM and played an important role in the architectural modernisation processes (cf. Gold 1997; Platzer 1999; Mumford 2000, 2009 and others). Some more traces of cultural mobility between Poland and the Low Countries are to be found in works devoted to international artistic initiatives such as Cercle et Carré, Abstraction-Création, Art Concret or the formation of the Łódz´ Collection of Modern Art.5 Notably, the nature and intensity of such relationships are also well reflected in the artists’ memoirs which – although subjective and to some extent exaggerated – serve as an invaluable source of first-hand information on the cultural mobility within the avant-garde network. This study aims to present an exhaustive and detailed description of various relationships between the representatives of avant-garde circles from Poland and the Low Countries, which gathers and substantially complements the findings and remarks found in the above-mentioned works. More importantly, the analysis of mutual exchange and influences between artists and formations of Polish, Belgian and Dutch provenance forms a reflection on cultural mobility within the whole network of historical avant-garde as such, and revises some historiographical assumptions related to cultural transfer and mobility, such as the “centre–periphery” paradigm, the East–West division or the nation-state-based approach to art history. Hereunder I briefly outline several theoretical notions concerning the issue in question.

Introduction

3

First of all, what does the term “avant-garde” actually mean? Numerous theoreticians have already attempted to define this term,6 by trying to establish where and when did the avant-garde begin and end, what was its geographical spread, or – to quote Hubert van den Berg (2006a: 331) – “which currents, schools, movements, isms, projects, which artefacts, works of art, architecture, music, literary texts and other aesthetic and cultural practices can be subsumed under the umbrella label ‘avant-garde’ in the early twentieth century?”7 No definite and undisputed answers can be given to these questions, and no one ultimate definition of the concept “avant-garde” can be provided. For the sake of this study though, avant-garde might be understood as an international phenomenon appearing in various places, violating the entrenched rules, pushing the existing boundaries, norms and the status quo of the art, artist, artwork and so forth. Richard Kostelanetz (1993: xiii) determined three discriminatory criteria of the avant-garde which will also be of use in this study, i.e. the (1) transcending of existing aesthetic conventions, (2) lack of comprehension from the contemporary audience and (3) pioneering nature functioning as source of inspiration for future generations. More specifically, with relation to the aesthetic historical avant-garde, Van den Berg and Dorleijn (2002: 5–7) have described it as “a wide collection of literary and artistic currents from the early twentieth century which strived for a radical renewing of the arts and experimented with new material, forms, techniques and principles”. As key features, the scholars also pointed to the rejection of popular artistic and literary conventions in favour of New Art and to the semi-official organisations and their programmatic manifestos based on military and revolutionary vocabulary. An interesting set of key features of the avant-garde has also been outlined by the Icelandic scholar Astradur Eysteinsson (2009: 32) – among them radicalism, the urge to shock, experimentations, mobility, collectivism, the use of manifestos as a form of expression, revolt against art and literary institutions, utopianism and others. As already mentioned, my objective is to focus on a selected part of the interwar European avant-garde, namely Poland and the Low Countries – a task which actually is easier said than done. Since, as pointed out by Edouard Glissant (1981, quoted in Lionnet and Shih 2005: 8–9), no culture is a monadic entity embedded in national borders but a hybrid and relational product of ongoing processes, the delimitation of the research corpus and main focus of this study were not self-evident. Given the fact that stylistic heterogeneity and a trans- or even supra-national orientation were obvious features of the historical avant-garde,8 its description in traditional style- and nationbased frameworks would be futile. Bearing in mind that any set of units to be compared remains artificial historiographical constructs which need to be distinguished from their contexts (Juneja and Pernau 2009: 109–110; Ther 2009: 208), how could one decide where Polish, Belgian and Dutch avant-gardes began and ended, and which of their representatives were to be taken into consideration and which ones not? How can the “Belgianness” or “Polishness” of the analysed material be defined in the times when the Walloon–Flemish identity and linguistic conflicts escalated and the Polish State had just reappeared after 123 years of nonexistence?9 And what is more, what would limit the choice of styles and currents to be incorporated in the analysis of the interwar avant-garde, when even the artists’ self-nomination constantly fluctuated between Constructivists, Cubists, Dadaists or Futurists? In all that, a style- and nation-based attempt to describe the cross-border, stylistically eclectic network of the avant-garde – a phenomenon at the core of which laid a sense of stylistic and national transgression – would inevitably fail.

4

Introduction

This notwithstanding, in order to shape the research corpus for this analysis of cultural mobility within the interwar avant-garde network, some nation-related and linguistic framework is necessary as the starting point. Hence, the initial choice of Polish- and Dutch-speaking avant-garde formations included the most important and influential titles, among others Zwrotnica, Blok, Praesens, De Stijl, Internationale Revue i10, The Next Call, Het Woord, Het Overzicht and De Driehoek. In order to properly analyse the cultural mobility between Poland and the Low Countries, it was also necessary to include the French-language Belgian periodicals such as 7 Arts, Anthologie du Groupe Moderne d’Art de Liège and L’Équerre, as well as other formations and magazines which united numerous artists of various origins, including the representatives of Polish, Belgian and Dutch avant-gardes, i.e. Cercle et Carré, Art Concret, Abstraction-Création, L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna. Selected relevant publications from other avant-garde magazines, literary and architectural periodicals, as well as books and exhibition catalogues, form a valuable addition to the research corpus. Besides the selected publications, of key importance for the analysis and description of the development of relationships and mobility between avant-garde artists from Poland and the Low Countries is also the correspondence between avant-garde artists – not only the representatives of the analysed formations but also other individuals influencing the development of avant-garde art. A large number of letters and manuscripts was gathered during archival research or obtained from various institutions in Europe and the United States (for a full list of consulted archives, museums, libraries and digital repositories see the list of abbreviations). Last, but not least, selected works of art and architectural projects reproduced in the above-mentioned periodicals, exhibition catalogues and other sources have been used to reflect on the nature of cultural mobility within the avant-garde network (cf. Chapter 3). As the range of historical material grew, it became evident that it needed to exceed the initial linguistic and nation-based limitations and stylistic denominations. Foreign publications became an important addition to the corpus (e.g. Documents Internationaux de l’Esprit Nouveau, Der Sturm, Merz, Pásmo, ReD), and the initial choice of artists and formations belonging to International Constructivism evolved as well. Given the multifaceted nature of the avant-garde network, the lack of strict limits of particular style denominations and constant influences between what is nowadays perceived as Abstraction(ism), Constructivism, Dadaism, Expressionism, Futurism, Functionalism, International Style, Modernism, Suprematism or Unism, I have opted for – what I call – a “post-ism-atic” approach for my analysis. Such an approach is based on particular artists and the initiatives they launched or contributed to, rather than on the narrow historiographical labels which I have often found inaccurate and proscriptive. Hence, instead of denoting defined styles or currents, the broad term “avant-garde” is used in this study, and artists and formations traditionally associated with particular styles such as for instance Futurism or Dadaism have also been included in the analysis. Significant differences in stylistic denotations in various regions were also noticed by the artist Henryk Berlewi (1961: 21) who claimed that “at the time when the Cabaret Voltaire was being founded in Zurich, Dadaists and Surrealists already existed in Poland even if they were not known by those names”. Thus, already in the process of defining the research corpus for this study, a certain deconstruction of its initial concept took place. The first delimitation made by selecting

Introduction

5

two geographically, linguistically and culturally distant areas which served as the principal points of interest – Poland and the Low Countries – needed to be broadened. Given the nature and the dynamics of avant-garde circles, the choice of artists and formations relevant to this study could actually grow endlessly. In fact, their actual mobility and intense exchange of works and ideas exclude any fixed framework for such studies. It is therefore understandable that the research corpus could not follow the nation-state-based boundaries and be limited only to works of Polish, Belgian and Dutch avant-garde artists active in selected formations based exclusively in Poland and the Low Countries. It had to include other individuals too, their formations and initiatives, who or which were, broadly speaking, related to the development of avant-garde art in the analysed areas, regardless of national, topographical or ism-based labels. Therefore individuals of Polish, Dutch or Belgian origin active both in their homelands and abroad (for instance the activities of Jan Brze˛kowski, Piet Mondrian and Michel Seuphor in Paris), as well as artists of other (or mixed) nationalities active in Poland and in the Low Countries (for instance Katarzyna Kobro or Vilmos Huszár) were also taken into consideration in this study.10 Such an approach seems to adopt Bruno Latour’s (2005: 12) postulate of “following the actors themselves”, which has been incorporated in art history by among others John Clark (1998), Piotr Piotrowski (2009) and Malte Hagener (2014) who postulated a shift from “fields” to “actors” in the historiography of the avant-garde. In view of the relational, fluctuating and changeable nature of society and culture, in his actor– network–theory Latour (2005) stressed the need to primarily focus on the actors, their activities, innovations and relations. Only when those factors are fully grasped, can one begin to understand the macro-scale – the functioning of the group. The very concept of groups (ontological entities, macro-relations) was actually undermined by Latour who claimed that there are only group formations, relationships between actors who create them themselves, with no above imposed patterns. A similar model was presented by Lionnet and Shih (2005) in their introduction to Minor transnationalism where they postulated a shift from a homogenous and dominant set of criteria and nation-state-based model of understanding of cultures towards transnational hybrid spaces and practices of exchange and participation acted upon by border-crossing agents. More recently, DaCosta Kaufmann, Dossin and Joyeux-Prunel (2015) as well as Zajas (2016) have questioned ontological, nation-state frameworks as a basic research perspective for cultural transfer and artistic interchange. As suggested by Hagener (2014: 162), it is the flow of “information, materials, ideas, persons and discourses going back and forth” which should be the main focus of scholarly research on the practices of production, exchange and transformation. Nevertheless, focusing the attention on actors active in the trans-border, transnational space, the so-called “sensation of rootedness” (Greenblatt 2010b: 252) must not be omitted in the analysis of cultural transfer between them. This was already pointed out by Goethe who perceived nationality and personality (i.e. linguistic, cultural and personal particularities) as the only medium through which universal aspects and values could emerge and connect the world’s separate literary traditions (cf. Meyer-Kalkus 2010: 110). Indeed, the artists’ relations and attitudes towards their respective national artistic, political and local circles, as well as towards history and tradition played a key role in their engagement within the network: they grew up, evolved and initially created in their respective local contexts (as changeable as

6

Introduction

they were) before they could oppose or reject them in favour of a universal(istic) and supranational approach. Hence, this study – a priori undertaken as a supranational historiographical endeavour – takes into consideration (amongst others) the particular linguistic, geographical, cultural and historical contexts of the analysed formations and their representatives.11 By simultaneously questioning the agency of nation-state-based frameworks and referring to the rootedness and contexts of particular individuals, cultural mobility and transfer become embedded in the multidirectional network of actors, mediators and their relationships. The notion of a network with relation to the avant-garde was introduced by Hubert van den Berg (2006a: 332), who had based his model partially on Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari’s concept of the “rhizome”. The properties of the rhizome are characteristic for the multifaceted, heterogeneous and three-dimensional network of the early avant-garde with its nodes, connection lines, splits and ruptures which can constantly be formed or cease to exist, with no notion of hierarchy between them. This understanding of the rhizome, complemented by Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt’s reflections on “multitude”, provided a new framework for the understanding of the avant-garde as “a synchronically heterogeneous and diverse conglomerate, marked by many diachronic fluctuations, such as artists going from one group or ism to another, or the rapid succession of isms” (Van den Berg 2006a: 344). This flexible and malleable structure is, by its very definition, unstable; it can extend itself at any moment and in any direction, without any clear-cut boundaries. It is also notable that the interwar avant-gardists themselves perceived the cluster of their initiatives and formations as a network, as indicated in a list of congenial periodicals published in the twentieth issue of the Flemish journal Het Overzicht entitled “Het netwerk” [The network], as well as in Henryk Berlewi’s (1922) report on the Düsseldorf exhibition where he referred to a “worldwide network of periodicals” devoted to modern art. One of the particularities of the avant-garde network was the fact that its functioning was strongly influenced by fluctuating and often volatile interpersonal relationships between its members who alternately cooperated and competed with each other, which was then directly reflected in the choice of texts and artworks published or discussed in their periodicals. Some new light on the interpersonal aspect of cultural mobility within the avant-garde network can be shed by referring to Mark Granovetter’s (1973, 1983) theory of “strong and weak ties”, one of the most influential theories in social sciences (cf. Easley and Kleinberg 2010). Granovetter related the nature and strength of interpersonal interactions to such phenomena as diffusion, social mobility and cohesion – all crucial features of the avant-garde network. He argued that not “strong”, but “weak” interpersonal ties (in other words acquaintances, not friends) form the connections between various circles, as they link members of different small groups, contrary to “strong ties”, which characterise the internal relationships within the groups themselves. In light of Granovetter’s theory, various nodes of the avant-garde network might be regarded as groups of persons “strongly tied” to each other (at least at a given moment in time) which are connected by “weak ties” between a given member of one node and a given person from another node. Such “weak ties” would be the channels through which ideas, influences and information from distant circles may be reached and, consequently, by boosting the exchange between various avant-garde formations, they form a fundamental element of the network. Gradually, particular circles will create

Introduction

7

more and more “weak ties” to other formations, in furtherance of new, indirect connections to a larger scope of recipients in order to disseminate one’s ideas and works, etc. (cf. Granovetter 1973: 1364–1366). Another very interesting point – especially when considering the avant-garde network – is the assumption that “marginal” individuals (Granovetter’s term for people whose activities and viewpoints tend to be perceived as controversial or even deviant) would have the urge to form a relatively large number of ties to other individuals and groups in order to be able to diffuse their ostracised innovations. Indeed, all avant-garde formations functioned aside contemporary mainstream cultural and artistic conventions, and they constantly sought to broaden their international reception by spreading their magazines and works among other parts of the avant-garde network, mostly through the “weak ties” with other circles. Moreover, as pointed out by Turowski (1998: 185) as well as Lionnet and Shih (2005: 2, 8–9), minority subjects (such as the avant-garde per se) tend to identify themselves in opposition to the dominant discourse which credited itself with authority and alleged authenticity that allowed its representatives to assert order in their cultural field, marginalise the minorities and deny them access to “full citizenship”. Waiting to be recognised as “full citizens” though, the minorities remain invested in their respective local spaces where they have to fall upon resources outside the dominant forms – hence their eagerness to search for reception and recognition elsewhere, in this case among other avant-garde circles. Notably, Lionnet and Shih (2005: 10) also claimed that although each minority is by definition mixed and hybrid, “differences within a given minority are suppressed in the interest of forming a culturally united front against domination”. This observation is reflected among others in Tadeusz Peiper’s (1923a: 90) statement in Zwrotnica: “ła˛czy nas ze soba˛ to co nas dzieli od innych” [we are united by what distinguishes us from others]. This “unity in distinctness” of the avant-garde was also clearly visible after De Stijl’s exclusion from the Parisian Exhibition of Decorative Arts in 1925 when a plethora of European avant-garde artists jointly opposed this deprivation of “full citizenship” of their Dutch colleagues (cf. Section 1.3.1). Hence, in the case of transnational minorities such as the avant-garde network, there is no place for hierarchy. On the contrary, a non-hierarchical organisational structure has been identified as one of its key features by numerous scholars, who have collectively and individually called for rethinking and decentring the theory and history of the avant-garde network. In doing so they have put the often placed concepts of “centres” and “peripheries” – as well as “Central and Eastern-Europe(an)” – under more and more critical scrutiny.12 By aiming to contribute to a proper topography of the avant-garde, such concepts are also rejected in this study, which adopts a more horizontal approach to the history of the interwar avant-garde. As pointed out by the Polish avant-garde scholar Piotr Piotrowski (2009: 51), contemporary art history needs to deconstruct the relations between the so-called “centres” and “margins” where, as a result of various historiographical assumptions, the “centres” are perceived as determiners of specific paradigms which are supposed to be adopted by the “peripheries”. Claiming that “the artists of the international avantgarde did not view the art scene from a vertical perspective” where some nodes were more important than the others, and that “it was only art history which developed the hierarchical, vertical discourse ordering the artistic geography in terms of centres and

8

Introduction

peripheries”,13 Piotrowski postulated a “horizontal history of the avant-garde” based on new research perspectives of critical geography and geohistory of modern art (cf. DaCosta Kaufmann 2004) which reject previous hierarchical and Western-oriented approaches. Nevertheless, many historiographers of the avant-garde tend to forget that in this case the so-called “centres” were actually as marginal as the “peripheries”, and progressive artists in Paris had as little recognition in contemporary Parisian artistic and literary life as avant-gardists did in Antwerp, Leiden or Łódz´. It is, however, undeniable that as a result of complex political, cultural and economic procedures, certain cities (be it Paris or Berlin) have come to play a pivotal role in art history (Bäckström and Hjartarson 2014a: 20), but I would rather define their main role as infrastructural – i.e. being a melting pot and an exchange market where artists from various places could present, confront and argue their ideas and innovations with each other, which then circulated and reverberated throughout networks (see also Van den Berg and Głuchowska 2013a: xii–xiii; Ther 2009: 213). These “infrastructural centres” enabled the actual interactions and exchange between the representatives of various artistic circles, but they themselves were not superior to other circles – just as the whole avantgarde network itself was not a hierarchical structure, but a horizontal multifaceted and multidimensional system of connections and influences. The very source of artistic innovations, however, was not located in the “centres” as such, but rather they came from all those particular artists, representing a plethora of nations and cultures, who resided and worked in the “infrastructural centres”. One look at the artists’ memoirs, for instance those of Jan Brze˛kowski, reveals that a big share of artists from the Parisian avant-garde circles did not actually originate from France, but migrated or resided there temporally (e.g. Apollinaire, Arp, Dermée, Mondrian, Picasso, Seuphor and others – cf. Brze˛kowski 1968). What is more, as observed by Andrzej Szczerski (2010: 262, 340; 2011: 5–9), the representatives of the so-called “peripheries” were actually able to find unprecedented and unique artistic and architectural solutions mainly due to the fact that they originated from smaller circles. That made them travel to the “infrastructural centres” looking for new ideas and inspirations, and subsequently re-create and re-define them in their local conditions. Szczerski saw “peripherality” itself as a source of freedom and opportunity to choose, synthesise, experiment and revise the “central” accomplishments, which let the “minor avant-gardes” make top-class artistic and architectural achievements instead of only being a recipient of ready-made “central” solutions. In view of all that, one could actually conclude that to a similar extent did the “infrastructural centres” shape the art of the “peripheries”, as the “peripheries” and their representatives played an active role in the artistic development of the “centres”. Tensions between individual agencies and (infra)structural constraints form quite important factors in the processes of cultural mobility. In his manifesto of mobility studies Stephen Greenblatt (2010b) revised the stability of cultures in their nationbased frames and gave a wide panorama of particular cases, tracing cultural mobility in all parts of the globe and periods of history. The notion of cultural mobility is directly related to other concepts such as cultural transfer, hybridity, appropriation (re-employment of ideas), métissage (intermingling of cultures), histoire croisée (entangled history), etc., which have recently gained much popularity among scholars.14 With this study I actually aim to present another dimension of cultural mobility – namely

Introduction

9

that of the interwar avant-garde – adding another case to the collection of microhistories of cultural connections between unexpected times and places, and descriptions of single, peculiar, particular and local objects. As noticed by Zajas (2016: 21–24), however, similar theories had actually been developed since the late nineteenth century by scholars such as Karl Gotthard Lamprecht, Aby Warburg or Eduard Winter. The postulates of Greenblatt and other theoreticians can therefore be perceived as a revision and recapitulation of the theories put forward more than a century earlier. For instance Lamprecht (1905, as quoted in Zajas 2016: 22–23) postulated a transnational history based on comparative research of national histories and the international transfer of people and ideas. A century before Latour and Greenblatt, Lamprecht emphasised the necessity of empirical, individually focused research on particular cases of border-crossing transfer which, as it were, came to be paraphrased in Greenblatt’s (2010a: 16) claim that writing about cultural mobility means “patient charting of specific instances of cultural mobility, that is, not in an attempt to construct new grand narratives (. . .) but in detailed, intellectually vital engagements with specific cases”. Moreover, recalling the Latourian slogan of “following the actors”, Greenblatt (2010b: 250) stressed the necessity of tracing the conditions directly related to literal movement (main agents, translators, intermediaries, diffusion channels, etc.) in order to fully understand the metaphorical transfer and shed light on the actual circulation of texts, images and ideas. The various theories devoted to cultural mobility and transfer reveal much affinity with Goethe’s nineteenth-century concept of Weltliteratur [world literature], where the notion of patriotic/national art was rejected in favour of constant process of exchange, transformation and adaptation of texts, images, artefacts and ideas across borders of nations and cultures.15 As pointed out by Reinhard Meyer-Kalkus (2010: 106), Goethe did not understand Weltliteratur as “the archive of everything that had ever been written [or] the canon of great works transcending their national cultures, but rather a form of international literary communication” with writers, literary critics, translators, booksellers, publishers as its principal players. What is more, according to Zajas (2016: 384–386), rather than a canon of universal and globally recognised texts, Weltliteratur was also a particular socio-political project of how literature was to function in times of growing nationalisms. Therefore, in the case of this study, the focus lies on Goethe’s concept of literary communication between various actors of the literary field in different places, which is particularly valuable with regard to the avantgarde network. Interestingly, Goethe’s (1828, as quoted in Meyer-Kalkus 2010: 106) words regarding the need of world literature: “nations [were] growing closer together through express mail and (. . .) daily, weekly and monthly periodicals” very accurately embrace the main issue of this study. As a result of this “amalgamation” of nations and cultures, particular groups and individuals became hybrid, nationally and culturally ambiguous and undefinable, as pointed out for instance by Edouard Winter with relation to the inhabitants of Eastern Europe (cf. Zajas 2016: 24). The representatives of the historical avant-garde were likewise hybrid individuals themselves – they had mixed nationalities, were artistically active in more than one country/cultural field or, to say the least, constantly oscillated between the two artistic worlds – mainstream art and progressive, cross-boundary avant-garde. Andrzej Turowski (2002b: 363) pointed for instance to the biographies of Kazimir Malevich (born in Kiev to a Polish family living in Lithuania and in Polesie – a region

10

Introduction

belonging ethnically to Belarus, working in Russia and writing in Russian, although his native tongue was Polish), Władysław Strzemin´ski (born in the multicultural city of Minsk, working in Russia before finally settling in Poland), Katarzyna Kobro (daughter of Russian–German parents; she lived and studied in Moscow before she moved to Poland with Strzemin´ski) and many others. To this list I would also add the Polish–Lithuanian artist Witold Kajruksztis/ Vytautas Kairiu¯kštis, Guillaume Apollinaire (actually Wilhelm Apolinary Kostrowicki, son of a Polish mother and an Italian father, he grew up in Rome and Monaco and as an adult moved to Paris), Louis Marcoussis (actually Ludwik Markus, a Polish painter who lived and worked in France), Michel Seuphor (actually Fernand Berckelaers, Flemish poet and painter working and living in Paris), Theo van Doesburg and Piet Mondrian (Dutch artists living and working in, amongst other places, Paris), Vilmos Huszár (a Hungarian artist residing and working in the Netherlands, and a member of De Stijl), Georges Vantongerloo (a Belgian artist, active in both the Netherlands and France) and many others whose biographies form living proof of the cultural hybridity of the avant-garde. As indicated above, several theoretical and methodological assumptions for this study proved to be “easier said than done” – i.e. the definition of (among others) the term avant-garde, the delimitation of research corpus in terms of nations and nationalities, the choice of styles and currents to be included and so on. Although bearing the above-discussed postulates and observations in mind, in my further analysis I deliberately rarely refer to particular theoretical assumptions and models. On the contrary, in order to analyse the historical material and describe the intertwined, complicated paths and mutual relationships of the protagonists of this study, I have chosen to concentrate on facts, people and their movements, instinctively “following my actors” – as if at the suggestion of Bruno Latour’s (2005: 143–144) character of the Professor: Student:

But that’s not what my supervisor wants. He wants a frame in which to put my data. (. . .) He always says: ‘Student, you need a framework.’ Professor: Maybe your supervisor is in the business of selling pictures! It’s true that frames are nice for showing: gilded, white, carved, baroque, aluminium, etc. But have you ever met a painter who began his masterpiece by first choosing the frame? That would be a bit odd, wouldn’t it? (. . .) A frame (. . .) doesn’t add anything to the picture. (. . .) If I were you, I would abstain from frameworks altogether. Just describe the state of affairs at hand. This study is divided into three chapters. First, tangible traces of cultural mobility between artists and formations of Polish, Belgian and Dutch provenance in avant-garde magazines, publications and correspondence will be identified, systematised, analysed and discussed in order to reflect on the nature and extent of mutual exchange and dissemination of works and ideas. Second, attention will be placed on the programmatic dimension of the avant-garde. Selected manifestos and other theoretic statements published in the analysed periodicals will be examined in light of their key similarities,

Introduction

11

influences and differences in chosen programmatic aspects. Last, but not least, an analysis of selected works of avant-garde literature, art and architecture will further reflect on the nature of cultural mobility between Poland and the Low Countries, namely the transfer of artistic principles and practices between particular artists. This book also contains an appendix with four tables presenting a detailed overview of various traces of Polish–Dutch and Polish–Belgian mobility identified in the analysed periodicals.

Notes 1 French–German relationships have been analysed by Hulten (1978) and Müller (2016); for works on links between Germany and Italy or Belgium see Orsini (1992, 2005) and Paenhuysen (2011) respectively. Belgian–Dutch artistic affinities have been mapped by Lambrechts (2002), Den Boef and Van Faassen (2008, 2013) and by Strauven and Dujardin (2016) among others. 2 For works on the Polish–French relationships see e.g. Delaperrière (1991, 2003, 2010) and Wierzbicka (2009, 2016), for Germany – Brandt (2006) and Głuchowska (2009, 2015), and for accounts of Polish–Russian artistic mobility see Nakov (1981) and Poprze˛cka and Jowlewa (2004). For works on links between Poland and Italy or Spain see Stroz˙ek (2012) and Rypson (2015) respectively. 3 See: www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2012/inventingabstraction. 4 See for instance D’Haeseleer (1984), Mertens (1988), Ceuleers (1996), Ładnowska (1998), Charlier (2012a) and Van de Geer et al. (2013). 5 See for instance Stanisławski et al. (1971), Seuphor (1971, 1990), Fabre et al. (1978), Prat (1984), Fabre (1990), Czartoryska (1991), Ładnowska (1991, 2001), Jedlin´ski (1992), Lemoine (2000), Thomas (2009), Boland (2013), Kurc-Maj (2015) and others. 6 Various definitions of the term ‘avant-garde’ have been offered by among others Poggioli (1962), Bürger (1974), Calinescu (1987), Gazda (1987), Eysteinsson (1990, 2009), Driekoningen (1991), Kostelanetz (1993), Van den Berg and Dorleijn (2002), Orska (2004). 7 The original spelling, including any mistakes, is kept in all the quotations. Unless stated otherwise, all the translations from foreign sources are mine, MW. 8 It is important to note here that the early twentieth century as such, and the interwar avantgarde in particular, were characterised by a simultaneous growth of nationalistic and internationally oriented stances (cf. Van den Berg and Głuchowska 2013a: x; Zajas 2016: 376; and Section 2.3). 9 Cf. Dyroff (2015) for a very interesting take on the construction of Polish identity in the twentieth century. 10 Notably, except for single mentions, the accomplishments and contributions of Kazimir Malevich were intentionally excluded from this analysis. Regardless of the fact that he was often perceived as a Pole by his contemporaries (cf. the front cover of Zwrotnica 11; De Stijl 7, 75/76: 497 and Van Doesburg 1930/1931: 358), Malevich had little impact on cultural mobility between Poland and the Low Countries. See Turowski (2002a) on Malevich’s links to Poland. 11 For various reasons, though, the issue of religious identity – especially when it comes to artists of Jewish descent – is intentionally omitted here. Polish–Jewish artistic interdependencies have been analysed among others by Suchan (2010). 12 For an outline of such approaches see Bäckström and Hjartarson (2014a: 7–8). 13 In the words of Itamar Even-Zohar (1990: 17–18), “it is the group which governs the polysystem that ultimately determines the canonicity of a certain repertoire” since “there is nothing in the repertoire itself that is capable of determining which section of it can be (or become) canonized or not”. 14 See Kaelble (2009) for an outline of these approaches. 15 It has been demonstrated that the term Weltliteratur was coined and introduced as early as in 1774 by A.L. Schlözer (cf. Zajas 2016: 383).

1

Polish, Belgian and Dutch Avant-Garde Formations, their Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility within the International Network of Groups and Periodicals

Avant-garde formations from Poland and the Low Countries were parts of an international, cross-border network of groups and magazines. Within this network, magazines and artists from Poland, Belgium and the Netherlands were related to each other, not only via other formations (e.g. French or German), but also directly, based on personal contacts between particular representatives of given groups. Such relationships enabled numerous interactions and mutual, reciprocal exchanges of texts and reproductions of works of art and architectural projects, which left numerous tangible traces in the magazines, correspondence and other publications analysed in this study. Thus, besides an overview of chosen magazines and formations from Poland and the Low Countries, as well as international initiatives where Polish, Dutch and Belgian artists played important roles (see Plate 1), this chapter also provides a thorough description of the contact and relationships between those formations and their representatives. Throughout the chapter, the nature and the extent of Polish–Dutch and Polish–Belgian relationships and cultural mobility within the avant-garde network will be explored and illustrated. Details of Polish, Belgian and Dutch contributions identified in the analysed periodicals are also listed in four tables in the appendix.1

1.1. Interwar Avant-Garde Formations of Dutch, Belgian and Polish Provenance The Dutch avant-garde is often associated with De Stijl [The style] – a journal that forwarded new ideas on the visual arts, architecture and literature published in Leiden, Scheveningen and The Hague between 1917 and 1928, with its final issue in 1932 (in commemoration of its late editor; a total of 76 issues). The founders of De Stijl, whose articles and works were presented in the first issue from October 1917, were Theo van Doesburg, Piet Mondrian, Bart van der Leck, Antony Kok, J.J.P. Oud and Vilmos Huszár (the designer of De Stijl’s logo and cover). Although his artistic accomplishments are often questioned, especially in comparison to other De Stijl artists such as Mondrian, Oud or Kok (cf. Tuijn 2003: 21–24), Van Doesburg played a very important role on the Dutch avant-garde scene. He was an active organiser, theoretician and inspirer, and had a major impact on the Dutch-speaking avant-garde network. Van Doesburg ran the magazine and his abilities allowed the publication to last so long. Yet, at the same time, his difficult personality strongly marked his relationships with the other founders and often led to antagonism and conflict. De Stijl was far from being a coherent or homogenous artistic collective. Throughout the years, the journal had a number of contributors (among others Cornelis van

Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility

13

Eesteren, Gerrit Rietveld and Georges Vantongerloo), but cooperation with most of them did not last long, mainly due to interpersonal animosities with Van Doesburg. This is explicitly reflected in Vantongerloo’s letter to Michel Seuphor from 1950: . . . n’oubli jamais que; V;d.Leck, Mondrian et Vantongerloo sont trois individus bien distinctes qui n’ont rien de commun avec le titre De Stijl ni avec De Stijl. Leurs traveaux sont trop individuels. V.Doesburg c’est servit de ces trois individus pour lancer et pour sa propagande personnelle. Cette vérité est telle que l’on a jamais considéré V.D. comme artiste mais bien comme propagandiste.2 [. . . don’t ever forget that V[an] d[er] Leck, Mondrian and Vantongerloo are three separate individuals who have nothing in common with the title De Stijl or with De Stijl. Their works are too individual. V[an] Doesburg used these three individuals to launch and for his personal propaganda. The truth is that we never considered V[an] D[oesburg] as an artist but more as a propagandist.] The disagreements began almost as soon as the launch issue. The first manifesto of De Stijl, published a year later, was not signed by two of its six initiators, namely Oud and Van der Leck. Two of those who were signatories of the manifesto, architects Jan Wils and Robert van ’t Hoff, had already left the group by the following year, and J.J.P. Oud’s friendship with Van Doesburg came to an end in the course of 1921 after the latter submitted colour solutions to Oud’s housing project Spangen in Rotterdam. Initially the cooperation between Oud and Van Doesburg went smoothly but major differences in the perception of architecture between these two artists soon surfaced (Esser 1990: 124) and following Oud’s departure in 1921 De Stijl no longer boasted any architects among its members. In spring 1922 Van Doesburg met the young Cornelis van Eesteren (Blotkamp 1990: 33–34) who replaced Oud and worked with Van Doesburg. The relation between Theo van Doesburg and Piet Mondrian was also marked by constant disputes and arguments. Their viewpoints and interests gradually grew apart when Van Doesburg, in contrast to Mondrian, became fascinated with the fourth dimension. As a result Van Doesburg began to publish under his pseudonyms (I.K. Bonset from May 1920 and Aldo Camini from July 1921) so that he could continue his polemic with Mondrian who remained unaware of Van Doesburg’s alter egos. In 1922/23 fundamental differences appeared between Mondrian and Van Doesburg and in August 1924 they agreed to no longer meet and correspond only if necessary (Blotkamp 1990: 27–35; White 2009: 71). The maelstrom within the group was depicted in a table of “Principieele medewerkers aan De Stijl” [Principal contributors to De Stijl] published in a special issue commemorating the tenth anniversary of De Stijl in 1927. Alongside factual contributors to De Stijl, it also names Van Doesburg’s two pseudonyms. Besides De Stijl – which became the primary focus of the post-war avant-garde historiography and became synonymous with Dutch (contributions to) modern art (cf. Jaffé 1956) – the Dutch avant-garde scene was influenced and reflected by other periodicals, including, among others Mécano (1922–192[4]), The Next Call (1923–1926), Het Woord (1925–1926) and Internationale Revue i10 (1927–1929). The Next Call was published in Groningen by Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman. After some turbulence in his personal and professional life, Werkman established his own magazine which included audacious typographical and printmaking experiments as well as poems and texts. The Next Call had nine issues which were printed in an innovative

14

Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility

technique based on Werkman’s experiments with a traditional manually operated printing press. Partly due to financial and organizational obstacles, Werkman made use of a wide range of materials which he came across in his workplace, and in doing so elevating the printing itself to an artistic creative process (Martinet 1995: 7–9). Even though the character, lifespan and scale of The Next Call differed greatly from De Stijl (the former remained a small local magazine while the latter aimed to become an international well-known platform of the avant-garde), they shared one key similarity: a devoted editor whose persistency and personal energy enabled its creation and functioning. Werkman ran The Next Call – one of the most creative, colourful and cohesive avant-garde journals – practically alone, with only four Dutch artists contributing to it (Jan Wiegers, Job Hansen, Wobbe Alkema and Jan van der Zee, all related to the Groningen-based De Ploeg group). However, he made several attempts to engage more artists and to broaden the magazine’s international reception, which can be seen in his correspondence, journals and a list of addresses to twenty-three magazines and twenty-one artists, serving as the mailing list of The Next Call to a wide range of magazines including Polish Blok and Zwrotnica.

Figure 1 H.N. Werkman’s list of addresses to congenial formations and artists (source: Collectie SMA; WA, inv. nr. 110)

Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility 3

15

Het Woord [The word] was a short-lived magazine published in The Hague by Jan Demets in cooperation with Jan de Vries, Lajos von Ebenteh, Herwarth Walden, Ljubomir Micic´ and Edgar du Perron. It was an anti-traditionalist, internationally oriented magazine. Its four issues included contributions from several foreign artists – which, besides Walden and Micic´, also included Hannah Höch, Vilmos Huszár and Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman (his earlier unpublished work appeared in the last issue). Initially Het Woord was largely based on the German Metz and Van Doesburg’s publications, but the following issues gained a more Constructivist-oriented character, in line with De Driehoek’s profile. It was also the first Dutch magazine that cooperated with Du Perron (Entrop and Verhoeff 1997: 3–6), and it was in Het Woord where Du Perron decided to kill off his literary alter-ego Duco Perkens and to publish under his own name – Het Woord 2 included Perkens’s fake obituary. The Amsterdam-based Internationale Revue i10 was led by Arthur Müller-Lehning, who established the journal in collaboration with Oud, Mondrian and Moholy-Nagy. Twenty-two issues of i10 were published featuring a wide range of various articles and works of some former contributors to De Stijl such as Oud, Vantongerloo, Rietveld and Huszár, alongside Le Corbusier, Arp, Behne and Kandinsky. The international orientation of this journal was visible in the scope of its texts written in Dutch, German and French. Notably, none of Van Doesburg’s works or texts were published in i10, due to his personal conflicts with other contributors to i10 (Müller-Lehning 1979: 3). Van Doesburg did however contribute to other magazines, such as Het Getij [The tide; Amsterdam, 1916–1924], De Bouwwereld [The building world; Amsterdam 1902–1924] and Het Bouwbedrijf [The building industry; The Hague, 1924–1947]. Under the pseudonym I.K. Bonset he also published the Dadaist magazine Mécano (1922–192[4]). Van Doesburg made use of Mécano both as a means to praise his own viewpoints by creating a fake proponent, and as a platform allowing him to express his strong opinions without much restraint and to criticise other artists or movements, as he did for instance in his “. . . waar de maes K en Scheldwoorden vloeien . . .” (Mesens 1923).4 Later he planned – unsuccessfully – to launch a new journal Code with Seuphor (see below) and subsequently in 1930 he published the first and only issue of Art Concret [Concrete art] in cooperation with Otto Carlsund, Jean Hélion, Marcel Wantz and Léon Tutundjian. Shortly before his death in March 1931 Van Doesburg got involved (together with Auguste Herbin, Jean Hélion, Georges Vantongerloo and Étienne Béothy) in an international artistic group Abstraction-Création based in Paris (between 1932 and 1936 five issues of Abstraction-Création. Art non-figuratif were published). The Belgian avant-garde produced a very wide spectrum of little magazines, among others Het Overzicht (1921–1925), Anthologie du Groupe Moderne d’Art de Liège (1921–1940), 7 Arts. Journal hebdomadaire d’information et de critique (1922–1928) or De Driehoek. Maandschrift voor Konstruktivistische Kunst (1925–1926). Het Overzicht [The overview] was established in Antwerp in June 1921 by Geert Pijnenburg and Fernand Louis Berckelaers (who later adopted the pseudonym Michel Seuphor, an anagram of Orpheus – used hereinafter). A Flemish nationalist approach dominated in its first twelve issues, yet Seuphor “[est vite] devenu passionnément, furieusement, rageusement antinationaliste” [soon became passionately, furiously, ravingly antinationalist] and in November 1922 Jozef Peeters replaced Pijnenburg as the

16

Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility

co-editor of the magazine, and Het Overzicht became more devoted to international art and avant-garde. This change took place as a consequence of Seuphor’s encounter with Jozef Peeters and Theo van Doesburg in Antwerp in 1921 (Seuphor and Grenier 1996: 27–35). Peeters organised two Modern Art Congresses in Antwerp in October 1920 and January 1922, partly thanks to Van Doesburg who supplied him with a number of addresses of various magazines and artists. As a result, Peeters invited Van Doesburg to give a series of lectures in Belgium (Wintgens Hötte 2009: 17), which resulted in their aforementioned meeting with Seuphor and consequently in Peeters’s collaboration with Het Overzicht. Gradually Peeters and Seuphor created a wide network of international contacts, mainly during their trips to Berlin and Paris, which was also reflected in Het Overzicht. While still co-editing Het Overzicht, Peeters established a publishing company De Driehoek [The triangle]. Its first publication was Du Perron’s collection of poems Kwartier per dag [A quarter per day] which appeared in November 1924 – it was actually Seuphor who had put Peeters in contact with Du Perron, despite not being entirely keen on the latter, both as far as his works were concerned and due to personal love matters (Den Boef and Van Faassen 2013: 133–134). Having published the final issue of Het Overzicht in February 1925,5 Seuphor moved to Paris and Peeters decided to issue a new journal bearing the same name as his publishing company. Peeters invited the Dutch writer Edgar du Perron and the Flemish poet Paul van Ostaijen to co-edit the magazine, but eventually the latter did not become a member of the editorial board, although his works were not excluded from the magazine. Moreover, Peeters unsuccessfully tried to encourage Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman, the editor of The Next Call, to contribute to his new initiative.6 De Driehoek had ten issues consisting of a double large sheet folded into four with no cover. Such a format resulted from financial limitations – Du Perron’s financial contribution was incomparable with Seuphor’s (in case of Het Overzicht). As such, the lifespan of this new magazine was quite short – it lasted less than a year. Peeters did however manage to receive some original contributions to De Driehoek from Italy, Romania, Germany, France and the Netherlands,7 yet the international outreach of De Driehoek remained rather limited. As a form of counterpart to the Antwerp-based Dutch-written journals, the Frenchwritten review 7 Arts. Journal hebdomadaire d’information et de critique [7 Arts. Weekly journal for information and critique] was published by L’Équerre in Brussels. It was edited by Victor and Pierre Bourgeois, Karel Maes, Pierre-Louis Flouquet and Georges Monier. 7 Arts appeared weekly on cheap, thin paper (similarly to De Driehoek) and it was sold for a minimum price without aspiring to be a refined journal but – on the contrary – to be read in the tram on the way to/from work (Paenhuysen 2010: 143). Yet it was one of the most consistent Belgian avant-garde magazines – it appeared regularly and ran to 156 issues (an unheard of number when compared to the other avant-garde magazines in question) covering a wide range of information and on poetry, visual arts, architecture and music. The magazine propagated the ideas of plastique pure and pursued the integration of painting and architecture, with the latter taking a prominent place in 7 Arts. Other noteworthy French-written journals published in Belgium were Anthologie du Groupe Moderne d’Art de Liège [Anthology of modern art group in Liege] edited between 1921 and 1940 by Georges Linze and Constant de Horion, and L’Équerre [The set square] launched in October 1928 in Liège. L’Équerre, which had over one

Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility

17

hundred issues until 1939, soon became an important platform for Belgian and international avant-garde architects, and the secretariat of the Belgian section of CIAM. When it comes to the Parisian activities of Seuphor, having settled in Paris he considered establishing a new journal Code with Van Doesburg. The latter’s letter to Seuphor from June 1925 states that the new journal should combat certain tendencies and illustrate different new movements, which Den Boef and Van Faassen (2013: 136) interpreted as a direct reaction to recent initiatives of Jozef Peeters. Not being able to launch Code with Van Doesburg, Seuphor planned to re-establish l’Esprit Nouveau, a magazine founded and edited by Le Corbusier, Amédée Ozenfant and the Belgian poet Paul Dermée between 1920 and 1925. In 1927 Seuphor and Dermée published one issue under a new title Documents Internationaux de l’Esprit Nouveau [International documents of the new spirit] and despite Seuphor’s efforts – for instance he unsuccessfully tried to transform Müller-Lehning’s i10 into its Dutch edition (Prat 1984: 59) – it did not appear again. Two years later Seuphor launched another initiative: together with the Uruguayan artist Joaquín Torres-García he founded Cercle et Carré [Circle and square], an international group of avant-garde artists based in Paris. Three issues of a journal with the same name appeared in 1930. Seuphor tried – in vain – to engage Werkman in both of his initiatives. In 1927 he contacted Werkman asking him to contribute to his and Dermée’s new journal and suggesting that he would like to organise Werkman’s exhibition in Paris.8 When launching Cercle et Carré Seuphor again invited Werkman, as well as Van Doesburg, to join his formation: “J’espère que vous ne refuserez pas de figurer aux côtés de Mondrian, Vantongerloo, Stazewski, Léger, Ozenfant, Torrès-Garcia, Léonce Rosenberg et bien d’autres (. . .)” [I hope that you will not refuse to figure alongside Mondrian, Vantongerloo, Staz˙ewski, Léger, Ozenfant, Torres-García, Léonce Rosenberg and others (. . .)].9 One after the other Seuphor listed artists from Holland, Belgium, Poland, France or Uruguay who were joined in their pursuit of modern avant-garde art and who shared common artistic values, no matter which background or nationality they represented, which is a meaningful indication of the non-hierarchical and egalitarian nature of relationships between the avant-garde artists at the time. Both Werkman and Van Doesburg rejected Seuphor’s invitation. In his response Van Doesburg argued that “jamais un groupement sans base exclusive et strictement définiée, composé par des élements opposés, pourra marcher unanimenment ‘vers un ideal de construction’” [a group with no fixed basis or strict definition, consisting of opposing elements will never be able to advance unanimously towards ‘the ideal of construction’].10 Werkman did agree to have his works reproduced and exhibited during the Cercle et Carré exhibition, and he praised the layout and contents of the magazine.11 He did not, however, contribute further to the activities of the group. When it comes to the Polish interwar avant-garde scene, one of its most important figures was Tadeusz Peiper. Having spent the war and first post-war years abroad, Peiper returned to Poland in 1921 as a great advocate of avant-garde art, but his viewpoints – shaped by modern French and Spanish literary and artistic currents – differed from poets debuting in Poland directly after the war. Hence, Peiper’s theoretical program, based on different personal experiences and shaped in a different environment, found little recognition among his peers (Kowalczykowa 1981: 113–114). Initially contributing to Nowa Sztuka [The new art], Peiper decided to launch a new literary and artistic movement in Poland by establishing Zwrotnica. Kierunek: sztuka

18

Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility

teraz´niejszos´ci [The switch. Direction: the art of today] in 1922 – soon to become one of the most important nodes of the Polish, if not European, avant-garde network. Peiper’s activities were a milestone in the internationalisation of Polish avant-garde as it was he who established the lion’s share of Polish connections and relationships to foreign formations. Zwrotnica was published in two series, each consisting of six issues: from May 1922 to October 1923 and from May 1926 to June 1927.12 It contained numerous theoretical essays which later proved to have had a fundamental influence on the Polish avant-garde movement, e.g. “Punkt wyjs´cia” [Point of departure] or “Miasto. Masa. Maszyna.” [Metropolis. Mass. Machine.], also reprinted in La Vie des Lettres et des Arts 13 (cf. Peiper 1922a, 1922b, 1922c). The ideological program of Zwrotnica was similar to that of 7 Arts or l’Esprit Nouveau – its pages revealed a deep fascination with the functionality of the machine and a high level of interest in the developments of modern architecture (Stroz˙ek 2013a: 1197). The twelve issues of Zwrotnica featured works of various European avant-garde artists, architects and poets – among others Cendrars, Léger, Le Corbusier, Malevich, Marinetti and Tzara. Peiper himself was regarded as “the father” or “the pope of Polish avant-garde”13 by his contemporaries who in vain tried to engage him in almost every artistic project which they were to establish after Zwrotnica. For instance, while working on a new journal Linia in 1931, the poet Julian Przybos´ claimed: “Bez Peipera absolutnie nie moz˙emy wysta˛pic´, a czekalis´my 4 lata, moz˙emy jeszcze 3 miesia˛ce do jesieni.” [Without Peiper we absolutely cannot begin, we have waited 4 years, we might as well wait 3 more months into the autumn.].14 Two years after the creation of Zwrotnica, another major Polish avant-garde formation Blok [Block] was established in Warsaw. It followed the Exhibition of New Art in Vilnius organised in May 1923 by Witold Kajruksztis and Władysław Strzemin´ski. The exhibition catalogue contained, amongst other items, theoretical statements of artists who were soon to launch Blok, namely Władysław Strzemin´ski, Henryk Staz˙ewski, Mieczysław Szczuka and Teresa Z˙arnower (joined by Edmund Miller). Even though they were all based on common ground, their theories revealed considerable differences in the artists’ standpoints (cf. Kajruksztis and Strzemin´ski 1923). Therefore only the first four issues of Blok were published by the above-mentioned artists, and as a result of programmatic differences and tensions between the editors (mainly due to the radical socio-political views of Szczuka), the other issues were edited solely by Szczuka and Z˙arnower, while other artists left the group. Blok featured numerous progressive works of its initiators as well as Kobro, Berlewi, Van Doesburg, Oud, Van Eesteren, Werkman and many others. Of note here is that one of the first theoretical texts of Kazimir Malevich (1924) to be published out of Russia appeared in Blok.15 In March 1926 Blok organised an International Exhibition of Architecture in Warsaw where a plethora of artists from various countries presented their architectural innovations. The eleventh, and final, issue of Blok was entirely devoted to the exhibition and served as its catalogue.16 Having left Blok, Staz˙ewski and Strzemin´ski joined Szymon Syrkus and other architects in their newly established formation Praesens. The first issue of the group’s magazine appeared in June 1926, edited by Staz˙ewski, Syrkus and his future wife Helena Niemirowska. The second issue of Praesens appeared in May 1930 (with Andrzej Pronaszko replacing Staz˙ewski as co-editor) and, like the first one, it featured numerous theoretical contributions, architectural projects and reproductions of artworks of

Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility

19

various European artists and architects. In 1927 the group co-organised Malevich’s exhibition at the Hotel Polonia in Warsaw – Malevich’s first exhibition outside Russia17 – and several members of Praesens participated in the Machine Age Exposition in New York. Another exhibition, Powszechna Wystawa Krajowa [Polish National Exhibition; PWK] held in 1929 in Poznan´, the collective achievement of Praesens architects and painters, led to conflict within the group and a split between them (Turowski 1981: 74–78, 274). As a consequence, Strzemin´ski and other painters left the group claiming that Szczuka and other architects destroyed their designs for the PWK. Having published the second issue of Praesens, the group became exclusively devoted to architecture, creating for example an urban development vision for Warsaw “Warszawa Funkcjonalna” [Functional Warsaw] in 1931 (cf. Section 3.8). Following the break-up of Praesens in 1929, Strzemin´ski, Kobro and Staz˙ewski established the a.r. group (revolutionary artists or real avant-garde) which was to unite all artistic disciplines: visual arts, architecture, typography and poetry. Subsequently, Strzemin´ski invited Julian Przybos´, a poet previously related to Zwrotnica, to join the group.18 Another poet who collaborated with the group, and whose activities were of the utmost importance for the undertakings of the a.r., was Jan Brze˛kowski. There are, however, no traces of his official admission to the group, but according to Zofia Baranowicz (1973: 286) it might have happened in person during Brze˛kowski’s visit to Koluszki in 1930. Strzemin´ski also aimed to involve Peiper in his new initiative but the latter refused and instead – against Strzemin´ski’s advice19 – cooperated with Praesens where a fragment of Peiper’s poem “Raz” [Once] was published.20 The a.r. did not create its own magazine but instead issued short leaflet-like bulletins and published avant-garde books as part of the “a.r. collection”. The first bulletin presenting the group’s point of departure was published in March 1930 in Cieszyn together with Przybos´’s book Z ponad [From above]; its text was also reprinted in the ninth issue of Europa [Europe] in 1930 and added to the third issue of L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna [Modern art]. The second bulletin was published after a major delay in December 1932, and it did not gain much recognition. Among theoretical deliberations on mass art, its social influence, the issue of standardisation of painting and architecture, it also contained the “a.r. alphabet” designed by Strzemin´ski and revised by Staz˙ewski – a unique typographical experiment of the period. Moreover, between 1930 and 1936 the a.r. group published eight books as part of “a.r. library” (written by Przybos´, Kobro, Strzemin´ski and Brze˛kowski). A significant fragmentation and weak organizational structure of the Polish avantgarde milieu prevailed in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Running concurrently to the activities of the a.r., two other magazines were published, but they were not organs of particular groups. In Warsaw Stanisław Baczyn´ski edited Europa (with thirteen issues) and in Paris Jan Brze˛kowski and Wanda Chodasiewicz-Grabowska (a.k.a. Nadia Léger) issued the bilingual L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna (only three issues appeared). The latter aimed to become an important platform promoting the Polish literary avant-garde abroad by publishing texts in Polish and in French. Europa on the other hand was more socially and politically oriented, and artistic and literary issues were not its focus of attention. Internal animosities and a lack of common ground within the Polish artistic milieu bothered both Brze˛kowski and Strzemin´ski who deplored that their colleagues were not able to cooperate and find solidarity with one another. Thus, during the 1930s

20

Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility

Brze˛kowski and Strzemin´ski wanted to launch a new avant-garde journal which was to unite the Polish scene under one name. Strzemin´ski suggested a monthly periodical Linia Awangardy [Line of the avant-garde] as an organ of the a.r. group which was to replace the a.r. bulletins and L’Art Contemporain. The project did not go very smoothly – the artists could not agree on the title or programmatic and theoretical basis of the new periodical. Finally in May 1931 a journal named Linia [The line] was launched in Krakow, edited solely by Jalu Kurek. Tadeusz Peiper again refused to cooperate and Brze˛kowski and Przybos´ became rather critical about the new journal, which resulted in further interpersonal conflicts and animosities. Programmatic differences, financial problems and interpersonal antagonisms proved to be insurmountable21 and, with only five issues published, Linia did not manage to constitute a new organ of the whole Polish avant-garde as initially planned. Despite internal divisions and antagonisms during the 1930s, the Polish avant-garde scene was able to establish an International Collection of Modern Art, initiated by Władysław Strzemin´ski. Opened two years after the Museum of Modern Art in New York, it was the first permanent collection of abstract art in a European museum. Strzemin´ski had already envisaged establishing such a collection during his stay in Moscow, where he witnessed a growing interest in modern art during the 1920s. Between 1923 and 1929 Strzemin´ski repeatedly came forward with his project to other members of Blok and Praesens, but before launching the a.r. group he was not able to gain enough attention and support.22 Moreover, the formation of the a.r. collection coincided with numerous unfavourable economic and socio-political conditions, which considerably delayed its opening – the collection was to originally open in Łódz´ on 13 April 1930. Later, the date had to be postponed to 8 February 1931 and it eventually opened on 15 February 1931. The collection grew fast, mainly thanks to wide international connections of avantgarde artists related to the a.r. (e.g. Brze˛kowski or Staz˙ewski), but also other artists, for instance Peiper who donated one work from his private collection which he had received from Schwitters. Starting with five paintings brought from Paris at the beginning of 1930, by August there were already seventeen artworks in the collection, eight of which were by foreign artists. On the opening day the collection included twenty-one paintings (Turowski 1973b: 278–279), and a year later its official catalogue already featured seventy-five works from thirteen countries (cf. Strzemin´ski 1932b). Despite numerous organisational problems and lack of official support, Strzemin´ski saw the newly established collection, and avant-garde art as such, as his mission: a mission to educate people and promote modern artistic values. Interestingly, in 1932 Strzemin´ski’s engagement and involvement in the cultural life gained some recognition: he received the City of Łódz´ Art Award, which caused a heated discussion and protests in conservative artistic circles (cf. Luba 2012, 2015b).

1.2. Cultural Mobility between Polish and Belgian Avant-Garde Formations 1.2.1. Traces of Polish–Belgian Cultural Mobility in Belgian Avant-Garde Periodicals Cultural mobility between the Polish and Belgian avant-gardes dates back to the early 1920s when correspondence between their representatives and mutual exchange of

Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility

21

their periodicals began. According to Turowski (2000: 98), from 1922 Tadeusz Peiper was in touch with Michel Seuphor – a link which later proved to be of crucial importance for the development of Polish–Belgian relationships. Although their preserved correspondence begins in late 1923, Seuphor and Peiper must have indeed already been in touch earlier, as both Zwrotnica and Het Overzicht referred to each other in early 1923. Subsequently in October 1923 Het Overzicht, as one of few international journals, published a note on the aforementioned Vilnius exhibition from May 1923 and six months later it featured an article on modern Polish art written by Jan Brze˛kowski (1924a). The existing correspondence indicates that in 1922/1923 Seuphor must have asked Kajruksztis for some information on Polish modern art, who then turned to Peiper.23 Although Peiper offered to write two texts on Polish modern art and poetry, in February 1924 he informed Seuphor that he had been too busy publishing a book and therefore he had asked Brze˛kowski to write the article.24 Peiper enclosed Brze˛kowski’s text written in French which was later translated into Dutch (by Jozef Peeters), despite Peiper’s suggestion to publish it in French in order to allow more foreign readers to become acquainted with Polish modern art. According to Peiper, Brze˛kowski’s text was “peut-être même trop objectif” [perhaps even too objective] yet, it was “le premier article qui mets au point, d’une façon à peu-pris exacte, la physionomie véritable de nos groupements artistiques.” [the first article which describes, in a more or less precise manner, the genuine physiognomy of our artistic formations].25 Finally, the Dutch translation of Brze˛kowski’s article was published, albeit with a certain delay, in Het Overzicht 21 in April 1924. Several months later the French version of the article also appeared in the third issue of the Czechoslovak revue Pásmo (Brze˛kowski 1924b). It was, however, slightly altered: its last paragraph was devoted to Blok which was not described in a particularly positive light. Both publications led to some controversy among Blok artists and intensified the tensions between Krakow and Warsaw. The text had been written a year before it was published in Het Overzicht in April 1924, and therefore it did not mention Blok – still inexistent at that time. As a result, the sixth/seventh issue of Blok from September 1924 included a warning, probably written by Szczuka (1924d), to all avant-garde journals. The note criticised Brze˛kowski’s articles on Polish art in foreign journals, its sources and the fact that a number of modernist writers had been ignored by Brze˛kowski. The last paragraph of the French-written text from Pásmo (also from September 1924) might have been added as a last minute reaction to the note from Blok, although in his memoirs Brze˛kowski (1967: 8; 1968: 32–33) claimed that he had never seen the Czechoslovak article and that he did not even know which particular title had printed it. Probably in reaction to Brze˛kowski’s article, the fourth issue of Pásmo included a Polish-written text on modern artistic movements in Poland, praising the achievements and activities of Blok (Szczuka 1924c). The case of Belgian and Czechoslovak publications of Brze˛kowski’s article is a remarkable example of influences and dependencies of various nodes of the avantgarde network. In this case, two foreign publications had a major impact on the dynamics of Polish artistic circles, as they increased the interpersonal animosities between various artists, which was then reflected in their publications. It shows that what happened not only in “pivotal” nodes of the avant-garde network (e.g. Paris or Berlin), but also in other places and formations, reverberated throughout the whole network and considerably influenced its various parts.

Figure 2 Jan Brze˛kowski’s article on modern Polish art (source: Het Overzicht 21: 155; IADDB)

Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility

23

Figure 3 Note criticising Brze˛kowski’s articles in foreign magazines (source Blok 6/7; JBC)

It was not just the Flemish Het Overzicht, but also the French-written 7 Arts published in Brussels that maintained close relationships with both Krakow- and Warsaw-based avant-garde groups. Correspondence between the editors of 7 Arts and Zwrotnica and Blok reveals their reciprocal interest in each other’s works and innovative ideas. Letters between Victor Bourgeois and Tadeusz Peiper indicate that both artists were to supply one another with texts on Belgian and Polish modern art, which however never appeared either in 7 Arts or Zwrotnica.26 Earlier Peiper had also asked Seuphor to write a text on the Belgian avant-garde, and Bourgeois wrote to the editors of Blok informing them about the launch of the third volume of 7 Arts, requesting articles and reproductions of Polish art and at the same time offering to supply Blok with relevant reproductions.27 As a result of this intense communication one finds many traces of reciprocal exchange between 7 Arts and Polish magazines. When 7 Arts launched a survey on the international situation of modernism, the Polish reaction was the first to be published, which indicates that the exchange and mobility between those Polish and Belgian formations had a direct and intense character. “Notre Enquête Internationale sur le Modernisme. Pologne. La Revue Blok (Varsovie) nous répond. Quelques principes. Quelques exemples” [Our international survey on modernism. Poland. The magazine Blok (Warsaw) responds. Some principles. Some examples] (Blok 1924), published in the fifth issue of the third volume, presented an outline of Blok’s main programmatic

24

Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility

statements (mostly Szczuka’s theories; Strzemin´ski’s Unistic perspective was omitted) accompanied by five reproductions of works by Polish avant-garde artists. Further examples of Polish art were to be found for instance in no. 3, 10 which featured a meaningful comparison between Poland and the Netherlands entitled “Documentation internationale. Pologne Hollande” (1925). Moreover, Polish artists such as Szczuka, Strzemin´ski, Staz˙ewski, Z˙arnower and others were listed as 7 Arts’s collaborators to the third and fourth volume (nos. 3, 25 and 4, 25). A very interesting aspect of the interwar avant-garde network emerged in texts devoted to literature and published in 7 Arts. As well as Benjamin Goriély’s (1925a and 1925b) translation of a fragment of Anatol Stern’s poem Europa and a short text on Stern, 7 Arts also referred to a French-written Polish journal Pologne littéraire [Literary Poland] published in 1926–36 in Warsaw. The note on Pologne littéraire included the following quotation: “Nous ne pouvons malheureusement contrôler la justesse de cette affirmation, mais il nous parait utile de montrer par ce cas étranger, combien la vie de l’Europe est liée à de communes préoccupations.” [Unfortunately we cannot measure the accuracy of this statement, yet we found it useful to demonstrate, based on this foreign example, how much the life of Europe is related to common concerns] ([Bourgeois et al.] 1927a). This example explicitly shows that artists from various artistic circles where interested in the developments of avant-garde art and literature in all parts of Europe, regardless of linguistic barriers or geographical location, not to mention the historiographical divisions between the East and the West, “centres” and “peripheries” that were created and applied post factum. Similar points of view were echoed in letters sent to 7 Arts from Blok and Zwrotnica on the occasion of the 100th issue of the Belgian journal, alongside other letters from like-minded Dutch, German and French formations. They emphasised the fact that 7 Arts functioned as a platform for both eastern and western avant-gardes: Blok appreciated it as “une revue qui lutte pour le modernisme à l’Est ainsi qu’à l’Ouest de l’Europe” [a journal which fights for modernism in the East as well as in the West of Europe] (Blok 1926), while Peiper emphasised that “l’avenir des idées nouvelles dans chaque pays est déterminé par l’avenir de ces idées dans tous les autres pays. Peiper est nécessaire à Braque aussi bien que Picasso” [the future of new ideas in every country depends on the future of such ideas in all other countries. Braque needs Peiper as much as he needs Picasso].28 The exchange between Polish and Belgian avant-garde publications was also visible in the French-written magazine published in the Walloon part of Belgium Anthologie du Groupe Moderne d’Art de Liège. Of particular note here is its third/fourth issue, published in March/April 1925, which was dedicated to Polish art, as indicated on its cover. This issue included, among other articles, French translations of two significant programmatic statements from Blok: “Qu’est-ce que le ‘Constructivisme’” (Pologne 1925) which was based on “Co to jest konstruktywizm” [What is constructivism] from Blok 6/7, although the texts were not identical, and Henryk Staz˙ewski’s (1925) “L’Art abstrait”, published originally as “O sztuce abstrakcyjnej” [On abstract art] in Blok 8/9. Besides reproductions of works of major Polish avant-garde artists, the issue also featured Szczuka’s (1925) text on modern Polish art, De Horion’s (1925) article on Władysław Reymont and Linze’s (1925) “Słowo o nowej sztuce” [A word on the new art] which had previously appeared in Blok 6/7.

Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility

25

Figure 4 Cover of Anthologie du Groupe Moderne d’Art de Liège 3/4 from 1925 dedicated to Polish art (source: KMSKB)

Anthologie published the French versions of such important texts as “Co to jest konstruktywizm” or “O sztuce abstrakcyjnej” only a matter of months after their original publication in Blok. The French translations of Polish programmatic texts were particularly important as they allowed a broader scope of readers to become acquainted with the Polish contributions to the development of the interwar avant-garde, and their quick appearance in Anthologie is yet another indication of the remarkable nature of multidimensional relationships between various nodes of the avant-garde network from different parts of the continent. Moreover, the reproductions of avantgarde artworks travelled with remarkable speed between avant-garde formations and periodicals: the third/fourth issue of Anthologie featured works of Nicz-Borowiakowa, Szczuka and Z˙arnower which had been published in Blok 8/9 only four months earlier. The exchange between 7 Arts and Blok was similarly exceptionally rapid: for instance, a painting of Rafałowski was reproduced in 7 Arts only three months later than in Blok, and Servranckx’s sculpture figured on the pages of Blok just four months later than it appeared in 7 Arts. Indeed, in some cases foreign journals featured reproductions of artworks from different nodes of the avant-garde network even before they were published in their respective local periodicals (which took place probably due to

26

Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility

delays in the printing process, financial or organisational obstacles). This was the case for three reproductions of architectural projects of Szczuka, Kozin´ski, Karczewski, and Z˙arnower, which appeared in 7 Arts in February 1926, i.e. one month earlier than their Polish appearance in Blok 11 (cf. Appendix). Architecture was an important field for avant-garde artists, which also found reflection in Belgian periodicals such as for instance L’Équerre. Contact between this Liègebased group and Polish architects was initiated during one of the CIAM meetings, and as a result Polish architectural projects were presented on the pages of L’Équerre. It was Victor Bourgeois who recommended Szymon Syrkus to Paul Fitschy, the representative of L’Équerre, and the lively correspondence between the two architects reveals that Syrkus was asked to write an article on Polish architecture29 which, richly illustrated, appeared in two issues of L’Équerre in 1935 (Syrkus and Syrkus 1935). Excerpts from this text were re-published in 1936 and 1937, and another article written by the Syrkuses appeared in the journal in 1938. L’Équerre also published Tołwin´ski’s (1937) report on CIAM activities, and in an article “Une introduction en forme de panorama” [An introduction overview] Bourgeois (1935) listed Praesens among the most prominent European journals, alongside Het Overzicht, De Stijl, i10 and others. Moreover, modern Polish architects were also invited to participate in an exhibition of modern architecture, urban planning and new materials held in Liège in May 1936,30 yet the journal reveals no traces of their actual participation. 1.2.2.

Traces of Polish–Belgian Cultural Mobility in Polish Avant-Garde Periodicals

Traces of cultural mobility between Poland and Belgium are also to be found in Polish magazines. Although, as described above, both Seuphor and Bourgeois were supposed to write a number of articles on the Belgian avant-garde for publication in Peiper’s Zwrotnica, no such texts ever appeared. There are only two references to Het Overzicht and 7 Arts in Zwrotnica, for instance an excerpt from an article “Notre position: Confiance en l’art” which appeared in Zwrotnica in March 1927, i.e. only three months later than in 7 Arts (cf. [Bourgeois et al.] 1926, 1927b; and Appendix). More examples of mutual exchange can be found in Blok. Its sixth/seventh issue informed readers that Blok had been invited to participate in an exhibition at the gallery Le Cabinet Maldoror in Brussels in December 1924 ([Szczuka and Z˙AROWER] 1924a), which eventually did not take place, as between 6 and 31 December 1924 the gallery held another exhibition, “Œuvres des peintres russes” (D’Haeseleer 1984: 117). Belgian architects and artists participated though in the exhibition of modern architecture held in Warsaw between 27 February and 25 March 1926. In November 1925 Blok and Polski Klub Artystyczny [Polish Arts Club] sent an invitation to Victor Bourgeois,31 but whether he participated in the exhibition is unknown as his name was not included in the list of Belgian participants. The exhibition catalogue (Blok 11) depicted two drawings of Bourgeois’s project “La Cité Moderne” together with a short treatise on the correct orientation of houses (Bourgeois 1926, based on Bourgeois 1924). The catalogue also included three Belgian participants: Huib Hoste,32 Victor Servranckx and Henri van de Velde. Apparently more works of Belgian provenance were scheduled to be exhibited and reproduced in the catalogue – a note on its first page informed readers that: “[l]’arrivé des œuvres

Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility

27

(. . .) belges étant en retard, il fut impossible de les reproduire dans ce numero” [due to the delay in transportation of (. . .) Belgian works, it had been impossible to reproduce them in this issue] (Blok 11, 1926). Eventually, the catalogue featured texts written by Van de Velde (1926) and Servranckx (1926), as well as reproductions of their works and two linocuts by Peeters. Three other works by Servranckx had also been published in April 1925 in Blok 10. Belgian contributions to Polish magazines launched after Blok are mainly visible in Praesens and L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna. From 1928 onwards Szymon Syrkus – the editor of Praesens – actively participated in the CIAM organisation, which boosted direct contact and exchange between Polish and Belgian architects. After the second CIAM congress in Frankfurt, Syrkus wrote to Bourgeois asking for drawings and pictures of Bourgeois’s project of workers’ housing, which had been discussed during the conference. In the following letter Syrkus thanked Bourgeois for his materials promising to send him the second issue of Praesens where one of Bourgeois’s drawings accompanied Roman Piotrowski’s (1930: 81) article.33 Praesens 2 also included Pierre Flouquet’s (1930) article on modern painting with reproductions of Belgian works by Vantongerloo, Servranckx and Flouquet as well as a photo of Seuphor, Mondrian and Prampolini. Praesens 2 featured some other references to Belgian art (see for instance Syrkus and Syrkus 1930: 142) and reviews of several Belgian books, written by Seuphor, Vantongerloo, Paul Werrie and Camille Poupeye. Mention was also made of the L’Art Polonais exhibition held between December 1928 and January 1929 at the Palais des Beaux-Arts in Brussels, where a number of artists related to Blok and Praesens participated.34 Praesens 2 published one further work originating from the Low Countries, namely Michel Seuphor and Piet Mondrian’s Tableau-poème (Textuel) dated 16 May 1928, which had also appeared in April 1929 in L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna (see Plate 2). This artwork gained more attention after the war, which was reflected in a postcard from the National Museum of Modern Art in Paris sent by Seuphor to Brze˛kowski in May 1973. Seuphor wrote: “Mon cher ami, Petite image en souvenir de ‘l’Art Contemporain’ où tu fus le premier à reproduire le tableau, maintenant si connu.” [Dear friend, A small image in memory of ‘L’Art Contemporain’ where you were the first one to have published the tableau, now so well known.].35 Later, in 1957 Seuphor donated it to the Łódz´ collection. L’Art Contemporain was one of the first journals to publish Mondrian and Seuphor’s work. At the same time – in March 1929 – it appeared in the Czechoslovak magazine ReD where it was somehow described as a repetition of Teige and Nezval’s poems and “deformed illustrations” created in 1923/25 (Mondrian and Seuphor 1929a). Tableau-poème (Textuel) also appeared in Praesens 2 and in Cercle et Carré 2. Yet, interestingly enough, Cercle et Carré only published Seuphor’s text, and Mondrian’s layout of this artwork was omitted (cf. Mondrian and Seuphor 1929b, Seuphor 1930b and Seuphor [and Mondrian] 1930). Hence, this remarkable piece of avant-garde work did not appear in its entirety in any of the analysed Belgian or Dutch interwar avant-garde magazines, in contrast to two Polish and one Czechoslovak journal. As such, this provides a unique example of cultural mobility within the avant-garde network where an exceptional artwork originating from one of its nodes was introduced to the public in seemingly remote places as opposed to being published locally.

28

Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility

Other works of Belgian provenance appearing in Polish periodicals included four texts by Seuphor (1929a, 1929b, 1930d, 1930e) and two reproductions of Vantongerloo’s sculptures published in L’Art Contemporain, as well as several texts featuring in Europa (e.g. Dermée 1929a, 1929b; and Otlet 1929). Interestingly, when Strzemin´ski began to cooperate with Europa he asked key European artists to answer his short survey on modern art. Several reactions to the survey were published in the magazine, including a short passage written by Georges Vantongerloo (1929). The correspondence between Brze˛kowski and Przybos´ also indicates that the second a.r. bulletin was supposed to include an article written by Vantongerloo which was eventually excluded from the final version, possibly due to Brze˛kowski’s disapproval.36 Last but not least, references to Belgian architectural projects were also to be found in Polish architectural periodicals such as Architekt [Architect], Architektura i Budownictwo [Architecture and construction] and Dom, Osiedle, Mieszkanie [House, estate, apartment] where innovative projects for instance of L.H. de Koninck and E. Taelemans were depicted and discussed (cf. Appendix).

1.3. Cultural Mobility between Polish and Dutch Avant-Garde Formations 1.3.1. Traces of Polish–Dutch Cultural Mobility in Dutch Avant-Garde Periodicals According to preserved tangible evidence, the relationship between Dutch and Polish avant-gardes dates back to 1922 when Berlewi ordered a subscription of De Stijl.37 At that time Berlewi lived in Berlin where he met Richter, Moholy-Nagy and Van der Rohe, amongst others, and in May 1922 he participated in the Düsseldorf Congress of Progressive Artists (Turowski 2000: 383). The Düsseldorf Congress was of utmost importance for the shaping and expanding of the European network of avant-garde – it gathered a plethora of artists from several countries and formed the starting point of many long-lasting relationships and links between them. Berlewi’s (1922) report on the congress was published in Nasz Kurjer [Our courier] and in it he referred to numerous participating European artists as well as to a “worldwide network of periodicals” which had appeared in various avant-garde circles at the time of the congress (cf. Benson and Forgács 2002: 397–399). Van Doesburg (1922d) likewise mentioned Berlewi, as well as Stanisław Kubicki, in his own report from the congress. Berlewi’s contacts with Van Doesburg and other De Stijl artists were developed later by other representatives of Polish avant-garde formations. For example, Van Doesburg received the manuscript of Szczuka’s 1924 article “Le mouvement artistique en Pologne”,38 which did not however appear in De Stijl, but – as mentioned before – in Anthologie du Groupe Moderne d’Art de Liège, as well as in the Romanian Contimporanul 48. As a result of those early contacts, De Stijl published a note on the launching of Blok in 1924. It acknowledged the resolute layout of the magazine and claimed – based solely on the illustrations, as the texts in Polish could hardly be understood – Blok’s affinity to “alle moderne richtingen van « Rousseau » tot « De Stijl »” [all modern movements from ‘Rousseau’39 to ‘De Stijl’] ([Van Doesburg] 1924d: 109). Interestingly, the note also criticised Blok’s reprints from the German magazine G: Material zur elementaren Gestaltung [G: Material for elementary construction], which coincided

Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility

29

Figure 5 Berlewi’s card to Van Doesburg ordering the subscription of De Stijl (source: ATNvD)

with Van Doesburg’s current polemics with the representatives of the German avantgarde (cf. Baljeu 1974: 55–58). The same issue of De Stijl listed Blok alongside other avant-garde magazines such as Mécano and The Next Call as one of the journals, which “verdienen bizonderen aandacht” [deserve particular attention] ([Van Doesburg] 1924e: 113), and several Polish avant-garde periodicals and books were listed together with other European publications in following issues. A number of books and journals published by Polish avant-garde artists are still to be found in Van Doesburg’s archive.40 Remarkably, since 1925 Warsaw was also listed as one of De Stijl’s cities on the cover of this magazine alongside Leiden, Hannover, Paris, Brno and Vienna. While serving first and foremost for the magazine’s propaganda – by emphasising the grossly exaggerated outreach of De Stijl – it was also a confirmation of the status of Warsaw as a fully fledged node of the avant-garde network. The fact that at the last moment Blok decided to withdraw from the 1925 Paris Exhibition of Decorative Arts and join Van Doesburg in his critique of the exhibition after De Stijl had been excluded from it (cf. Blok 10 and Kiesler et al. 1925) must have also reinforced Van Doesburg’s appreciation and interest in Blok. Moreover, in reaction to De Stijl’s exclusion from the

30

Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility

Figure 6 One of the covers of De Stijl with the mention of Warsaw (source: De Stijl 6, 12; IADDB)

Paris exhibition,41 the journal’s international outreach came to be increasingly emphasised: its impact was supposedly observable “in almost all countries” including Poland (P. van Doesburg 1925: 152), which is reflected in a chart illustrating “the impact of De Stijl-movement abroad since 1917” ([Van Doesburg] 1927). The Warsaw-based Librairie des Beaux-Arts was also listed as one of the distribution points of De Stijl, but it is also worth noting that it received only four copies of the magazine, indicating that in actual fact De Stijl had as marginal a status as other avant-garde publications of that period. Preserved subscription lists indicate that amongst the recipients of De Stijl were Berlewi, Brze˛kowski, Peiper and Syrkus.42 Important traces of Polish–Dutch cultural mobility are to be found in the Amsterdambased Internationale Revue i10. The architects J.J.P. Oud and Szymon Syrkus exchanged letters from March 1925 onwards,43 and they soon became friends with a great deal of respect and esteem for each other’s works and activities, boosted by their cooperation with CIAM. Moreover, from 1927 Syrkus and his wife often visited the Netherlands, where they undoubtedly met with Oud and other prominent Dutch architects.44 In 1926 Oud invited Syrkus to collaborate with his newly established periodical, and since the beginning Syrkus was listed as one of the contributors to i10 alongside the most prominent modern architects and artists such as Rietveld, Van

Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility

31

Eesteren, Mondrian, Bourgeois, Vantongerloo, Le Corbusier, Gropius and many others ([Müller-Lehning] 1927 and 1929). This is a further clear indication that Polish, Belgian and Dutch representatives of the avant-garde network, and their contemporaries from other countries, perceived each other as partners and equal contributors to the development of modern art and architecture. The only tangible example of Syrkus’s contribution to i10, however, was his French-written article “L’architecture ouvrant le volume” [Architecture opens its volume]. Its publication had already been announced in the journal’s first issue in January 1927. Oud’s correspondence to the editor Müller-Lehning reveals that in November 1926 Syrkus had promised to send an article accompanied by reproductions of Polish artworks, the delivery of which he ultimately considerably delayed – at the end of January 1927 Müller-Lehning reported to Oud that he had still not received anything from Syrkus.45 Eventually, Syrkus’s (1927) theoretical article, accompanied by two reproductions of Malevich’s and Staz˙ewski’s works, was published in the fifth issue of i10 in May 1927. According to Syrkus’s correspondence with Oud, they saw each other in Rotterdam in January 1929 when Oud might have asked Syrkus for further contributions to i10. Subsequently in September 1929 – again after a major delay – Syrkus sent twenty-seven reproductions and architectural drawings, as well as one issue of the magazine Dom i Osiedle [House and estate] asking Oud to choose relevant material to be published in i10.46 In the meantime though i10 had already closed: its final issue (no. 21/22) appeared in June 1929, of which Syrkus was apparently unaware. Polish architectural and artistic innovations were also discussed in the Dutch architectural magazine Het Bouwbedrijf. It featured a series of articles on new artistic and architectural trends in Europe written by Theo van Doesburg, who reflected on, amongst other topics, Polish architectural accomplishments. Van Doesburg’s articles (1930–1931) discussed chosen theoretical aspects originated by Malevich, Strzemin´ski and Szczuka and their practical implementation exemplified by the works of architects linked to Praesens and Stowarzyszenie Architektów Polskich [SAP, Society of Polish Architects]. As in the case of other countries (e.g. when describing the architectural developments in France and the role of Le Corbusier), when it came to modern Polish architecture, Van Doesburg’s texts were not entirely positive: he repeatedly emphasised the pioneering nature of Dutch innovations (esp. with relation to De Stijl). Nevertheless, he remained quite enthusiastic about numerous Polish architects (cf. Section 3.8). Van Doesburg (1930a) was also positive in his review of the second issue of Praesens, in which he praised its distinctly modern approach as well as its excellent perception and methods of construction. In order to gather information for these articles, Van Doesburg repeatedly wrote to Polish avant-garde artists and architects asking them for information and reproductions of their works. Staz˙ewski’s response to Van Doesburg’s request indicates that the latter had sent him a letter on 10 October 1928 asking for information and photographs of current Polish works, and requesting him to pass on the request to other artists. Later Van Doesburg sent similar requests to Andrzej Pronaszko, Witold Minkiewicz (believing that he was the editor of the architectural periodical Architektura i Budownictwo) and to Roman Sigalin, one of the SAP members. As a result of this correspondence, Van Doesburg received the yearbook of SAP as well as a number of journals and reproductions of works by various Polish artists and architects, including

32

Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility

Kobro, Syrkus, Staz˙ewski, Strzemin´ski, Szanajca and others, which he used for the writing of his articles for Het Bouwbedrijf.47 Another important periodical reflecting on Polish architectural innovations was de 8 en Opbouw [the 8 and Construction]. It featured a number of contributions of Polish provenance, for instance Syrkus’s (1934) article “Het nieuwe bouwen in Polen. De buitenmuur” [Modern building in Poland. The exterior wall], which had been presented during the fourth CIAM congress in Athens. Numerous illustrations depicting architectural projects by key modern architects from Poland appeared on the pages of de 8 en Opbouw, where key European architects such as Mart Stam (1937) and Gerrit Rietveld reflected on them. In his report from the Parisian exhibition in 1937 Rietveld (1937: 176) praised the Polish pavilion: “In Polen zag ik een erg mooi interieur van Barbara Brukalska, (. . .) eigenlijk zeer geraffineerd, maar toch zo natuurlijk” [In Poland I saw a very nice interior by Barbara Brukalska, (. . .) actually very sophisticated, yet so natural]. Rietveld’s appreciation for the Polish project is quite understandable in light of the fact that in that period Dutch and Polish modern architects were closely cooperating with each other (in CIAM), and their architectural approach and endeavours were very much related. 1.3.2. Traces of Polish–Dutch Cultural Mobility in Polish Avant-Garde Periodicals Contacts with Dutch avant-garde artists were quite well reflected in Polish avant-garde publications, which often featured their articles and artworks. The Dutch contributions are visible in virtually all of the Polish periodicals analysed for this study: reproductions of works by Van Doesburg, Van Eesteren, Huszár, Mondrian and Seuphor appeared on the pages of Zwrotnica and L’Art Contemporain; Almanach. Katalog. Salon modernistów [Almanac. Catalogue. The salon of modernists] published a fragment of Van Doesburg’s (1928) Klassiek–Barok–Modern [Classic–Baroque–Modern] and Europa included the responses of Mondrian (1929) and Van Doesburg (1929) to the aforementioned survey on modern art sent by Strzemin´ski to leading European avant-garde artists. A Polish translation of the manifesto of concrete art “Base de la peinture concrète” (signed by Van Doesburg, amongst others), was also published in Europa (Carlsund et al. 1930c). What is more, the fourth issue of Linia planned to publish Brze˛kowski’s notes on De Stijl and Abstraction-Création,48 but eventually they did not appear. It is, though, in Blok and in Praesens where the most traces of Polish–Dutch exchange can be found. Blok published reproductions of works by Van Doesburg, Van Eesteren, Oud, Nieuwenhuis and Werkman, as well as Van Doesburg’s (1924c) article “Odnowienie architektury” [The renewal of architecture] based on his texts published in De Stijl and Bouwkundig Weekblad (1924a and 1924b). Excerpts from this article were also incorporated in Blok’s manifesto “Co to jest konstruktywizm” (Red. 1924b). Indeed, the Polish translation of Van Doesburg’s article appeared in July 1924, two months after the publication in Bouwkundig Weekblad and probably even earlier than in De Stijl – Marguerite Tuijn (2003: 321) established the publication date of De Stijl 6, 6/7 for late July/early August, which is another indication of the impressive pace of direct exchange and mobility of texts between Polish and Dutch representatives of the avant-garde network. Moreover, the fact that excerpts from this article were incorporated in Blok’s manifesto – one of the most important programmatic texts of the Polish

Figure 7 Blok’s manifesto “Co to jest konstruktywizm” (source: Blok 6/7; JBC)

34

Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility

interwar avant-garde – is in itself remarkable and it also indicates how important those relationships were for the Polish avant-garde. A very important event that would shape Dutch–Polish avant-garde relations was the 1926 architectural exhibition in Warsaw, where works of key modern Dutch architects were exhibited. The exhibition catalogue (Blok 11) listed more than twenty architectural projects and furniture/interior designs by Oud, Van Ravesteyn, Rietveld and Van der Vlugt. Some of these works were also reproduced, including Oud’s plans of Hoek van Holland, Rietveld’s Schröder Huis and two of his famous chairs (total of 16 illustrations). The engagement of Dutch architects was to a great extent made possible thanks to Syrkus’s wide connections. During his stay in Berlin, Weimar and Paris between 1922 and 1924 Syrkus became acquainted with key European architects, among others Van Doesburg and other artists related to De Stijl (Turowski 2000: 40; Choma˛towska 2015: 86–88). Hence, when preparing the exhibition Syrkus and other Polish artists and architects had direct links to key figures on the Dutch avant-garde scene such as Oud, Van Doesburg and Van Ravesteyn whom they approached and invited to the exhibition.49 When preparing the exhibition catalogue, the Polish artist and critic Szcze˛sny Rutkowski requested information on architectural innovations in the Netherlands from Van Ravesteyn and Oud.50 Whether they supplied Rutkowski with a text is unknown, but eventually Blok 11 published a short descriptive article “Nowoczesna architektura holenderska” [Modern Dutch architecture] written by P. Meller (1926), who discussed Dutch new architectural projects, referring particularly enthusiastically to Berlage and Oud. The architectural exhibition at the beginning of 1926 was the last initiative of Blok before its closure, which was followed by the creation of Praesens. Having established the new group and periodical, Polish artists quickly informed their Dutch colleagues about this new initiative: in January 1926 Staz˙ewski, Syrkus and Rafałowski wrote to Van Doesburg asking him to send some material for the first issue of Praesens and in response Van Doesburg sent an article along with reproductions of his and Rietveld’s works. Moreover, not being able to attend the exhibition of Blok, he offered to visit Warsaw to give a series of lectures, an idea which both he and the Polish artists were very keen on. The artists exchanged several letters with regard to Van Doesburg’s visit, yet it unfortunately did not come to fruition due to financial and organisational reasons.51 Syrkus also wrote to J.J.P. Oud in order to inform him about the newly established Praesens and to express his positive reaction to Oud’s works exhibited in Warsaw. Sharing his plans concerning the first issue of Praesens – for instance to reprint Oud’s article from Soziale Bauwirtschaft [Social building industry] together with photos and plans of his project for Oud-Mathenesse – Syrkus mentioned the contributions he had already received from Van Doesburg and Rietveld.52 Oud’s reaction regarding the dissemination of Van Doesburg’s works is particularly interesting: Pour ce qui concerne la collaboration de M. Van Doesburg, permettez-moi de vous avertir que c’est bien nécessaire de contrôler bien ce qu’on publie de lui. M. Van Doesburg est un peintre avec beaucoup d’esprit, qui a écrit d’articles excellents sur la peinture moderne, mais qui – voyant finir la peinture en sa forme présente s’est sauvé dans l’architecture sans aussi le moindre idée de bâtir. N’ayant jamais bâti il proclame une architecture spéculative qui fait beaucoup de mal à l’œuvre des

Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility

35

architectes modernes sérieux. (. . .) pour ça c’est absolument nécessaire de savoir précisément ce qu’on publiera de lui et ce qu’on ne publiera pas.53 [With regard to the cooperation with M. Van Doesburg, let me warn you that it is indeed necessary to strictly control which works of his get published. M. Van Doesburg is a painter with much spirit, who has written excellent articles on modern painting, but who – seeing the painting end in its present form, has fled to architecture without the slightest idea how to build. Having never built he proclaims a speculative architecture which badly hurts the works of serious architects. (. . .) therefore it is absolutely necessary to know precisely which works of his will be published and what will not be published.] Eventually, the first issue of Praesens published works by both Oud and Van Doesburg. As envisaged by Syrkus, it featured Oud’s article (1926) based on “Erziehung zur Architektur” from Sociale Bauwirtschaft 5, 4 as well as an article by Theo van Doesburg which had earlier appeared as “Vers un art élémentaire” in the French magazine Vouloir (Van Doesburg 1926a, 1926b). Both texts were illustrated by various architectural works of Dutch provenance. Oud’s letter to Syrkus constitutes an example of how internal conflicts within particular circles influenced other nodes of the avant-garde network – the changing nature of interpersonal relationships between its members (both affinities and animosities) did not remain without influence elsewhere. Due to the growing friendship between Syrkus and Oud, the latter’s accomplishments were considerably better represented in Praesens than in Blok, where Van Doesburg’s contributions dominated. Nevertheless, despite Oud’s disapproval of Van Doesburg’s theories, the first issue of Praesens did publish Van Doesburg’s works and its editors maintained good relations with him: their correspondence actually indicates that besides the aforementioned series of lectures which Van Doesburg was to give in Warsaw, the magazine also planned to organise a De Stijl exhibition in Warsaw and to publish a book on Van Doesburg’s theories. What is more, having published the first issue of Praesens, Syrkus and Staz˙ewski sent a copy to Van Doesburg and asked him for contributions to the second issue which was meant to appear in September 1926. In his response Van Doesburg wrote: “I have indeed received the first issue of your beautiful journal and I am grateful for the beautiful page which you have devoted to me. Enclosed you find a short article for the following issue, with photos.” Although Syrkus assured him that the received material would be published in Praesens 2,54 none of Van Doesburg’s works appeared in this issue. Writing to Oud on the other hand, Syrkus attempted to somehow justify the inclusion of Van Doesburg’s works in the first issue of Praesens: he more or less agreed with Oud’s opinion on Van Doesburg’s role in architecture and asked Oud not to judge his approach based on the contents of Praesens 1 which he saw as rather preliminary.55 While several works of Van Doesburg were to be found in the first issue of Praesens, with time Syrkus’s esteem for the editor of De Stijl deteriorated. This is evident in a letter from Szymon and Helena Syrkus to Oud from December 1929, where they wrote: “Un de ces jours nous étions dans la bibliothèque et nous avons feuilleté DE STIJL. C’est devenu terriblement présomptueux et faux. Mais tout d’un coup nous y avons trouvé votre photo. C’était une belle surprise – rencontre inattendue.” [A few days ago, we were in the library and we thumbed through DE STIJL. It has become awfully

36

Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility

presumptuous and false. But suddenly we found your photo. It was a lovely surprise – an unexpected encounter.].56 Not surprisingly, hardly any mention of Van Doesburg or his works was to be found in the second issue of Praesens. The second issue of Praesens was eventually published in May 1930, four years after the first. In his letters to Oud Syrkus mentioned financial and organisational problems which delayed the publication of this issue; originally expected in September 1926 it was gradually postponed, only to be finalised in May 1930, partly due to Praesens’s involvement in the PWK exhibition. Deploring the lack of money and support for the avant-garde in Poland, Syrkus anyhow intended to publish a good-quality journal, bereft of the mistakes made in the previous issue. Hence, he asked Oud for a hitherto unpublished text with illustrations.57 Finally, Praesens 2 featured three articles of Dutch provenance: by Oud (1930), Van Eesteren (1930) and Mondrian (1930a), as well as references to architectural and constructional solutions of other Dutch architects in Syrkus’s (1930) article. Moreover, the list of foreign publications included four Dutch books and a short enthusiastic review of the already mothballed magazine i10 (Syrkus et al. 1930a, 1930b). The appearance of works by the Dutch architect Cornelis van Eesteren in the second issue of Praesens is also noteworthy; it was related to his involvement in CIAM, over which he presided between 1930 and 1947. As in the case of Oud, engagement in the works of this organisation resulted in a very close relationship and friendship between Van Eesteren and the Polish architects. The archive of Van Eesteren in Rotterdam houses an impressive collection of letters, photos and other material exchanged between them in the period 1933–1983. It includes two particular documents sent to Van Eesteren by the Syrkuses and Tołwin´ski: a photo album offered to Van Eesteren on the occasion of his birthday on 4 July 1937 and a postcard from 2 September 1937. The cover of the photo album features birthday wishes written in Dutch, a unique example of the affinity between Dutch and Polish modern architects. The photo on the postcard (taken by Tołwin´ski) is signed “Joinville s/Marne 3/7/1937” and it pictures Van Eesteren and Helena Syrkus in cordial conversation in the garden. Translations of books with programmatic and theoretical deliberations are another noteworthy example of cultural mobility between the Polish and Dutch avant-gardes. The first issue of Praesens (1926: 44) announced the Polish translation of Oud’s book Die Holländische Architektur [The Dutch architecture], originally published as part of the Bauhaus series from 1926, of which Syrkus informed Oud in his letter from 16 June 1926, asking for the reproductions necessary to publish the book.58 Later that same year Syrkus wrote to Van Doesburg: Nous avons commencé l’édition polonaise des livres sur l’art nouveau. Nous commençons par le NEOPLASTICISME de Mondrian, et nous publierons après L’art et don avenir de M.Vantongerloo, La Peinture et ses Lois de Gleizes, puis les œuvres de Malewicz, J.J.P. Oud, Strzemin´ski et d’autres. Nous serions bien contents de publier aussi quelque chose de vous . . .59 [We have begun the Polish edition of books on the new art. We begin with Le Néoplasticisme by Mondrian, after which we will publish Vantongerloo’s L’art et son avenir, La peinture et ses lois by Gleizes followed by the works of Malevich, J.J.P. Oud, Strzemin´ski and others. We would also like to publish something of yours . . .]

Figure 8 Photo album with Dutch-written birthday wishes dated 4 July 1937 and a postcard from 2 September 1937 from Tołwin´ski and the Syrkuses to Cornelis van Eesteren (source: Collectie Het Nieuwe Instituut in bruikleen van collectie Van Eesteren-Fluck & Van Lohuizenstichting, Amsterdam; inv. nrs. EEST. 4.447 and 10.1343B)

38

Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility

None of the Dutch or Belgian books mentioned in the letter actually ever came to be published. According to the correspondence, the process of translating and editing Oud’s book went rather quickly, but some problems must have arisen (most probably financial, as the group struggled for four years to even publish the second issue of Praesens) and the last mention of Oud’s book is to be found in a letter from January 1929, shortly before the architects saw each other in Rotterdam.60 This was also the case of Mondrian’s book Le Néoplasticisme. In his correspondence with various artists from late 1926 and early 1927 Mondrian mentioned several times that he had been busy working on the layout of the Polish translation which he prepared in cooperation with the artists related to Praesens and a.r.61 Staz˙ewski designed the cover for the book, but since its publication was cancelled, the cover design was later used for another publication (cf. Section 3.2). Work on the translation of Vantongerloo’s L’art et son avenir [Art and its future] from 1924 also started, with Vantongerloo himself designing the cover for its Polish edition in 1927 (Wieczorek 2002: 149; see Plate 3). The examples described above indicate that Dutch and Belgian artists and architects actively participated in the publication process of the Polish versions of their books, as it was a form of distinction for them in the period when they still remained rather marginal and unappreciated in mainstream literary and artistic fields. Despite their eagerness to cooperate and realise ambitious publication plans, in most cases however the financial and organisational obstacles proved to be insurmountable and none of the anticipated Polish translations of Dutch and Belgian books appeared. However in the 1930s two books by artists related to Polish avant-garde circles were translated from Polish into Dutch and published in the Netherlands. In 1933 Bruno Jasien´ski’s book Pale˛ Paryz˙ was translated by S. van Praag and published in Amsterdam as Ik verbrand Parijs [I burn Paris], and in 1937 Jalu Kurek’s Grypa szaleje w Naprawie appeared as Griep woedt in Naprawa [The influenza rages in Naprawa], translated by H. Katzee,62 both of which provide evidence of how intertwined and broad-ranging the relationships between Polish and Dutch avant-gardes were. The Polish–Dutch relationships were also well-reflected in Polish architectural periodicals such as Architektura i Budownictwo, Architekt and Dom, Osiedle, Mieszkanie. They featured a number of articles and illustrations of Dutch avant-garde art and modern architecture. Architektura i Budownictwo published articles written by Van Doesburg (1931), Oud (1933) and a five-part series of articles devoted to modern Dutch architecture, with numerous reproductions of works by Oud, Van der Vlugt, Wils, Berlage and others (cf. Lubin´ski 1930). Moreover, a number of other texts and photos related to Dutch architecture, as well as references to leading periodicals from the Netherlands are to be found in those magazines. For instance, Van Doesburg, Van Eesteren and Rietveld’s model of Hôtel Particulier (1923) was reproduced on the cover of Architekt 1 from 1926, and the cover of Dom, Osiedle, Mieszkanie 6 from 1931 featured Mondrian’s Composition No. II with Red, Blue, Black and Yellow (1929). Exchange with architectural periodicals was largely made possible thanks to contacts with architects related to avant-garde formations (e.g. Syrkus) who were also contributing to “regular” magazines, which paved the way for Dutch modern and avant-garde architects to subsequently appear in their pages.

Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility

39

1.4. Traces of Polish–Dutch and Polish–Belgian Cultural Mobility in Relevant International Avant-Garde Periodicals Polish avant-garde artists maintained close ties with international formations such as Cercle et Carré or Abstraction-Création, in which Dutch and Belgian artists also played prominent roles. Jan Brze˛kowski’s text on Polish art published in Het Overzicht in 1924 began his long-lasting friendship with Seuphor,63 which later allowed Brze˛kowski to become an active member of Cercle et Carré, a group and magazine co-founded by Michel Seuphor in 1930 in Paris. Since 1924 Brze˛kowski had gradually broadened his contacts with European avant-gardes, and when he moved to Paris in 1928 he was already in touch with artists such as Mondrian and Vantongerloo. The artists regularly met in places such as Brasserie Lipp, Café Voltaire and Café du Dôme. Another important meeting place for Polish, Belgian, Dutch and other progressive artists residing in Paris was the influential Galerie “Au Sacre du Printemps” which was owned by the Polish writer and musician Jan S´liwin´ski (a.k.a. Hans Effenberger). The gallery organised for instance the meetings of Documents Internationaux de l’Esprit Nouveau which gathered among others Seuphor, Dermée, Mondrian and Staz˙ewski (Kleiverda-Kajetanowicz 1985: 34). These international ties had a direct influence on avant-garde journals such as L’Art Contemporain or Cercle et Carré – Seuphor for example revised French translations for L’Art Contemporain, and when still planning to publish its fourth issue, Brze˛kowski decided not to include any French translations of Polish poems, due to the fact that Seuphor – at that time away from Paris – would not be able to revise them.64 On the other hand, it was also Brze˛kowski who had initially put Seuphor in touch with Léon Mickum, the head of the Polish–French printing house Imprimerie Polonaise/ Ognisko, where Seuphor was able publish Cercle et Carré (Seuphor 1971: 25). This acquaintance later proved to be of crucial importance to Seuphor, who – as can be read in his memoirs – received substantial help from the family Mickum in times of need. Referring to them Seuphor claimed: Me voyant dans le plus grand besoin, ils m’ont aussi offert un emploi comme correcteur (. . .). Ils m’ont traité comme si j’étais leur enfant. (. . .) Chaque jour, j’allais chez eux, à Courbevoie, où m’attendait une Polonaise cordon-bleu qui préparait non pas un repas, mais un festin, et ils m’obligeait à manger. C’était vraiment exquis. Ils m’ont sauvé la vie. (Seuphor and Grenier 1996: 173–174) [Seeing me in the greatest of needs, they also offered me a job as editor (. . .). They treated me as their own son. (. . .) Every day I visited them in Courbevoie where a Polish Cordon Bleu chef prepared more than a dish for me – a real feast which they obliged me to eat. It was truly exquisite. They literally saved my life.] Seuphor’s own words confirm the fact that the Polish–Belgian and Polish–Dutch relations were often more than pure collaboration – they often became very close friendships and established artistic cooperation in the times when the avant-garde had very few supporters and was perceived as a strange peculiarity. Brze˛kowski not only participated in almost all meetings of Cercle et Carré,65 but he also tried to link other Polish artists such as Przybos´ and Kurek with Seuphor’s new

40

Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility

initiative. He informed Przybos´ that Seuphor had reacted positively to the former’s poem “Krajobraz/Le paysage” [The landscape] printed in L’Art Contemporain 2, and that he wanted to incorporate some of Przybos´’s works in Cercle et Carré. However, even though Seuphor repeated his offer after the publication of the first issue of Cercle et Carré, none of Przybos´’s texts ever appeared there.66 Brze˛kowski’s further attempts to promote Polish artists in Cercle et Carré were reflected in his letter to Kurek, where he claimed: “I suppose that I will be able to force you all into the next issues, yet Seuphor is highly unpredictable and today he says ‘yes’, and tomorrow ‘no’”.67 He gave Przybos´ and Strzemin´ski’s book Z ponad to Mondrian and Seuphor, but their reactions to its layout differed considerably – Mondrian liked it very much, but Seuphor did not. They also received the first a.r. bulletin and its French translation was scheduled to appear in Cercle et Carré, yet ultimately Seuphor decided not to include it due to the negative attitude towards Le Corbusier’s works expressed in the bulletin.68 The three issues of Cercle et Carré featured several texts of Polish provenance, or in reference to the Polish avant-garde (Brze˛kowski 1930a, 1930b; Staz˙ewski 1930; [Seuphor and Torres-García] 1930b). The third issue also included a note on Praesens 2 which acknowledged its “magnificent illustrations” and “international cooperation” ([Seuphor and Torres-García] 1930a). The editors of Cercle et Carré saw some resemblances between those two periodicals, as reflected in a letter sent by Torres-García to Seuphor: “Staz˙ewski m’a envoyé la revue ‘Praesens’. Même esprit que la nôtre.” [Staz˙ewski sent me the magazine ‘Praesens’. The same spirit as our one.].69 Moreover, the second issue featured a catalogue of the Cercle et Carré exhibition organised in Paris

Figure 9 Photo from the Cercle et Carré exhibition in Paris (1930) with works by Werkman, Mondrian and Staz˙ewski (source: LH; inv. nr. TG:LHPH:47468)

Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility

41

in April 1930 where a plethora of European avant-garde artists exhibited their works, among others Chodasiewicz-Grabowska, Hoste, Mondrian, Staz˙ewski, Vantongerloo and Werkman ([Seuphor and Torres-García] 1930c). A photo from this exhibition features works of Mondrian, Staz˙ewski and Werkman hanging side-by-side, showing not only a certain kinship in their artistic endeavours, but also the lack of any notion of hierarchy, centre–periphery or East–West divisions, which have been attributed to the historical avant-garde by post-war historiography. When Van Doesburg learned about Seuphor’s newly established group he planned to create his own group uniting modern artists. He invited several representatives of the avant-garde, among others Henryk Staz˙ewski who, however, chose to cooperate with Cercle et Carré, similarly to several other artists (Fabre 1990: 383–385). In 1930 Van Doesburg co-published one issue of Art Concret and at the beginning of 1931 another group Abstraction-Création was formed by Herbin, Hélion and Vantongerloo. To a certain extent it continued the activities of the previous formations. Its statutory declaration, with Herbin as president, Van Doesburg as vice-president and Hélion as secretary, was issued on 15 February 1931 (cf. Fabre 1990: 193). The foundation of AbstractionCréation was partly ascribed to Van Doesburg, which noticeably outraged Vantongerloo, again showing that the avant-garde network was not free of interpersonal animosities: . . . Herbin a été désigné comme Président et moi comme Vice-Président. (. . .) Après, bien longtemps après, on m’a dit qu’Helion voulait faire une société avec V.D. ce qui n’a rien de commun avec Abs.Créa. Ce sont donc des interprétations mais ni le titre ni la société a été fondé par V.D . . .70 [. . . Herbin was designated President and me Vice-President. (. . .) Later, much later, I was told that Hélion wanted to form the association with V[an] D[oesburg], which has nothing to do with Abs[traction] Créa[tion]. These are thus just interpretations but neither the title, nor the association were founded by V[an] D[oesburg] . . .] Between 1932 and 1936 five issues of Abstraction-Création. Art non-figuratif appeared, featuring a number of theoretical texts written, for instance by Van Doesburg (1932), Mondrian (1932, 1933, 1934), Seuphor (1932), Vantongerloo (1932, 1933, 1935, 1936), Kobro (1933), Staz˙ewski (1932, 1933a), Strzemin´ski (1932a, 1933)71 and numerous reproductions of their works. Moreover, an exhibition of the Abstraction-Création group (ca. 35 members) was planned to take place in Warsaw and in Łódz´ in February/March 1936 with the fifth issue of Abstraction-Création doubling as its exhibition catalogue. Both parties involved (Vantongerloo as representative of the group, and the Polish Institute for Art Propaganda) were very keen on the idea, yet – just as in the case of Van Doesburg’s visit to Warsaw or the publication of Polish translations of Dutch and Belgian books – the project failed due to financial obstacles.72 This was indeed a shame, since such an exhibition would have constituted a remarkable summary of the long-lasting relationships, exchange and mobility between the interwar avant-gardes from Poland and the Low Countries. Brze˛kowski, Staz˙ewski and other Polish artists had direct and broad connections to numerous European artists, as depicted in some photographs featuring them in the

42

Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility

company of Dermée, Mondrian, Seuphor, Vantongerloo and other key figures on the avant-garde scene (see Figure 10 and Plate 4). These contacts were of crucial importance in the process of establishing and gathering the Łódz´ Collection of Modern Art. Thanks to various international contacts with Dutch, Belgian and other foreign artists, especially those of Brze˛kowski and Staz˙ewski, works of the most prominent foreign avant-garde artists were donated to Łódz´ free of charge, which substantially contributed to cultural life of the interwar Poland, at times when very little money was spent on art (cf. Luba 2015a: 30). As emphasised by Brze˛kowski, without his wide connections with the Parisian artistic scene and Staz˙ewski’s fine reputation among foreign artists, Strzemin´ski’s idea of such a collection would probably never have come to fruition. Close ties to Cercle et Carré, especially to Seuphor, made it possible to reach various painters: Seuphor donated works, including Werkman’s Schoorstenen 2 [Chimneys 2] from 1923 – the very first artwork of Werkman to be exhibited in a museum – which he had received in August 1925 while editing Het Overzicht.73 Certain issues, on the other hand, did not facilitate the exchange. For example, due to personal attacks on Picasso published in L’Art Contemporain, Brze˛kowski could not ask him to donate any of his works. Moreover, he did not dare ask Mondrian for one of his paintings, bearing in mind how much time the latter needed to produce anything (Brze˛kowski 1968: 99–100). In 1932 however one work of Picasso was donated to the collection, and in 1957 Seuphor donated the aforementioned Tableau-poème (Textuel) co-created by Mondrian (Ładnowska 1991: 78).

Figure 10 Photo of Mondrian, Rafałowski, Seuphor, Staz˙ewski, Vantongerloo and others at Paul Dermée’s in 1928 (source: RKD Collectie Kunstenaarsportretten)

Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility

43

Figure 11 Photo of the Łódz´ collection taken in 1932 with works of among others Van Doesburg and Werkman (source: MSL)

1.5. Cross-Referencing Besides the reciprocal exchange and mobility described above, the avant-garde journals often cross-referred each other, enumerating the names of like-minded groups and titles of their magazines. Publications such as Zenit, Noi, Merz, Ma, l’Esprit Nouveau, La Vie des Lettres et des Arts, Der Sturm or Ça Ira! were regularly mentioned in almost all the periodicals analysed here. The choice of titles to be mentioned by a given magazine was, however, directly influenced by the changing nature of mutual relations and circulation patterns between various nodes of the avant-garde network (for a complete overview of mutual references between the analysed periodicals see Table 4 in the Appendix). Direct contacts between Polish and Belgian avant-gardes were reflected in Zwrotnica and Het Overzicht and 7 Arts: Zwrotnica wrote about these journals in its sixth and eleventh issues respectively. Likewise, both Het Overzicht and 7 Arts – as well as regularly referring to one another – each mentioned Zwrotnica twice. This included the list of magazines published in the twentieth issue of Het Overzicht (January 1924) entitled “Het netwerk”. It listed formations and publications from France, Germany, Brazil, the US, Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands and others, constituting a tangible indication that avant-garde formations perceived themselves as parts of a wider worldwide network.

44

Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility

Figure 12 List of congenial formations “Het netwerk” (source: Het Overzicht 20: 136; IADDB)

Later, established Polish formations maintained contacts with Belgian journals developed earlier by Zwrotnica. From the beginning Blok was in touch with the Belgian magazines, probably via Strzemin´ski, who had collaborated with Peiper before he co-organised the Vilnius exhibition and joined the new group. Initially Blok listed Anthologie, 7 Arts and Het Overzicht, as well as Zwrotnica. However, from the fifth issue onwards Het Overzicht was no longer mentioned in Blok, which coincided with two incidents. First, following internal disagreements among its artists, the editorial board was reduced to Szczuka and Z˙arnower, and second (and more importantly), the 21st issue of Het Overzicht published Brze˛kowski’s aforementioned article on modern Polish art with no mention of Blok, which was probably the reason why Het Overzicht no longer came to be listed there. Anthologie and 7 Arts were nevertheless still mentioned (e.g. Blok 11 announced the 100th issue of 7 Arts). In return, Het Overzicht, 7 Arts and Anthologie referred to Blok several times, for instance in the table “Tijdschriften – Revues modernes” from the last issue of Het Overzicht. Blok not only continued the relationships with the Low Countries established by Zwrotnica, but it also broadened them, especially with regard to the Netherlands. Due to Blok’s connections to Van Doesburg, De Stijl and Mécano were repeatedly mentioned in the magazine. On the other hand, De Stijl also referred to Blok, Praesens, Zwrotnica and it included Warsaw among De Stijl’s cities. In return, Praesens included De Stijl, 7 Arts and i10 in its listings. When it comes to the Groningen-based The Next Call, a number of magazines – including Blok and Mécano – were listed

Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility

45

only once, but in Polish journals one finds no mention of The Next Call and only one reproduction of Werkman’s work. With regard to Dutch and Belgian periodicals, the dynamics between particular groups varied substantially, which was reflected in the choice of titles mentioned in a given journal. For instance, 7 Arts regularly referred to De Stijl and, vice versa, De Stijl also repeatedly mentioned 7 Arts. It was not, however, the case of Het Overzicht and De Stijl: the latter stopped referring to Het Overzicht when Peeters became its co-editor, and Het Overzicht mentioned De Stijl only once – probably due to personal animosities between Peeters and Van Doesburg. Notably, the Dutch journal was not to be found either in “Het netwerk” or in “Tijdschriften – Revues modernes” published in Het Overzicht. Interesting is also the fact that no works of Piet Mondrian were published in Het Overzicht, due to the fact that Peeters was not particularly fond of Mondrian’s work (cf. Seuphor and Grenier 1996: 114). The Next Call did include Het Overzicht, De Stijl and Mécano among congenial European journals, but it omitted 7 Arts, De Driehoek and Zwrotnica even though they were included on Werkman’s list of addresses to other magazines and artists (see Figure 1). References to The Next Call were to be found in Het Overzicht, 7 Arts and De Stijl. The listings of congenial formations played an important role in avant-garde periodicals, as they indicated their international outreach, status and involvement in the

Figure 13 Lists of like-minded magazines published in The Next Call and in Blok in 1924 (sources: The Next Call 6; Collectie GM, photo Marten de Leeuw and Blok 8/9; JBC)

46

Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility

network, comparable to modern-day lists of friends, colleagues and acquaintances on personal and professional social media profiles. Due to the fact that the avant-garde network was based on interpersonal relations – which were anything but stable and constantly fluctuated from friendship to enmity – the lists of magazines and formations changed from one issue to another. Hence, whether a particular title was mentioned somewhere or not (anymore) was a direct indication of the current nature of the relationships between their representatives. The cases of Blok or De Stijl ceasing to mention Het Overzicht, or Het Overzicht intentionally omitting De Stijl from its two most important lists, clearly exemplify the personal conflicts being mirrored on the pages of avant-garde periodicals.

1.6.

Preliminary Observations

As shown above, the cultural mobility between Poland and the Low Countries was quite intense and had a direct and mutual character. The relationships between avantgarde formations from Poland and the Low Countries date back to the early 1920s when the first encounters occurred. Many Polish–Dutch and Polish–Belgian contacts started as correspondence, which in time took on a more intense character and often blossomed into personal acquaintances, some of which evolved into long-lasting and close friendships much outliving the artistic initiatives that had triggered the initial contact itself. A large share of the connections between avant-garde circles from Poland and the Low Countries was established and shaped by architects. Architecture itself was perceived as the ultimate unification of all avant-garde arts, hence the wide network of contacts between modern architects was also very important for the representatives of other fields, and it was often the architects who created the main links between various avant-garde formations. Plate 4 illustrates those connections and relationships, somewhat supplementing the aforementioned nexus of artistic relationships created for the MoMA exhibition in 2012/2013.74 To a great extent, the dynamics of the avant-garde network was influenced by the changing nature of interpersonal relationships between its representatives. These often fluctuated from friendship to hostility, and the volatility then found reflection in the choice of materials to be published in given periodicals or in the correspondence. As shown by the Polish–Dutch and Polish–Belgian examples discussed above, the impact of interpersonal relationships between particular avant-garde artists did not remain local, but instead reverberated throughout the wider network and also came to influence foreign circles and magazines, which was one of the main features of the avantgarde network. Numerous tangible traces evident in the analysed correspondence, as well as in avant-garde periodicals, exhibition catalogues and photographs clearly indicate that mutual relationships between various nodes of the avant-garde network were bereft of any signs of hierarchy or divisions between the “centres” and its “peripheries”, or between the East and the West. In contrast, the status of avant-garde artists from Poland, the Low Countries, France and Germany, etc. was comparable – most of them were marginal figures in their respective local cultural and artistic fields, which boosted the exchange with the representatives of other formations (no matter their language or location) in order to broaden the reception of their ideas and innovations. Thus, the diffusion and exchange of material had a reciprocal character and by sharing one

Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility

47

another’s ideas and works, the avant-garde formations jointly pursued their shared objective – enhancing the outreach of the new art and the new spirit. As such, it can be seen that avant-garde artists and architects from Poland, Belgium and the Netherlands were very eager about all forms of diffusion of their accomplishments abroad – they were willing to travel, become acquainted with each other, and cooperate on the translation and publication of their works abroad and so forth. Notably, translations of major programmatic texts, as well as reproductions of artworks, appeared at a remarkable pace in foreign periodicals. As exemplified by several Polish, Dutch and Belgian cases, it was even not uncommon for a foreign magazine to be the first one to publish a given text or reproduction, i.e. before they appeared locally. Particularly remarkable in this instance is the case of Seuphor and Mondrian’s work Tableau-poème (Textuel) discussed above. Last, but not least, modern Polish, Dutch and Belgian artists and architects were not only involved in their local formations, but they were also active members and contributors to numerous international initiatives, such as Cercle et Carré, AbstractionCréation or CIAM. These initiatives and their activities played a very important role in the processes of diffusion and mobility between Poland and the Low Countries. They launched their periodicals and organised group exhibitions featuring the works of numerous European artists and showing their modern artistic endeavours. A unique example of such international contacts and exchange was the Łódz´ Collection of Modern Art, which gathered the works of the most prominent European artists of the interwar period under one roof.

Notes 1 This chapter is derived in part from an article published in Dutch Crossing: Journal of Low Countries Studies in March 2016 (© Taylor & Francis) available at www.tandfon line/10.1080/03096564.2016.1139785 as well as from an article published in Tijdschrift voor Tijdschriftstudies in June 2015. 2 Letter from Vantongerloo to Seuphor from 3 November 1950 (LH, inv. nr. 186967/11). 3 Not to be confused with another literary magazine Het woord, maandblad voor de nieuwe Nederlandse letterkunde published between 1945 and 1949 by Koos Schuur, Ferdinand Langen and others. 4 The title of this text refers to the Flemish Lied der Vlamingen created by Hiel and Benoit, and to two Belgian rivers, Maas and Schelde (the latter flows through Antwerp where Het Overzicht was published), as well as to Karel Maes, one of the editors of 7 Arts. The text ridicules the Belgian avant-garde, in particular the journal Het Overzicht, its co-editor Jozef Peeters and his wife Pelagia Pruym, as well as J.J.P. Oud (for more on the conflicts between the Dutch and Belgian avant-gardes see: Den Boef and Van Faassen 2013; Wenderski 2015a; Strauven and Dujardin 2016). 5 Noteworthy is the fact that the last issue of Het Overzicht featured a very critical note on Georges Vantongerloo and his book L’art et son avenir (cf. Peeters 1925c), which illustrates the tensions among the Belgian avant-gardists. 6 Peeters’s letter to Werkman from 10 February 1925 (WA, inv. nr. 1). 7 De Driehoek published among others works by Prampolini, Fornari, Caden, Iancu or Kandinsky. 8 Seuphor’s letters to Werkman from 24 November 1926, 30 May 1927 and 10 June 1927 (WA, inv. nr. 1). 9 Seuphor’s letters to Van Doesburg from 8 January 1930 (ATNvD, inv. nr. 189) and to Werkman from 13 January 1930 (WA, inv. nr. 1). 10 Van Doesburg’s letter to Seuphor from 13 January 1930 (LH, inv. nr. 186554).

48

Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility

11 Werkman’s letter to Seuphor from 31 March 1930 (WA, inv. nr. 1). 12 The two series of Zwrotnica differed substantially. As noticed by Kłak (1978: 33), besides the fact that both series aimed to promote the New Art under the auspices of the magazine’s founder Tadeusz Peiper, they were actually two different magazines. Moreover, the second series became the organ of the so-called Krakow Avant-Garde uniting Peiper, Brze˛kowski, Kurek and Przybos´. 13 On the position and perception of Tadeusz Peiper among his contemporaries see Olczyk 2015. Worth mentioning here is certain linguistic affinity between the surname “Peiper” and the word “papiez˙” (Polish for “pope”). 14 Przybos´’s letter to Jalu Kurek from 10 April 1931 (Kłak 1975: 105–106). 15 Baudin and Jedryka (1977: 33) claimed the article in Blok to be the first one, however in September 1922, the Hungarian-written journal Ma [Today] published a Hungarian translation of the introduction to Malevich’s book Suprematism, 34 Drawings (cf. Turowski 2015: 356). 16 It is worth mentioning that there were two versions of the eleventh issue of Blok. One of them lacks the list of exhibited works (first six pages) and features three poems by Anatol Stern instead of Henry van de Velde’s article “Le style moderne” [The modern style], which appeared in the other version (cf. the copies made available by MSL and JBC). 17 In fact, in 1930 Malevich wrote to Strzemin´ski asking the a.r. group, not Praesens, to organise his second exhibition in Warsaw. According to Strzemin´ski, Malevich wanted to dissociate himself from Praesens due to its fascination with Le Corbusier; see Strzemin´ski’s letter to Przybos´ from 21 September 1930 (Turowski 1973a: 248). 18 Strzemin´ski’s letter to Przybos´ from 1 December 1929 (Turowski 1973a: 228–229). 19 Despite his initial esteem and appreciation for the theories of Praesens, in 1929 Strzemin´ski became very critical of the group’s activities and members – see Strzemin´ski’s letters to Przybos´ from June 1929–June 1930 (Turowski 1973a: 223–244); Kobro et al. 1930a, 1930b; Strzemin´ski 1929b, 1931, 1934; Turowski 1973b. 20 Strzemin´ski’s letters to Przybos´ from 21 February and 9 June 1930 (Turowski 1973a: 235–236, 242). 21 See Brze˛kowski’s letters to Przybos´ from 2 June 1929, 14 March 1930 (Kłak 1981: 37–38, 59–60) and to Kurek from 27 April and 4 December 1931 (Kłak 1975: 62–63, 70–71) as well as Przybos´’s letters to Kurek from 17, 20 February, 11 May 1931 (Kłak 1975: 99, 107–108) and Strzemin´ski’s letter to Przybos´ from 8 September 1930 (Turowski 1973a: 247). 22 For Strzemin´ski’s description of the history of the Łódz´ Collection and Szczuka’s opposition to the idea see Strzemin´ski’s letter to Przybos´ from 8 February 1931 (Turowski 1973a: 252–253). 23 Peiper’s letter to Seuphor from 15 December 1923 (LH, inv. nr. 186877/1). 24 The 21st and 22/23/24th issue of Het Overzicht mentioned two books by Peiper: A and z˙ywe linje [Living lines], both from 1924. One of them would be the book Peiper mentioned in his letter. 25 Peiper’s letter to Seuphor from 12 February 1924 (LH, inv. nr. 186877/2). 26 Peiper’s letter to Bourgeois from 13 October 1924 (FVB, inv. nr. 12887/2) and Bourgeois’s response from 20 October 1924 (FVB, inv. nr. 12887/3). 27 Bourgeois’s letter to the editors of Blok from 5 October 1924 (FVB, inv. nr. 12887/1). 28 Peiper’s letter to the editors of 7 Arts from 19 March 1926 (FVB, inv. nr. 12887/12) published in 7 Arts 4, 24. When 7 Arts announced its plans to publish “a brief table of international modernism” on the occasion of its 130th issue, Peiper wrote to its editors (letter from 21 May 1927; FVB, inv. nr. 12887/21) expressing his hopes that the artistic efforts of Zwrotnica would find their place in the “catalogue” in question as well as offering to write a suitable article, which however did not appear in 7 Arts. 29 See Fitschy’s letter to Syrkus from 23 November 1934 (GRI, inv. nr. 850865). Of note is the postscript of this letter written in Polish: “Nie wa˛tpimy, iz˙ WPan włada je˛zykiem francuskim, lecz jes´liby Mu to sprawiało trudnos´c´ , moz˙e nam odpowiedziec´ po polsku. Mie˛dzy naszymi współpracownikami znajduje sie˛ architekt Polak, który zechce artykuł WPana przetłumaczyc´ .” [We have no doubts in your command of French, nevertheless should it be any trouble to you, you may answer us in Polish. There is a Polish architect among our colleagues who would be eager to translate your article.] – a note showing that for interwar avant-gardists linguistic barriers were actually not that big an issue.

Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility

49

30 See Fitschy’s letter to the Syrkuses from 24 October 1935 (GRI, inv. nr. 850865). 31 Letter from Polski Klub Artystyczny to Bourgeois from 19 November 1925 (FVB, inv. nr. 12887/6). 32 Szymon Syrkus and Huib Hoste were also personally acquainted, as is evident in Syrkus’s undated letter to Hoste housed in AA-SL. 33 Syrkus’s letters to Bourgeois from 16 November and 31 December 1929 (FVB, inv. nrs. 12887/23 and 12887/29). 34 Polish artists also participated in L’Art Vivant en Europe: Exposition Internationale held in May 1931 in Brussels. 35 Seuphor’s postcard to Brze˛kowski from 6 May 1973 (MLAM, inv. nr. 2192). 36 See Brze˛kowski’s letter to Przybos´ from 19 February 1931 (Kłak 1981: 82–83). 37 See Berlewi’s card to Van Doesburg from 12 June 1922 (ATNvD, inv. nr. 801). 38 See Szczuka’s manuscript housed in ATNvD (inv. nr. 202). 39 Henri Rousseau, a.k.a. “Le Douanier” (1844–1910), the French post-impressionist painter, whose works had a major influence on avant-garde artists. 40 The following titles are housed in The Hague: Zwrotnica, Blok, Praesens and books by Peiper (1924b – with a personal inscription), Berlewi (1924c), Gleizes (1927), Brze˛kowski and Grenkamp-Kornfeld (1933), Brze˛kowski (1936) as well as the catalogue of the Łódz´ collection (Strzemin´ski 1932b). Strzemin´ski’s letter from 10 August 1930 (ATNvD, inv. nr. 198) reveals that Van Doesburg had also received the first bulletin of the a.r. and Przbos´ and Strzemin´ski’s book Z ponad (1930). 41 As pointed out by Gast (1996: 176), the exclusion of various progressive artists from the Parisian exhibition had also been one of the reasons why at the end of 1925 the Polish artist Victor Poznan´ski organised the exhibition of abstract art L’Art d’Aujourd’hui in Paris which featured a plethora of modern European artists, including those related to De Stijl. 42 See Van Doesburg’s lists of subscribers to De Stijl: “Abonnees boekhandel buitenland”, “Ruilabonnementen – Abonnements d’échange”, “Abonnees buitenland” and “Buitenland” (ATNvD, inv. nr. 826). 43 See Syrkus’s letter to Oud from 22 March 1925 (AO-NI, inv. nr. 22:25:65). 44 The manuscript of Helena Syrkus’s article “Contribution à l’histoire de la Charte de l’Urbanisme des CIAM” (AvE-NI, inv. nr. EEST10.1048). 45 Müller-Lehning’s letters to Oud from 17 November 1926 and 19 January 1927 (AO-NI, inv. nrs. 34:26:240 and 36:27:28) and Syrkus’s letter to Oud from 12 June 1927 (AO-NI, inv. nr. 41:27:154). 46 See Syrkus’s letters to Oud from 14 January and 29 September 1929 (AO-NI, inv. nrs. 56:29:9 and 59:29:131). 47 See letters sent to Van Doesburg by Staz˙ewski (3 November 1928), Nicz-Borowiakowa (3 November 1928), Sigalin (18 November 1929), Strzemin´ski (28 November 1929), Stefanowicz (30 November 19[29]), and Minkiewicz (30 September 1930) as well as Van Doesburg’s letter to Andrzej Pronaszko from 21 July 1930 (ATNvD, inv. nrs. 130, 142, 160, 191, 198, 265, 308). 48 See Brze˛kowski’s letter to Przybos´ from 26 January 1932 (Kłak 1981: 95–97). 49 See Syrkus’s letter to Oud from 5 October 1925 and Rutkowski’s card from December 1925 (AO-NI, inv. nrs. 26:25:209 and 25:26:269) as well as Van Doesburg’s letter to the editors of Praesens from early 1926 (ATNvD, inv. nr. 308). 50 Rutkowski’s letter to Oud from 21 January 1926 (AO-NI, inv. nr. 28:26:14). 51 See the correspondence between Van Doesburg and the editors of Praesens from 23 January– 13 November 1926 (ATNvD, inv. nrs. 308 and 201). 52 Syrkus’s letter to Oud from 1 April 1926 (AO-NI, inv. nr. 29:26:35). 53 Manuscript of Oud’s letter to Syrkus from 12 April 1926 (AO-NI, inv. nr. 29:26:46). 54 See the correspondence between Van Doesburg and the editors of Praesens from 23 January– 13 November 1926 (ATNvD, inv. nrs. 308 and 201). 55 Syrkus’s letter to Oud from 16 June 1926 (AO-NI, inv. nr. 31:26:108). 56 Syrkus’s letter to Oud from 14 December 1929 (AO-NI, inv. nr. 60:29:151). 57 Syrkus’s letters to Oud from 16 June 1926, 12 June 1927 and 29 September 1929 (AO-NI, inv. nrs. 31:26:108, 41:27:154 and 59:29:131). 58 Syrkus’s letter to Oud from 16 June 1926 (AO-NI, inv. nr. 31:26:108).

50

Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility

59 Syrkus’s letter to Van Doesburg from 13 November 1926 (ATNvD, inv. nr. 201). 60 Syrkus’s letters to Oud from 12 June 1927 and 5 January 1929 (AO-NI, inv. nrs. 41:27:154, 56:29:5). 61 See Mondrian’s letters to Seuphor from 8 December 1926, to Oud from 20 December 1926, to Félix del Marle from 30 December 1926 and to Albert van den Briel, n.d. (AWM, inv. nrs. 20, 23, 63, 75). See also Veen 2011: 220. 62 Both books are housed in Rotterdamsch Leeskabinet, Erasmus University in Rotterdam (inv. nrs. RLK B IV 18 and RLK S 0 X 89). 63 The archives of Jan Brze˛kowski and Michel Seuphor house an impressive amount of letters and other documents exchanged between the friends and artists in the period 1937–1980 (cf. BPP, MLAM, LH). 64 See Brze˛kowski’s letters to Przybos´ from 3 June 1929 and 9 January 1930 (Kłak 1981: 38–41, 52), and to Kurek from 14 February 1931 (Kłak 1975: 58–59). 65 Brze˛kowski’s undated text written for Ryszard Stanisławski (BPP, inv. nr. 1237, p. 14). 66 Brze˛kowski’s letters to Przybos´ from 9 January and 2 April 1930 (Kłak 1981: 52, 60–61), and to Kurek from 9 January 1930 (Kłak 1975: 45–47). 67 Brze˛kowski probably meant Peiper, Przybos´, Kurek and Waz˙yk, see his letter to Kurek from 9 January 1930 (Kłak 1975: 45–47). 68 Brze˛kowski’s letters to Przybos´ from 2 April and 20 June 1930 (Kłak 1981: 60–61, 65–66). 69 Letter from Torres-García to Seuphor from 25 June 1930 (LH, inv. nr. 186534/17). 70 Vantongerloo’s letter to Seuphor from 21 July 1956 (LH, inv. nr. 186967/15). 71 Some of the Polish statements published in Abstraction-Création might have been written earlier and intended for Cercle et Carré, which Seuphor had not used – see Brze˛kowski’s letter to Przybos´ from 13 May 1930 (Kłak 1981: 62–64) and Strzemin´ski’s letter to Przybos´ from 3 February 1930 (Turowski 1973a: 233–234). 72 Correspondence between the Polish Institute for Art Propaganda and Vantongerloo took place between 15 October 1934 and 25 February 1936 (cf. IS PAN, inv. nr. 70). 73 Seuphor’s letter to Werkman from 25 August 1924 (WA, inv. nr. 1). 74 See: www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2012/inventingabstraction.

2

Avant-Garde Manifestos and Programmatic Statements – Inspirations, Parallels and Dissimilarities

The shared spirit of modernisation and renewal of art and society was expressed in a plethora of programmatic writings of avant-garde theoreticians, artists and architects. One of the most characteristic forms of expression of avant-garde artists were manifestos – “strictly speaking (. . .) texts published in a brochure, in a journal or a review, in the name of a political, philosophical, literary or artistic movement” (Abastado 1980, as quoted in Yanoshevsky 2009a). Manifestos have been studied and analysed by various literary scholars and art historians since the 1980s, which has given them the status of a fully fledged literary genre (for an in-depth analysis of the historiography of manifestos see Yanoshevsky 2009a, 2009b). Manifestos appeared in a variety of shapes and forms, and they make up part of a larger family of polemical genres, such as proclamations, declarations, political decrees, pamphlets, brochures, etc., from which they are often difficult to define or distinguish (Van den Berg 1998). Interwar manifestos and other programmatic statements were written in various languages in all parts of Europe (and beyond), and they circulated between various nodes of the avant-garde network, hence they often reveal substantial resemblances and similarities (cf. Turowski 1986: 27). This chapter explores selected theoretical notions discussed in various publications from the analysed avant-garde magazines and other publications of Polish, Dutch and Belgian provenance regarding visual arts, architecture and literature. The selection of texts analysed in this chapter includes not only statements explicitly designated as manifestos by their authors, but also other programmatic writings which share the key features of manifestos, i.e. a revolutionary and polemical tone, calls for aesthetic, social and political transformations, rejection of tradition and current principles, dogmatic discourse and its typical vocabulary (words such as to plead, oppose, protest, announce, denounce, declare, contrast, clarify, contest, reject, etc.) – as outlined by Galia Yanoshevsky (2009a). In order to draw a picture of Polish–Dutch and Polish–Belgian cultural mobility in the field of theoretical writing on avant-garde art, literature and architecture, selected texts have been analysed in view of some key recurring aspects. First, the universal dimension of modern art is discussed along with its abstract, non-figurative idiom which appeared in numerous programmatic statements. Second is the issue of the social engagement of avant-garde art, which polarised many artists whose socio-political views often differed and influenced their writings (e.g. nationalistic approaches or communist and socialist inclinations). Finally, the artists’ will and need to cooperate, both between various disciplines under the umbrella of the nineteenth-century principle of Gesamtkunstwerk and internationally within the cross-border network of formations and their magazines, are analysed.

52

2.1.

Avant-Garde Manifestos

Abstraction as the Idiom of Universal Art

When Władysław Strzemin´ski and Szymon Syrkus (1928: 5) wrote that abstraction was “the first principle of modern art”, the contemporary discussion on the nature of art had already been ongoing for years. Since the early 1910s various artists created works of art and put forward theories which categorically rejected figurativeness in art and postulated abstract, non-figurative art and architecture, free from any natural, historical elements.1 As outlined in the famous essay by Clement Greenberg (1939: 36–37), regardless of the fact of whether avant-garde works were conceived for their own sake or as socially engaged phenomena, the quest for the absolute in these works unavoidably led to abstraction and non-figurativeness in art and poetry. Content had to dissolve completely into form in order to create something aesthetically valid solely on its own terms. Hence, although the artists’ theories on art did differ (and sometimes substantially), when it came to the rejection of figurative art, their approaches shared considerable similarities, as will be exemplified hereunder by selected programmatic statements of Polish, Belgian and Dutch provenance. In the first volume of De Stijl Piet Mondrian (1917/1918) published one of his most influential theoretical works “De nieuwe beelding in de schilderkunst” [Neoplasticism in painting], where he discussed the bases for new art. Seeing contemporary life becoming more and more abstract, Mondrian claimed that in order to express the universal, abstract aspect of the modern human soul, art too was to reject figurativeness. To Mondrian, the conscious feeling of beauty (schoonheidsontroering) had a cosmic and universal character, and could not be realised through natural (figurative) representation or decorative painting, but only in a pure, abstract way, i.e. using straight lines and primary colours. His theory was developed under much influence of theosophy and it corresponded to the writings of the Dutch philosopher M.H.J. Schoenmaekers, although some scholars disagree whether Schoenmaekers’s influence on Mondrian was indeed that great (see for instance Welsh 1971; Overy 1979; Blotkamp 1994). One of the elements of Mondrian’s theory that was repeatedly used in programmatic writings of various European avant-garde artists were the so-called evenwichtige verhoudingen or rapports équilibrés [balanced relationships], which conditioned the composition and layout of modern paintings as well as sculptures and architecture too. The equilibrium of relationships between pure elements (straight lines and colour planes) provided harmony in an artwork, but according to Mondrian (1917/1918) it did not entirely exclude the natural, which came to the foreground as a reduced, compact manifestation of cosmic unity in an artwork. Mondrian’s dualist theory gave the artist some space for subjective, individual expression of the universal which (s)he could realise in the composition of an artwork through the rhythm of colours and proportions. Although the physicality of things was reduced to a set of planes and lines, he argued that, based on their size, value (colour) and mutual relationships, the essence of spaces could still be expressed and represented. Mondrian saw the will to express the universal as a common feature for all the styles in history which, nevertheless, had continuously expressed the timeless universal aspects in ephemeral ways. Hence, Mondrian focused on defining the purest style (de zuiverste stijl) which would express the universal in the best possible manner, i.e. by excluding the individual. He perceived mathematically based Neoplasticism (nieuwe beelding) as the best form of expressing the universe:

Avant-Garde Manifestos

53

Door de schilderkunst zelve kwam de kunstenaar tot de bewustheid (. . .) dat de verschijning van het universeele-als-het-mathematische het essentieele van alle zuiver aesthetische beeldende schoonheidsontroering is. (. . .) De nieuwe beelding is abstract-reëel, omdat zij staat tusschen het absoluut-abstractie en het natuurlijk, concreet-reëele. (Mondrian 1917/1918: 29) [Through art itself the artist realised (. . .) that the appearance of the universal-asmathematical is the essence of all pure aesthetical visual feeling of beauty. (. . .) Neoplasticism is abstract-real as it stays between the absolute-abstract and the natural concrete-real.] Such an abstract reworking of visual reality was forced by the evolution of life and lifestyle of modern man towards abstraction, and Mondrian (1917/1918: 15) claimed that only abstract and balanced structure could provoke the viewer’s deepest feeling of harmony. Only once the viewer had realised the existence of cosmic harmony – at least to some extent – would such pure, abstract expression of harmony and balanced structure become their desire (see Blotkamp 1994 for a detailed analysis of Mondrian’s theoretical works). In 1921 the French version of Mondrian’s theory titled Le Néoplasticisme was published, which enabled a wider dissemination and recognition of Neoplastic principles among avant-garde artists, among others from Poland. Mondrian developed and applied his theories not only to painting, but also to music (1921c, 1922a) and architecture (1922b, 1923). According to Blotkamp (1994: 128–129), Mondrian was indeed interested in the issue of integration of various arts, although with more restraints than Van Doesburg. While visual arts and architecture were prominent in Mondrian’s theories, up until the early 1920s he was also interested in literature. He co-created the literary manifesto of De Stijl, postulated a new idiom based on balance and unity “l’Art nouveau-du-verbe” (Mondrian 1921a: 7–10) and even wrote two literary pieces in 1920 (reprinted in Den Boef 1987). Nevertheless, since for Mondrian literature was too restrained by individualistic and utilitarian approaches, his interest in it soon faded away. Similarly to Mondrian, Theo van Doesburg also pointed to the universal character of modern art and pleaded for total rejection of nature-like (figurative) painting and replacing it with a pure approach (abstraction) based on lines, planes and colour. Van Doesburg (1917: 26) claimed that “a pure aesthetic impression could only be made by removing Nature from art”. He emphasised the importance of composition based on equilibrium, mathematical order and mutual relationships between forms and colour so that an artwork could express the new universal qualities of life. Defining the main task of a modern artist Van Doesburg (1916, 1918a) pointed to the necessity of pursuing the absolute (het volstrekte) and expressing its universal, monumental beauty through modern artistic means. Already in his first theoretical writings, Van Doesburg (1917: 40) explicitly referred to recent works of Mondrian, where any figurativeness was avoided in favour of abstract compositions of perpendicular lines, which seem to have had considerable impact on Van Doesburg and his later works. His later writings (e.g. 1920, 1921b, 1922b, 1922c, 1924a, 1924b) reveal numerous similarities to the theories of Piet Mondrian. They both formed the programmatic direction of the first volumes of

54

Avant-Garde Manifestos

De Stijl, centred around the issue of expressing the universal through modern abstract art based on a well-balanced composition of straight lines and planes of primary colours. Similar viewpoints were also expressed in Van Doesburg’s (1926b) article published in Polish in the first issue of Praesens. The non-figurative approach to various arts was visible in numerous programmatic statements published in De Stijl. Its first manifesto was published in four languages and signed by artists, architects and writers belonging to the group. It explicitly stressed the universal nature of new art, in opposition to the individual character of past decades, as well as to tradition and beliefs (Van Doesburg et al. 1918). The second manifesto from April 1920, signed by Van Doesburg, Mondrian and Kok, expressed similar standpoints with relation to literature. It described the word as being dead, powerless and meaningless, and literature as too individualistic, subjective and based on the sentimental feelings of the old generation – and hence unable to represent the modern era. As in the case of painting, the manifesto called for a renewal of words as far as content and sound were concerned, providing poetry with more depth and intensity, instead of the thickness or length of its volumes. Thus, as expressed in the manifesto, a modern writer “will not at all DEscribe, but instead he will WRITE” (Van Doesburg, Mondrian and Kok 1920: 50), a credo which could in fact be broadly applied to various arts where any mimetic description, imitation or figuration were rejected. Other contributors to De Stijl also expressed their programmatic standpoints, for instance Oud (1919b) deplored the fact that individual forms of architectural expression were still more common than one united direction which would reflect a universal life attitude, and Kok (1919) underlined the dualistic nature of modern art where the

Figure 14 The first manifesto of De Stijl from 1918 (source: De Stijl 2, 1: 4; IADDB)

Avant-Garde Manifestos

55

universal was represented by the individual, two opposite elements which needed to be in balance. Also the writings of the Belgian artist and contributor to De Stijl Georges Vantongerloo show significant similarities to other theories put forward in the magazine. In a series of articles published in De Stijl and in his book L’Art et son avenir Vantongerloo (1918/1920, 1924) emphasised the necessity to reflect universal values in sculpture through abstract means of expression and balanced relationships or particular elements. Nevertheless, as outlined by Blotkamp and Hilhorst (1996: 351–353), considerable differences appeared between the theories of Vantongerloo, Mondrian and Van Doesburg, in particular with regard to colour, and from March 1920 Vantongerloo ceased to publish in De Stijl. The idea of abstraction as the proper means of artistic expression of the modern era was also present in various Belgian periodicals, both Dutch- and French-written. For Jozef Peeters, as for many other contributors to Het Overzicht, modern constructive art was a result of the pace of everyday life of the period, therefore it was not to imitate or depict nature – or contain any content whatsoever. In order to reflect the dynamics of contemporary life and the world, art was not only to eliminate figurativeness, but also any unnecessary adornment (cf. Peeters 1923a, 1923b, 1923c). To this end, Michel Seuphor stated explicitly: “In de natuur voorbeelden zoeken is gevaarlijk voor de mens die zo hevig met haar kontrasteert.” [It is dangerous for man, who substantially differs from nature, to search for references in it.] (Berckelaers 1924: 122–123). For him the highest aesthetic values of an artwork were geometry-based harmony as well as architectural simplification into pure function. The issues of geometry, order, balance were also tackled by foreign contributors to Het Overzicht, such as Behne, Léger and Walden. The role of abstraction as the idiom of the avant-garde was also emphasised in the two manifestos of De Driehoek, devoted to painting and architecture respectively. In his manifesto Peeters (1925b) saw any illusion of reality or its depiction as unacceptable in modern painting, where only geometrical forms, straight lines and primary colours should be applied for the sake of processing and interpreting the object. He condemned all forms of figurativeness, realism and decorativeness, such as ornaments, depth and perspective or nature-inspired colours. Instead, the manifesto described mathematical laws as the only solution for truly modern painting, while any “means other than geometric planes of colour (. . .) were vicious”. The ideas expressed in the Driehoek’s manifesto were actually very much in line with the principles put forward by the Dutch artists in De Stijl, and similarly Huib Hoste’s architectural manifesto was in keeping with the programmatic statements of J.J.P. Oud, Mondrian and Van Doesburg. Employing the symbolism of a machine and its pure construction, Hoste (1925) claimed that technology and functionality should also prevail in the field of architecture as well, which should be free of any ornament, decoration or purely aesthetic elements. Numerous issues of 7 Arts contained many theoretical statements where similar viewpoints were expressed. Much more attention than in the above-mentioned Dutchwritten periodicals, however, was put to order and construction in art. The opening statement of 7 Arts, divided into sections dedicated to painting, architecture, music and literature, underlined the necessity to stay up to date, i.e. be precise, disciplined and willing to construct. Besides the need of order and stability in painting and architecture, the text also condemned any imitative approaches, for instance in literature. It quoted Oscar Wilde’s bold statement “art only begins where imitation ends” which was extended

56

Avant-Garde Manifestos

to “art only begins where the useless ends” ([Bourgeois et al.] 1922: n.p.). In another programmatic statement published in the magazine we read: Le chaos esthétique est dû à la prédominance du passé sur le présent: le jour où nos créateurs, nos professeurs et le public accepteront de demander au monde vivant la règle suprême de l’art, la civilisation moderne aura trouvé une expression esthétique pure infiniment. (. . .) La vie actuelle est européenne et mécanique. La pureté ne peut exister qu’en une compréhension fervente de cet esprit moderne. ([Bourgeois et al.] 1923a: n.p.) [The aesthetic chaos stems from the predominance of the past over the present: only when our creators, our professors and the audience agree to demand the supreme rule of art from the living world, will the modern civilisation find an infinitely pure aesthetic expression. (. . .) Today’s life is European and mechanic. The purity can only exist in a fervent understanding of this modern spirit.] Similar standpoints were expressed by various contributors to 7 Arts. Van Ostaijen (1925) emphasised the necessity of the precise and well-ordered placement of words, which in turn would reveal the transcendent and metaphysical, and Pierre Bourgeois (1925) went even further, claiming that traditional verse and poetic language should be rejected and replaced with abstraction and movement, for instance in the form of calligrams. Other programmatic statements published in 7 Arts repeated the need for ordered creation, rationalism and calculation in art ([Bourgeois et al.] 1923a, 1923b, 1923c), poetry (Chenoy 1925b; Werrie 1927), as well as in architecture and town planning (Bourgeois 1923; H[envaux] 1924, 1925; Van der Swaelmen 1926). Just like their Dutch and Belgian counterparts, Polish avant-gardists propagated abstract, non-figurative art, and wrote extensively on the subject. The new art had to break from tradition and past forms, as exemplified by Henryk Berlewi’s manifesto “In kampf far der najer forem” [The struggle for a new form]: “Our times are devoid of style (. . .); tradition has disappeared” (Berlewi 1921, quoted in Benson and Forgács 2002: 182–183). In line with international voices of the period, Berlewi pointed out that although new ideas had emerged from the old ground, modern artists had to contest and overcome it entirely, and break off from any foreign, unrelated elements in order to be able to create original and pure forms. In his most renowned programmatic statement Mechano-faktura, Berlewi (1924a: n.p.) repeated his view on modern art: Dzisiejsza sztuka jest wytworem dzisiejszego dnia. Musi ona zerwac´ z tymi wszystkimi nawykami sztuki wczorajszej, uperfumowanej, perwersyjnej, przeczulonej, histerycznej, romantycznej, buduarowej, indywidualistycznej. Powinna ona stworzyc´ nowy je˛zyk form, który, doste˛pny dla wszystkich, nie kolidowałby z rytmem dzisiejszego dnia. [Today’s art is a product of today. Art must break all the habits of yesterday’s perfumed, perverse, hypersensitive, hysterical, romantic, boudoir-bound, individualistic art. It must create a new idiom of form that is accessible to all and in unison with the rhythm of life. (Benson and Forgács 2002: 489–491)]

Avant-Garde Manifestos

57

The need of a new artistic idiom was also voiced in Peiper’s article on Ozenfant and Jeanneret, where he used the term “sztuka przenos´ na” [transmissible art] which would transmit the author’s feelings to the viewer.2 Such art was based on the universal principles and language of art, which would enable communication between the artist and the recipient, relying only on the most common and universal elements such as geometric figures and colours (Bielski 1922).3 When it came to literature, Polish avant-garde poets such as Peiper (e.g. 1922a, 1923a), Przybos´ (1926, 1927) and Kurek (1930a, 1930b) rejected tradition and – similarly to the postulates put forward in 7 Arts – claimed that literature and art should be based on logical construction, discipline and restraint. Works of literature were to be constructed from harmonious and wellbalanced relationships of words and sentences – a viewpoint shared by many artists and writers from Poland and the Low Countries who rejected the Dadaist/Futurist-oriented approaches where syntax and logic were consciously rejected (represented for instance by Van Doesburg’s alter ego I.K. Bonset or Tytus Czyz˙ewski). Notably, in the writings of Polish artists one perceives considerable similarities to the Dutch theories, especially those put forward by Piet Mondrian (cf. Turowski 1979, 1990a). His Neoplastic principle of equilibrium of relationships between particular elements of an artwork (lines, colour planes, volumes) was a much-used and re-worked idea among avant-garde artists in Poland, particularly by Henryk Staz˙ewski. Given the resemblances between the theories of those artists, Staz˙ewski had very likely been acquainted with Mondrian’s theory of Neoplasticism before he wrote his theoretical statements for Blok and Praesens. Similarly to Mondrian, Staz˙ewski (1924, 1929) likewise rejected individualism as not capable of reflecting the core aspects of the universe and reaching the theosophical equilibrium between men and the universe, between the internal and the external (cf. Kleiverda-Kajetanowicz 1985: 27–33). For both artists the expression of the universal principles was the sole aim of modern art. As such, in order for art to reflect the equilibrium, it had to be abstract, as reflected in the title of Staz˙ewski’s statement. Staz˙ewski further developed his theory on abstract art in the first issue of Praesens, where significant similarities with the writings of Piet Mondrian became even more visible. To a reasonable extent Staz˙ewski’s “Styl Współczesnos´ ci” [The contemporary style] could be perceived as a repetition of some of Mondrian’s Neoplastic principles, and as noticed by Kleiverda-Kajetanowicz (1985: 30), the Dutch theory had been the most important – if not the only – source of inspiration for Staz˙ewski. Indeed, the latter’s definition of modern art: Nowa plastyka, abstrakcyjna, wyzwala sie˛ od ‘opisowos´ ci’ i ma na celu jedynie wyraz˙anie równowagi stosunków elementów plastycznych. (. . .) dociera [ona] jedynie do wartos´ ci najbardziej uniwersalnych, wspólnych wszystkim ludziom, oczyszczaja˛c plastyke˛ od wszelkich elementów nie-plastycznych, przez wyraz˙anie tylko równowagi stosunków i proporcyj. (Staz˙ewski 1926a: 2) [This new, abstract art rejects ‘descriptiveness’. Its sole aim being to present balanced relations between visual elements. [I]t strives to bring out the most universal values common to all men, and, by rejecting all non-visual elements, to achieve well-balanced relations and proportions. (Benson and Forgács 2002: 645)]

58

Avant-Garde Manifestos

is without a doubt based on Mondrian’s statement: L’esprit nouveau supprime la description dans l’art (. . .) tout art (. . .) s’efforce vers l’expression plastique en fonction des rapports équilibrés, car c’est l’équilibre des rapports qui exprime le plus purement l’harmonie et l’unité, propres à l’esprit. (Mondrian 1921a: 4, 7) [The new spirit eliminates description from art (. . .) all art (. . .) strives for plastic expression through equilibrated relations, since the equilibrium of relations forms the purest expression of harmony and unity, suitable for spirit.] The major similarities in the terminology used by both theoreticians are also worthy of note: e.g. Staz˙ewski’s terms nowa plastyka [modern art] and nowy duch [new spirit] were direct translations of Mondrian’s néo-plasticisme/nieuwe beelding and l’esprit nouveau/de nieuwe geest (cf. Kleiverda-Kajetanowicz 1985: 28). Nevertheless, as noticed by Turowski (1979: 144–145), despite many similarities between the artistic programmes of those artists, some aspects of Staz˙ewski’s theories differed from Mondrian’s metaphysical principles. As Staz˙ewski himself emphasised, “the Polish abstract painters [were] no imitators of Van Doesburg and Mondrian but their successors, and they were somehow oppose[d] to their predecessors” (Staz˙ewski 1933b: 4). Looking however at Staz˙ewski’s programmatic statements, their close affinity to the Dutch theoreticians is undeniable. Resemblances of the Dutch theories are also visible in the writings of other Polish artists. In L’Art Contemporain Brze˛kowski (1929/1930) made an attempt to outline the development of modern art in the course of the preceding two decades. Like Staz˙ewski and Mondrian, he claimed that art had always been a fight between the external reality and the inner abstract world of the artist. According to Brze˛kowski, abstraction had overcome realism and figurativeness to achieve the purest form of art. Brze˛kowski also reflected on the use of the term “abstract painting”: La forme géométrique concrète, exprimée dans les plus concrètes proportions, devient l’élément plastique. La dénomination: peinture abstraite n’est pas juste, parce que en indiquant le détachement de cette peinture de la réalité objective, cette dénomination peut porter à croire que la composition n’est pas chose concrète. Il n’existe rien de plus concret, que l’art dit «abstrait». (Brze˛kowski 1929/1930: 91–92) [Concrete geometrical form, expressed in the most concrete proportions, becomes a plastic element. The term: abstract painting is unfitting, as by indicating a lack of connection between this painting and objective reality, it may suggest that composition is not a concrete thing. For there is nothing more concrete that ‘abstract’ art.] Interestingly, Brze˛kowski’s viewpoint corresponds closely with Mondrian’s observations presented as a response to the aforementioned survey of the magazine Europa: W porównaniu z konkretami przyrody, rzeczywistos´c´ ta [= nowa rzeczywistos´c´ – MW] jest bardziej abstrakcyjna. W sztuce przeciez˙ mówi sie˛ o ‘sztuce abstrakcyjnej’.

Avant-Garde Manifestos

59

Lecz ze wzgle˛du na konkretne s´ rodki ekspresji, sztuka abstrakcyjna jest przeciez˙ KONKRETNA. (Mondrian 1929: 90) [Compared to the concrete aspects of nature, this [new – MW] reality is more abstract. When it comes to art we do talk about ‘abstract art’. Nevertheless, given the concrete means of expression, abstract art is indeed CONCRETE], as well as with the programmatic statement of Art Concret published only two months earlier: Peinture concrète, et non abstraite parce que rien n’est plus concret, plus réel qu’une ligne, qu’une couleur, qu’une surface. ([Carlsund et al.] 1930b: 2) [Concrete and not abstract painting because there nothing is concrete, more real than a line, a colour, a surface. (Baljeu 1974: 181).] Living and working in Paris, Brze˛kowski participated and contributed to the artistic discussions with Mondrian and other artists who lived there at that time, hence those significant similarities. An important notion tackled in many programmatic writings with relation to formal aspects of abstract art, is the so-called organicity. The term is related to the Platonic “principle of organicity” in rhetoric where “each speech should be an organic whole in which all its parts, although different from one another and each specialized to its task, nonetheless function together in interdependent harmony” (Welton 2014). Originally used in art with reference to nature, the term was reinterpreted by the modernists for whom autonomy, integrity and coherence of an artwork were of crucial importance. A modernist artwork was to be a stand-alone organism where all elements stayed in strict functional relations to each other creating one organic entity. Dutch and Belgian theoreticians did not often refer to artistic organicity: the term appeared for instance in Het Overzicht and 7 Arts (Kallai 1923; H[envaux] 1925; Van Ostaijen 1925) as well as in the writings of Dutch artists. Van Doesburg (1917: 35) described “organic independence” as the ultimate aim of an artwork, whilst for Oud (1921: 156) a modern building was to become a “complete spatial-visual organism” solely based on mutual relationships of its construction elements, not decoration or ornaments. In Polish texts, however, the term organicity appeared quite often, in particular in the writings of Strzemin´ski who, similarly to the Dutch artists, rejected any decorative, foreign elements in an artwork and agitated for a proper system of construction in art. As observed by Paulina Kurc-Maj (2012), the notion of organicity played an important role in Strzemin´ski’s theory where much emphasis was put on the non-representative and non-figurative nature of modern art which was to be governed by its own rules, independent from the laws of nature, as exemplified by Strzemin´ski’s (1923a) programmatic statement from the Vilnius exhibition catalogue. For Strzemin´ski, in order to achieve the organicity of an artwork – i.e. its integrity and harmony – past forms of

60

Avant-Garde Manifestos

artistic expression were to be rejected and replaced by new forms, topics and abstract laws based on discipline and constructive methods, and he even proposed that abstraction in art based on a simple economic system should be mandatory (Strzemin´ski 1924b). Both in Poland and in the Low Countries, the economic use of artistic means – restraint, logic and discipline instead of decoration, afflatus and expressiveness – was seen as necessary for modern art, architecture and literature (see e.g. Peiper 1922b; Bourgeois 1923; Van Doesburg 1924a; Van Doesburg and Van Eesteren 1924a; Miller 1924b; Red. 1924b as well as Kłosin´ski 2015 for an analysis of the notion of economy in the Polish avant-garde). There are many similarities between the theoretical writings and artistic practices of Strzemin´ski, Kobro and the Dutch artists who shared much interest in each other’s artistic theories (cf. Brze˛kowski 1966: 164). Strzemin´ski (1929a: 24) claimed, for instance, that the theory of Neoplasticism had formed the background of Kobro’s sculptures where mutual relations were of utmost importance. Nevertheless, Strzemin´ski and Kobro did not agree with the activities of their Dutch and Belgian colleagues on all aspects, especially Van Doesburg and Vantongerloo (cf. Turowski 1990a). They criticised the dynamic aspect of Van Doesburg’s countercompositions from his Elementarist period, where clashes of two lines disturbed the harmony and organicity in painting. Notably, one of the latter’s counter-compositions was used by Kobro and Strzemin´ski (1931: 67–68) as an example of wrongly based composition in painting. In contrast to Van Doesburg, Strzemin´ski rejected the element of time in painting, as well as rhythm and contrasts of lines, colours or planes characteristic also for Mondrian. In the case of sculpture and architecture, though, rhythm, space and time were of crucial importance for the Polish artists and they criticised the early works of Vantongerloo as being based solely on volumes/masses, and not on space (Strzemin´ski 1929a: 24; Kobro and Strzemin´ski 1931: 68–78) – an approach which was to evolve in time, partly under the influence of Kobro (cf. Section 3.3). The principles of abstract art, e.g. the Neoplastic equilibrium of relationships and the balance between straight lines, colours, planes and volumes, were also applied to architecture, both in Poland and in the Low Countries. Architects such as Oud, Wils, Hoste and Syrkus as well as Mondrian, Van Doesburg and Strzemin´ski rejected traditional layouts, composition and symmetry in favour of functional and pragmatic solutions based on well-balanced proportions as opposed to outmoded aesthetical a priori. Buildings were to have open plans with mobile walls, and the interior was to merge with the exterior (cf. Syrkus 1926a, 1927 and Van Doesburg 1924a, 1924c). Architecture, like painting, had to operate with fundamental elements such as pillars, planes and volumes in order to create a pure and abstract expression of the universal. Any relation between architecture and nature was also categorically rejected: Mondrian perceived it as impure, and elsewhere Syrkus (1926a: 13) claimed that “architecture never took its forms from nature, it was never art of imitation, as its aim [was] not imitation but organisation and creation”. Turowski (1990a) pointed to various influences of the Dutch theoreticians on Syrkus, which are indeed visible both explicitly – by referring to contemporary works of Mondrian, Van Doesburg and Oud (Syrkus 1926a: 11; 1930: 29, 31) – and implicitly – for instance Mondrian’s and Van Doesburg’s influences are undeniable in the following excerpt: “A work of modern art expresses itself through a simultaneous composition of standardised elements in an individual equilibrium of contrasting relations” (Syrkus 1930: 33).

Avant-Garde Manifestos

61

Figure 15 Theo van Doesburg’s Composition XIV (1924) used by Kobro and Strzemin´ski as an example of wrongly based composition in painting (source: MSL; © Ewa-Sapka Pawliczak – copyright owner to works of Władysław Strzemin´ski and Katarzyna Kobro)

Seuphor’s perception of “architecture” as a total unification of constructive principles in an artwork (not per se a building) is also interesting, as expressed in the opening manifesto of Cercle et Carré. Seuphor (1930a) emphasised that although people were indeed linked to nature, their actual greatness was based on rational comprehension and creation, and their ultimate goal was to reach the superior order, a supernatural constructive concept of life. Hence, he defined one of the modern artists’ tasks as the necessity to examine the reciprocal relationships between various elements of the world in order to discover its universal principles and to reflect these in their works. For Seuphor an artist should: [é]tablir sur les bases d’une structure sévère, simple et nue dans toutes ses parties, et dans un principe d’unité étroite avec cette structure non cachée, une architecture [my italics – MW] qui, par les moyens techniques et physiques spéciaux à l’époque, exprime in langage clair le vrai immanent et immuable, reflète dans son organisation particulière l’ordre magnifique de l’univers. (Seuphor 1930a: n.p.) [on the basis of a rigorous, simple and entirely bare structure, and under the rule of strict unity with this uncovered structure, create architecture which – through

62

Avant-Garde Manifestos proper technical and physical means of the period – clearly expresses the immanent and persistent truth, and reflects the mathematical order of the universe in its specific organisation.]

International initiatives and magazines launched in late 1920s and early 1930s, such as Cercle et Carré, Abstraction-Création or Art Concret united artists of various nationalities who jointly rejected figurative and nature-related elements from art in favour of abstraction and non-figurativeness as the proper means to obtain pure construction and a well-balanced structure of mutual relations between particular elements of the artwork. After years of theoretical discussions regarding the nature of modern art, the status of abstraction as the only idiom capable of expressing the universal principles of the world in art was established. As repeated in the manifesto of Art Concret, universality and objectivity of art were crucial. Artworks were to be based on geometry and logic, and free from any individual and local constraints (Carlsund et al. 1930a).4

2.2. L’art pour . . .? Although abstraction and non-figurativeness became the official idiom of the avantgarde, contrary to the above-mentioned claim of Greenberg (1939), not all avant-garde works were conceived as independent from social issues. As pointed out by Hubert

Figure 16 The manifesto of Art Concret from 1930 (source: RCE)

Avant-Garde Manifestos

63

van den Berg (2015), Greenberg’s theory that art could be divided into non-figurative autonomous avant-garde or politically and socially engaged kitsch needs revision. Indeed, drawing on various statements and theories of avant-garde artists, it becomes evident that they constantly oscillated between two poles: art for art’s sake (l’art pour l’art) and socially engaged art (l’art social or Tendenzkunst). This division dates back to the nineteenth century artistic debates in France, as exemplified by Gustave Kahn’s (1896) article “L’Art social et l’art pour l’art” [Social art and art for art’s sake]. The representatives of European historical avant-garde functioned within this binary opposition, and they vividly discussed the political and social engagement of their art (cf. Van den Berg 2015). Avant-gardists from Poland and the Low Countries where also actively participating in this discussion, and their programmatic statements, with many similarities and differences, indicate the complex nature of the avant-garde in this aspect. On the one hand, the theory of Neoplasticism rejected any social factors in art. For Mondrian and Van Doesburg, as well as for other artists, art was to be governed by its own laws independent of any external factors. Related to the elimination of mimetic depiction and figurativeness, they saw art itself as its own aim which could as much as only express the artist’s emotions in a personal, independent way. In the process of making and judging art, it was exclusively the artist, their will and eventually the artwork that counted (Van Doesburg 1917: 20; Mondrian 1917/1918: 3, 52). For Van Doesburg (1920: 20), the modern spirit had been gradually evolving towards l’art pour l’art in order to eventually reach the ultimate form of l’art pour le vrai [art for the truth], and according to Mondrian (1919/1920: 137), pure plastic approach should not only create new art, but also build a new abstract society – a society of well-balanced relations and harmony between the material and the spiritual. Disappointed with the fact that the contemporary society was not yet ready to evolve and understand modern art, Mondrian (1922b: 46) stated that art had to limit itself to art only, and refrain from any social engagement. This autonomous view was shared by several Belgian artists, who saw social demands as an obstacle for the new art. Artists were to create works of art which did not speak or were not to be understood, but instead expressed universal and immanent truths (cf. Peeters 1923d; Eemans 1925a; Seuphor 1930a). Particularly with regard to literature, all political connotations were excluded; it was to be created upon its own laws and remain autonomous and politically unengaged (Bourgeois 1923; Werrie 1927). Moreover, as reflected in Het Overzicht by the Hungarian artist Lajos Kassák (1923: 70), “an artwork is to be compared only with itself” and “the artist does not address any issues, and artworks never solve any problems”. Years later in his statement on concrete art, Van Doesburg (1930b: 11) would paraphrase it as “Il n’y a rien à lire dans la peinture. Il y a à voir.” [There is nothing to read in a painting. There is only to watch]. Also Polish artists expressed similar viewpoints in their programmatic writings. Peiper for instance argued that each painting constituted its own reality and had its own internal logic, entirely autonomous from tangible elements, and that artists – although directly related to the rest of society and influenced by its evolution – were not at its disposal and nor did they preach any slogans (Peiper 1922b, 1926a; Bielski 1922). Similarly to the Belgian writers, Peiper and other avant-garde poets also postulated total autonomy for literature. The l’art pour l’art approach also found its advocates among Polish painters, especially Staz˙ewski and Strzemin´ski. For instance, the second issue of Blok featured an unsigned text which opened with

64

Avant-Garde Manifestos

a statement: “Artysta tworza˛c działa bezinteresownie – bez celu pedagogicznego” [An artist remains neutral while creating – with no pedagogical principle] ([Staz˙ewski et al.] 1924f: n.p.). It was probably written by Staz˙ewski or Strzemin´ski, whose other writings reveal very similar viewpoints. The latter for instance saw total integration of art and society as devastating. Instead, artworks were to be independent, unrelated entities created upon their own laws and no other principles were to serve for the sake of constructing an artwork (Strzemin´ski 1922/1923, 1923a, 1924a, 1924b, 1927a; Kobro and Strzemin´ski 1931). A very interesting viewpoint on the art–society relation was expressed by Georges Vantongerloo in his texts published in the 1930s in Abstraction-Création. For Vantongerloo (1933: 43) art encouraged social development, but the artistic passion had always been retained by the inferior stage of social evolution. He dismissed the belief that art reflected society since it had always been more advanced and should finally be able to free itself from social servitude. In a similar vein to Mondrian, Vantongerloo also postulated that society – not art – should be changed, as it slowed down the development of art and architecture: “C’est donc notre base sociale qu’il faut réviser, ce qui amènera automatiquement une demeure en rapport direct avec notre évolution sociale. On ne peut plus construire sur les bases de notre société actuelle” (Vantongerloo 1935: 31) [Thus it is our society that needs revision, which will automatically result in dwellings directly related to our social evolution. We can no longer construct upon our current society.]. The concept of avant-garde art as a changing factor for society was a shared approach of many artists who rejected the social or political engagement of art out of principle, but yet they did not exclude its influence on society. For instance, in his statement “Anti-Tendenzkunst” [Against social art] Van Doesburg (1923: 18) categorically rejected any political influences on art and confirmed its autonomy, claiming nevertheless that art “developed powers strong enough to influence the entire culture as such, instead of being influenced by the society”. Like Van Doesburg, also other avant-garde artists saw abstract avant-garde art as a source of renewal and modernisation of society, e.g. Chenoy (1924b), Peiper (1923b) and Bourgeois (1925). Modern art, architecture and literature were for them not only supposed to keep up with the growing pace of life and rapid evolution of the world, but also to influence the society by creating new thinking patterns. In his manifesto under an evocative title Manifest poetycki o Rzeczypospolitej. Poeci na front. S´piewajcie o Rzeczypospolitej. Społeczen´stwo czeka na wasze usta [Poetic manifesto on the Polish Republic. Poets to the front. Sing about the Polish Republic. The society awaits your words] the Polish poet Jalu Kurek (1929) stated explicitly: “Poetry is a social function. Its task is to echo the happenings that happen”. On the other hand, many programmatic writings of Polish, Belgian and Dutch provenance revealed an entirely different approach, namely art being directly and inseparably linked to social issues. In particular, socially engaged art was postulated with relation to architecture, which by definition has a practical, functional aspect. This issue was actually one of the reasons why avant-garde painters and architects did not succeed in collaborating in the long term, as their theories and viewpoints on art and architecture differed substantially (so was for instance the case of Van Doesburg and Oud or of Strzemin´ski/Staz˙ewski and Syrkus). Contradictory opinions on this matter were already visible in the first series of De Stijl where J.J.P. Oud (1917, 1918) related art with social aspects of the period. In his

Figure 17 Jalu Kurek’s Manifest poetycki o Rzeczypospolitej. Poeci na front. S´piewajcie o Rzeczypospolitej. Społeczen´stwo czeka na wasze usta from 1929 (source: ARA)

66

Avant-Garde Manifestos

following articles Oud (1919a, 1919b, 1921, [1926] 1929) repeatedly referred to the social entanglement of architecture, including his article published in Praesens. Oud (1926) argued there that architecture had a major impact on social life and that welldesigned buildings could have an impact on proper education or even teach the correct life values. The Belgian 7 Arts often pointed to architecture as directly participating in social life, being its mirror (cf. Goyens de Heusch 1976). Its opening manifesto claimed that the architects’ mission was to introduce artistic peace into all social activities ([Bourgeois et al.] 1922) while Eemans (1925a and 1925b) claimed that “beauty laid in utility” pointing to the futility of the l’art pour l’art approach vis-à-vis the synthesis of aesthetical and social elements in modern art. Interestingly, in Het Woord Jan Demets (1926a) also argued for the social implication of art, albeit in a reverse form – i.e. because the economy was not of any importance for art, it was society that should take care of artists by supplying them with proper work space and utilities, allowing them to produce art for society. Modern Polish architects also gave much attention to the social aspects of architecture, for instance Syrkus, whose goal was socially oriented architecture showing its users how to live in a comfortable, economic and hygienic way. For Syrkus (1926a: 12), well-designed architecture was both the cause and the effect of social life: “architecture changed society just as society changed architecture”, hence well-organised social life could also give birth to great architecture. According to Syrkus and other modern architects, e.g. the Brukalskis, Szanajca or Lachert, since architecture regulated and organised lives of millions of people, the architects had to take modern social expectations, new lifestyles, etc., into consideration in order to condition social development through architecture.5 Such an approach was especially visible in CIAM, where the architects strongly advocated for socially oriented architecture to be implemented – e.g. during the third CIAM congress in Brussels devoted to the minimum dwelling (cf. Praesens 2: 180–190 and Mumford 2000). It was not only architects who reflected on the social aspect of art and architecture in Poland, but also visual artists Strzemin´ski and Kobro stressed the social and functional aspects of interior architecture which they saw as “the regulator of social and individual life” (Strzemin´ski 1931: 68; see also 1928c and Kobro 1935). It was however Mieczysław Szczuka who was the biggest advocate of socially engaged art in Poland. His leftist political views considerably influenced his view on art, which he saw as inextricably connected with social issues. First of all, Szczuka (1923, 1924a) perceived art as meant for people to fill their surroundings and free time with. He claimed that the hectic pace of contemporary human life and lack of proper education had made people overlook art and as a consequence they were no longer able to understand it. Hence, because art was to be created for people, it had to be directly linked to technology and industry, which would make it reachable for the masses and as a consequence exert considerable impact on their lives and tastes. Once Szczuka and Z˙arnower became the sole editors of Blok, it became visibly oriented towards social art. For instance Blok’s manifesto “Co to jest konstruktywizm” repeated Szczuka’s viewpoints on art as a factor in general societal development. Although non-figurative abstraction was a commonly acknowledged form of expression among avant-garde artists, it did not mean that avant-garde art was to be apolitical and socially unengaged for all of its representatives. On the contrary, as noticed by Theo van Doesburg (1921/1922: 110) two poles of avant-garde art existed:

Avant-Garde Manifestos

67

l’avant-garde d’art pur (art for art’s sake) and l’avant-garde d’idées (socially engaged art), and avant-garde artists placed their artistic endeavours at one of them or in between. Those who propagated art which was heavily engaged in social and political issues were contradicted by artists advocating autonomous art, independent from social factors. Nevertheless, for both groups avant-garde art had a shared revolutionary objective: to unite art and life, improve and modernise the society to keep it up to date with the modern world and times – a purely utopian objective, regardless of whether it fell under a particular socio-political umbrella.

2.3.

Cooperation between Disciplines and across Borders

The aforementioned issues of the autonomy of avant-garde art, its socio-political engagement and impact were all related to the notion of Gesamtkunstwerk (also referred to as social art, collective art, gemeenschapskunst or art communautaire). It was coined in the nineteenth century and in the course of the 1920s often applied and redefined by various avant-garde artists (Vandevoorde 2013: 224). They perceived the synthesis of various arts as the correct way of developing modern literature, art and architecture, with the latter gaining a prominent status as a domain linking other forms of art. Since the beginning of the twentieth century the term Gesamtkunstwerk began to encompass the idea of architecture as the base to which other arts were linked, which was propagated for instance by the Bauhaus (cf. S´witek 2013: 173–198). The need for cooperation between various professions was repeatedly voiced by various avant-garde artists throughout the analysed period, as succinctly recapitulated by Jean Gorin (1930) in Cercle et Carré: Ingénieurs, architectes, peintres et sculpteurs travailleront en étroite collaboration, s’exprimant néanmoins chacun dans son propre domaine. L’architecte réalisera ainsi l’union intime de tous les arts plastiques (. . .). A ce moment, toute expression, toute création en forme d’objet d’art particulier basé presque toujours sur la propriété individuelle n’aura plus aucune raison d’être. L’architecture néoplastique réalisant (. . .) l’art collectif le plus pur. [Engineers, architects, painters and sculptors will work in close collaboration, yet expressing themselves in their proper domain. Hence architecture will form an intimate union of all visual arts (. . .). At that moment all forms of expression, all the creation in the form of a work of particular art, almost always based on individual property, will have no more raison d’être. Neoplastic architecture producing (. . .) the purest collective art.] The idea of a collective monumental art resulting from the synthesis between visual arts and architecture was particularly important to Theo van Doesburg, as outlined by Carel Blotkamp (1990: 18–20, 1994: 128–129). Already in his early writings Van Doesburg (1916, 1918b, 1920) envisaged a collective monumental style based on unity and harmony between various means of expression: architecture, sculpture, painting, music and literature. He undertook numerous collaborative projects trying his best to cooperate with architects in order to create a harmonious synthesised art. Despite numerous obstacles in his cooperation with architects, De Stijl repeatedly referred to

68

Avant-Garde Manifestos

the idea of Gesamtkunstwerk, for instance by publishing Werner Gräff’s manifesto where he (1922: 74) postulated: “Wir schaffen das Gesamtkunstwerk. Die Zusammenarbeit von Architektur und Plastik und Malerei (Gemeinsam) mit Industrie und Technik, Leben.” [We create Gesamtkunstwerk. A cooperation of architecture, art and painting (together) with industry and technology, life.]. Van Doesburg could eventually bring his plans of collective work of architects and painters to fruition when he met the young Cornelis van Eesteren in May 1922, who shared Van Doesburg’s ideal of the synthesis of arts. Van Eesteren later became a member of De Stijl and created several architectural projects together with Van Doesburg, for instance Maison d’artiste (1923), which Blotkamp (1990: 34) described as a “paradigm of collaboration between painter and architect as equal partners”. Although the actual cooperation did not last long, it did bring some major theoretical fruits with regard to collective art (cf. Van Straaten 1996). At the occasion of De Stijl’s exhibition in the Gallery L’Effort Moderne held in October–November 1923, the group’s fifth manifesto titled Vers une construction collective (Manifeste V du Groupe ‘De Stijl’) [Towards collective construction (The 5th Manifesto of ‘De Stijl’ Group)] was issued by Van Doesburg, Van Eesteren and Rietveld.6 It was also published a year later in De Stijl under the title “– □ + = R4” but with no mention of Rietveld.

Figure 18 Cover of De Stijl 6, 6/7 featuring a photo of Theo van Doesburg and Cornelis van Eesteren working on one of their collective projects (source: De Stijl 6, 6/7: 73; IADDB)

Figure 19 Vers une construction collective (Manifeste V du Groupe ‘De Stijl’) published by Theo van Doesburg, Cornelis van Eesteren and Gerrit Rietveld in 1923 (source: FC, Collection Frits Lugt)

70

Avant-Garde Manifestos

The text was preceded by another theoretical statement from 1923 also titled “Vers une construction collective” which called for the laws of construction to be established in light of the rules of economics, mathematics, technology, hygiene, etc. According to Van Doesburg and Van Eesteren (1924a: 89), the laws of construction “could not be imagined” and that “one discovered them only through collective effort and from experience”. Somehow as a response to it, the actual manifesto appeared under the changed name directly afterwards. Its authors claimed to have collectively examined the laws and established the nature of modern architecture as a plastic unity of all the arts (Van Doesburg and Van Eesteren 1924b; cf. Van Doesburg, Van Eesteren and Rietveld 1923). The same issue of De Stijl featured one of Theo van Doesburg’s most important theoretical statements “Tot een beeldende architectuur” [Towards plastic architecture], also printed in Bouwkundig Weekblad as well as in Blok (Van Doesburg 1924a, 1924b, 1924c). The manifesto was a summary of Van Doesburg’s previous theoretical and practical endeavours, and it presented architecture as an organic synthesis and a monumental union of all modern plastic arts. As pointed out by Van Straaten (1996: 30–32), the fact that the text was signed solely by Van Doesburg caused some animosity between him and Van Eesteren, which eventually led to the end of their collaboration. It is also worth noting that at the end of the Polish translation of this statement in Blok, Van Doesburg added a short comment where he emphasised that the new collective style could be born only when artists and architects work side by side and exchange views with each other – a postscript postulating collective efforts added to the very text which led to their failure. The concepts of art synthesis and collective artistic efforts were also major issues for the Belgian avant-garde, in particular for 7 Arts. The journal itself – just like most avant-garde periodicals – may be regarded as a product of the collective work of artists, architects and writers. Of particular interest is the fact that its editors did not sign their critiques, as they were jointly and collectively responsible for all the articles, a status they repeatedly informed the reader throughout the first series of the magazine. Theories put forward in 7 Arts were closely related to contemporary viewpoints regarding the union of various disciplines expressed by the artists related to De Stijl or the Bauhaus (cf. Goyens de Heusch 1976; Vandevoorde 2013). Contemporary fascinations with the city, masses and machines symbolised the collective spirit of modern times and formed a source of inspiration for modern, social and collective art. This collective ideal could – according to Pierre Bourgeois (1923) – be best reflected both by architecture and poetry, but cinema was also perceived as a perfect example of collective art (Chenoy 1925a; Dekeukelerie 1927). Individual approaches were repeatedly condemned in 7 Arts, while collective efforts were praised: in one of the unsigned statements it was proclaimed: “Héroïque qui travaille en la collectivité, ayant su éteindre (. . .) la tare individualiste” [Heroic is the one who works collectively, and has been able to remove (. . .) the ballast of individualism] ([Bourgeois et al.] 1923b: n.p.; see also Werrie 1926). When it comes to Het Overzicht and other Belgian artists, however, their standpoints on the synthesis of arts differed substantially. As outlined by Hans Vandevoorde (2013), Jozef Peeters was a strong proponent of autonomous artworks, which might have some impact on the viewers, but they were principally to stay independent from each other. Rejecting the postulate of collective unification of art, literature and

Avant-Garde Manifestos

71

architecture, Peeters claimed for instance that no literary or architectural content should influence painting (cf. Peeters 1921, 1922). Similarly, for Victor Servranckx sculpture and architecture were two distinct domains (Vandevoorde 2013: 232). Contrary opinions were voiced by Vantongerloo and even Seuphor, who co-edited Het Overzicht with Peeters. In L’Art et son avenir Vantongerloo (1924: 56) postulated a total synthesis of modern arts and Seuphor’s views were also similar, which resurfaced later in Cercle et Carré. Although a significant shift in the theories put forward in Het Overzicht did take place when Peeters became its co-editor – namely an evolution from a Flemish-nationalist approach towards an international-oriented Constructivist stance (cf. Paenhuysen 2010: 79) – when it comes to the issue of Gesamtkunstwerk, Seuphor’s and Peeters’s viewpoints were not unanimous (cf. Seuphor 1976). As with the Low Countries, in Poland the collective approach to art found fertile ground, as reflected especially in Praesens. Like his Dutch and Belgian colleagues, Szymon Syrkus emphasised the links between architecture and visual arts in his programmatic statement. He (1926a: 10) referred for instance to bold compositions and colour arrangements “à la Mondrian or Van Doesburg” serving as inspiration for interior design. Like most avant-garde architects of the period, Syrkus saw architecture not only as the art of arranging façades or simply constructing buildings, but also as the outcome of both engineering and aesthetic principles. For Syrkus (1926a), architecture also functioned as the “bearings” of modern life and society, which should be perfectly adjusted to its changing dynamics and character. The so-called łoz˙ yskowos´ c´ [bearingness] or architektonizacja [architectonisation] formed the essence of modern architecture, but it relied on other factors, including among others sculpture, painting or economy. Although for Syrkus the societal impact of architecture was of utmost importance, it was also inseparably linked to the idea of architecture as the result of joint efforts of various crafts, as earlier claimed by the Dutch and Belgian avant-garde artists and architects. The theory of Syrkus was actually an amalgam of two of the above-discussed approaches: the collective work of artists and architects whose main goal was to create something which, on the one hand united all the arts in one coherent piece, and on the other hand fulfilled social needs. Henryk Staz˙ewski was similar in that – as discussed above – he shared Mondrian’s views on abstract art reflecting the universal aspects of the world. At the same time – contrary to Mondrian – he also applied a collective approach to modern art, seeing architecture as the main domain shaping the new style. Perceiving space, colour and texture as interdependent and symbiotic, Staz˙ewski (1926a: 2) claimed that “malarstwo i rzez´ba bez zwia˛zku z architektura˛ sa˛ dzis´ nie do pomys´ lenia i nie maja˛ najmniejszej racji bytu” [painting or sculpture separated from architecture is now quite inconceivable and unwarranted (Benson and Forgács 2002: 645–646)]. The new abstract and universal style was, according to Staz˙ewski, profoundly collective and based on the rules of collective construction. Nevertheless, it did not exclude the artist’s personality or individual expression, a duality characteristic also for Mondrian. Fascination with the synthesis of various artistic disciplines was visible in Blok from its first issue, which featured an editorial statement published in Polish and French. It criticised individualism in art and emphasised that “art should not be a manifestation of the artist’s individualism, but the result of collective efforts” ([Staz˙ewski et al.] 1924a: n.p.; Benson and Forgács 2002: 491–492). Of interest was a new dimension

72

Avant-Garde Manifestos

with regard to collective art, which appeared in Polish theoretical statements, namely the claim that the development of art should be based on innovations and new insights constructed upon the collective efforts of one’s predecessors, which was also voiced in this statement. Thus, in their deliberations on collective art, the editors of Blok not only saw it as the union of various disciplines, but also as a non-individualistic manner of creating art based on past collective achievements. This viewpoint was further developed by Strzemin´ski in his text “B = 2” where he compared the process of art creation to mechanised and standardised forms of industrial production. Strzemin´ski (1924b) postulated a “micrometric process of productive organisation of work”, in other words collective efforts which were supposed to improve and objectify the process of art production. He saw it as much more effective in comparison to previous epochs when artists worked individually, starting from scratch every time. Strzemin´ski’s ideal was based on consistency, efficiency and objectivism, and his starting point were the achievements of the past – i.e. tradition – which should be turned into something entirely new. Paradoxically, according to Strzemin´ski (1924b: n.p.), “the further [from the starting point] we go, the more faithful we are to tradition” (Benson and Forgács 2002: 498) since, by relying on tradition and re-defining it into new forms, an artist ensured the endurance of artistic thought throughout history. The importance of collective efforts for Polish artists was also reflected in Blok’s manifesto “Co to jest konstruktywizm”. Its fourth point referred to a “system of methodological collective work regulated by a conscious will and aiming at perfecting

Figure 20 Blok’s editorial statement published in Polish and French in 1924 (source: Blok 1; MNW)

Avant-Garde Manifestos

73

the results of collective achievements and at inventiveness” (Red. 1924b; Benson and Forgács 2002: 496). It was to be based on a practical approach, discipline, mechanisation and the economic use of materials (see Figure 7). Almost a year later, in the tenth issue of Blok, those standpoints were repeated in a bold statement: “Linja nowego stylu jest juz˙ wytknie˛ta. Obecny okres jest odkrywczem i stopniowem udoskonalaniem osia˛gnie˛tych poprzednio zdobyczy na drodze systematycznej, planowej kolektywnej pracy.” [The line of the new style has been already drawn. The current period is a creative and gradual perfectioning of prior achievements through systematic and planned collective work.] ([Szczuka and Z˙arnower] 1925b: n.p.). It is important to emphasise the fact that the authors of those statements, Szczuka and Z˙arnower, were related to the Polish Communist Party and their works revealed a strong leftist character, which is also visible in subsequent statements. After the closure of Blok, Szczuka established a communist magazine Dz´wignia [Lever]. Its opening statement reflected the communistoriented approach to collective art: “The task of ‘Dz´wignia’ is to gather cultural workers (writers, artists, etc.) who share the objectives of contemporary proletariat (. . .) in line with Marxist principles” (Redakcja 1927: 1). Although most avant-garde artists propagated collective art, there were substantial differences in their particular approaches to the concept, which ultimately led to its failure. Besides some examples of successful implementation of the idea of the synthesis of arts (for instance Mondrian and Seuphor’s Tableau-poème (Textuel), Strzemin´ski and Przybos´ ’s book Z ponad or the Neoplastic Room in Łódz´), writers, artist and architects – even though all eager to work together – differed too much for their cooperation to last long. Notwithstanding Van Doesburg’s fascination with the idea of Gesamtkunstwerk, artists such as Mondrian or Van der Leck did not quite share his enthusiasm. Despite some interest in the idea, Mondrian remained sceptical and did not want to compromise his theoretical standpoints with the practical demands of architecture (Hoek 1990: 69–70; Blotkamp 1994: 128–129; cf. Mondrian 1923). Van der Leck (1917, 1918) also disapproved of architecture dominating the work of the artists, and he claimed that it should remain a colourless and neutral background for paintings.7 Van Doesburg made numerous attempts to collaborate with architects such as Wils, Oud or Van Eesteren, but they did not manage to maintain any meaningful cooperation, despite mutual enthusiasm in working together. Oud’s cooperation with Van Doesburg came to an end during the course of 1921 after the latter submitted colour solutions to Oud’s housing project Spangen in Rotterdam, which was later reflected in their writings: Van Doesburg (1921a, 1922a) criticised Oud, trying to prove that he had actually never been a De Stijl architect, and Oud, on the other hand, saw Van Doesburg as a danger to architecture because of him being an idealistic artist and not an architect (see Oud 1922 as well as his letter to Syrkus from 12 April 1926 – cf. Section 1.3.2). Later, Van Doesburg tried to implement his theory of monumental art together with Van Eesteren. Nevertheless, the publication of the manifesto “Tot een beeldende architectuur” led to a serious conflict with Van Eesteren, who claimed that the principal conclusions listed in the article had been reached together with Van Doesburg who then presented them under his own name only (Van Straaten 1996: 30–32). Hence, the three important theoretical texts on the synthesis of arts published in De Stijl in 1924 actually marked the end of collaboration between artists and architects. Another major attempt to create a work of collective art was undertaken by

74

Avant-Garde Manifestos

Van Doesburg, Hans Arp and Sophie Taeuber-Arp who jointly designed the Aubette café in Strasbourg. Just as in the case of the Dutch De Stijl and Van Doesburg’s attempts to cooperate with various architects, similar issues also appeared in the case of the Polish Praesens which united architects, painters and sculptors. Their first and only joint project, the PWK exhibition in Poznan´, led to serious hostilities within the group, its split, and the subsequent creation of the a.r. group around Strzemin´ski, Kobro and Staz˙ewski. As with the conflicts on the Dutch avant-garde scene, Strzemin´ski saw architects as too “down to earth” and too preoccupied with the practical, prosaic aspects of their designs, whilst for Syrkus the social and functional aspects of architecture prevailed. Strzemin´ ski expressed his disappointment with modern architects in his writings (cf. Strzemin´ski 1929a, 1931 and 1934; [Kobro et al.] 1930a and 1932), as did Syrkus (1930: 31) in opposition, who even when claiming that “modern technique (. . .) cocreates the frameworks where the courageous abstract creation could materialise in the art of construction” did not really demand for artists to be involved in the process. Quite the opposite, according to Syrkus, architecture and architects held the prevailing position and the artistic component should stay limited and depend on social and technical matters. I share Andrzej Turowski’s (1973b: 271–272; 2002a: 132–134) view that Strzemin´ski’s vison of architecture was actually utopian and scarcely possible to put into practice, somewhat in contrary to his functionalistic postulates. For Strzemin´ski, practical architectural solutions to everyday issues did not quite lead to the perfect “ultimate form” of his former master Kazimir Malevich. Interestingly, Malevich’s utopian quasi-architectural projects, the so-called architectons – which actually had more to do with sculpture than with constructible architecture – were much appreciated by Katarzyna Kobro (1929) who perceived them as a preview of the new era of architecture. So too did Van Doesburg (1930/1931: 358) in his text on modern Polish architecture from Het Bouwbedrijf, where he criticised rationalistic and functionalistic architecture, stipulating its rapid separation from the purest “architecture on the highest level” envisaged by Malevich and exemplified by his semi-architectural works. On the other hand, when discussing the activities of Van Doesburg, Katarzyna Kobro (1929) claimed that in his few artistic/architectural experiments he had indeed tried to come up with solutions to unify the arts, but these attempts were neither painting, nor sculpture, nor architecture. It shows how distant and varied the artists’ and architects’ theories regarding the synthesis of various artistic domains were, which in turn indicates that their long-lasting and stable cooperation was scarcely possible. The notion of collective art not only encompassed the concept of Gesamtkunstwerk and the synthesis of various domains of art, but also cross-border cooperation between artists and formations belonging to the European avant-garde network. In the words of Van den Berg and Głuchowska (2013a: ix), “inter- and transnationality were obvious features of the historical avant-garde, acknowledged in the common labelling of the avant-garde as ‘international’ or ‘European’”. Cooperating together within this network (in the form of periodicals, formations, exhibitions, congresses or artworks themselves, etc.), its representatives consciously crossed national, ethnic and linguistic borders, explicitly voicing their programmatic inter-, trans-, supra-, or post-national approach.8 Such viewpoints were much stressed during the Congress of International

Avant-Garde Manifestos

75

Progressive Artists held in Düsseldorf in 1922, which marked an important step in the development of the avant-garde network and boosted the transnational cooperation between the artists. The events of the congress – amongst others the split between the so-called Unionists and Constructivists – were reflected in avant-garde periodicals, including De Stijl. A short review of the proceedings of the congress indicates that although the artists gathered in Düsseldorf lacked a common vision of modern art, most participants urged the need for an international collective approach. The review quoted amongst others Stanisław Kubicki, a Polish Expressionist painter, who called for friendly and brotherly cooperation ([Van Doesburg] 1922d). In their various programmatic statements artists such as Van Doesburg, Richter and El Lissitzky also emphasised the necessity of international, group efforts in order to achieve the intentions and postulates put forward during the congress (cf. Lissitzky and Ehrenburg 1922; Richter 1922; Van Doesburg, Lissitzky and Richter 1922). Such an international approach, free from any national or political bias, was even perceived as the only solution for art to endure, as expressed in the founding proclamation of the Union of Progressive International Artists: Die traurige Abgeschlossenheit der Geister muß endlich nun zu Ende gehen. Die Kunst braucht die Verbindung der Menschen, denen sie innewohnt. Jenseits von allen Staatsfragen und ohne den leisesten politischen Hintergedanken und eigensüchtigen Nebenzweck muß es auch für uns heute heißen: ‘Künstler aller Länder vereinigt Euch!’ Die Kunst muß international werden, oder sie wird aufhören zu sein. (Das Junge Rheinland et al. 1922: 50) [The long dreary spiritual isolation must now end. Art needs the unification of those who create. Forgetting questions of nationality, without political bias or self-seeking intention, our slogan must now be: ‘Artists of all nationalities unite.’ Art must become international or it will perish. (Benson and Forgács 2002: 389)] As a reaction to the events of the Düsseldorf congress, in Weimar in September 1922 Van Doesburg organised the so-called “Konstruktivistische Internationale Beeldende Arbeidsgemeenschap” (International Constructivist Creative Union).9 The following issue of De Stijl published its trilingual manifesto where collective work and international cooperation were again described as “practically necessary” and presented as the solution to modern problems – contrary to individual initiatives (Van Doesburg et al. 1922: 113–115; Benson and Forgács 2002: 401–402). Several programmatic texts published earlier in De Stijl also voiced the necessity of cross-border artistic cooperation: the first manifesto of the group already called for an international unification of Life, Art and Culture, which would ensure the development of modern art regardless of any obstacles (Van Doesburg et al. 1918). Also, in Klassiek– Barok–Modern Van Doesburg (1920) emphasised that the new style represented the aesthetical needs of all the nations, unlike the previous styles which had represented the features of particular nations, instead of universal values. He also returned to the subject in the third manifesto of De Stijl from 1921, which had a visibly political touch,

76

Avant-Garde Manifestos

Figure 21 Manifesto of “Konstruktivistische Internationale Beeldende Arbeidsgemeenschap” from 1922 (source: De Stijl 5, 8: 113–115; IADDB)

since Van Doesburg – like other avant-gardists at that time – was greatly influenced by the contemporary socio-political discussions, namely the development of leftist and communist theories. It declared that both spiritual and material individualism formed the bases of the old Europe, whereas the new Europe would be spiritually international, based only on internal power and artistic undertakings ([Van Doesburg] 1921c). At the end of 1922 De Stijl published a special issue celebrating its fifth anniversary. It featured a bold statement which aimed to somehow summarise the developments of the new international artistic spirit: “Zoo werd De Stijl (. . .) de gemeenschappelijke bekentenis eener a-nationale en a-individualistische (en in de verstrekkende consequentie: collectieve) uitdrukkingskracht.” [Thus De Stijl became (. . .) a shared confession of an anti-national and anti-individualistic (and somehow as a consequence: collective) power of expression.] ([Van Doesburg] 1922e: 178). Inter-, trans-, supra- or even anti-national art and architecture were also postulated in the Belgian periodicals, especially in 7 Arts. Pierre Bourgeois, one of its editors, particularly emphasised it with relation to modern architecture and town planning and the problems related to them. He saw architectural modernism as a supranational endeavour and defined the cross-border research of a universal direction in architecture as the best solution for problems of the modern society. In Bourgeois’s (1923: n.p.) words: “II suffît de chercher le point exaltant où toutes les nationalités se fondent en la conscience émue de l’humain. L’architecture moderne existe parce qu’internationale: l’art moderne existera dans la même mesure où il sera universel.” [It is enough to search for a rousing point where all the nationalities merge in the emotional human conscience. Modern architecture exists because of being international: modern art will exist in the same manner and it will be universal.]. Likewise, Maurice Casteels (1922/1924) condemned any individualistic and national-oriented approach in art.

Avant-Garde Manifestos

77

For instance, when describing the 14th Salon de la Société des artistes décorateurs à Paris, Casteels claimed that a purely and exclusively French decorative art could not exist in the twentieth century which gave priority to universal principles of life and art, thus to the European and not national art. Interestingly, the Flemish avant-garde formations constituted a paradoxical amalgam of nationalistic approaches and international intertwinement.10 A visible and radical shift from nationalistic towards internationally oriented approaches is visible in the case of Het Overzicht, which took place after Peeters had replaced Pijnenburg as the magazine’s co-editor. The opening article of the second series indicates the twofold orientation of Het Overzicht: Het postulaat der Westerse Beschaving ligt in haar rijpheid tot internationalisering der volken en tot individualistiese opvoeding van de mens. (. . .) De eerste omgeving (het volk, de taal, enz.) behoudt hare rechten op het individu, maar herwordt tot ’n situëring van dat individu (. . .) in de geografiese kader van de wereld. De Europese Bonds-Republiek, die de staatsgrenzen wegvaagt ten voordele van vrijhandel, internationaal gerecht en vrije evoluëring van de geestelijke en ekonomiese krachten der volken, moet de eerste stap zijn in de richting van dit verschiet. (Berckelaers 1922a: 2–3) [The postulate of the Western Civilisation is based on its maturity to the internationalisation of nations and to an individualistic upbringing of man. (. . .) The first dimension (the people, the language, etc.) reserves the right of an individual and it re-becomes the placing of this individual (. . .) in a global geographical framework. The European Federal Republic, which sweeps away national borders in favour of free trade, internationally oriented and free evolution of spiritual and economic forces of its nations, is to form the first step in this direction.] Both the second series of Het Overzicht and De Driehoek featured many articles and reproductions of European artists, including Adolf Behne’s (1922) “De Europeesche kunstbeweging” [The European artistic movement] or Van Hardeveld’s (1925) “Is Bouwkunst Internationaal?” [Is architecture international?], which reflects their international approach. In a similar vein to the above-described formations from the Low Countries, Polish avant-garde periodicals also represented a strikingly international approach, discernible from their vast choice of internationally oriented texts and the topics therein: Blok for instance published a plethora of articles on Czechoslovak, Dutch, French, German, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Romanian, Russian and Serbian art, in addition to the many texts published in Polish magazines in French and in German. The affinity of Polish art movements with contemporary European initiatives was emphasised in numerous publications which stressed the will to cooperate with contemporary European avant-garde formations. This is also visible in the numerous foreign contributions to the Polish periodicals. For instance Peiper (1923a) condemned national-oriented art and emphasised the significance of supranational efforts to redefine art based on common features shared by all the nations. Moreover, he described the activities of Zwrotnica as comparable to other international initiatives, but certainly not imitative. The issue of staying in line with contemporary European currents without imitating or mimicking their activities and accomplishments was a much stressed topic.

78

Avant-Garde Manifestos

Peiper’s (1923a: 91) viewpoint on the mutual influences between various nodes of the avant-garde network is striking in this regard: Z˙e przytem widocznemi stana˛ sie˛ pokrewien´stwo lub nawet wpływy mie˛dzy nasza˛ sztuka˛ a sztuka˛ innych krajów, to nic. Bo jes´ li nawet okaz˙e sie˛, z˙e u nas czerpano np. z Rosji, to równiez˙ okaz˙e sie˛, z˙e Rosja czerpała z Francji, Włoch i Niemiec, z˙e Włochy czerpały z Francji, z˙e Niemcy czerpały z Francji, a tylko Francja (. . .) czerpała z samej siebie. [Should that make visible the affinity or even influences between our art and the art of other countries, it will not matter. Because even if it turns out that we have derived from for instance Russia, it will also mean that Russia has derived from France, Italy and Germany, that Italy has derived from France, that Germany from France, and only France (. . .) has derived from itself.] Even though Peiper’s belief in French artistic autarky is questionable, his observation regarding the multidimensional nature of reciprocal influences and diffusion of ideas between avant-garde formations is very accurate. Somehow as a reaction to this statement, the editors of Blok also stated: “What we do is no imitation, but an effort parallel to the most recent artistic activities in France, Germany, Russia, Holland, Hungary, etc.” ([Staz˙ewski et al.] 1924g: n.p.; see also Syrkus 1926a: 6). Some even claimed that Polish initiatives not only equalled, but actually surpassed, similar foreign publications (see for instance Mahler 1924 and Strzemin´ski 1929a). Chapter 3 explores this multifaceted issue exemplified by selected works of the European interwar avant-garde.

2.4.

Preliminary Conclusions

The purpose of this chapter was to explore selected features of interwar manifestos and programmatic writings of Polish, Dutch and Belgian provenance, as an example of a wider European phenomenon of the historical avant-garde. The texts have been analysed with regard to selected notions, such as the universal dimension of abstract art, its autonomy with relation to social issues, and artistic cooperation on various levels. It demonstrated that artists and theoreticians from Poland and the Low Countries were united in their pursuit of modern art and shared many programmatic views. Regardless of their programmatic differences, all artists belonging to the analysed formations searched for the universal principles of the world and life, which they expressed through a universal idiom of abstraction that categorically rejected figurativeness, traditional and historical forms. When put side by side, striking resemblances and traces of direct influences between some of the statements come to the fore. It indicates the pace and scale of cultural mobility within the avant-garde network – possible in a large part due to direct contact between various representatives and the exchange of their publications and their translations. This diffusion of ideas was the core of the avant-garde network and its representatives rejected the claims of imitation or copying, underlining the necessity of supranational cooperation across borders and languages for the sake of modern art development, as was, for instance, the influence of Mondrian’s theory of Neoplasticism on Polish artists such as Staz˙ewski and Brze˛kowski, who incorporated

Avant-Garde Manifestos

79

his views, terminology and principles into their programmatic statements. Programmatic approaches of Polish and Belgian formations also had much in common, for example, when it came to the notion of construction, discipline and economy in art and literature postulated in 7 Arts, Zwrotnica or Blok. On the other hand, there were also theoretical disagreements between artists from Poland and the Low Countries, for instance Kobro and Strzemin´ski criticised the activities and theories of Van Doesburg and Vantongerloo. Another dimension which polarised the avant-garde scene, not only in Poland and the Low Countries but across Europe, were the two approaches to art: art for art’s sake or socially engaged art. For some artists (e.g. Mondrian, Strzemin´ski, Staz˙ewski) the independence and autonomy of art were of crucial importance, while for others (e.g. Szczuka, Bourgeois, Eemans), art was to be directly related to social issues and circumstances, which was also often directly influenced by the artists’ political views and inclinations. Social needs were also especially important for modernist architects such as Syrkus, Oud and other members of CIAM. What united most avant-garde artists, however, was their shared belief that modern art could have a major impact on society and transmit the modern spirit it encapsulated. In order to do so, and to ensure proper development of modern art and architecture, the representatives of various disciplines were to join forces in creating works of total art implementing the nineteenth-century ideal of Gesamtkunstwerk. Although a sizeable number of artists made attempts to apply this principle in their artistic endeavours, many of them failed to put it into practice due to the fact that their theories and approaches actually differed too much.

Notes 1 See Dickerman (2012: 12–37) for a detailed overview of the beginnings of abstraction in art. 2 The term was introduced by Ozenfant and Jeanneret themselves who aimed to create a transmissible language of art which would produce transmissible and universal images – cf. Ozenfant and Jeanneret (1921). 3 Interesting is also Peiper’s critique regarding the concept of universalism in art and literature put forward by Jan Nepomucen Miller (see for instance Peiper 1926b as well as Gabara 2008). 4 For the analysis of the role of mathematics in the works of Van Doesburg, Vantongerloo, Strzemin´ski and Kobro see for instance Bois (1998b); Turowski (1998, 1999); Kemperink (2002); Grislain (2007); Brockhaus and Janssen (2009); Fabre (2009); Stronias (2012). 5 Interestingly, Les´ nikowski (1996: 215–216) has linked the dedication to social needs among Polish architects to the fact that a considerable number of female architects were actively involved in the process of architectural modernisation in Poland, a phenomenon unseen in other countries. 6 Of note is the fact that at that time Szymon Syrkus was in Paris, thus he could have visited the exhibition and have taken the fifth manifesto of De Stijl to Poland (cf. KleiverdaKajetanowicz 1985: 72). 7 Van der Leck’s scepticism was probably related to his bad experience in collaborating with the architect H.P. Berlage in 1916 (cf. Blotkamp and Hilhorst 1996: 314–315). 8 Paradoxically, aside from the international praxis, some avant-garde formations had an outspoken nationalistic dimension, for instance the Italian or Flemish movements. Cf. Versari (2006); Antliff (2007); Paenhuysen (2010); Van den Berg and Głuchowska (2013b). 9 For more information on the K.I. see for instance Finkeldey 1992. 10 Cf. Paenhuysen (2010: 68–81), as well as Van den Berg and Głuchowska (2013a: x).

3

“What we do is no imitation, but an effort parallel to . . .” – Selected Works of Art and Architecture as Representation of Mutual Influences and Similarities

In 1930 Theo van Doesburg (1930/1931: 359–360) wrote that “the Polish mentality lacks autonomous creative stamina and depends on imitation, in art as well as in architecture” claiming the “superiority of the Netherlands”.1 In this chapter I intend to demonstrate, however, that contrary to Van Doesburg’s claim, cultural mobility and exchange between Poland and the Low Countries had a reciprocal, two-way character, and it took place in a broader context of the supranational network of the avant-garde movement. As shown in the previous chapter, the programmatic and theoretical statements of Polish, Dutch and Belgian artists were alike in many aspects, and in some cases apparent influences were exerted (as for instance in the Blok manifesto “Co to jest konstruktywizm” or in the theories of Henryk Staz˙ewski). Here I present and analyse selected avant-garde artworks of Polish, Belgian and Dutch provenance (in the fields of literature, typography, painting, sculpture and architecture) in order to determine the character of cultural mobility between those circles. Movement of creative influence from the Low Countries to Poland has indeed been mostly recognised as a one-sided transfer.2 Nevertheless, as many Polish avant-garde artists themselves claimed, “Polish abstract painters [were] no imitators of Van Doesburg and Mondrian – they [were] their successors and in some ways they oppose[d] their predecessors.” (Staz˙ewski 1933b: 4).3 Foreign artists such as Mondrian, Tschichold, Ozenfant and other representatives of Bauhaus or Cercle et Carré also acknowledged Polish accomplishments in avant-garde art and literature.4 For instance Jan Tschichold wrote to Strzemin´ski that “from a painterly point of view, [Strzemin´ski’s] works are truly wonderful and possibly the best that has so far been created in this direction. They are practically the best kind of painting”.5 Also Hannes Meyer and Karel Teige perceived Blok as one of the most progressive European periodicals of the time, alongside Ma, Merz and l’Esprit Nouveau (cf. Szczerski 2010: 103). Thus in this chapter I aim to show that, functioning as part of a European supranational network of avant-garde artists, Polish writers, artists and architects not only received impulses from foreign nodes, but they were also the source of inspiration. Because of the fact that avant-garde circles functioned outside the mainstream artistic life of their respective cultures and had very little recognition among other artists and the public, they sought more links to members of foreign nodes of the network (what Mark Granovetter would describe as characteristic for “marginal individuals”). Hence, in many cases art and architecture developed simultaneously in several places, and impulses from one node of the network reached others at a very quick pace. This study concentrates on avant-garde mobility between Poland and the Low Countries, but it goes without saying that those areas were also constantly influenced by other

Selected Works: Influences and Similarities

81

nodes and artists, which resulted in the continuous evolution of avant-garde art. The role of foreign actors was manifold; they were the source of inspiration, intermediaries, or they worked under the auspices of a foreign group contributing de facto to its development.

3.1. Avant-garde Publications from Poland and the Low Countries in Light of International Trends in Layout and Page Design The visual aspect of avant-garde publications was of utmost importance as it mirrored the artistic and societal renewal postulated on their pages. As pointed out by Piotr Rypson (2000: 10), since the purpose of avant-garde texts was to communicate new ideas, they also had to gain a new form, as revolutionary as the content. The experiments of visual and concrete poetry of Futurist or Dadaist provenance led to a new approach to typography and page design, which eventually became more functional, logical and cost-effective. Such a new approach was clearly visible in the works of many European avant-garde artists: for instance Tschichold, El Lissitzky, Schwitters, Moholy-Nagy, Kassák, Micic´, Rodchenko and others. Their magazines and publications were characterised by comparable colour choices, abstract compositions of geometrical forms, lettering, etc. In the course of the 1920s, avant-garde page design evolved from traditional approaches, via Futurism- and Dada-inspired forms, towards very functional and simple layouts. This evolution was also visible in avant-garde magazines from Poland and the Low Countries which stayed in line with key European movements, hence they reveal a high level of affinity with one another as well as to other avant-garde circles. The similarities in page layout and the choice of colours were visible on the covers of many Polish, Dutch and Belgian magazines. As shown by the examples in the plate section, red was frequently used, and various parts of text in different sizes and fonts were asymmetrically distributed on the page, often in various directions. However, looking at the interior page design of the publications of Polish, Belgian and Dutch avant-garde, it is possible to conclude that many Polish magazines and catalogues had a more experimental and progressive character than most publications originating from the Low Countries. The catalogue of the Vilnius exhibition (1923), all the issues of Blok (1924–1926), the second series of Zwrotnica (1926–1927) and various publications of Praesens (1926–1930) – they all featured extraordinary page design and a modern approach to printing and typography, which was not limited only to the front and back cover but was instead applied throughout all the pages. Blok for instance, as pointed out by Bonet and Poliwka (2014: 178, 193), “was given a masterful page design”, and when it comes to the lists of congenial magazines often published in avant-garde periodicals, “among all the avant-garde magazine directories, the one in Blok is the most beautiful from a typographic point of view”.6 Indeed, Blok and other Polish magazines represented a new modern approach to text layout with its varied use of fonts, sizes and directions, or to the manner in which it was connected to pictures by bold black lines, as illustrated in a programmatic statement “Drukarstwo. O układzie graficznym” [Printing. On graphic layout] published in Blok 5, much in line with the postulates of, for instance, Moholy-Nagy or Tschichold. Of similar importance are the advertisements that appeared in Polish magazines at the time (e.g. Praesens or the second series of Zwrotnica), which also had a unique modern design.

82

Selected Works: Influences and Similarities

Figure 22 Fragments of the front page of De Driehoek from 1925 (source: IADDB) and of “Drukarstwo. O układzie graficznym” from 1924 (source: Blok 5: 11; JBC)

In the Low Countries, however, until the mid-1920s it was usually only the front and back cover that had a modern page design, while the other pages remained rather traditional in form, contrary to their revolutionary content. This is clearly visible in De Stijl, whose page design did not really evolve much until 1926,7 even though other publications of Van Doesburg (especially those of Dadaist provenance, such as Mécano) were much more daring as far as their layout was concerned. On the other hand, the Dutch artists Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman, Piet Zwart and Paul Schuitema undoubtedly belonged to the pioneers of page design and typography, and Werkman’s The Next Call) was from the beginning an exceptional example. In case of the Brussels- and Antwerp-based magazines 7 Arts, Het Overzicht and De Driehoek, a major evolution in layout and page design is also visible in 1925 and 1926 when the design of 7 Arts became gradually modernised, and the last triple issue of Het Overzicht was published, to be followed by De Driehoek (its front page is especially interesting with its multidirectional use of text, which formed the magazine’s logo). It is indeed surprising that the most progressive Dutch and Belgian titles remained relatively outdated in comparison to the ground-breaking theories which they propounded, and despite the fact that at the same time their editors and contributors were experimenting with typography and page design with impressive results. There is no clear explanation for that, but limited time and/or budget might have been of some importance, although most certainly, the Polish formations were not privileged in this regard.

Selected Works: Influences and Similarities

83

There are several interesting typographical motifs which recurred in various publications within the avant-garde network. One such element was the alternating letter size used, for instance, by Tristan Tzara for the letterhead on Dada stationery in 1920. Interestingly, Van Doesburg repeated the same effect in Mécano 4/5, and in Poland Strzemin´ski used it in his advertisement for Chlorodont toothpaste published in Zwrotnica 9 in 1926. Another example was the use of the square in text composition. The square itself was widely used among the avant-gardists as their common symbol (be it Malevich or many others, cf. Ex 1996: 93–94). It was sometimes integrated with text placed around it, which created an interesting amalgam of typography and drawing. It can be found, for instance in Van Doesburg’s “Bilanz des Staatlichen Bauhauses Weimar” printed in January 1924 in Mécano 4/5, and on the back cover of Blok 2 from April the same year. Elsewhere, the logotype of Mécano – with its six letters rotated clockwise in the form of a rectangle and linked by thick lines – exemplifies a complete integration of text and geometry that was also characteristic of avant-garde poetry and its layout. A similar solution was also applied on the cover of Bruno Jasien´ski’s poetry volume But w butonierce [Shoe in a buttonhole] from 1921.8 Indeed, the visual aspect of avant-garde poetry was often its crucial element – poets experimented with layout and typefaces, as well as various types and sizes of lettering, which created an additional dimension of their poems (see for instance the audacious typographical/literary works of Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman published in The Next Call). Poets often collaborated with artists (e.g. painters) in order to

Figure 23 “Bilanz des Staatlichen Bauhauses Weimar” (source: RCE) and back cover of Blok 2 from 1924 (source: JBC)

84

Selected Works: Influences and Similarities

achieve a perfect unity of text and vision, as was the case for instance of Paul van Ostaijen, Oscar Jespers and René Victor’s Bezette Stad [Occupied city] from 1921, Mieczysław Szczuka and Anatol Stern’s Europa [Europe] from 1929 or Julian Przybos´ and Władysław Strzemin´ski’s book Z ponad from 1930.9 Avant-garde visual poetry and poetic typographical design date back to the beginning of the twentieth century (cf. Rypson 1989: 251–256) and one of the artists who masterfully incorporated the visual aspect into poetry was Guillaume Apollinaire. His “calligrams” inspired numerous poets and artists, among others Tytus Czyz˙ewski, Bruno Jasien´ski, Paul van Ostaijen and Theo van Doesburg (a.k.a. I.K. Bonset). In a 1921 edition of the magazine Formis´ci Czyz˙ewski published a poem “Mechaniczny ogród” [Mechanical garden] where words and lines were meant to imitate plants, which in some way referred to Apollinaire’s “calligrams” (cf. Carpenter 1983: 26–29). Another, more apparent, example is Jasien´ski’s poem “Morze” [Sea] published in Zwrotnica in February 1923 where all the stanzas were given an undulating form symbolising the movement of waves, very much in line with Apollinaire’s works such as “Il pleut” [It rains] from 1918. Other examples from the Low Countries include the graphical rendering of words, for instance in I.K. Bonset’s “X-Beelden” (1920) or Van Ostaijen’s Bezette Stad (1921) where some parts of the text are visually presented to imitate their meaning (e.g. the words “zig-zag”, “dwars” or “draaiend nihil”). Paul van Ostaijen’s Bezette Stad is a perfect example of unification of various artistic conventions. On the one hand it contains pages inspired by the works of Marinetti, and on the other it reveals much affinity with the Dadaist-like page design and free approach to text layout. Similar influences are also to be found in Poland: be it in the Dada-inspired cover of Anatol Stern and Aleksander Wat’s Nies´miertelny Tom Futuryz [The immortal volume of futurisias], the layout of Henryk Berlewi’s booklet Prospekt biura Reklama Mechano [Brochure for Reclama Mechano company] or Strzemin´ski’s design of the cover of Przybos´’s volume S´ruby [Screws]. When placed

Figure 24 Guillaume Apollinaire, “Il pleut” from 1918 and Bruno Jasien´ski, “Morze” from 1923 (source: Zwrotnica 4: 114; BN)

Selected Works: Influences and Similarities

85

side by side with other examples of avant-garde page design (e.g. by Van Doesburg, Demets, Marinetti, Zdanyevich, etc.), it becomes apparent how much these works resemble each other when it comes to the playful use of various directions, fonts and sizes of lettering combined with geometrical shapes and other elements. Similar elements and solutions are also present in the works of Edmund Miller “Stara historia” [Old story] and “Zielony koncert” [Green concert] published in Blok in 1924. As well

Figure 25 I.K. Bonset, “X-Beelden” from 1920 (source: De Stijl 4, 11: 161; IADDB) and Paul van Ostaijen, Bezette Stad (fragment) from 1921 (source: DBNL)

Figure 26 Paul van Ostaijen, Bezette Stad (fragment) from 1921 (source: DBNL) and Edmund Miller, “Stara historia” from 1924 (source: Blok 3/4; JBC)

86

Selected Works: Influences and Similarities

as its general layout, particular elements such as the frame put in the middle of “Stara historia” link it to other works such as Van Ostaijen’s Bezette Stad – in both cases they have the form of a classified advertisement from a newspaper. In early 1924 Blok also published Edmund Miller’s concrete poem constructed from various letters put in one vertical line which might have been inspired by I.K. Bonset’s “Letterklankbeelden” published in 1921 in De Stijl 4, 7. Worth mentioning, however, is the fact that in 1921 and 1922, in the magazine Ponowa, another Polish writer Jan Nepomucen Miller published two articles on experimental and concrete poetry, together with his poems where he used punctuation marks as their key elements (Miller 1921 and 1922; cf. Rypson 1989: 287–291), which shows that such tendencies were not unknown in Poland at around the same time. Last, but not least, graphic elements from the printer’s typesetting resources were often used by poets to illustrate their avant-garde works, as did Czyz˙ewski in his Wa˛z˙, Orfeusz i Euridika [Snake, Orpheus and Eurydice] from 1922 or in “Hamlet w piwnicy” [Hamlet in the basement] published in 1923 in Zwrotnica. Using lines, circles and letters Czyz˙ewski constructed abstract human-inspired figures to accompany the poem’s text. A very similar treatment was used later by Theo van Doesburg and Kurt Schwitters in their “Die Scheuche Märchen” [The scarecrow fairytale] published in

Figure 27 I.K. Bonset, “Letterklankbeelden” from 1921 (source: De Stijl 4, 7: 78; IADDB) and Edmund Miller, concrete poem from 1924 (source: Blok 2; JBC)

Selected Works: Influences and Similarities

87

Figure 28 Theo van Doesburg and Kurt Schwitters, “Die Scheuche Märchen” (fragment) from 1924 (source: Merz 14/15; IADDB) and Tytus Czyz˙ewski, “Hamlet w piwnicy” from 1923 (source: Zwrotnica 4; BN)

Merz 14/15 in 1924 as well as by Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman in his typographical compositions – yet another example of the striking simultaneity of typographical and poetic endeavours in Poland and the Low Countries.

3.2.

Piet Mondrian, Theo van Doesburg and Henryk Staz˙ ewski

As described in the previous chapter, the theories of Piet Mondrian, Theo van Doesburg and other members of De Stijl found much recognition among Polish artists, especially Henryk Staz˙ewski. His close relations to those artists developed from 1924, first through the exchange of letters and later in person after Staz˙ewski moved to Paris. The influences of Mondrian’s and Van Doesburg’s works on Staz˙ewski have been analysed by Kleiverda-Kajetanowicz (1985, 1989) who has pointed to various similarities and differences in their artworks – concerning the choice of colours, use of (grid)lines or curved shapes – as exemplified by Van Doesburg’s Compositie XXII (1922) and Staz˙ewski’s Kompozycja (1930; see Plate 7). At this point it is important to focus on Staz˙ewski’s typographical projects during 1926–1931 which show another dimension of cultural mobility between De Stijl artists and Staz˙ewski, although they differ slightly from his paintings from the same period. For example, Staz˙ewski designed the cover of the Polish edition of Mondrian’s Le Néo-plasticisme which was to be published by Praesens, and Mondrian himself worked on the layout of the Polish text (cf. Section 1.3.2). The book did not, however, get published, and instead Staz˙ewski’s project was used as a cover of Anatol Stern’s Anielski cham [Angelic boor] from 1928. Staz˙ewski’s design actually looks like a fragment of one of Mondrian’s paintings, with its asymmetric grid of lines partly filled with colour (in this instance red) and unified with simple lettering – in line with contemporary trends in typography. In this case, Mondrian’s work serving as a source

88

Selected Works: Influences and Similarities

of inspiration for the cover of the Polish translation of his book is fully understandable, but Staz˙ewski used very similar solutions for other book designs, e.g. for Albert Gleizes’s Posłannictwo twórcze człowieka w dziedzinie plastyki [Man’s mission in the field of visual arts] (1927) or Stanisław Młodoz˙eniec’s Niedziela. Poezje [Sunday. Poetries] (1930), which featured a horizontal line between the author’s name and the title that ends right before the edge – a characteristic feature of Mondrian’s paintings (see Plates 8 and 9). Another interesting example is Staz˙ewski’s design for the cover of the fourth issue of the magazine Grafika from 1931. It differs from the above-mentioned designs in that Staz˙ewski did not use any lines but instead created an abstract asymmetric composition of rectangular planes of primary colours and text. This work might have been inspired by another Dutch avant-garde artist, namely Theo van Doesburg. Staz˙ewski’s composition seems to zoom into one of his paintings, Compositie XX from 1920: aside from the evident colour scheme, the proportions of rectangles on Staz˙ewski’s cover and their mutual relations are also strikingly similar to Van Doesburg’s painting from almost a decade earlier (see Plate 10). The fact that Van Doesburg’s work was widely reproduced in the course of the 1920s – among others in De Stijl 6, 1; Ma 4, 4; Merz 2 and so forth – supports this hypothesis. Hence, as with the case of theoretical writings, the influence of Dutch avant-garde artists is also undeniable in the works of Henryk Staz˙ewski and forms an example of direct cultural mobility between Poland and the Low Countries.

3.3.

Katarzyna Kobro and Georges Vantongerloo

In 1929 Katarzyna Kobro and Władysław Strzemin´ski finished their major theoretical work Kompozycja przestrzeni [The composition of space],10 which did not get published due to financial problems until 1931. In Kompozycja przestrzeni Kobro and Strzemin´ski presented the theory of Unism and they did so referring to key European artists of the time (among others Theo van Doesburg, Georges Vantongerloo and Le Corbusier) whose works were also reproduced in the book. From Strzemin´ski’s letter to Vantongerloo from 193011 it is possible to ascertain that Vantongerloo sent several photos of his works via Staz˙ewski, from which Strzemin´ski chose four to be published in the book, namely sculptures from 1921, 1924, 1926 and 1929 (illustrations 25–28 in Kobro and Strzemin´ski 1931). Interestingly, having received the photos of Vantongerloo’s works, Strzemin´ski wrote about them to Przybos´ claiming that “what he [Vantongerloo] did in 1929, his wife [Kobro] had already done in 1926”12 He also expressed similar thoughts in two articles on modern European art where he compared Kobro’s and Vantongerloo’s works. In “Bilans modernizmu” [An account of modernism], published in Europa, Strzemin´ski (1929a: 24) pointed to one major difference between them: according to him Kobro developed the general principles of Neoplasticism in sculpture by basing her work on the concept of unity between space and sculpture, whilst Vantongerloo created sculptures-masses that remained unrelated to the space around them. In another article Strzemin´ski (1934) noticed, however, that the publication of Kompozycja przestrzeni in 1930 (wrongly dated, actually 1931) had had a major influence on Western European art as it enhanced the evolution of Neoplastic sculpture. Strzemin´ski referred to the works of Vantongerloo as one of the examples of this postulated influence, which

Selected Works: Influences and Similarities

89

evolved from volumes-masses to more open sculptures that stayed in direct relation to space around them. An analysis of Vantongerloo’s works supports this daring claim, which has also been indirectly confirmed by various scholars who pointed to the development of Vantongerloo’s sculptures from compact masses with various parts subtracted from an initial volume into simpler volumes with more projecting parts and more empty space in between, which related the whole sculpture with the surrounding space (Janssen 2009: 108; Grislain 2007: 107; Ceuleers 1996: 132). This is clearly visible when comparing Vantongerloo’s sculptures created during 1924–1935 such as Construction of Volumetric Interrelationships Derived from the Inscribed Square and the Square Circumscribed by a Circle (1924), Construction xy = k (1929), Construction y = –ax2 + bx + 18 (1930) and Construction y = x2 – 11x2 + 10 (1935). On the contrary, in the case of Kobro, since the beginning her sculptures were characterised by their direct relationship with space, and very few of them were based on solids themselves. Importantly, there is no doubt that Vantongerloo was indeed aware of and knowledgeable about modern Polish art of the period. The first traces of his contacts with the Polish avant-garde date back to 1926 when Praesens received photos of his works and decided to publish the Polish translation of Vantongerloo’s book L’Art et son avenir, which never actually made it to publication (cf. Section 1.3.2). The main link between Vantongerloo and the Polish avant-garde was formed by Henryk Staz˙ewski who from 1924 frequently stayed in Paris and became friends with Michel Seuphor and Piet Mondrian. They can all be seen together in a photo taken in 1928 at Paul Dermeé’s house (see Figure 10). Jan Brze˛kowski also first met Vantongerloo in 1928 and in his memoires he claimed that they saw each other regularly and that Vantongerloo was particularly interested in the works and theories of Polish avant-garde artists (Brze˛kowski 1966: 163–164). That Vantongerloo was acquainted with Kobro’s

Figure 29 Georges Vantongerloo, Construction of Volumetric Interrelationships Derived from the Inscribed Square and the Square Circumscribed by a Circle from 1924 (source: The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, Peggy Guggenheim Collection, Venice, 1976; © 2018, ProLitteris Zurich) and Construction xy = k from 1929 (source: Abstraction-Création 2: 46; IADDB; © 2018, ProLitteris Zurich)

90

Selected Works: Influences and Similarities

Figure 30 Katarzyna Kobro, spatial composition 1 from 1925 (source: MSL; © Ewa-Sapka Pawliczak – copyright owner to works of Władysław Strzemin´ski and Katarzyna Kobro)

sculptural accomplishments also becomes apparent in his unpublished text “Plastique scupturale” [The art of sculpture] from 193013 (thus even before the publication of Kompozycja przestrzeni), where Vantongerloo explicitly praised Kobro’s works for their direct relationship with space, and complimented the artist herself (cf. Ceuleers 1996: 130–132). Vantongerloo’s remark from his manuscript makes Strzemin´ski’s claim that Kobro did exert considerable influence on the artistic development of Vantongerloo rather convincing. Moreover, scholar Jan Ceuleers has pointed to another aspect of cultural mobility between Polish artists and Vantongerloo: the introduction of curved lines into Vantongerloo’s works in the course of the 1930s. According to Ceuleers (1996: 142), Vantongerloo gradually began to appreciate the dynamic character of curved lines, most probably under the influence of certain members of Abstraction-Création such as Kobro, Strzemin´ski, Staz˙ ewski or Kandinsky, who for some time had already combined straight and curved lines in their works. Additionally, Marek Wieczorek (2009: 33) described the introduction of curved lines in 1937 as “the most important change in Vantongerloo’s abstract art”. Even in the post-war (post-Neoplastic) works of Vantongerloo some resemblances to the early (pre-Neoplastic) works of Katarzyna Kobro are noticeable,14 which creates an unexpected frame of artistic research and development of those two prominent modern sculptors.

3.4.

Mieczysław Szczuka and Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman

One can also point to the direct influences between Blok artists and Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman, the editor of The Next Call. As already mentioned, Blok was one of The

Selected Works: Influences and Similarities

91

Next Call’s subscribed magazines listed on the cover of the sixth issue, which suggests that Werkman received Blok, maybe in exchange for his magazine (see Figure 13). Blok’s address in Warsaw was also to be found on Werkman’s list of addresses of foreign journals and artists, which has been preserved at Werkman’s Archive in Amsterdam (see Figure 1), which also holds a copy of the fifth issue of Dz´wignia from November 1927 – published after the death of Mieczysław Szczuka. As a result of this direct exchange of periodicals, some works of Szczuka and Werkman bear considerable similarities. For instance, I would argue that Werkman’s typographical composition from the ninth issue of The Next Call (issued in November 1926) was inspired and/or influenced by one of Szczuka’s works, namely Typografja [Typography] published in June 1924 in the third/fourth issue of Blok.15 The layout of both works is based on a diagonal line from the upper left to bottom right corner and formed by a composition of letters and perpendicular lines (see Plate 11). Such solutions are not to be found in either Werkman’s earlier works or in the previous issues of The Next Call.16 Hence the conclusion that Szczuka’s work – which Werkman most probably saw in Blok 3/4 – might have served as inspiration for Werkman’s composition. A further example that Werkman’s works were arguably influenced by the Polish avant-garde is his Compositie met letters en haken [Composition with letters and hooks] from 1932, which bears a notable resemblance to one of Szczuka’s photomontages entitled Montaz˙ fotograficzny [Photomontage] published in Blok 2 from April 1924 and in the fifth issue of Dz´wignia – a copy of which Werkman undoubtedly saw. Werkman’s composition reflects the part of Szczuka’s work where the crane motif was pictured – the layout of particular elements and the way they are related to each other are strikingly similar. Next to the crane motif itself, its base is formed by a double

Figure 31 Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman, Compositie met letters en haken from 1932 (source: Collectie SMA) and Mieczysław Szczuka, Montaz˙ fotograficzny from 1924 (source: Blok 2; JBC)

92

Selected Works: Influences and Similarities

line and two rectangular forms at its side, which likewise echoes Szczuka’s layout. It is also worth mentioning the fact that the letter “M” used in Werkman’s composition is an exact mirror reflection of the letter “W” from the word “DZ´WIGNIA” from the magazine’s cover.17

3.5.

Henryk Berlewi, Vilmos Huszár and Karel Maes

The Budapest-born artist Vilmos Huszár was one of the founders of De Stijl, the author of its logo and until 1923 one of its key members and contributors.18 In 1909 Huszár settled in the Netherlands where he lived and worked until his death in 1960 (Ex and Hoek 1985: 9). Particularly interesting are Huszár’s typographical designs for commercial purposes. He received his first commercial assignment in 1917 – an advertisement for the Bruynzeel company which was often published in De Stijl (Blotkamp and Hilhorst 1996: 337). Almost a decade later, in 1925, he was commissioned to design an advertisement campaign for the well-known tobacco brand Miss Blanche produced by The Vittoria Egyptian Cigarette Company. Huszár not only designed new packages, labels and posters for Miss Blanche, but also large-scale banners which were placed in various Dutch cities. Huszár intentionally designed each banner for the specific place it was to be hung. In an article published in 1928 in De Reclame 7, 12, he claimed that advertisements could improve and enrich the urban fabric on the condition that they were properly designed and in relation to the surrounding architecture (Ex and Hoek 1985: 113). One such example of this activity are the large posters placed on the pier in Scheveningen, harmoniously merged with the walls of the round building on which they were hung.19 Moreover, as noticed by Blotkamp and Hilhorst (1996: 345), the Scheveningen banners represented a new approach to typographical composition, unseen before in Huszár’s works – namely circular forms and diagonally placed text. The scholars linked those elements to International Constructivist trends in typography, which were indeed used by more and more designers from the mid-1920s. One of the artists whose works reveal visibly close similarities to Huszár’s 1926 design for the Scheveningen pier was Henryk Berlewi. In his advertisement booklet Prospekt Czekolada Plutos [Plutos chocolate brochure] from 1925 Berlewi likewise used circular and diagonal elements which he mixed with rectangular shapes and various fonts in black, red, grey and yellow (see Plate 12). Although the only available reproduction of Huszár’s banner is in black and white, other preserved materials make it probable that the entire campaign for Miss Blanche – hence also the Scheveningen banner – was executed in black, white and the three primary colours.20 If this is indeed the case, those two works are thus quite alike with regard to the choice of shapes and the way they are placed, in particular the left part of Huszár’s banner and the front cover of Berlewi’s book. Of additional note are the circular shapes placed in the right corner with adjacent words (“cigarettes” and “prospekt” respectively), as well as the composition of the squares above them in relation to the product names placed in long rectangles (in Huszár’s case horizontally, and in Berlewi’s design vertically) which immediately draw the viewer’s attention. The relationship between a dark square and the word “Virginia” on Huszár’s banner (bottom left) is also somehow similar to the upper left corner of Berlewi’s cover

Selected Works: Influences and Similarities

93

(a small black square and the word “czekolada”). The characteristic diagonal elements of Huszár’s project do not appear on Berlewi’s cover, yet they were used on several pages inside the same booklet. This similarity notwithstanding, there is no sufficient evidence that Berlewi’s booklet did in fact inspire Huszár’s design for the Scheveningen pier advertising campaign. What is undeniable is the fact that both artists had a wide network of international contacts and via this network of artists and publishers they disseminated and likely became acquainted with each other’s works. Both Berlewi and Huszár had close links to German, Belgian and French avant-garde circles: in the course of the 1920s Huszár participated in various avant-garde initiatives in Antwerp and Paris where Berlewi had previously studied. Between 1922 and 1923 Berlewi lived in Berlin, where in July 1924 his works were exhibited in the Der Sturm gallery. Two months earlier he also participated in the Düsseldorf congress. Huszár’s connections to Berlin- and Paris-based artists were understandably broad: For example, in 1925/1926 he stayed in Paris at the time of L’Art d’aujourd’hui exhibition organised by the Polish artist Victor Poznan´ski.21 Notably, Van Doesburg received Berlewi’s booklet Prospekt biura Reklama Mechano from 1924,22 and hence the brochure Prospekt Czekolada Plutos might possibly have also circulated among the Dutch avant-garde artists. Their activeness in the avant-garde network and the wide connections they had to various artists could have somehow linked them to each other, but whether Huszár had indeed seen Berlewi’s project before he designed the Scheveningen banner is, however, impossible to establish. Another interesting comparison showing the simultaneity of artistic endeavours in Poland and the Low Countries are the works of Berlewi and Karel Maes, one of the editors of the Belgian magazine 7 Arts. Although they reveal considerable similarities,

Figure 32 Karel Maes, linocut from 1921 (source: Vrienden van Felix De Boeck vzw) and Henryk Berlewi, Siedza˛ca kobieta from 1922 (source: MNW)

94

Selected Works: Influences and Similarities

Figure 33 Karel Maes, linocut published in 1926 (source: 7 Arts 4, 20; KMSKB) and Henryk Berlewi, Kontrasty mechanofakturowe from 1923 (source: Der Sturm 15, 3: 157; MLAA)

it is again impossible to establish whether it is correct to speak of direct influence and cultural mobility between the artists, or rather coincidental resemblances resulting from the general artistic development of the period. For instance Berlewi’s work Siedza˛ca kobieta [Sitting woman] from 1922, published in the magazine Albatros, is an abstract representation of a sitting woman, constructed from geometrical intersecting shapes of black and white. At the same time Maes also created very similar works where figurative motifs were transformed into abstract black and white compositions, and Berlewi’s Siedza˛ca kobieta bears particular resemblances to Maes’s linocut from 1921. Another interesting example of Berlewi’s works can be seen in his Mechano-Faktura series, created from 1923 and published, amongst other places, in Der Sturm in September 1924. They are based on a juxtaposition of various forms of grids, lines and planes, and also they show some affinity with Maes’s works. Is it possible that Berlewi was familiar with Maes’s works published in Het Overzicht while working on his own Kontrasty mechanofakturowe (given their resemblance in the diagonal composition or the use of rectangular shapes, lines and circles), and in return Maes based his later experiments with various grids and textures on Berlewi’s famous manifesto (see the works of Maes published in 1925/1926 in 7 Arts). Although almost impossible to prove or disprove Berlewi’s and Maes’s mutual influences, it is worth emphasising that both artists were active in similar avant-garde circles (e.g. they were both linked to Dutch and German artists such as Van Doesburg and El Lissitzky), and most probably they met during the 1922 Düsseldorf congress which they both attended and actively contributed to its proceedings.

Selected Works: Influences and Similarities

95

3.6. Poland, the Low Countries and Foreign Artists: The Examples of El Lissitzky and Pietro (de) Saga As indicated above, the mutual relations between Poland and the Low Countries are just a small case study of a much wider European (or even global) phenomenon of cultural mobility of the interwar avant-garde network. Artists from Poland, Belgium and the Netherlands belonged to this supranational network and participated in the constant exchange of texts and works which served as a source of inspiration and gave new impulses for artistic development. In this part I will discuss two examples of foreign artists whose influences – although exerted in different manners – were visible in the magazines and works of their Polish and Dutch colleagues, namely the works of Russian artist El Lissitzky and Austrian artist Steffi Kiesler a.k.a. Pietro (de) Saga. The former example shows the importance of Russian influences in the development of European avant-gardes, and the latter shows the impact of artworks being reproduced in avant-garde magazines. One of the works which illustrate the multidirectional mobility within the avantgarde network is El Lissitzky’s short picture book for children Pro dva kvadrata. Suprematicheskii skaz v 6-ti postroikakh [Of two squares: A Suprematist tale in 6 constructions] created in 1920 in Vitebsk and published in 1922 in Berlin. This extraordinary example of integration of experimental typography, design and literature became a landmark in the history of avant-garde page design, and it also had a visible impact on both Polish and Dutch avant-gardes, which shows how different nodes of this network influenced each other. At the end of 1922 the Dutch edition of El Lissitzky’s work appeared in De Stijl. It was edited by Van Doesburg who reworked the original version, i.e. he changed its format to horizontal and created a new page based on two words “voor” and “allen”, which replaced El Lissitzky’s composition with a large letter “P” on a black page (Brentjens 2008: 106; Broos 1994: 27–28). In Poland the impact of El Lissitzky’s work was to be seen for instance in the catalogue of the Vilnius exhibition in 1923. Its editors Strzemin´ski and Kajruksztis were well aware of the accomplishments of the Russian avant-garde (until 1922 Strzemin´ski lived in Russia where he worked with El Lissitzky, Malevich and others), which was reflected in the design of the catalogue. As in the case of El Lissitzky’s book, the Vilnius catalogue is also a noteworthy example of experiments in typography and a new approach to page layout based on unity of text and geometrical shapes (see Plate 13). The Vilnius exhibition and its catalogue marked a milestone in the history of Polish avant-garde, and its unique layout and typographical solutions defined the character and quality of subsequent publications. The second example concerns Pietro (de) Saga, which was the pseudonym of Austrian artist Steffi Kiesler. She was born in 1987 in Skotschau (today Skoczów in Poland) and in 1920 she married the architect Frederick Kiesler. Together they became active figures in European avant-garde movements until they emigrated to New York in 1926. The Kieslers were in touch with Theo van Doesburg from 1923 onwards, which evolved into a close friendship after they moved to Paris at the beginning of 1925. There Steffi Kiesler became acquainted with a number of European avant-garde artists and their works, especially with the theories of De Stijl. Inspired by the works of the Dutch Neoplasticists, in 1925/26 Kiesler created a series of so-called “typo-plastics” – abstract compositions produced solely on a typewriter which went beyond the borders between drawings and experimental poetry. Three of these were published in De Stijl

96

Selected Works: Influences and Similarities

in 1926–1927 (under her male pseudonym, Saga), including two on the magazine’s cover. The correspondence between Van Doesburg and Steffi Kiesler actually suggests that in the course of 1925/26 their relationship might have become more intimate than friendship, yet it came to an end in 1926 when the Kieslers moved out to New York. Only in 1930 did they meet again during the Kieslers’ trip to Europe, as evidenced in several photographs from that year (Meissner 2013: 10–14). The works of Saga/Kiesler (the pseudonym will be used hereinafter) served as inspiration for other artists, among others Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman and Samuel Szczekacz. In his magazine The Next Call Werkman created unique typographical compositions which – as in the case of Saga’s works – may not be easily classified as drawings, painting or poetry. In the course of the 1920s (probably around 1926) Werkman created a series of “tiksels” which some scholars have linked to the works of Saga published in De Stijl.23 Werkman’s “tiksels” are indeed similar to Saga’s “typo-plastics” – they are monochromatic semi-typographical compositions based solely on typewriting signs such as letters and punctuation marks which were put together in a unique and extraordinary manner (i.e. multiplied, juxtaposed, etc.) to produce abstract compositions. Resemblances to Saga’s “typo-plastics” are also visible in the works of the Polish artist Samuel Szczekacz. He had connection to the Łódz´ avant-garde circles, especially Strzemin´ski, whose art course Szczekacz attended. Through Strzemin´ski Szczekacz became acquainted with the theories and works of key European avant-garde artists, including the Dutch Neoplasticists. In his own works Szczekacz combined Western trends with Strzemin´ski’s theory of Unism and, of particular interest here, several of his works are based on typographical elements, for instance Kompozycja unistyczna IV z Teki graficznej (1938), Studium typograficzne (ca. 1937) or Konstrukcja (ca. 1937). The latter reveals major similarities with Saga’s 1925 Typo-Plastique VII from De Stijl 6, 12 – Szczekacz also used a variety of typewriting signs in his works to create different rectangular shapes which he contrasted with planes of primary colours. This links his work to the Dutch Neoplasticists as well – comparing for instance another of Szczekacz’s works, Konstrukcja, with the works of Mondrian

Figure 34 Pietro de Saga, Typo-Plastique VII and Dactyloplastique from 1925 (source: De Stijl 6, 12: 137 and 7, 77: 65; IADDB)

Selected Works: Influences and Similarities

97

Figure 35 Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman, Tiksels 10 and 12 from ca. 1926 (source: Collectie GM, photo Marten de Leeuw)

or Van Doesburg, it is easy to see that De Stijl was one of the sources of inspiration for Szczekacz (see Plate 14).

3.7.

Interior Design

The principles of Neoplasticism postulated in the analysed programmatic writings, such as a purely abstract composition of planes of primary colours, were implemented in architecture by many artists, both from the Low Countries and from Poland. In the Netherlands the theoretical assumptions were put into practice by Doesburg, Huszár and Rietveld, amongst others. Although Van Doesburg’s first comprehensive Neoplastic interior design, the Amsterdam University hall, dates back from 1923, he had introduced similar elements in his earlier projects. Of note is his 1919 interior design for the house of Bart de Ligt in Katwijk aan Zee. The original design was based on orange, green and blue colour planes painted on the walls and ceilings – not yet entirely in line with the Neoplastic theories. In 1925, however, Van Doesburg used a black and white photo of this interior to paint some of the surfaces in primary colours, which created an abstract composition and supposedly an image of an exemplary avant-garde interior: Van Doesburg had this collage published in colour in L’Architecture Vivante 3, 9, as an actual project from 1919 (cf. Hoek 2000: 261–262). A quite different approach was used for the colour decoration of Van Eesteren’s university hall in Amsterdam: Van Doesburg applied an abstract diagonal composition on the ceiling based on a black grid filled randomly with red, blue and yellow and contrasted by contourless rectangular planes of the same colours in other elements of the interior (see Plate 15).

98

Selected Works: Influences and Similarities

Vilmos Huszár also designed various interiors from 1919 onwards, some in cooperation with the Dutch architects Rietveld and Wils. One of his projects from 1920 – a dining room with geometrical forms painted on the walls and ceiling – was reproduced in black and white in De Stijl 5, 1, and two years later together with Rietveld he created a spatial model with intersecting planes of primary colours on the walls and ceiling. Rietveld himself also implemented Neoplastic principles in his projects, for example in the 1921 project for Goud- en Zilversmidscompagnie in Amsterdam (cf. De Stijl 5, 2 from 1922) as well as at the Schröder House in Utrecht where primary colours were applied to various elements of the interior. Moreover, artists such as Mondrian or Peeters turned their studios into experimental Neoplastic spatial compositions. These have been captured in various photos based on which the interiors could be reconstructed to give an idea of how the artists implemented their artistic theories into their own living spaces, and how they evolved over time. This is also the case of the architects Helena and Szymon Syrkus whose Warsaw studio bore numerous resemblances with the canvases of Dutch and Belgian avant-garde artists. Polish artists also made several attempts to put their theoretical principles into architectural practice. The first preserved examples of avant-garde interiors from Poland date from the mid-1920s: there are black and white reproductions of projects in Blok and Praesens created by Szczuka (1924), Staz˙ ewski (1925) and Lachert (1926), to name only a few. Based on these, as well as on colour photos from 1930 and 1931, considerable similarities to the Dutch and Belgian projects mentioned above come to the fore. For instance, the theory of Neoplasticism found very fertile ground in the works of Henryk Staz˙ ewski. By 1932 he had designed approximately fifty interiors, where he implemented Mondrian’s principles of a balanced relation of vertical and horizontal lines, planes of primary colours and the so-called non-colours (Ładnowska 1991: 72). Neoplastic principles and colour scheme were also used by Bohdan Lachert in his furniture designs whilst Mieczysław Szczuka’s

Figure 36 Gerrit Rietveld, interior design for Goud- en Zilversmidscompagnie from 1921 (source: De Stijl 5, 2: 178; IADDB) and the Syrkuses in their study in 1927 (source: IS PAN, inv. nr. 192)

Selected Works: Influences and Similarities

99

Figure 37 Mieczysław Szczuka, interior design from 1924 (source: Blok 8/9; JBC) and Bohdan Lachert, interior design from 1926 (source: Praesens 1: 53; MBC)

interior design depicted in Blok 8/9 from 1924, especially the abstract composition on the ceiling, recalls Van Doesburg’s project for the university hall from 1923. Szczuka’s composition is not diagonal, and based on the reproduction the actual colours remain unknown, yet the perpendicular grid of various colour planes seems to have been inspired by Van Doesburg’s project or alternatively by one of Mondrian’s paintings. Of crucial importance in the analysis of Polish–Dutch mobility in the field of avant-garde interiors is the Neoplastic Room (Sala Neoplastyczna) at the Łódz´ Museum. Although created after the Second World War, it constitutes a unique example of artistic and architectural influences of the interwar period. The International Collection of Modern Art gathered by artists from the a.r. group was housed in various locations until 1946, when it found a permanent exhibition home at the current premises of the museum. There, in 1948, Władysław Strzemin´ski designed the Neoplastic Room where works of Van Doesburg, Huszár, Kobro, Staz˙ ewski and many others were exhibited.24 Strzemin´ski’s design presents a continuation of his pre-war projects, which materialised in this fifty-square-metre room. Its walls and ceiling were adorned with an abstract composition of blue, red, yellow, white and black, which corresponds to Strzemin´ski’s unimplemented projects from the 1930s and stays in line with the theoretical statements on architecture analysed in the previous chapter (see Plate 16). The Neoplastic Room directly recalls various examples of the Dutch avant-garde: Mondrian’s paintings or Rietveld’s interiors, and – even more interestingly – when it comes to the choice of particular colour planes and their size, Strzemin´ski based them on the works which were to be exhibited in a given place, creating a unique example of avant-garde Gesamtkunstwerk (cf. Ładnowska 1991: 73–75).

100

Selected Works: Influences and Similarities

3.8.

Architecture

The issue of cultural mobility in the field of modernist architecture is a broad and multifaceted matter which would require a study of its own. Its development and dissemination took place simultaneously in various places where architects from Europe and beyond realised their bold projects and influenced one another – among them were the most recognisable figures such as Le Corbusier, Frank Lloyd Wright, Mies van der Rohe and many others. Architecture often stood at the centre of attention of avant-garde circles, and I will point here to several examples of interwar architectural projects from Poland and the Low Countries representing the simultaneity and parallels of architectural endeavours of the period – be it in the straight-forwardness of their general assumptions, or in the originality of their details. One such innovatory aspect is the plasticity of modernist buildings, which were not created as symmetric monoliths, but instead their form was based on a juxtaposition of intersecting volumes, which created a cohesive, sculptural effect, somewhat recalling Malevich’s architectons. Such sculptural, abstract forms can be seen in Oud’s 1919 project for a factory in Purmerend, reproduced in 1920 in De Stijl 3, 5. Oud’s project – if realised – could have actually become an exemplary attempt to implement the principles of Neoplasticism in architecture: H.R. Hitchcock (1929, as quoted in Oud 1984: 48) claimed that “the factory design, although not without heaviness, illustrated a determined effort to achieve in architecture the effects of Neoplasticism (. . .). In the intricate play of rather meaningless horizontal and vertical masses one part of this design might well be abstract construction of a sculptor”. Indeed, as pointed out by the architect’s son Hans Oud (1984: 49), the Purmerend project was still missing the

Figure 38 J.J.P. Oud, design for a factory in Purmerend from 1919 (source: De Stijl 3, 5; IADDB) ˙ arnower, composition from 1924 (source: Blok 8/9; JBC) and Teresa Z

Selected Works: Influences and Similarities

101

widely postulated integration of exterior with the interior, yet the beautiful sculptural effect of the entrance zone served as inspiration for Van Doesburg’s and Van Eesteren’s experimental models from 1923/24. The same plastic and spatial thought is recognisable in Z˙ arnower’s project published in 1924 in Blok 8/9, which is very similar to Oud’s 1919 design.25 Another recurring feature of modernist architecture are plain white façades with windows and steel railings as their sole “decoration”. Windows were placed horizontally in long bands or in the corners, for example in Oud’s project for the Kiefhoek estate (1925–30) or in Lachert and Szanajca’s competition entry for Szkoła Nauk Politycznych [School of Political Sciences] from 1926 (cf. Praesens 1: 26). Thin steel rails were frequently used for balconies and roof terraces, which created an intricate lace-like finishing of the unadorned volumes. In some cases, however, the balconies were given very original forms, as for instance in Rietveld’s famous Schröder House in Utrecht (1924). Rietveld designed a particularly original balustrade made of steel rails and one plastered rectangular plane which seems to float above the main entrance. This dramatic and plastic effect was repeated in the Brukalskis’ house in Warsaw from 1928, where the entrance has also been covered with a balcony with a very similar balustrade. In general, although more compact and less detailed, the Brukalskis’ house seems to share the same artistic and architectural sensibility and refinement as Rietveld’s masterpiece, be it in its airy volumes, large windows (especially the extraordinary high triple hung window) or other well-designed elements. Besides the features described above, naval elements and streamline forms such as rounded balconies and façades, ribbon windows and so forth were often used by modernist architects. Although the term Streamline architecture (or Streamline Moderne) is usually used with reference to American architecture from the 1930s, a number of streamline elements is also to be found in European architecture from the period, as noted by both Olszewski (2009: 35) and Sołtysik (2009: 70–79). Despite the fact that straight lines and right angles dominated in Polish, Dutch and Belgian avant-garde architecture, there are also many examples of nautical elements, for instance in the

Figure 39 One of numerous reproductions of Rietveld’s house in Utrecht in Polish magazines (source: Architekt 21, 1: 3; BCPW) and the Brukalskis’ house in Warsaw (source Praesens 2: 60; MBC)

102

Selected Works: Influences and Similarities

projects of Duiker (Openlucht-school in Amsterdam, 1929–30), Dudok (Collège Néer˙ arnower/ landais in Paris, 1929–38), Stynen (Elsdonck residence in Wilrijk, 1931–34), Z Szczuka/Syrkus (residential building, 1926), Plater-Zyberk (Słuz˙ewiec, 1931–39) and Piotrowski (ZUS offices in Gdynia, 1935–36) amongst others. In some cases they were so distinctive that they became the building’s main feature. In J.J.P. Oud’s project for Hoek van Holland from 1924 the curved corners of long terraced houses are entirely transparent at the ground level and roofed with a wide band of balconies, which became one of the most recognisable elements of this project. The Polish architect Bohdan Pniewski implemented a very similar solution in his project for the PWK exhibition in Poznan´ in 1929. A characteristic glassed curved corner with a deep overhanging roof of Pniewski’s pavilion of the Bogusław Herse Company seems to mimic Oud’s feature window from Hoek van Holland.26 Another distinctive element inspired by naval architecture was the incorporation of light exterior steel staircases. Similar to ladders between two decks on a ship, as well as to the exterior iron fire escapes characteristic of American urban architecture, introduced at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, such staircases were often used by modernist architects in order to give access to balconies and roof terraces.27 Of particular note are the outdoor spiral staircases linking upper terraces with gardens used, for instance, by Mart Stam for his Stuttgart houses, or by Van der Vlugt and Brinkman for the Sonneveld House in Rotterdam.28 In Poland exterior staircases were also popular and were used in Hryniewicz-Piotrowska’s PWK pavilion from 1929 and in Korngold’s villa from 1935. An exceptional use of outdoor staircases may be found in the works of two Polish architects Bohdan Lachert and Józef Szanajca. In 1926 they designed a villa in Gdynia with a highly original exterior rectangular staircase, and in their later projects they experimented with a spiral staircase. They incorporated it into the building’s volume at its top level, linking it with the roof terrace, which resulted in a very sculptural

Figure 40 J.J.P. Oud, Hoek van Holland estate from 1924 (source: i10 8/9: 284; IADDB) and B. Pniewski, PWK pavilion of Bogusław Herse Company from 1929 (source: Architektura i Budownictwo 5, 11/12: 34; BCPW)

Selected Works: Influences and Similarities

103

Figure 41 B. Lachert and J. Szanajca, Szyller’s villa in Warsaw from 1928 (source: Praesens 2: 51; MBC) and a row house in Warsaw from 1928 (source: Architektura i Budownictwo 11, 5: 70; BCPW)

effect: a steel helix of stairs emerging from the white mass of the building to continue as the hand rail of the terrace. In the case of the Szyller’s Villa in Warsaw (1928), the spiral stairs create a playful composition with the balustrades of various levels of the house, and they correspond to the asymmetrical layout of the windows on one of the building’s façades. The other residential building for three families is more modest, yet the well-balanced layout of ribbon windows on the façade, together with the steel staircase materialising from a bare windowless corner, creates a very visually pleasing abstract composition. These original projects gained recognition from Van Doesburg (1930/1931: 90) who wrote about Lachert and Szanajca in his article on modern Polish architecture in Het Bouwbedrijf where both projects were reproduced. Although voicing some criticism, he appreciated the extraordinary effect achieved by placing the staircase in such a manner: The Polish architects Lachert and Szanajca built some modern freestanding houses in Warsaw, for single as well as for multiple families. As the reproduction shows, these villas, in particular the Warsaw one for three families, strongly remind us of those by Le Corbusier. (. . .) The outside spiral staircase leading to the roof terrace (a deliberate aesthetic device, coincidentally occurring in both projects!) does lend a witty flourish to the upper contour, but the whole rests heavily and clumsily on its basement. By this I do not mean to say that this is bad architecture, or only a modern imitation. The architects Lachert and Szanajca, whom I already mentioned in my previous article, are among the most serious and progressive architects in the Praesens group. (Van Doesburg 1990: 309) Such use of spiral outdoor staircases was exceptional and likely pioneering. In 1928 the French architect Mallet-Stevens also used exterior staircases to give access to the

104

Selected Works: Influences and Similarities

balcony on the second floor at the Martel house in Paris, yet they had a rectangular – not spiral – form, which did not produce the same plastic effect as was the case of Lachert and Szanajca. The Belgian architect De Koninck also used exterior staircases in his projects, for instance in Dr. Ley’s House in Uccle (1934) and in Villa Canneel in Brussels (1931). In the former building, the staircase linked the first floor with the roof but still – as by Mallet-Stevens or in the Lachert/Szanajca 1926 design from Gdynia – it remained rectangular. Nevertheless, the staircase added a nice, sculptural detail to the building. It would be possible to continue to enumerate architectural elements recurring in various projects, including those of Polish, Belgian and Dutch provenance – be it the integration of typography with the building (e.g. Café de Unie by Oud, Rietveld’s Vreeburg Bioscoop, Van Nelle Leiden offices by Brinkman and Van der Vlugt, Hryniewicz˙ arnower, Szczuka, Kozin´ski and Piotrowska’s PWK pavilion or housing block by Z Karczewski), the use of pilotis (as in Van Doesburg’s house in Méudon and in Lachert/ Szanajca’s row house in Warsaw) or the 45-degree footprint of residential designs created for the sake of their proper orientation (e.g. Bourgeois’s Cité Moderne, Szanajca’s apartment blocks or Lachert/Niemojewski/Szanajca’s row houses). There are many parallels and similarities in Dutch, Belgian and Polish architectural projects, which result from numerous and at times intense international relations between interwar architects – not only via architectural periodicals circulating throughout the whole network, but also through the CIAM organisation which gathered the most progressive and talented modern architects of the period. One of many examples of these contacts and influences has been observed by Izabela Wisłocka (1968: 125) who pointed to architectural solutions implemented by Stanisław Brukalski and Barbara Brukalska in their WSM-estate in Warsaw as being directly influenced by J.J.P. Oud’s residential projects. Another interesting parallel was pointed out by Zdzisława and Tomasz Tołłoczko (1999), namely the steel construction of the balconies recurring in residential projects of Brinkman and Van der Vlugt’s (Van der Leeuw Huis in Rotterdam) and the Syrkuses (villa in Skolimów). Moreover, the influences of De Stijl and its ideas were also visible in the works of

Figure 42 L.H. De Koninck, Dr. Ley’s House in Uccle from 1934 (source: De 8 and Opbouw 7, 15: 175; IADDB) and B. Lachert and J. Szanajca, villa in Gdynia from 1926 (source: Architektura i Budownictwo 2, 6: 34; BCPW)

Selected Works: Influences and Similarities

105

Figure 43 J.A. Brinkman and L.C. van der Vlugt: Van der Leeuw Huis in Rotterdam from 1921–1928 (source: RCE, photo Gerard Dukker) and H. Syrkus and S. Syrkus, villa in Skolimów from 1931 (source: NAC)

other Polish interwar architects, e.g. Maksymilian Goldberg and Hipolit Rutkowski (cf. Kubiak 2017). It should also be noted here that from its very beginning the Polish architects were very active members of the CIAM organisation. One of their major achievements in this context was the urban project Warszawa funkcjonalna from 1934, created by Szymon Syrkus and Jan Chmielewski in cooperation with other specialists from various domains. Warszawa funkcjonalna was a pioneering utopian project created on an unprecedented pan-European scale.29 It received much praise and appreciation after its presentation during a CIRPAC (working group of CIAM) meeting in London. It was translated into English, French and German, and on 21 May 1934 the Polish project was officially accepted as an exemplary synthetic study and as a model for preparatory works for all other national groups of CIAM. The importance of this fact was emphasised in an official letter to the President of Warsaw dated 21 May 1934 and signed by key European architects Victor Bourgeois (Belgium), Ben Merkelbach (the Netherlands), Le Corbusier, Walter Gropius and others. These prominent architects wrote: Le C.I.R.P.A.C. (. . .), organe exécutif des C.I.A.M. (. . .), a été appelé à prendre connaissance du projet de l’urbanisation de la région de Varsovie, présenté par MM. Chmielewski Jan et Syrkus Szymon. Le rapport établi par ces auteurs ainsi que les plans qui l’accompagnent a fortement impressionné les membres du C.I.R.P.A.C. Ceux-ci ont exprimé à MM. Chmielewski et Syrkus leur satisfaction et après une délibération ont admis de considérer ce projet comme pouvant servir de modèle aux études similaires, imposés aux divers groupes nationaux des C.I.A.M. à l’occasion du V-ème Congrès.

106

Selected Works: Influences and Similarities C.I.R.P.A.C. se permet de vous communiquer cette décision, estimant que vous auriez quelque satisfaction de voir reconnaître ainsi le travail fourni par vos compatriotes. [CIRPAC (. . .), the executive organ of CIAM (. . .), was invited to get acquainted with a project of urban development of the Warsaw-region, presented by Mr. Jan Chmielewski and Mr. Szymon Syrkus. The rapport created by these authors, as well as accompanying plans, has really impressed the members of CIRPAC. They expressed their approval to Mr. Chmielewski and Mr. Syrkus, and having discussed it they agreed to consider this project as possible to serve as a model for similar studies commanded from various national groups of CIAM at the occasion of its fifth Congress. CIRPAC has taken the liberty of sharing this decision with you reckoning that you be pleased to see the work of your compatriots being recognised. (cf. Czeredys et al. 2013: 34)]

Polish architects remained active members of CIAM – Helena Syrkus was its secretary (1933–1939) and vice-president (1948–1955, together with Le Corbusier and Gropius). As expressed by Josep Lluís Sert, the President of CIAM in 1949–1952, “the Polish group was always one of the best, most active and most dynamic in CIAM”.30

3.9.

Preliminary Conclusions

This chapter aimed to demonstrate that avant-garde publications, artworks and architectural projects of Polish, Belgian and Dutch provenance had very much in common and that in many cases one can speak of mutual influences and inspirations drawn from one another. Artists from Poland, the Low Countries and all other parts of the avant-garde network stayed in touch with each other, exchanged texts, artworks and ideas, hence it is not surprising that they bear numerous similarities. These are visible in their magazines, typographical compositions experimental poetry, artworks and architectural projects. Covers of most avant-garde publications have an innovative page design, often based on similar elements which somehow became the feature of the interwar avant-garde. In some cases also inside those magazines very original typographical solutions were applied, as exemplified for instance by Blok or The Next Call. When it comes to visual arts such as painting or sculpture, direct influences of the Dutch avant-gardists are visible in the works of Henryk Staz˙ewski, whose paintings and cover designs recall some of Piet Mondrian’s or Theo van Doesburg’s canvases. A closer look at the works of other artists, however, demonstrates that such inspirations and influences had also the opposite direction. The works of Katarzyna Kobro for instance were almost certainly a source of inspiration for the Belgian artist Georges Vantongerloo, one of the contributors to De Stijl. Influence of Kobro’s spatial compositions is visible in Vantongerloo’s sculptures from the late 1920s when he began, as it were, to ‘open’ them and relate them with the surrounding space. Another example of such influences is the case of two works of Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman which most probably were inspired by Mieczysław Szczuka’s earlier compositions.

Selected Works: Influences and Similarities

107

The above-mentioned examples of influences and inspirations between artists form Poland and the Low Countries are obviously only a small sample of contact which took place within the multidimensional rhizomatic network of the avant-garde. That foreign innovations served as a source of inspiration for various artists belonging to this network is visible for instance in the works of the Russian artist El Lissitzky or Pietro (de) Saga from Austria which exerted noticeable influences on both Polish and Dutch avant-garde artists. Similar examples could be multiplied almost endlessly. Interior design and architecture too reveal many similarities when it comes to works of artists from Poland and the Low Countries. Polish architects found much inspiration in the works of their Dutch and Belgian colleagues (as exemplified by Strzemin´ski’s Neoplastic Room in Łódz´ or the Brukalskis’ house in Warsaw), but they as well created unique architectural solutions, be it in the works of Lachert and Szanajca, or in the Warszawa Funkcjonalna project. Those several examples discussed in this chapter, as well as the own words of some artists themselves quoted here, seem to very much contradict Theo van Doesburg’s claim mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, and to show that cultural mobility of artistic practices between Poland, Belgium and the Netherlands – and beyond – had indeed a mutual and reciprocal character.

Notes 1 English translation in: Van Doesburg 1990: 299, 302. 2 See for instance: Turowski (1979, 1990a); Kleiverda-Kajetanowicz (1985); Passuth (1988); Ex (1996, 2000); Rypson (2000); Van de Geer et al. (2013). 3 See also Czyz˙ ewski 1933 as well as Strzemin´ski’s letters to Przybos´ from 31 August 1930 and 26 May 1932 (Turowski 1973a: 245–257, 258–259). 4 See among others Brze˛kowski’s letters to Przybos´ from 13 May 1929 and 2 April 1930 (Kłak 1981: 33–34, 60–61), Przybos´’s letter to Kurek from 15 May 1930 (Kłak 1975: 90) and Strzemin´ski’s letters to Przybos´ from 9 March 1930 and 26 April 1930 (Turowski 1973a: 237–241). 5 Tschichold’s letter to Strzemin´ski from 3 May 1934 (Kurc-Maj 2014: 88–89). 6 Of note is the fact the cover of the eighth/ninth issue of Blok was used as the cover of Steven Heller’s (2003) book Merz to Emigre and Beyond: Avant-Garde Magazine Design of the Twentieth Century, which confirms the unique quality of Polish avant-garde page design. 7 It was also pointed out by Krisztina Passuth (2009: 21) who claimed that “De Stijl (. . .) never really experimented with absolutely new forms”. 8 See: Carpenter (1983: 44) for reproduction. 9 Interestingly, Strzemin´ski’s design for Z ponad reveals much affinity to Van Doesburg’s renowned painting Ritme van een Russische dans [Rhythm of a Russian Dance] from 1918 as well as to Mies van der Rohe’s design for the Brick Country Club House from 1923/24. However, given Strzemin´ski’s other works and their evolution in time, it does not seem to be intentional. 10 Strzemin´ski’s letter to Przybos´ from 13 November 1929 (Turowski 1973a: 227). 11 Strzemin´ski’s letter to Vantongerloo from 18 February 1930 (private collection). 12 Strzemin´ski’s letter to Przybos´ from early 1930 (Turowski 1973a: 231–232). 13 The manuscript is housed in Max Bill Georges Vantongerloo Stiftung in Zumikon, Switzerland. 14 Compare for instance Vantongerloo’s Masses in the Universe (1946) with Kobro’s Suspended construction (2) from 1921/22. 15 I would like to thank Hubert van den Berg who drew my attention to this fact. 16 I base my statement on two catalogues of Werkman’s oeuvre: Dekkers et al. (2008) and De Vries et al. (2015).

108

Selected Works: Influences and Similarities

17 Interestingly, Peter Jordens (2017) too has pointed out that Werkman had indeed searched for inspiration in the works of several Central and Eastern European avant-garde artists. 18 As in the case of other artists, also Huszár’s relation with Van Doesburg was rather troubled; in December 1920 he abruptly ended his subscription of De Stijl to renew it later on (Blotkamp and Hilhorst 1996: 330–333). See also the table of De Stijl’s members published in the special issue in 1927. 19 See: Blotkamp and Hilhorst (1996: 345) or Janssen and White (2011: 205) for reproduction. 20 For colourful reproductions of Huszár’s designs for Miss Blanche see for instance Van Dam (1998: 18–21) or the collection of SMA. 21 Cf. Frankowska and Frankowski 2009: 19–48; Ex and Hoek 1985: 96–100. 22 See ATNvD, inv. nr. ARC/Does/doos XXXI [982343]. 23 See for instance Dekkers et al. (2008: 431–437). 24 The exhibition was closed down in 1950 and Strzemin´ski’s composition was painted over. Its reconstruction was undertaken a decade later – cf. Ładnowska (1991: 78). 25 Maria Sołtysik (2009: 73–74) has also pointed to other interesting examples of Dutch–Polish architectural mobility where plastic, sculptural forms designed by the Dutch architects (e.g. Jan Wils) served as inspiration for Polish architects. 26 See Kubiak (2014: 146–185) for an architectural overview and analysis of the PWK exhibition. 27 This purely functional novelty also served as inspiration for avant-garde artists – for instance in 1917 the American artist Man Ray portrayed them in his Fire Escape and Umbrellas (see the online archive of GRI: www.getty.edu/art/collections/objects/o53284.html). 28 Other examples include Van der Vlugt’s Van Nelle factory from 1925–31, Arp and Van Doesburg’s project for their shared house in Clamart (the April 1924 version; see Van Straaten 1988: 229–231), Oud’s project for Bijdorp from 1931, Gropius House in Lincoln (MA) from 1937 and many others. A different, yet very original, form of spiral staircase appeared in the Zonnestraal Sanatorium in Hilversum designed by Jan Duiker in cooperation with Bernard Bijvoet in 1926–1928. 29 Although quite utopian, the Warszawa funkcjonalna project found some practical application after the Second World War, serving as an inspiration for urban planners dealing with the reconstruction of the city. 30 Quoted in Czerner et al. (1981: 63).

Plate 1 Selected avant-garde periodicals of Polish, Dutch and Belgian provenance

Plate 2 Piet Mondrian and Michel Seuphor’s Tableau-poème (Textuel) from 1928 (source: MSL)

Plate 3 Georges Vantongerloo, cover design for the Polish edition of L’art et son avenir from 1927 (© 2018, ProLitteris Zurich)

Plate 4 The nexus of relationships between selected representatives of the avant-garde in Poland and the Low Countries

Plate 5 Front cover of De Stijl from 1922 (source: IADDB) and back cover of Berlewi’s Prospekt biura Reklama Mechano from 1924 (source: ATNvD)

Plate 6 Covers of Documents Internationaux de l’Esprit Nouveau 1 from 1927 (source: BK) and of L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna 2 from 1930 (source: MNW)

Plate 7 Theo van Doesburg, Compositie XXII from 1922 (source: VAM; photo Peter Cox) and Henryk Staz˙ewski, Kompozycja from 1930 (source: MSL)

Plate 8 Henryk Staz˙ewski, cover designs for Anielski Cham and Niedziela (source: Ryszard Cichy Collection)

Plate 9 Piet Mondrian, Compositie from 1929 (source: SGM; gift, Estate of Katherine S. Dreier, 1953) and Tableau 2 from 1922 (source: SGM)

Plate 10 Theo van Doesburg, Compositie XX from 1920 (© Museo Nacional ThyssenBornemisza, Madrid) and Henryk Staz˙ewski, cover design for Grafika 4 from 1931 (source: Ryszard Cichy Collection)

Plate 11 Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman, typographical composition from 1926 (source: The Next Call 9; Collectie GM, photo Marten de Leeuw) and Mieczysław Szczuka, Typografja from 1924 (source: Blok 3/4; JBC)

Plate 12 Vilmos Huszár, advertisement for Miss Blanche from 1926 (source: i10 2: 70; IADDB) and Henryk Berlewi, Prospekt Czekolada Plutos from 1925 (source: MNW)

Plate 13 El Lissitzky, Pro dva kvadrata. Suprematicheskii skaz v 6-ti postroikakh (fragment) from 1920/1922 (source: RKD); El Lissitzky and Theo van Doesburg, Suprematisch worden van twee kwadraten in 6 konstrukties (fragment) from 1922 (source De Stijl 5, 10/11; IADDB); Władysław Strzemin´ski and Witold Kajruksztis, two pages from the catalogue of the Vilnius exhibition from 1923 (source: MSL; © Ewa-Sapka Pawliczak – copyright owner to works of Władysław Strzemin´ski and Katarzyna Kobro)

Plate 14 Samuel Szczekacz, Konstrukcja from ca. 1937 (source: The Merrill C. Berman Collection, courtesy Galerie Berinson, Berlin)

Plate 15 Theo van Doesburg, colour composition for a university hall in Amsterdam from 1923 (source: Collectie Het Nieuwe Instituut in bruikleen van collectie Van Eesteren-Fluck & Van Lohuizenstichting, Amsterdam; inv. nr. EEST. 3.168)

Plate 16 Sala Neoplastyczna, Muzeum Sztuki Łódz´, designed by Władysław Strzemin´ski (source: MSL)

Closing Remarks

In this study I aimed to give a thorough description of mutual relationships, exchange and mobility between interwar avant-garde formations from Poland, Belgium and the Netherlands, as well as to reflect on their reciprocal nature – revising the historiographical assumptions of one-sided transfer from pivotal nodes of the avant-garde network to their so-called “peripheries”. The network of historical avant-garde was, as such, a multifaceted, fluctuating and rhizomatic structure where no strict stylistic or nation-based delimitations are applicable. Hence, the initial concept and research corpus have been gradually deconstructed, showing that what was the focus of this study had no definable limits and could expand endlessly in any direction – this study forms, as it were, a “zoom-in” into the polymorphic phenomenon of the avant-garde network. No strict and undisputable boundaries of this lenticular “zoom-in” could be drawn – whilst its main focus (initial choice of formations such as De Stijl, Het Overzicht or Blok) remains solid, what is placed in the more “blurred” external sphere of the lens seemed to escape the initial research assumption and constantly move its “centre of gravity”. No doubt, every individual researcher would focus their attention on different elements from this “blurred” area which they would incorporate into their study. I do however believe that the examples which I have chosen allowed me to properly reflect on cultural mobility between Poland and the Low Countries. In order to limit the theoretical and methodological limitations to a minimum, a “post-ism-atic” approach was applied in this work, which I find particularly appropriate for studies on art, especially in the case of the historical avant-garde. It has eliminated the issue of stylistic belonging to a particular artistic “ism”, opening and freeing the field of research, which could then focus on particular elements, artists and ideas, and not on their stylistic denominations that in fact overlapped, coincided and evolved in a non-discrete, non-linear manner. Apart from rejecting the stylistic delimitations of particular “isms”, nation-state-based concepts have also been brought in question by this study. Although they were somewhat necessary as a starting point for the analysis, their actual meaning as such was undermined throughout the research process. Instead of nationalities, I would therefore rather speak of linguistic, cultural or artistic identities, which in the case of avant-garde artists remain non-definable, as they constantly transcended all national, cultural and linguistic borders, as reflected in their biographies. This study implements Latour’s postulates of “following the actors” and merely “describing the state of affairs at hand”, and it is my belief that this approach proved

110

Closing Remarks

particularly accurate and allowed for a fresh, free look at the issue of cultural mobility within the interwar network of the avant-garde. It showed that neither stylistic, nor national labels constituted key factors for mutual relationships and exchange between various nodes of this network. In fact, the core and the reason of this exchange lay elsewhere. The cultural mobility between Poland and the Low Countries is just a small case study which aims to contribute to the mapping of the avant-garde network. It has nevertheless shown that various nodes of this network created numerous links to each other (as illustrated by Plate 4), and they did so without any notion of hierarchy between them, since they all remained marginal per se. Those connections and relationships enabled the direct, intense and quick exchange of works, texts and ideas which took place within the whole network, with works sometimes appearing first in foreign magazines, and only then in their local counterparts. Such intense exchange and international publications often had a direct impact on other nodes of the avant-garde network, showing how internationally intertwined and interdependent these artistic circles were. Moreover, this exchange not only occurred in one direction, from the socalled “centres” to their “peripheries”, but was two-sided. Preserved correspondence and publications clearly indicate that the representatives of various artistic circles shared mutual interest in each other’s activities and accomplishments, without any notion of hierarchy or superiority. There were in fact nodes of bigger importance, such as Paris or Berlin, but they constituted what I call “infrastructural centres”, i.e. places of exchange and interaction, as it were; melting pots where avant-garde artists from all parts of the continent contributed, worked, inspired and influenced one another. Nevertheless, those “infrastructural centres” too remained marginal, as did all the nodes of the avant-garde network at that time – with little or no recognition from their respective dominant cultural fields. This denial of “full artistic/cultural citizenship” for avant-garde artists was actually the reason and motivating factor behind them creating so many links to one another, which in turn boosted the exchange and circulation of their progressive ideas. As exemplified through this book, Polish, Dutch and Belgian artists were very eager to disseminate their work, travel, participate at exhibitions and contribute to translations of their publications. The links and contacts were usually at first established on paper, which left tangible traces in the artists’ letters and magazines. Quite often, however, they later evolved into personal relationships, and not infrequently long-lasting friendships which outlived the avant-garde initiatives themselves, as was for instance the case of the Syrkuses and . Oud and Van Eesteren, or Seuphor and Brze˛kowski and Stazewski. These relationships often coincided with the artists’ engagement in various international initiatives, such as Cercle et Carré, Abstraction-Création or CIAM, which gathered progressive writers, artists and architects of all nationalities and linguistic backgrounds who contributed to the development of supranational modern art. A unique example of such collaboration is the International Collection of Modern Art in Łódz´ established solely thanks to the numerous contacts and friendships with modern artists from the whole continent. Wide connections and influences between avant-garde artists and their formations were also visible in their manifestos and other programmatic statements which bear many significant resemblances to each other. As shown above, the theories of Polish, Belgian and Dutch writers, artists and architect had much in common. There are even

Closing Remarks

111

traces of direct influences, as for instance in case of Mondrian’s, Brze˛kowski’s and . Stazewski’s theories, or the manifesto of Blok quoting Van Doesburg. On the other hand, there were also differences and disagreements regarding, for instance, the issue of artistic autonomy versus social engagement, which was well reflected in various programmatic statements, both explicitly and implicitly. One of the goals all avant-garde artists had in common, though, was the fact that they jointly (across artistic domains and nations) tried to boost the development of modern literature, art and architecture in a way that would influence society and create not only New Art but also the New Man. As shown in this study, however, due to various interpersonal issues and differences in the artists’ approaches, this utopian vision of modern art shaping the society was set to fail – at least at that time – the success of avant-garde agitation for new art and society was only to be witnessed later. As noted by Marcin Wicha (2015: 194), only decades after its birth did avant-garde begin to be widely perceived as pleasant and elegant, forming the basis of middle-class good taste. Last, but not least, the analysed historical material allows for reflection on cultural mobility between Poland and the Low Countries as an example of reciprocal exchange and impact between avant-garde nodes and artists. As discussed in Chapter 3, Polish, Belgian and Dutch artists were, at the same time, the recipients of various artistic stimuli and their sources. The simultaneity of artistic development of the whole avantgarde is directly visible in the typography, page design, painting, sculpture, interior design and architecture. When it comes to magazine and page design, Polish periodicals, with their experimental layout, were one of the most progressive examples of the period, even though later magazines such as De Stijl took a prominent position in the historiography of the avant-garde. The direct influences of Dutch and Belgian artists and architects are visible in the works of Polish avant-garde, but also vice versa, artists such as Vantongerloo and Werkman most probably found inspiration in the works of Polish artists such as Kobro and Szczuka. Moreover, the above-described works of Berlewi, the Brukalskis, Huszár, Lachert/Szanajca, Lissitzky, Maes, Oud, Rietveld, Saga and others show that pioneering and influential works of avant-garde art were actually created in parallel in various nodes of the network, not only in the historiographical “centres”. These new solutions exerted considerable impact on other artists and contributed to the development of modern European art that surpassed national, stylistic and linguistic borders of any kind, as has been demonstrated by “the material at hand” – publications, correspondence, manifestos and artworks bearing traces of two-sided reciprocal exchange, mobility and influences.

References

The following bibliographical principles are applied in this study: a) surnames with particles such as “de” or “van” are handled according to Dutch spelling rules, i.e. the particles are capitalised only when not preceded by a first name or initial(s), e.g. “Van Doesburg” but “Theo van Doesburg”, and they do not influence the alphabetical ordering of the bibliography list, i.e. “Van der Leck” is listed under “L”. In order to ensure consistency with citations in the text, though, surnames in the bibliography are preceded by the particles (lowercased); b) in the case of surnames with varied spelling, one version is applied in the whole text – e.g. Teresa Z˙arnower (not Z˙arnowerówna), Piet Mondrian (not Mondriaan), etc.; c) for artists who are known under one or more pseudonyms, the prevalent one is used unless stated otherwise (e.g. Theo van Doesburg, Michel Seuphor); d) in the case of texts signed with another pseudonym, the prevalent one is also given; e) names of the periodical’s editors are given for texts signed as “Blok”, “Pologne”, etc.; f) if possible, the authors of untitled texts have been identified and their names are put in square brackets. For unidentified, untitled texts published in periodicals, names of their editor(s) are given in square brackets; g) all missing bibliographical data identified or stipulated by the author are given in square brackets. In case of wrongly dated texts, the correct date is annotated; h) the list of periodicals includes their subheadings and editors (if the editorial board changed over the years, numbers of the edited issues or volumes are given in brackets in superscript). Subheadings are omitted in further listings; i) in the case of periodicals with varying titles (e.g. Dom, Osiedle, Mieszkanie), one prevailing version is used throughout the text.

Primary Sources Periodicals Architectengroep ‘de 8’ en ‘Opbouw’. 1932–1943. de 8 en Opbouw [the 8 and construction]. Amsterdam. Baczyn´ski, Stanisław (ed.). 1929–1930. Europa [Europe]. Warsaw. Béothy, Étienne, Jean Hélion, Auguste Herbin and Georges Vantongerloo (eds.). 1932–1936. Abstraction-Création. Art non-figuratif. Paris.

114

References

Berckelaers, Fernand, Geert Pijnenburg(1–12) and Jozef Peeters(13–25) (eds.). 1921–1925. Het Overzicht [The overview]. Antwerp. Bonset, I.K. [= van Doesburg, Theo] (ed.). 1922–1924. Mécano. Leiden and The Hague. Bourgeois, Pierre, Victor Bourgeois, Karel Maes and Georges Monier (eds.). 1922–1928. 7 Arts. Journal hebdomadaire d’information et de critique. Brussels. Brze˛kowski, Jan and Wanda Chodasiewicz-Grabowska (eds.). 1929–1930. L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna [Modern art]. Paris. Carlsund, Otto, Theo van Doesburg, Jean Hélion, Marcel Wantz and Léon Tutundjian. 1930. Art Concret. Paris. Demets, Jan (ed.). 1925–1926. Het Woord [The word]. The Hague. Dermée, Paul and Michel Seuphor (eds.). 1927. Documents Internationaux de l’Esprit Nouveau. Paris. van Doesburg, Theo (ed.). 1917–1928 and 1932. De Stijl. Maandblad voor de (moderne) beeldende vakken [The style. Magazine for (modern) visual arts].1 Leiden, Scheveningen and The Hague. Het Nederlandsch Instituut van Architecten. 1924–1947. Het Bouwbedrijf [The building industry]. The Hague. Jankowski, Józef, Szcze˛sny Rutkowski and Teodor Toeplitz (eds.). 1929–1948. Dom, Osiedle, Mieszkanie [House, estate, apartment]. Warsaw. Krakowskie Towarzystwo Techniczne. 1900–1929. Architekt. Pismo o architekturze, budownictwie i przemys´le artystycznym [Architect. Magazine on architecture, construction and artistic industry]. Krakow. Kurek, Jalu (ed.). 1931–1933. Linia. Czasopismo awangardy literackiej [The line. The periodical of literary avant-garde]. Krakow. Linze, Georges (ed.). 1921–1940. Anthologie du Groupe Moderne d’Art de Liège. Liège. Müller-Lehning, Artur (ed.). 1927–1929. Internationale Revue i10 [International magazine i10]. Amsterdam. Peeters, Jozef (ed.). 1925–1926. De Driehoek. Maandschrift voor Konstruktivistische Kunst [The triangle. Monthly perodical for Constructivist art]. Antwerp. Peiper, Tadeusz (ed.). 1922–1923 and 1926–1927. Zwrotnica. Kierunek: sztuka teraz´niejszos´ci [The switch. Direction: the art of today]. Krakow. Rogister, Victor(Vol. 1–3), Yvon Falise(Vol. 4–5), Jean Moutschen(Vol. 4–7), Egard Klutz(Vol. 4–8), Emile Parent(Vol. 4–8), Albert Tibaux(Vol. 7–8), Paul Fitschy(Vol. 5–8), Georges Linze(Vol. 9–11) (eds.). 1928–1939. L’Équerre. Liège. Seuphor, Michel and Joaquín Torres-García (eds). 1930. Cercle et Carré. Paris. Spółdzielnia Wydawnicza Architektów Polskich. 1925–1939. Architektura i Budownictwo [Architecture and construction]. Warsaw. Staz˙ewski, Henryk(1–4), Edmund Miller(1–4), Mieczysław Szczuka and Teresa Z˙arnower (eds.). 1924–1926. Blok. Czasopismo awangardy artystycznej [Block. The periodical of artistic avant-garde].2 Warsaw. Syrkus, Szymon, Helena Syrkus, Henryk Staz˙ewski(1) and Andrzej Pronaszko(2) (eds.). 1926 and 1930. Praesens. Kwartalnik modernistów [Praesens. Modernist quarterly].3 Warsaw. Szczuka, Mieczysław (ed.). 1927–1928. Dz´wignia [Lever]. Warsaw. Werkman, Hendrik Nicolaas (ed.). 1923–1926. The Next Call. Groningen.

1 Other subheadings of De Stijl were: Maandblad gewijd aan de moderne beeldende vakken en kultuur (vol. II and III), (Internationaal) Maandblad voor nieuwe kunst, wetenschap en kultuur (vol. IV onwards). 2 Other subheadings of Blok were: Revue d’Art (nr. 5), Revue internationale d’avant-garde (nrs. 6/7 and 11), Kurjer Bloku (nrs. 6/7 and 8/9). 3 The subheading appeared only on the first issue.

References

115

Articles and Books Almanach. Katalog. Salon modernistów [Almanac. Catalogue. The salon of modernists]. 1928. Warszawa: Drukarnia Robotnik. Aronson, Chil. 1929. Art polonais moderne. Paris: Éditions Bonaparte. Baczyn´ski, Stanisław. 1930. “Literatura i poezja” [Literature and poetry], Europa 4: 118–123. Behne, Adolf. 1922. “De Europeesche kunstbeweging” [The European artistic movement], Het Overzicht 14: 21–22. Berckelaers, Fernand. 1922a. “Postulaat” [Postulate], Het Overzicht 13: 1–3. Berckelaers, Fernand. 1922b. “De natuur, zij; de mens, hij” [Nature, she; man, he], Het Overzicht 14: 30. Berckelaers, Fernand. 1922c. “La nature, elle; l’homme, lui”, 7 Arts 2, 8: n.p. Berckelaers, Fernand. 1924. “Over kunst in 12 punt” [On art in 12 points], Het Overzicht 20: 121–124. Bereta, Jan [= Brze˛kowski, Jan]. 1929. “La poésie polonaise d’aujourd’hui”, L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna 1: 22–23. Berlewi, Henryk. 1921. “In kampf far der najer forem” [The struggle for a new form], Ringen 1/4: 31–33. Berlewi, Henryk. 1922. “Mie˛dzynarodowa wystawa w Düsseldorfie” [International Exhibition in Düsseldorf], Nasz Kurjer 4, 209: 2. Berlewi, Henryk. 1924a. Mechano-faktura [Mechano-facture]. Warszawa: Jazz. Berlewi, Henryk. 1924b. “Mechano-Faktur”, Der Sturm 15, 3: 155–159. Berlewi, Henryk. 1924c. Prospekt biura Reklama Mechano [Brochure for Reclama Mechano company]. Warszawa: Zakład Graficzny Kozian´skich. Berlewi, Henryk. 1925. Prospekt Czekolada Plutos [Plutos chocolate brochure]. Warszawa: Technograf. Berlewi, Henryk. 1937. Portretten en maskers. Inleiding van F.V. Toussaint van Boelaere [Portraits and masks. Introduction by F.V. Toussaint van Boelaere]. Antwerpen: De Sikkel. Bielski, Marjan [= Peiper, Tadeusz]. 1922. “Ozenfant i Jeanneret” [Ozenfant and Jeanneret], Zwrotnica 2: 39–43. Blok [= Szczuka, Mieczysław and Teresa Z˙arnower (eds.)]. 1924. “Notre enquête internationale sur le modernisme. Pologne. La revue Blok (Varsovie) nous répond. Quelques principes. Quelques exemples”, 7 Arts 3, 5: n.p. Blok [= Szczuka, Mieczysław and Teresa Z˙arnower (eds.)]. 1926. “Pologne: ‘Blok’”, 7 Arts 4, 20: n.p. Bonset, I.K. [= van Doesburg, Theo]. 1921. “Inleiding tot de nieuwe verskunst” [Introduction to modern poetry], De Stijl 4, 1/2: 1–5, 24–26. Bonset, I.K. [= van Doesburg, Theo]. 1922. “Beeldende verskunst en hare verhouding tot de andere kunsten” [Visual poetry and its relationship to other arts], De Stijl 5, 6: 88–91. Bonset, I.K. [= van Doesburg, Theo]. 1923a [=1924]. “Tot een constructieve dichtkunst” [Towards Constructive poetry], Mécano 4/5: n.p. Bonset, I.K. [= van Doesburg, Theo]. 1926a. “Van de beeldende letteren” [On visual poetry], De Stijl 7, 73/74: 2–3. Bonset, I.K. [= van Doesburg, Theo]. 1926b [= 1927]. “Over den zin der letterkunde” [On the sense of literature], De Stijl 7, 77: 78. Bonset, I.K. [= van Doesburg, Theo]. 1927. “Van het woord en de letterkunde 1917–1927” [On word and literature 1917–1927], De Stijl 7, 79/84: 10–13. Bourgeois, Pierre. 1923. “Architecture moderne”, 7 Arts 1, 19–24: n.p. Bourgeois, Pierre. 1925. “Bavardage autour de la poésie”, 7 Arts 4, 4: n.p. [Bourgeois, Pierre et al. (eds.)]. 1922. “Objet, principes, tactique. Peinture. Architecture. Musique. Littérature”, 7 Arts 1, 1: n.p. [Bourgeois, Pierre et al. (eds.)]. 1923a. “Propos puristes”, 7 Arts 1, 15: n.p.

116

References

[Bourgeois, Pierre et al. (eds.)]. 1923b. “Propositions modernes”, 7 Arts 1, 22: n.p. [Bourgeois, Pierre et al. (eds.)]. 1923c. “Esthétique”, 7 Arts 1, 25: n.p. [Bourgeois, Pierre et al. (eds.)]. 1926. “Notre position: Confiance en l’art”, 7 Arts 5, 15: n.p. [Bourgeois, Pierre et al. (eds.)]. 1927a. “Revue de la presse. Pologne littéraire. Zlota 8. Varsovie”, 7 Arts 5, 17: n.p. [Bourgeois, Pierre et al. (eds.)]. 1927b. “Artysta a rewolucja” [Artist and revolution], Zwrotnica 11: 246. Bourgeois, Victor. 1924. “L’art du groupement”, 7 Arts 2, 30: n.p. Bourgeois, Victor. 1926. “Sztuka grupowania” [The art of grouping], Blok 11: n.p. Bourgeois, Victor. 1927. “L’effort moderne en Belgique”, Internationale Revue i10 1, 4: 121–125. Bourgeois, Victor. 1935. “Une introduction en forme de panorama”, L’Équerre 7, 12: 2. Brukalska, Barbara et al. 1930. “Zespół architektów ‘Praesensu’ podejmuje próbe˛ kolektywizacji pracy architekta” [The architects of ‘Praesens’ jointly attempt to collectivise the work of an architect], Praesens 2: 190. Brze˛kowski, Jan. 1924a. “De nieuwe kunst in Polen” [Modern art in Poland], Het Overzicht 21: 155. Brze˛kowski, Jan. 1924b. “L’art polonais de tout à l’heure et d’aujord’hui [sic]”, Pásmo 3: 4. Brze˛kowski, Jan. 1929/1930. “Kilometraz˙/Kilometrage”, L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna 1–3: 2–6, 50–53, 82–93. Brze˛kowski, Jan. 1930a. “Après une vingtaine d’années de recherche . . .”, Cercle et Carré 1: n.p. Brze˛kowski, Jan. 1930b. “Pour le film abstrait”, Cercle et Carré 3: n.p. Brze˛kowski, Jan. 1936. Hans Arp. Łódz´: Drukarnia Polska. Brze˛kowski, Jan. 1972. Lettres en souffrance. Paris: Chambelland. Brze˛kowski, Jan. 1973. Déplacement du Paysage. Paris: Chambelland. Brze˛kowski, Jan and Salomon Grenkamp-Kornfeld. 1933. Pri l’moderna arto [On modern art]. Budapest: Literatura Mondo. Brze˛kowski, Jan et al. 1934. O sztuce nowoczesnej [On modern art]. Łódz´: Wydawnictwo Towarzystwa Bibliofilów w Łodzi. Carlsund, Otto et al. 1930a. “Base de la peinture concrète”, Art Concret: 1. [Carlsund, Otto et al.]. 1930b. “Commentaires sur la base de la peinture concrète”, Art Concret: 2–4. Carlsund, Otto et al. 1930c. “Deklaracja sztuki konkretnej” [Manifesto of concrete art], Europa 11: 341. Casteels, Maurice. 1922/1924. “Les arts industriels”, 7 Arts 1, 3–23 & 2, 2–15: n.p. Casteels, Maurice. 1925. “Eenige aanteekeningen over bouwkunst en toegepaste kunst op de tentoonstelling van decoratieve kunst te Parijs” [Some notes on architecture and applied arts during the exhibition of decorative arts in Paris], De Driehoek 5: n.p. Catalogue de l’Exposition d’Art Polonais au Salon de la Société Nationale des Beaux-Arts. 1921. Paris: Société Générale d’Imprimerie et d’Edition. Chenoy, Léon. 1924a. “Le roman”, 7 Arts 2, 24: n.p. Chenoy, Léon. 1924b. “Mécanisme et littérature”, 7 Arts 2, 26: n.p. Chenoy, Léon. 1925a. “Polémique autour d’un film discuté. Le cinéma. Art indépendant ou synthèse d’art?”, 7 Arts 4, 3: n.p. Chenoy, Léon. 1925b. “Controverses. De la poésie”, 7 Arts 4, 6: n.p. Czyz˙ewski, Tytus. 1930. “Kon´ w chmurach (O odlogicznieniu poezji)” [A horse in the clouds (On the illogicalisation of poetry)], Praesens 2: 166–167. Czyz˙ewski, Tytus. 1933. “Modernizm i krytyka” [Modernism and critique], Wiadomos´ci literackie 10, 32: 4. Das Junge Rheinland et al. 1922. “Gründungsaufruf der Union internationaler fortschrittlicher Künstler”, De Stijl 5, 4: 49–50. Dekeukelerie, Charles. 1927. “Ce que nous disent les spécialistes”, 7 Arts 6, 8: n.p.

References

117

Demets, Jean. 1926a. “Kunstenaar en maatschappij” [Artist and society], Het Woord 3: n.p. Demets, Jean. 1926b. “Wegen der litteratuur” [Paths of literature], Het Woord 4: n.p. Dermée, Paul, 1929a. “O literaturze proletarjackiej” [On proletarian literature], Europa 1: 11–14. Dermée, Paul, 1929b. “Literatura proletarjacka” [Proletarian literature], Europa 1bis: 19–22. “Documentation internationale. Pologne Hollande”. 1925. 7 Arts 3, 10: n.p. van Doesburg, Pétro. 1925. “Open brief aan den heer JHR. W.F.A. Roëll” [Open letter to the honourable W.F.A. Roëll], De Stijl 6, 10/11: 151–152. van Doesburg, Theo. 1916. “De nieuwe beweging in de schilderkunst” [The new movement in painting], De Beweging 12, 2–3: 124–131, 219–226, 57–66, 148–156, 226–235. van Doesburg, Theo. 1917. De nieuwe beweging in de schilderkunst [The new movement in painting]. Delft: Technische Boekhandel en Drukkerij J. Waltman. van Doesburg, Theo. 1918a. “Fragmenten 1” [Fragments 1], De Stijl 1, 4: 47–48. van Doesburg, Theo. 1918b. “Aantekeningen over monumentale kunst. Naar aanleiding van twee bouwfragmenten (hall in vakantiehuis te Noordwijkerhout. Bijlage I)” [Notes on monumental art. On account on two building elements (hall in a holiday house in Noordwijkerhout. Appendix 1)], De Stijl 2, 1: 10–12. van Doesburg, Theo. 1919. Drie voordrachten over de nieuwe beeldende kunst. [Three lectures on modern visual art] Amsterdam: Maatschappij voor Goede en Goedkoope Lectuur. van Doesburg, Theo. 1920. Klassiek–Barok–Modern [Classic–Baroque–Modern]. Brugge: Drukkerij Sinte Katharina. van Doesburg, Theo. 1921a. “De betekenis der mechanische esthetiek voor de architectuur en andere vakken” [The meaning of mechanical aesthetics for architecture and other domains], Bouwkundig Weekblad 42, 25: 164–166, 28: 179–183, 33: 219–221. van Doesburg, Theo. 1921b. “Over het moderne schilderen” [On modern painting], De Stijl 4, 3: 33–36. [van Doesburg, Theo (ed.)]. 1921c. “Manifest III tot een nieuwe wereldbeelding” [Manifesto III for a new world plasticism], De Stijl 4, 8: 125–126. van Doesburg, Theo. 1921/1922. “Revue der avant-garde” [Review of the avant-garde], Het Getij 6(1), 1–2: 109–112, 193–200; 6(2), 2 & 6: 25–29; 138–141; 7, 1: 13–15. van Doesburg, Theo. 1922a. “De architect J.J.P. Oud ‘voorganger’ der ‘kubisten’ in de bouwkunst?” [The architect J.J.P. Oud as ‘forerunner’ of ‘Cubists’ in architecture?], De Bouwwereld 21, 30: 229. van Doesburg, Theo. 1922b. “Der Wille zum Stil (Neugestaltung von Leben, Kunst und Technik)”, De Stijl 5, 2–3: 23–41. van Doesburg, Theo. 1922c. “Contre les artistes imitateurs”, De Stijl 5, 6: 95–96. [van Doesburg, Theo (ed.)]. 1922d. “Kort overzicht der handelingen van het Internationale Kunstenaarscongres te Düsseldorf (29–31 Mai 1922)” [A short overview of the proceedings of the International Congress of Artists in Düsseldorf (29–31 May 1922)], De Stijl 5, 6: 49–52. [van Doesburg, Theo (ed.)]. 1922e. “Documentatie De Stijl” [De Stijl documentation], De Stijl 5, 12: 177–178. van Doesburg, Theo. 1923. “Anti-Tendenzkunst” [Against social art], De Stijl 6, 2: 17–19. van Doesburg, Theo. 1924a. “Tot een beeldende architectuur” [Towards a plastic architecture], De Stijl 6, 6/7: 78–83. van Doesburg, Theo. 1924b. “De nieuwe architectuur” [The new architecture], Bouwkundig Weekblad 45, 20: 200–204. van Doesburg, Theo. 1924c. “Odnowienie architektury” [The renewal of architecture], Blok 5: 12–13. [van Doesburg, Theo (ed.)]. 1924d. “Alphabetische informatie: tijdschriften – boeken – artikelen enz.” [Alphabetical information: magazines – books – articles, etc.], De Stijl 6, 8: 107–112.

118

References

[van Doesburg, Theo (ed.)]. 1924e. “Tijdschriften en boeken” [Magazines and books], De Stijl 6, 8: 113–117. van Doesburg, Theo. 1925. “L’évolution d’architecture moderne en Hollande”, L’Architecture Vivante 3, 9: 14–20. van Doesburg, Theo. 1926a. “Vers un art élémentaire”, Vouloir 19: n.p. van Doesburg, Theo. 1926b. “Ku sztuce elementów” [Towards art of elements], Praesens 1: 3. van Doesburg, Theo. 1926c. “Schilderkunst en plastiek” [Painting and art], De Stijl 7, 75/75: 35–43. [van Doesburg, Theo (ed.)]. 1927. “Invloedsverhouding van Stijlbeweging in het buitenland sedert 1917” [The impact of De Stijl-movement abroad since 1917], De Stijl 7, 79/84: 59–60. van Doesburg, Theo. 1928. “Wyja˛tek z ksia˛z˙ki: Classique–Baroque–Moderne” [Fragment from the book: Classic–Baroque–Modern], in: Almanach. Katalog. Salon modernistów. Warszawa: Drukarnia Robotnik, 4–6. van Doesburg, Theo. 1929. “Uwagi. Ankieta Europy” [Remarks. The survey of Europa], Europa 2: 60–61. van Doesburg, Theo. 1930a. “Belangrijke nieuwe uitgaven over nieuwe architectuur” [Noteworthy new publications on new architecture], Het Bouwbedrijf 7, 20: 401–403. van Doesburg, Theo. 1930b. “Vers la peinture blanche”, Art Concret: 11–12. van Doesburg, Theo. 1930/1931. “Kunst- en architectuurvernieuwingen in Polen”, [Artistic and architectural innovations in Poland] Het Bouwbedrijf 7, 18: 358–361; 8, 5: 87–90. van Doesburg, Theo. 1931. “Ewolucja architektury nowoczesnej w Holandii” [The evolution of modern architecture in the Netherlands], Architektura i Budownictwo 7, 8/9: 338–340. van Doesburg, Theo. 1932. “Élémentarisme (les éléments de la nouvelle peinture)”, AbstractionCréation 1: 39. van Doesburg, Theo. 1990. On European Architecture. Complete essays from Het Bouwbedrijf 1924–1931. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag. van Doesburg, Theo and Cornelis van Eesteren. 1924a. “Vers une construction collective”, De Stijl 6, 6/7: 89–91. van Doesburg, Theo and Cornelis van Eesteren. 1924b. “ – □ + = R4”, De Stijl 6, 6/7: 91–92. van Doesburg, Theo, Cornelis van Eesteren and Gerrit Rietveld. 1923. Vers une construction collective (Manifeste V du Groupe ‘De Stijl’). Paris: n.d. van Doesburg, Theo; Piet Mondrian and Antony Kok. 1920. “Manifest II van ‘De Stijl’ 1920. De literatuur/Kundgebung II des ‘Stijl’ 1920. Die Wortkunst/Manifeste II de ‘De Stijl’ 1920. La littérature”, De Stijl 3, 6: 49–54. van Doesburg, Theo; El Lissitzky and Hans Richter. 1922. “Erklärung der internationalen Fraktion der Konstruktivisten”, De Stijl 5, 6: 61–64. van Doesburg, Theo et al. 1918. “Manifest I van ‘De Stijl’, 1918 / 1iere Manifeste de la revue d’art ‘Le Style’, 1918 / Manifest I of ‘The Style’, 1918 / Manifest I von ‘Der Stil’, 1918”, De Stijl 1, 1: 2–5. van Doesburg, Theo et al. 1922. “Konstructivistische Internationale beeldende Arbeidsgemeenschap”, De Stijl 5, 8: 113–119. von Ebeneth, Lajos. 1926. “Doel der ismen” [The aim of isms], Het Woord 4: n.p. Eemans, Marc. 1925a. “Over konstruktivisme als nieuwe kunst” [On Constructivism as new art], De Driehoek 4: n.p. Eemans, Marc. 1925b. “Vers une synthèse esthétique et sociale”, 7 Arts 3, 16: n.p. van Eesteren, Cornelis. 1930. “Funkcja–przestrzen´–forma” [Function–space–form], Praesens 2: 94–95. Eiger, Antoni. 1931. “Cement en beton in Polen” [Cement and concrete in Poland], Het Bouwbedrijf 8, 26: 354–357. Flouquet, Pierre. 1930. “Panorama malarstwa współczesnego” [A panorama of contemporary painting], Praesens 2: 126–129.

References

119

Gleizes, Albert. 1927. Posłannictwo twórcze człowieka w dziedzinie plastyki [Man’s mission in the field of visual arts]. (Translated by Stanisław Baczyn´ski.) Warszawa: Zakłady Drukarskie F. Wyszyn´skiego i S-ki. Goriély, Benjamin. 1925a. “Lettres étrangères. Anatol Stern le poète polonais”, 7 Arts 4, 6: n.p. Goriély, Benjamin. 1925b. “Europe d’Anatol Stern”, 7 Arts 4, 6: n.p. Gorin, Jean. 1930. “La fonction plastique dans l’architecture future”, Cercle et Carré 3: n.p. Gotlib, Henryk. 1923. “Droga” [Road], Zwrotnica 5: 141. Gräff, Werner. 1922. “Für das Neue”, De Stijl 5, 5: 74–75. Greenberg, Clement. 1939. “Avant-garde and kitsch”, Partisan Review 6, 5: 34–49. van Hardeveld, Johannes M. 1925. “Is bouwkunst internationaal?” [Is architecture international?], De Driehoek 8/9: n.p. Hélion, Jean. 1930. “Les problèmes de l’art concret. Art et mathématiques”, Art Concret: 5–10. H[envaux], E[mile]. 1924. “Publicité et urbanisme”, 7 Arts 3, 6: n.p. H[envaux], E[mile]. 1925. “Esthétique et cité industrielle”, 7 Arts 3, 10: n.p. de Horion, Constant. 1925. “Wladyslas Reymont, lauréat du Prix Nobel”, Anthologie du Groupe Moderne d’Art de Liège 5, 3/4: 1. Hoste, Huib. 1925. “Driehoek-manifest voor bouwkunst” [Architectural manifesto of De Driehoek], De Driehoek 8/9: n.p. [Jankowski, Józef et al. (ed.)]. 1931. “Dom z˙elbetowy arch. L.H. de Koninck” [Ferro-concrete house by architect L.H. de Koninck], Dom, Osiedle, Mieszkanie 3, 2: 31. [Jankowski, Józef et al. (ed.)]. 1932. “Kronika. Hendrik Petrus Berlage” [Chronicles. Hendrik Petrus Berlage], Dom, Osiedle, Mieszkanie 4, 5: 19–21. Jasien´ski, Bruno. 1923. “Futuryzm polski (bilans)” [Polish Futurism (summary)], Zwrotnica 6: 177–184. Jasien´ski, Bruno. 1933. Ik verbrand Parijs [I burn Paris]. (Translated by S. van Praag.) Amsterdam: De Gulden Ster. Jasinski, Stanislas. 1924/1925. “Economie”, 7 Arts 3, 7–10: n.p. Kajruksztis Witold and Władysław Strzemin´ski (eds.). 1923. Katalog Wystawy Nowej Sztuki [Catalogue of the Exhibition of the New Art]. Wilno: Lux. Kahn, Gustave. 1896. “L’Art social et l’art pour l’art”, La Revue blanche 11: 416–423. Kallai, Ernst. 1923. “Konstructivisme” [Constructivism], Het Overzicht 17: 80. Kassák, Ludwig. 1923. “Rekenschap” [Accounting], Het Overzicht 16: 70–71. Kiesler, Frederick et al. 1925. “Appel de protestation”, De Stijl 6, 10/11: 149–150. Kobro, Katarzyna. 1929. “Uwagi. Ankieta Europy. Rzez´ba i bryła” [Remarks. The survey of Europa. Sculpture and volume], Europa 2: 60. Kobro, Katarzyna. 1933. “L’action de sculpteur . . .”, Abstraction-Création 2: 27. Kobro, Katarzyna. 1935. “Funkcjonalizm” [Functionalism], Forma 4: 9–13. Kobro, Katarzyna and Władysław Strzemin´ski. 1931. Kompozycja przestrzeni, Obliczenia rytmu czasoprzestrzennego [The composition of space: the calculation of the rhythm of time and space]. Łódz´: Drukarnia Polska. [Kobro, Katarzyna et al.]. 1930a. Komunikat grupy ‘a.r.’ no 1 [Bulletin of the ‘a.r.’ group no 1]. Łódz´: n.d. [Kobro, Katarzyna et al.]. 1930b. “Komunikat grupy ‘a.r.’ Nr. 1” [Bulletin of the ‘a.r.’ group nr. 1], Europa 9: 287–288. [Kobro, Katarzyna et al.]. 1932. Komunikat grupy ‘a.r.’ 2 [Bulletin of the ‘a.r.’ group 2]. Łódz´: Drukarnia Polska. Kok, Anthony. 1919. “Kunst en ontroering” [Art and emotion], De Stijl 3, 2: 21–23. Korngold, Syriusz. 1927. “Les éléments du dessin . . .”, Documents Internationaux de l’Esprit Nouveau 1: n.p. Kunzek, Henryk. 1925. “Kilka uwag o Wystawie Sztuki Dekoracyjnej w Paryz˙u” [Some notes on the Exhibition of Decorative Art in Paris], Architekt 20, 5: 1–24.

120

References

Kurek, Jalu. 1929. Manifest poetycki o Rzeczypospolitej. Poeci na front. S´piewajcie o Rzeczypospolitej. Społeczen´stwo czeka na wasze usta [Poetic manifesto on the Polish Republic. Poets to the front. Sing about the Polish Republic. The society awaits your words]. Kraków: Głos Narodu. Kurek, Jalu. 1930a. “Zmierzch natchnienia” [The dusk of afflation], Europa 7: 207–210. Kurek, Jalu. 1930b. “Estetyka ładu” [The aesthetics of order], Europa 8: 245–246. Kurek, Jalu. 1937. Griep woedt in Naprawa [The influenza rages in Naprawa]. (Translated by H. Katzee.) ’s-Gravenhage: Uitgever J. Philip Kruseman. L[auterbach], A[lfred]. 1926. “Tanie mieszkania w Holandji” [Low-cost houses in the Netherlands], Architektura i Budownictwo 1, 4: 31–33. van der Leck, Bart. 1917. “De plaats van het moderne schilderen in de architectuur” [The place of modern painting in architecture], De Stijl 1, 1: 6–7. van der Leck, Bart. 1918. “Over schilderij en bouwen” [On painting and building], De Stijl 1, 4: 37–38. Limperg, Koen. 1934. “Organizacje architektoniczne w Holandji” [Architectural organisations in the Netherlands], Architektura i Budownictwo 10, 6: 200. Linze, Georges. 1924. “Słowo o nowej sztuce” [A word on the new art], Blok 6/7: n.p. Linze, Georges. 1925. “Słowo o nowej sztuce” [A word on the new art], Anthologie du Groupe Moderne d’Art de Liège 5, 3/4: 2. Lissitzky, El. 1922. Pro dva kvadrata. Suprematicheskii skaz v 6-ti postroikakh [Of two squares: A Suprematist tale in 6 constructions]. Berlin: Skify. Lissitzky, El and Eli Ehrenburg. 1922. “Deklaration an den ersten Kongress Fortschrittlicher Künstler, Düsseldorf”, De Stijl 5, 6: 56–57. Lubin´ski, Piotr. 1930. “Współczesna architektura holenderska” [Contemporary Dutch architecture], Architektura i Budownictwo 6, 1–7: 57–66, 99–113, 193–200, 228–239, 259–272. Lubin´ski, Piotr. 1934. “H. P. Berlage”, Architektura i Budownictwo 10, 11: 360–361. Mahler, Władysław. 1924. “Szanowny Panie Redaktorze!” [Dear Editor!], Blok 6/7: n.p. Malewicz, Kazimierz. 1924. “O sztuce” [On art], Blok 2, 3/4, 8/9: n.p. Malewicz, Kazimierz. 1926. “S´wiat jako bezprzedmiotowos´c´/L’Univers conçu sans objet”, Praesens 1: 1–2, 34–40. Meller, P. 1926. “Nowoczesna architektura holenderska” [Modern Dutch architecture], Blok 11: n.p. Mesens, Cornelis Nelly [= van Doesburg, Theo]. 1923 [= 1924]. “. . . waar de maes K en Scheldwoorden vloeien . . .”, Mécano 4/5: n.p. Miller, Edmund. 1924a. “2 bieguny” [2 poles], Blok 3/4: n.p. Miller, Edmund. 1924b. “Rola ekonomji w twórczos´ci” [The role of economics in art], Blok 3/4: n.p. Miller, Jan N. 1921. “Harmonja dz´wie˛kowa w poezji najnowszej” [Sound harmony in recent theory], Ponowa 3: 179–190. Miller, Jan N. 1922. “Poezja znakowania (Przestankowanie jako sztuka)” [Poetry of marking (Punctuation as art)], Ponowa 5: 407–417. Mondrian, Piet. 1917/1918. “De nieuwe beelding in de schilderkunst” [Neoplasticism in painting], De Stijl 1, 1–12: 2–6, 13–18, 29–31, 41–45, 49–54, 73–77, 88–91, 102–108, 121–124, 125–134, 140–147. Mondrian, Piet. 1919. “Dialoog over de nieuwe beelding” [Dialogue on neoplasticism], De Stijl 2, 4–5: 37–39, 49–53. Mondrian, Piet. 1919/1920. “Natuurlijke en abstracte realiteit” [Natural and abstract reality], De Stijl 2, 8–12: 85–89, 97–99, 109–113, 121–125, 133–137; 3, 2–10: 15–19, 27–31, 41–44, 53–56, 58–60, 65–69, 73–76, 81–84. Mondrian, Piet. 1920 [= 1921a]. Le Néo-plasticisme. Principe général de l’equivalence plastique. Paris: Editions de l’Effort Moderne.

References

121

Mondrian, Piet. 1921b. “Le Néo-plasticisme (Principe général de l’équivalence plastique)”, De Stijl 4, 2: 18–23. Mondrian, Piet. 1921c. “De ‘Bruiteurs Futuristes Italiens’ en ‘het’ nieuwe in de muziek” [The ‘Bruiteurs Futuristes Italiens’ and ‘the’ new in music], De Stijl 4, 8–9: 114–118, 130–136. Mondrian, Piet. 1922a. “Het neo-plasticisme (de nieuwe beelding) en zijn (hare) realiseering in de muziek” [Neoplasticism and its implementation in music], De Stijl 5, 1–2: 1–7, 17–23. Mondrian, Piet. 1922b. “De realiseering van het neo-plasticisme in verre toekomst en in de huidige architectuur” [The implementation of Neoplasticism in far future and in current architecture], De Stijl 5, 3–5: 41–47, 65–71. Mondrian, Piet. 1923. “Moet de schilderkunst minderwaardig zijn aan de bouwkunst?” [Does painting need to remain inferior to architecture?], De Stijl 6, 5: 62–64. Mondrian, Piet. 1927. “Neo-plasticisme. De woning–de straat–de stad” [Neoplasticism. House– street–city], Internationale Revue i10 1, 12: 421–427. Mondrian, Piet. 1929. “Nowa plastyka” [Neoplasticism], Europa 3: 90–91. Mondrian, Piet. 1930a. “Neo-plastycyzm”, Praesens 2: 122–123. Mondrian, Piet. 1930b. “L’art réaliste et l’art superréaliste (La morphoplastique et la néoplastique)”, Cercle et Carré 2: n.p. Mondrian, Piet. 1932. “La néo-plastique”, Abstraction-Création 1: 25. Mondrian, Piet. 1933. “L’efficacité artistique . . .”, Abstraction-Création 2: 31. Mondrian, Piet. 1934. “Qu’est-ce que je veux exprimer par mon œuvre?”, Abstraction-Création 3: 33. Mondrian, Piet and Michel Seuphor. 1929a. “Obrazová básenˇ ‘Tableau poème’ ou ‘Manuscript illustré’ Bildgedicht (1928)”, ReD 2, 7: 223. Mondrian, Piet and Michel Seuphor. 1929b. “Tableau poème”, L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna 1: 31. [Müller-Lehning, Artur (ed.)]. 1927. “Medewerkers” [Contributors], Internationale Revue i10 1: n.p. [Müller-Lehning, Artur (ed.)]. 1929. “Medewerkers” [Contributors], Internationale Revue i10 19: n.p. Niemojewski, Lech. 1927. “Na marginesie programów modernistycznych” [On the margins of modernist programs], Architektura i Budownictwo 3, 7: 195–207. van Ostaijen, Paul. 1925. “Le renouveau lyrique en Belgique. Un débat littéraire”, 7 Arts 4, 5: n.p. van Ostaijen, Paul; Oscar Jespers and René Victor. 1921. Bezette Stad [Occupied city]. Antwerpen: Het Sienjaal. Otlet, Paul. 1929. “Osiedle s´wiatowe [The world settlement], Europa 2: 33–35. Oud, J.J.P. 1917. “Het monumentale stadsbeeld” [The monumental townscape], De Stijl 1, 1: 10–11. Oud, J.J.P. 1918. “Kunst en machine” [Art and machine], De Stijl 1, 3: 25–27. Oud, J.J.P. 1919a. “Architectonische beschouwing” [Architectural consideration], De Stijl 2, 7: 79–84. Oud, J.J.P. 1919b. “Orientatie” [Orientation], De Stijl 3, 2: 13–15. Oud, J.J.P. 1921. “Over de toekomstige bouwkunst en hare architectonische mogelijkheden” [On future architecture and its possibilities], Bouwkundig Weekblad 42, 24: 147–160. Oud, J.J.P. 1922. “Bouwkunst en kubisme” [Architecture and Cubism], De Bouwwereld 21, 32: 245. Oud, J.J.P. 1925. “Ja und Nein. Bekenntnisse eines Architekten”, Bouwkundig Weekblad 46, 35: 431. Oud, J.J.P. 1926. “Wychowanie przez architekture˛” [Education through architecture], Praesens 1: 4–5. Oud, J.J.P. [1926] 1929. Holländische Architektur. Bauhausbücher 10. München: Albert Langen.

122

References

Oud, J.J.P. 1927. “Aangepast bij de omgeving” [Fitted in the surrounding], Internationale Revue i10 1, 10: 349–350. Oud, J.J.P. 1930. “Mys´li” [Thoughts], Praesens 2: 87–89. Oud, J.J.P. 1933. “Wpływ Frank Lloyd Wright’a na architekture˛ europejska˛” [The influence of Frank Lloyd Wright on European architecture], Architektura i Budownictwo 9, 6: 188–189. Ozenfant, Amédée and Charles-Edouard Jeanneret. 1921. “Le Purisme”, L’Esprit Nouveau 4: 369–386. Peeters, Jozef. 1921. “Gemeenschapskunst” [Gesamtkunstwerk], Het Overzicht 9/10: 79–80. Peeters, Jozef. 1922. “Inleiding tot de moderne plastiek” [Introduction to modern art], Het Overzicht 11/12: 91–96. Peeters, Jozef. 1923a. “Indrukken uit Berlijn” [Impressions from Berlin], Het Overzicht 16: 58–60. Peeters, Jozef. 1923b. “Antwoord op ±1000 aanvallen” [Response to ±1000 attacks], Het Overzicht 17: 92–93. Peeters, Jozef. 1923c. “Konstruktieve graphiek” [Constructive graphics], Het Overzicht 18/19: 111–114. Peeters, Jozef. 1923d. “Kathéchéô aan den kunstliefhebber” [Catechism of an art-lover], Het Overzicht 18/19: 105. Peeters, Jozef. 1925a. “Over kunst” [On art], De Driehoek 1: n.p. Peeters, Jozef. 1925b. “Driehoek-manifest voor schilderkunst” [Driehoek’s manifesto for Painting], De Driehoek 7: n.p. Peeters, Jozef. 1925c. “Boekbesprekingen. L’art et son avenir par G. van Tongerloo. Uitgave ‘De Sikkel’” [Book reviews. L’art et son avenir by G. van Tongerloo. Edition ‘De Sikkel’], Het Overzicht 22/23/24: 169. Peiper, Tadeusz. 1922a. “Punkt wyjs´cia” [The point of departure], Zwrotnica 1: 3–4. Peiper, Tadeusz. 1922b. “Miasto. Masa. Maszyna” [Metropolis. Mass. Machine], Zwrotnica 2: 23–31. Peiper, Tadeusz. 1922c. “La ville. La foulle. La machine”, La Vie des Lettres et des Arts 13: n.p. Peiper, Tadeusz. 1922d. “Metafora teraz´niejszos´ci” [The metaphor of nowness], Zwrotnica 3: 51–55. Peiper, Tadeusz. 1923a. “Odpowiedzi” [Responses], Zwrotnica 4: 90–93. Peiper, Tadeusz. 1923b. “Futuryzm (analiza i krytyka)” [Futurism (analysis and critique)], Zwrotnica 6: 162–172. [Peiper, Tadeusz (ed.)]. 1923c. “Zagranica a my” [Foreign countries and us], Zwrotnica 5: 156. Peiper, Tadeusz. 1924a. A. Kraków: Zwrotnica. Peiper, Tadeusz. 1924b. Z˙ywe linje [Living lines]. Kraków: Zwrotnica. Peiper, Tadeusz. 1925. Nowe usta. Odczyt o poezji [New lips. A lecture on poetry]. Lwo´w: Towarzystwo Wydawnicze Ateneum. Peiper, Tadeusz. 1926a. “Takz˙e inaczej” [Thus otherwise], Zwrotnica 7: 198–199. Peiper, Tadeusz. 1926b. “Gazeta Literacka. Uniwersalizm” [Gazeta Literacka. Universalism], Zwrotnica 9: 224–225. Peiper, Tadeusz. 1927a. “Sztuka dla wtajemniczonych?” [Art for insiders only?], Zwrotnica 11: 246. Peiper, Tadeusz. 1927b. “W Bauhausie” [At Bauhaus], Zwrotnica 12: 255–256. [Peiper, Tadeusz (ed.)]. 1927c. “Stosunek do zagranicy” [Approach to foreign countries], Zwrotnica 12: 263. [Peiper, Tadeusz (ed.)]. 1927d. “Drogi do zagranicy” [The way abroad], Zwrotnica 12: 264. [Peiper, Tadeusz (ed.)]. 1927e. “Malewicz w Polsce” [Malevich in Poland], Zwrotnica 11: 239. Peiper, Tadeusz. 1929a. “Droga rymu” [The road of rhyme], Przegla˛d Współczesny 91: 247–264. Peiper, Tadeusz. 1929b. “Rytm nowoczesny” [Modern rhythm], Kwadryga 3/4: n.p.

References

123

Piotrowski, Roman. 1930. “Przyczynek do sprawy mieszkaniowej w Polsce”, Praesens 2: 77–81. Pologne [= Szczuka, Mieczysław and Teresa Z˙arnower (eds.)]. 1925. “Qu’est-ce que le ‘Constructivisme’”, Anthologie du Groupe Moderne d’Art de Liège 5, 3/4: 6–7. Pronaszko, Andrzej. 1930a. “Barwa, architektura, obraz” [Colour, architecture, image], Praesens 2: 103–105. Pronaszko, Andrzej. 1930b. “Mariage des contrastes”, Praesens 2: 106. Przybos´, Julian. 1925. S´ruby [Screws]. Kraków: Zwrotnica. Przybos´, Julian. 1926. “Człowiek w rzeczach” [Man in things], Zwrotnica 8: 210. Przybos´, Julian. 1927. “Idea rygoru” [The idea of rigour], Zwrotnica 12: 252–253. Przybos´, Julian. 1931. “Kataryniarze i strofkarze” [Organ-grinders and verse-writers], Linia 1: 10–14. Przybos´, Julian and Władysław Strzemin´ski. 1930. Z ponad [From above]. Cieszyn: Zakłady Drukarskie i Wydawnicze Karola Prochaski. Red. [= Szczuka, Mieczysław and Teresa Z˙arnower (eds.)]. 1924a. “Drukarstwo. O układzie graficznym” [Printing. On graphic layout], Blok 5: 11. Red. [= Szczuka, Mieczysław and Teresa Z˙arnower (eds.)]. 1924b. “Co to jest konstruktywizm” [What is Constructivism], Blok 6/7: n.p. Redakcja [= Szczuka, Mieczysław (ed.)]. 1927. “Zadaniem ‘Dz´wigni’ jest . . .” [The task of ‘Dz´wignia’ is to . . .], Dz´wignia 1: 1. Richter, Hans. 1922. “Erklärung vor dem Kongress der Internationale Fortschrittlicher Künstler Düsseldorf”, De Stijl 5, 6: 57–59. Rietveld, Gerrit. 1927. “Nut: constructive (schoonheid: kunst)” [Utility: construction (beauty: art)], Internationale Revue i10 1, 3: 89–93. Rietveld, Gerrit. 1928. “Inzicht” [Insight], Internationale Revue i10 2, 17/18: 89–90. Rietveld, Gerrit. 1937. “Indrukken op de Parijsche tentoonstelling” [Impressions from the Parisian exhibition], de 8 en Opbouw 8, 18/19: 176–182. Rosenberg, Léonce. 1920. “Parlons peinture”, De Stijl 3, 12: 97–98. Servranckx, Victor. 1926. “Za najwaz˙niejsze zadanie artysty . . .”, Blok 11: n.p. Seuphor, Michel. 1929a. “Sardaigne/Sardynja”, L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna 1: 31. Seuphor, Michel. 1929b. “Filozofia aktualnos´ci” [The philosophy of the present], L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna 1: 31. Seuphor, Michel. 1930a. “Pour la défense d’une architecture”, Cercle et Carré 1: n.p. Seuphor, Michel. 1930b. “Textuel”, Cercle et Carré 2: n.p. Seuphor, Michel. 1930c. “Poétique nouvelle”, Cercle et Carré 3: n.p. Seuphor, Michel. 1930d. “Spokój wód” [Peace of waters], L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna 2: 69. Seuphor, Michel. 1930e. “Coeur tendre”, L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna 3: 103. Seuphor, Michel. 1932. “L’art nouveau et le surréalisme”, Abstraction-Création 1: 11. Seuphor, Michel [and Piet Mondrian]. 1930. “Textuel”, Praesens 2: 168. [Seuphor, Michel and Joaquín Torres-García (eds.)]. 1930a. “Vient de paraître”, Cercle et Carré 3: n.p. [Seuphor, Michel and Joaquín Torres-García (eds.)]. 1930b. “La revue ‘Europa’ de Varsovie”, Cercle et Carré 3: n.p. [Seuphor, Michel and Joaquín Torres-García (eds.)]. 1930c. “Catalogue de l’exposition organisée par le groupe ‘Cercle et Carré’”, Cercle et Carré 2: n.p. Sijmons, Karel Lodewijk. 1936. “Gang-woningen in het buitenland” [Gallery houses abroad], de 8 en Opbouw 7, 19: 229. Stam, Mart. 1937. “Mogelijke en onmogelijke krullen op de Expo 1937” [Possible and impossible twists during the Expo 1937], de 8 en Opbouw, 8, 18/19: 169–175. Staz˙ewski, Henryk. 1924. “O sztuce abstrakcyjnej” [On abstract art], Blok 8/9: n.p. Staz˙ewski, Henryk. 1925. “L’Art abstrait”, Anthologie du Groupe Moderne d’Art de Liège 5, 3/4: 7.

124

References

Staz˙ewski, Henryk. 1926a. “Styl współczesnos´ci” [The contemporary style], Praesens 1: 2–3. Staz˙ewski, Henryk. 1926b. “L’art de nos jours”, Praesens 1: 16. Staz˙ewski, Henryk. 1929. “Sztuki plastyczne jako streszczenie z˙ycia kulturalnego” [Visual arts as summary of cultural life], Europa 3: 87–88. Staz˙ewski, Henryk. 1930. “L’homme nouveau . . .”, Cercle et Carré 1: n.p. Staz˙ewski, Henryk. 1932. “L’art plastique comme résumé de la vie culturelle”, AbstractionCréation 1: 34. Staz˙ewski, Henryk. 1933a. “Ni le classicisme . . .”, Abstraction-Création 2: 39. Staz˙ewski, Henryk. 1933b. “ ‘Epigoni modernizmu’ i krytycy-rutynis´ci” [‘The epigones of modernism’ and routinist critics], Wiadomos´ci Literackie 10, 32: 4. [Staz˙ewski, Henryk et al. (eds.)]. 1924a. “Likwidujemy ostatecznie . . . / Nous faisons disparaître définitivement . . .”, Blok 1: n.p. [Staz˙ewski, Henryk et al. (eds.)]. 1924b. “Włas´ciwe rzeczy na włas´ciwym miejscu” [Proper things in proper place], Blok 1: n.p. [Staz˙ewski, Henryk et al. (eds.)]. 1924c. “Ku płaskos´ci w malarstwie” [Towards flatness in painting], Blok 1: n.p. [Staz˙ewski, Henryk et al. (eds.)]. 1924d. “Odczuwa sie˛ w całokształcie z˙ycia . . .” [In the totality of life one feels . . .], Blok 1: n.p. [Staz˙ewski, Henryk et al. (eds.)]. 1924e. “Blok reprezentuje ludzi . . .” [Blok represents people . . .], Blok 2: n.p. [Staz˙ewski, Henryk et al. (eds.)]. 1924f. “Artysta tworza˛c działa bezinteresownie . . .” [While creating the artist remains neutral . . .], Blok 2: n.p. [Staz˙ewski, Henryk et al. (eds.)]. 1924g. “Od krytyka wymaga sie˛ . . .” [One requires from the critic to be . . .], Blok 2: n.p. Stern, Anatol and Mieczysław Szczuka. 1929. Europa [Europe]. Warszawa: Ksie˛garnia F. Hoesicka. Stern, Anatol and Mieczysław Szczuka. 1982. Europa. Omslag en boekverzorging: Piet Gerards/ AAP [Europe. Cover and edition: Piet Gerards/AAP]. Maastricht: Uitgeverij AAP. Struszkiewicz, Jerzy. 1929. “Ze s´wiata” [From the world], Architekt 22, 5: 15–16. Strzemin´ski, Władysław. 1922/1923. “O sztuce rosyjskiej notatki” [Notes on Russian art], Zwrotnica 3–4: 79–82, 110–114. Strzemin´ski, Władysław. 1923a. “Okres´lam sztuke˛ jako . . .” [I describe art as . . .], Katalog Wystawy Nowej Sztuki. Wilno: Lux, 19–21. Strzemin´ski, Władysław. 1923b. “Wystawa Nowej Sztuki w Wilnie” [Exhibition of New Art in Vilnius], Zwrotnica 6: 193. Strzemin´ski, Władysław. 1924a. “To, co sie˛ prawnie nazywa nowa˛ sztuka˛ . . .” [What is rightfully called art . . .], Blok 2: n.p. Strzemin´ski, Władysław. 1924b. “B=2”, Blok 8/9: n.p. Strzemin´ski, Władysław. 1927a. “Notatki” [Notes], Zwrotnica 11: 243. Strzemin´ski, Władysław. 1927b. “Malarstwo doby ostatniej” [Recent painting], Zwrotnica 11: 248–249. Strzemin´ski, Władysław. 1927c. “Dualizm i unizm” [Duality and Unism], Droga 6/7: 211–225. Strzemin´ski, Władysław. 1928a. Unizm w malarstwie [Unism in painting]. Warszawa: Praesens. Strzemin´ski, Władysław. 1928b. “Nasza wystawa . . .” [Our exhibition . . .], Almanach. Katalog. Salon modernistów. Warszawa: Drukarnia Robotnik, 1–2. Strzemin´ski, Władysław. 1928c. “Architektura współczesna na tle wystawy Stowarzyszenia Architektów Polskich” [Modern architecture in view of the exhibition of Society of Polish Architects], Wiek XX 13: 4–5. Strzemin´ski, Władysław. 1929a. “Bilans modernizmu” [An account of modernism], Europa 1bis: 22–24. Strzemin´ski, Władysław. 1929b. “Snobizm a modernizm” [Snobism and modernism], Europa 3: 88–90.

References

125

Strzemin´ski, Władysław. 1930. “Dramatyzm i architektonizm” [Dramatism and architectonism], L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna 3: 93. Strzemin´ski, Władysław. 1931. “Zasady nowej architektury” [Principles of new architecture], Linia 3: 68–69. Strzemin´ski, Władysław. 1932a. “Là, où il y a une division, le tableau est coupé en parties”, Abstraction-Création 1: 35. Strzemin´ski, Władysław (ed.). 1932b. Mie˛dzynarodowa Kolekcja Sztuki Nowoczesnej/ Collection Internationale d’Art Nouveau. Katalog nr. 2. Łódz´: Drukarnia Polska Ludomira Mazurkiewicza i S-ki. Strzemin´ski, Władysław. 1933. “En peignant le nu . . .”, Abstraction-Création 2: 40. Strzemin´ski, Władysław. 1934. “Sztuka nowoczesna w Polsce” [Modern art in Poland], in: Jan Brze˛kowski et al. O sztuce nowoczesnej. Łódz´: Wydawnictwo Towarzystwa Bibliofilów w Łodzi, 59–93. Strzemin´ski, Władysław. 1975. Pisma. Zebrała, opracowała i komentarzem opatrzyła Zofia Baranowicz [Writings. Selected, edited and commented by Zofia Baranowicz]. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich. Strzemin´ski, Władysław and Szymon Syrkus. 1928. “Teraz´niejszos´c´ w architekturze i malarstwie” [Nowness in architecture and painting], Przegla˛d Artystyczny 4: 5–8. van der Swaelmen, Louis. 1926. “Opinions autour de l’architecture moderne”, 7 Arts 4, 17: n.p. Syrkus, Helena and Szymon Syrkus. 1930. “O teatrze symultanicznym” [On simultaneous theatre], Praesens 2: 141–152. Syrkus, Szymon. 1926a. “Preliminarz architektury” [Preliminaries of architecture], Praesens 1: 6–16. Syrkus, Szymon. 1926b. “L’Homme c’est l’animal qui a crée (sic) la mathématique”, Praesens 1: 33–34. Syrkus, Szymon. 1927, “L’Architecture ouvrant le volume”, Internationale Revue i10 1, 5: 163–165. Syrkus, Szymon. 1930. “Tempo architektury/Le dynamisme de l’architecture moderne”, Praesens 2: 3–45. Syrkus. Szymon. 1931. “Charakterystyczna˛ cecha˛ architektury współczesnej jest . . .” [Contemporary architecture is characterised by . . .], Dom, Osiedle, Mieszkanie 3, 6: 14. Syrkus, Szymon. 1934 “Het nieuwe bouwen in Polen. De buitenmuur” [Modern building in Poland. The exterior wall], de 8 en Opbouw 5, 13: 105–110. Syrkus, Szymon and Helena Syrkus. 1935. “De l’architecture et de la production des habitations ouvrières”, L’Équerre 7, 7–8: 1–3, 1–6. Syrkus, Szymon and Helena Syrkus. 1938. “La généalogie de l’architecture fonctionnelle”, L’Équerre 10, 5: 10–13. [Syrkus, Szymon, Andrzej Pronaszko and Helena Syrkus (eds.)]. 1930a. “Ksia˛z˙ki nadesłane 1927–1930” [Books received 1927–1930], Praesens 2: 191–197. [Syrkus, Szymon, Andrzej Pronaszko and Helena Syrkus (eds.)]. 1930b. “Czasopisma zagraniczne” [Foreign magazines], Praesens 2: 198–199. Szczuka, Mieczysław. 1923. “Reakcja otoczenia” [The reaction of the surroundings], Zwrotnica 4: 104–106. Szczuka, Mieczysław. 1924a. “Próba wyjas´nienia nieporozumien´ wynikaja˛cych ze stosunku do Nowej Sztuki” [An attempt to clarify the misunderstandings resulting from the attitude towards the New Art], Blok 2: n.p. Szczuka, Mieczysław. 1924b. “3 przykłady zagadnien´ czysto konstrukcyjnych” [3 examples of purely constructive issues], Blok 5: 8. Szczuka, Mieczysław. 1924c. “Ruch artystyczny w Polsce” [Artistic movement in Poland], Pásmo 4: 1. [Szczuka, Mieczysław]. 1924d. “!Zur Beachtung! der Zeitschriften der Avangarde!!”, Blok 6/7: n.p.

126

References

Szczuka, Mieczysław. 1925. “Le mouvement artistique en Pologne”, Anthologie du Groupe Moderne d’Art de Liège 5, 3/4: 4–5. [Szczuka, Mieczysław and Teresa Z˙arnower (eds.)]. 1924a. “O propagandzie sztuki polskiej zagranica˛” [On the propaganda of Polish art abroad], Blok 6/7: n.p. [Szczuka, Mieczysław and Teresa Z˙arnower (eds.)]. 1924b. “Fotomontaz˙” [Photomontage], Blok 8/9: n.p. [Szczuka, Mieczysław and Teresa Z˙arnower (eds.)]. 1924c. “Architektura wne˛trz” [Interior architecture], Blok 8/9: n.p. [Szczuka, Mieczysław and Teresa Z˙arnower (eds.)]. 1924d. “Nalez˙y wynajdywac´ takie systemy konstrukcyjne . . .” [One should find such construction systems . . .], Blok 8/9: n.p. [Szczuka, Mieczysław and Teresa Z˙arnower (eds.)]. 1925a. “Czy sztuka dekoracyjna?” [Whether decorative art?], Blok 10: n.p. [Szczuka, Mieczysław and Teresa Z˙arnower (eds.)]. 1925b. “Linia nowego stylu . . .” [The line of the new style], Blok 10: n.p. [Szyszko-Bohusz, Adolf (ed.)]. 1926. “Nowe pra˛dy w architekturze” [New currents in architecture], Architekt 21, 1: 1–6. Tołwin´ski, Stanisław. 1937. “5eme Congrès International d’Architecture Moderne ‘Logis et Loisirs’”, L’Équerre 9, 7: 2–3. Torres-García, Joaquín. 1930. “Vouloir construire”, Cercle et Carré 1: n.p. Treter, Mieczysław (ed.). 1929. Poolsche kunst [Polish art]. Amsterdam: Stedelijk Museum. Vantongerloo, Georges. 1918/1920. “Réflexions”, De Stijl 1, 9: 97–102; 2, 2–8: 21–22, 35–36, 55–57, 77–79, 89–91; 3, 2–4: 19–21, 31–32, 21–24. Vantongerloo, Georges. 1924. L’Art et son avenir. Antwerp: De Sikkel. Vantongerloo, Georges. 1927a. “Principe d’unité”, Internationale Revue i10 1, 3: 94–96. Vantongerloo, Georges. 1927b. “Réflexions sur l’existence absolue des choses”, Internationale Revue i10 1, 10–11: 351–356, 387–392. Vantongerloo, Georges. 1929. “Ankieta Europy” [The survey of Europa], Europa 3: 87. Vantongerloo, Georges. 1930. “Plastique d’art (S=L2 V=L3)”, Cercle et Carré 2: n.p. Vantongerloo, Georges. 1932. “Préliminaire axiome”, Abstraction-Création 1: 40–41. Vantongerloo, Georges. 1933. “Sont compris dans l’art plastique”, Abstraction-Création 2: 43–46. Vantongerloo, Georges. 1935. “Evolution”, Abstraction-Création 4: 30–32. Vantongerloo, Georges. 1936. “Réflexion”, Abstraction-Création 5: 27–28. van de Velde, Henry. 1926. “Le style moderne”, Blok 11: n.p. Werrie, Paul. 1926. “Harangue en souvenir d’une Fondation”, 7 Arts 4, 21: n.p. Werrie, Paul. 1927. “Poésie et révolution. Sur le sens du mot ‘révolution’”, 7 Arts 5, 14: n.p. Wils, Jan. 1918. “Symmetrie en kultuur” [Symmetry and culture], De Stijl 1, 12: 137–140. [Wóycicki, Zygmunt (ed.)]. 1928. “Technika budowy serjami domów w Holandji” [The technology of serial construction of houses in the Netherlands], Architektura i Budownictwo 4, 1: 27. Zahorska, Stefanja. 1926a. “Krytyka wobec modernizmu” [Critique on modernism], Praesens 1: 41–42. Zahorska, Stefania. 1926b. “Mie˛dzynarodowa Wystawa Architektury w Warszawie” [International Architectural Exhbition in Warsaw], Architekt 21, 5: 1–17.

Artists’ Memoirs Berlewi, Henryk. 1957 “Nieco o dawnej awangardzie” [On the historical avant-garde in brief], Z˙ycie Literackie 27: 5–7. Berlewi, Henryk. 1961. Funktionelle Grafik der zwanziger Jahre in Polen/Functional Design of the Twenties in Poland. Schweiz: Verlag Otto Walter Olten. Brze˛kowski, Jan. 1966. Wyobraz´nia wyzwolona. Szkice i wspomnienia [The liberated imagination. Essays and memories]. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Literackie.

References

127

Brze˛kowski, Jan. 1967. “Wspomnienie o awangardzie” [Memories of the avant-garde], Z˙ycie Literackie 1: 8. Brze˛kowski, Jan. 1968. W Krakowie i w Paryz˙u [In Krakow and in Paris]. Warszawa: Pan´stwowy Instytut Wydawniczy. Brze˛kowski, Jan. 1971. “Gars´c´ wspomnien´ o powstaniu łódzkiej kolekcji sztuki nowoczesnej i o grupie ‘a.r.’” [A handful of memories regarding the formation of the Łódz´ collection of modern art and the ‘a.r.’ group], in: Ryszard Stanisławski (ed.). Grupa ‘a.r.’. 40-lecie Mie˛dzynarodowej Kolekcji Sztuki Nowoczesnej w Łodzi. Łódz´: Muzeum Sztuki, 9–21. Brze˛kowski, Jan. 1978. Szkice literackie i artystyczne 1925–1970 [Literary and artistic essays 1925–1970]. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Literackie. Brze˛kowski, Jan. 1984. “Les mouvements d’avant-garde en Pologne dans les années vingt”, ICSAC cahier 2/3: 41–49. Seuphor, Michel. 1971. Cercle et carré. Paris: Belfond. Seuphor, Michel. 1976. “Rétrospection”, in: Het Overzicht. Collection complète 1921–1925. Anvers: Fonds Mercator – Editions Jean-Michel Place, n.p. Seuphor, Michel. 1990. Cercle et Carré: thoughts for the 1930’s, painting, sculpture, architecture, theatre. New York: Rachel Adler Gallery. Seuphor, Michel and Alexandre Grenier. 1996. Michel Seuphor: un siècle de libertés. Paris: Hazan. Wat, Aleksander. 2001. Mijn twintigste eeuw zoals verteld aan Czesław Miłosz [My twentieth century as recounted to Czesław Miłosz]. Amsterdam: Meulenhoff. Waz˙yk, Adam. 1976. Dziwna historia awangardy [A strange history of the avant-garde]. Warszawa: Czytelnik.

Secondary Sources Abastado, Claude. 1980. “Introduction à l’analyse des manifestes”, Littérature 39: 3–11. Andel, Jaroslav. 2002. Avant-garde page design 1900–1950. New York: Delano Greenidge Editions. Antliff, Mark. 2007. Avant-garde fascism. The mobilization of myth, art, and culture in France 1909–1939. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Antonissen, Anton and Evert van Straaten. 2017. De Stijl: 100 jaar inspiratie. De nieuwe beelding en de internationale kunst 1917–2017 [De Stijl: 100 years of inspiration. Neoplasticism and international art 1917–2017]. Zwolle: Waanders & de Kunst. Bäckström, Per and Benedikt Hjartarson. 2014a. “Rethinking the topography of the international avant-garde”, in: Per Bäckström and Benedikt Hjartarson (eds.). Decentring the avantgarde. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi, 7–32. Bäckström, Per and Benedikt Hjartarson (eds.). 2014b. Decentring the avant-garde. Amsterdam/ New York: Rodopi. Baljeu, Joost. 1974. Theo van Doesburg. London: Studio Vista. Bann, Stephen. 1974. The tradition of Constructivism. New York: The Viking Press. Baranowicz, Zofia. 1973. “Grupa ‘a.r.’ w s´wietle korespondencji” [The ‘a.r.’ group in light of its correspondence], Rocznik Historii Sztuki 9: 285–297. Baranowicz, Zofia. 1975. Polska awangarda artystyczna 1918–1939 [Polish artistic avant-garde 1918–1939]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Artystyczne i Filmowe. Barr, Allfred. 1936. Cubism and abstract art. New York: Museum of Modern Art. Bartelik, Marek. 2005. Early Polish modern art: unity in multiplicity. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Baudin, Antoine and Pierre-Maxim Jedryka (eds.). 1977. L’Espace uniste: écrits du constructivisme polonais. Lausanne: L’Age d’Homme. Belleguie, André. 1984. Mouvement de l’espace: typographique années 1920–1930. Paris: Jaques Damase.

128

References

Benson, Timothy O. 2002a. “Exchange and transformation: the internationalization of the avant-garde(s) in Central Europe”, in: Timothy O. Benson (ed.). Central European avantgardes: exchange and transformation, 1910–1930. Los Angeles: County Museum of Art and Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 34–67. Benson, Timothy O. (ed.). 2002b. Central European avant-gardes: exchange and transformation, 1910–1930. Los Angeles: County Museum of Art and Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Benson, Timothy O. and Éva Forgács (eds.). 2002. Between worlds: a sourcebook of Central European avant-gardes, 1910–1930. Los Angeles: County Museum of Art and Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. van den Berg, Hubert. 1998. “Das Manifest – eine Gattung? Zur historiographischen Problematik einer deskriptiven Hilfskonstruktion”, in: Hubert van den Berg and Ralf Gru˝ttemeier (eds.). Manifeste: Intentionalität. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 193–225. van den Berg, Hubert. 2006a. “Mapping old traces of the new. For a historical topography of 20th-century avant-garde(s) in the European cultural field(s)”, Arcadia 41: 331–351. van den Berg, Hubert. 2006b. “ ‘A worldwide network of periodicals has appeared . . .’ Some notes on the inter- and supranationality of European Constructivism between the two wars”, in: Jacek Purchla and Wolf Tegethoff (eds.). Nation style modernism. Kraków: Mie˛dzynarodowe Centrum Kultury and München: Zentralinstitut für Kunstgeschichte, 143–156. van den Berg, Hubert. 2013. “Expressionism, Constructivism and the transnationality of the historical avant-garde”, in: Hubert van den Berg and Lidia Głuchowska (eds.). Transnationality, internationalism and nationhood. European avant-garde in the first half of the twentieth century. Groningen: Peeters, 23–41. van den Berg, Hubert. 2015. “Avant-garde art as art at the service of the revolution. On pure art and Tendenzkunst as two answers to the question: ‘Should the new art serve the masses?’ ”, in: Kari J. Brandtzaeg (ed.). The shadow of war. Political art in Norway 1914–2014/Krigens skygge. Politisk kunst in Norge 1914–2014. Oslo: Teknisk Industri, 54–65. van den Berg, Hubert and Geert Buelens (eds.). 2014. Dan Dada doe uw werk! Avantgardistische poëzie uit de Lage Landen [Then Dada, do your work! Avant-garde poetry from the Low Countries]. Nijmegen: Vantilt. van den Berg, Hubert and Gillis Dorleijn (eds.). 2002. Avantgarde! Voorhoede? Vernieuwingsbewegingen in noord en zuid opnieuw beschouwd [Avant-garde! Vanguard? Renewal movements in north and south reconsidered]. Nijmegen: Vantilt. van den Berg, Hubert and Lidia Głuchowska. 2013a. “The inter- trans- and postnationality of the historical avant-garde”, in: Hubert van den Berg and Lidia Głuchowska (eds.). Transnationality, internationalism and nationhood. European avant-garde in the first half of the twentieth century. Groningen: Peeters, ix–xx. van den Berg, Hubert and Lidia Głuchowska (eds.). 2013b. Transnationality, inter-nationalism and nationhood. European avant-garde in the first half of the twentieth century. Groningen: Peeters. Bless, Frits and Jaromir Jedlin´ski. 1989. Vision and unity: Strzemin´ski, 1893–1952, en 9 hedendaagse Poolse kunstenaars [Vision and unity: Strzemin´ski, 1893–1952, and 9 contemporary Polish artists]. Łódz´: Muzeum Sztuki and Apeldoorn: Van Reekum Museum. Blom, Lise-Lotte. 1985. Tre pionérer for Polsk avant-garde/Three pioneers of Polish avantgarde. Oslo: Fins Kunstmuseum and Odense: The Art Museum of Funen. Blotkamp, Carel. 1990. “Theo van Doesburg”, in: Carel Blotkamp et al. De Stijl. The formative years 1917–1922. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 3–38. Blotkamp, Carel. 1994. Mondrian. The art of destruction. London: Reaktion Books. Blotkamp, Carel (ed.). 1996. De vervolgjaren van De Stijl 1922–1932 [The following years of De Stijl 1922–1932]. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij L.J.Veen. Blotkamp, Carel et al. 1990. De Stijl. The formative years 1917–1922. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

References

129

Blotkamp, Carel and Cees Hilhorst. 1996. “De dissidente kunstenaars: Bart van der Leck, Vilmos Huszár, Georges Vantongerloo” [The dissident artist: Bart van der Leck, Vilmos Huszár, Georges Vantongerloo], in: Carel Blotkamp (ed.). De vervolgjaren van De Stijl 1922–1932. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij L.J.Veen, 311–360. Bock, Manfred, Vincent van Rossem and Kees Somer. 2001. Cornelis van Eesteren: architect, urbanist. Deel 1: Bouwkunst, stijl, stedenbouw: Van Eesteren en de avant-garde [Cornelis van Eesteren: architect, town planner. Part 1: Architecture, style, town-planning: Van Eesteren and the avant-garde]. Rotterdam: NAi Uitgevers. den Boef, August (ed.). 1987. Piet Mondriaan: twee verhalen [Piet Mondrian: two short stories]. Amsterdam: Meulenhoff. den Boef, August and Sjoerd van Faassen. 2008. Het pseudo-moderne nevens het ware. De briefwisseling van de architect J.J.P. Oud met Jozef Peeters en Michel Seuphor, redacteuren van het constructivistische tijdschrift ‘Het Overzicht’, 1921–1925 [The pseudo-modern versus the real. The architect J.J.P. Oud’s correspondence with Jozef Peeters and Michel Seuphor, editors of the Constructivist magazine ‘Het Overzicht’, 1921–1925]. Antwerpen: Zacht Lawijd and Garant. den Boef, August and Sjoerd van Faassen. 2013. Van De Stijl en Het Overzicht tot De Driehoek [From De Stijl and Het Overzicht to De Driehoek]. Antwerpen: Garant. Boekraad, Cees, Flip Bool and Herbert Henkels (eds.). 1983. Het Nieuwe Bouwen. De Nieuwe Beelding in de architectuur/Neo-plasticism in architecture. De Stijl. Delft: University Press and Den Haag: Haags Gemeentemuseum. Bois, Yve-Alain. 1998a. Painting as model. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Bois, Yve-Alain. 1998b. “Strzemin´ski and Kobro: in search of motivation”, in: Yve- Alain Bois. Painting as model. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 123–156. Bois, Yve-Alain. 1991. “Lissitzky, Mondrian, Strzemin´ski: Abstraction and political utopia in the twenties”, in: Yve-Alain Bois et al. Cadences: icon and abstraction in context. New York: New Museum of Contemporary Art, 81–105. Boland, Lynn (ed.). 2013. Cercle et Carré and the international spirit of abstract art. Athens: Georgia Museum of Art. Bonet, Juan Manuel and Monika Poliwka. 2014. “Od ‘Manomètre’: szlakiem sieci czasopism awangardy/From ‘Manomètre’: a walk through the network of modernist magazines”, in: Paulina Kurc-Maj (ed.). Zmiana pola widzenia. Druk nowoczesny i awangarda/Changing the field of view. Modern printing and the avant-garde. Łódz´: Muzeum Sztuki, 166–194. Borusewicz, Mirosław et al. 2002. a.r. Artistes révolutionnaires de Łódz´. Ixelles: Tempora. Borusiewicz, Miroslaw and Dominique Boudou. 2004. Avant-gardes polonaises: hier et aujourd’hui: espace de l’Art Concret. Paris: Réunion des Musées Nationaux. Brandt, Marion (ed.). 2006. Grenzüberschreitungen. Deutsche, Polen und Juden zwischen den Kulturen (1918–1939). München: Martin Meidenbauer. Brentjens, Yvonne. 2008. Piet Zwart 1885–1977: Vormingenieur [Piet Zwart 1885–1997: form engineer]. Den Haag: Haags Gemeentemuseum and Zwolle: Waanders Uitgevers. Brockhaus, Christoph and Hans Janssen (eds.). 2009. Voor een nieuwe wereld. Georges Vantongerloo 1886–1965 en zijn omgeving van Piet Mondriaan tot Max Bill [For a new world. Georges Vantongerloo 1886–1965 and his circles from Piet Mondrian to Max Bill]. Den Haag: Gemeentemuseum Den Haag. Brockhaus, Christoph and Ryszard Stanisławski (eds.). 1994. Europa, Europa. Das Jahrhundert der Avantgarde in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Bonn: Stiftung Kunst und Kultur des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen. Brooker, Peter et al. (eds.). 2013. The Oxford critical and cultural history of modernist magazines. Volume III, Europe 1880–1940. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Broos, Kees. 1991. “Letter, woord, tekst, beeld/Letter, word, tekst, image”, in: Jan Brand, Nicolette Gast and Robert-Jan Muller (eds.). De Woorden en de Beelden. Tekst en beeld in

130

References

de kunst van de twintigste eeuw/The words and the images. Text and image in the art of the twentieth century. Utrecht: Centraal Museum, 17–40. Broos, Kees. 1994. Mondriaan, De Stijl en de nieuwe typografie [Mondrian, De Stijl and the new typography]. Amsterdam-Den Haag: De Buitenkant. Broos, Kees and Paul Hefting. 1993. Dutch graphic design. London: Phaidon. Bru, Sascha. 2009. “Borderless Europe, decentring avant-garde, mosaic modernism”, in: Sascha Bru et al. (eds.). Europa! Europa? The avant-garde, modernism and the fate of a continent. Berlin: De Gruyter, 3–17. Bru, Sascha. 2013. “ ‘The will to style’: The Dutch contribution to the avant-garde”, in: Peter Brooker et al. (eds.). The Oxford critical and cultural history of modernist magazines. Volume III, Europe 1880–1940. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 293–312. Bru, Sascha et al. (eds.). 2009. Europa! Europa? The avant-garde, modernism and the fate of a continent. Berlin: De Gruyter. Burke, Peter. 2009. Cultural hybridity. Cambridge: Polity. Bürger, Peter. [1974] 1984. Theory of the avant-garde. (Translated by Michael Shaw.) Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press. [Originally published, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag.]. Bury, Stephen (ed.). 2007. Breaking the rules. The printed face of the European avant-grade 1900–1937. London: The British Library. Calinescu, Matei. 1987. Five faces of modernity. Modernism, avant-garde, decadence, kitsch, postmodernism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Carpenter, Bogdana. 1983. The poetic avant-garde in Poland, 1918–1939. Seattle-London: University of Washington Press. Cassou, Jean et al. 1957. Précurseurs de l’art abstrait en Pologne. Paris: Galerie Denise René. Ceuleers, Jan. 1996. Georges Vantongerloo 1886–1965. Gent: Snoeck-Ducaju & Zoon. Charlier, Sébastien (ed.). 2012a. L’Équerre. Réédition intégrale/The complete edition 1928–1939. Liège: Éditions Fourre-Tout. Charlier, Sébastien. 2012b. “From academy to the CIAM/De l’académie aux CIAM. L’Équerre 1928–1939”, in: Sébastien Charlier (ed.). L’Équerre. Réédition intégrale/The complete edition 1928–1939. Liège: Éditions Fourre-Tout, 36–75. Choma˛towska, Beata. 2015. Lachert i Szanajca. Architekci awangardy [Lachert and Szanajca. The architects of the avant-garde]. Wołowiec: Wydawnictwo Czarne. Claessens, Erik. 1985/1986. Bijdrage tot de studie van het Constructivisme. De uitstraling naar Polen. Een kritische benadering van het Unisme en de Ruimtecompositie van Władysław Strzemin´ski en Katarzyna Kobro [A contribution to studies on Constructivism. The diffusion to Poland. A critical analysis of Unism and Spatial Composition of Władysław Strzemin´ski and Katarzyna Kobro]. [Unpublished thesis, Free University of Brussels.]. Clark, John. 1998. Modern Asian art. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Crowley, David. 1992. National style and nation-state: design in Poland from the vernacular revival to the International Style. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Czartoryska, Urszula (ed.). 1991. Kolekcja sztuki XX wieku w Muzeum Sztuki w Łodzi [The collection of twentieth-century art in Muzeum Sztuki in Łódz´]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Galeria Zache˛ta. Czekalski, Stanisław. 2000. Awangarda i mit racjonalizacji. Fotomontaz˙ polski okresu dwudziestolecia mie˛dzywojennego [Avant-garde and the myth of rationalisation. Polish photomontage of the interwar period]. Poznan´: Wydawnictwo Poznan´skiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk. Czerner, Olgierd et al. 1981. Avant-garde polonaise: urbanisme, architecture/Awangarda polska: urbanistyka, architektura/The Polish avant-garde: architecture, town-planning. 1819–1939. Warszawa: Interpress and Paris: Éditions du Moniteur. Czeredys, Maciej et al. 2013: “Wyzwanie z przeszłos´ci. Przedmowa do nowego wydania” [A challenge from the past. The foreword to the new editon], in: Jan Chmielewski and Szymon Syrkus. Warszawa Funkcjonalna. Warszawa: Centrum Architektury, 13–58.

References

131

DaCosta Kaufmann, Thomas. 2004. Towards a geography of art. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DaCosta Kaufmann, Thomas, Catherine Dossin and Béatrice Joyeux-Prunel (eds.). 2015. Circulations in the global history of art. Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Dam, Peter van. 1998. “Reclame of kunst? Miss Blanche moderniseerde zich in ‘Stijl’ ” [Advertisement or art? Miss Blanche got modernised in ‘Stijl’]. Compres, 8 July: 18–21. Dekkers, Dieuwertje et al. 2008. H.N. Werkman: het complete oeuvre [H.N. Werkman: the complete works]. Rotterdam: NAi Uitgevers. Delaperrière, Maria. 1991. Les avant-gardes polonaises et la poésie européenne. Étude sur l’imagination poétique. Paris: Institut d’Études Slaves. Delaperrière, Maria. 2003. “La poésie polonaise face à l’avant-garde française: fascinations et réticences”, Revue de Littérature Comparée 307: 355–368. Delaperrière, Maria. 2004. Polskie awangardy a poezja europejska. Studium wyobraz´ni poetyckiej [Polish avant-gardes and European poetry]. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu S´la˛skiego. Delaperrière, Maria. 2010. Literatura polska w interakcjach. Szkice porównawcze z literatury i kultury [Polish literature in interactions. Comparative essays on literature and culture]. Warszawa: Neriton. Derwig, Jan and Erik Mattie. 1995. Functionalism in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Architectura & Natura. De Smet, Johan (ed.). 2013. Modernisme. L’art abstrait belge et l’Europe/Belgische abstracte kunst en Europa. Gent: Fonds Mercator. D’Haeseleer, Felix A. 1984. “Pools Constructivisme in Belgische avant-garde tijdschriften tussen de twee wereldoorlogen” [Polish Constructivism in Belgian avant-garde periodicals between the two wars], ICSAC cahier 2/3. Brussels: International Centrum voor Structuuranalyse en Constructivisme, 109–117. Dickerman, Leah (ed.). 2012. Inventing abstraction, 1910–1925. New York: The Museum of Modern Art. Dijk, Hans van. 1999. Architectuur in Nederland in de twintigste eeuw [Architecture in the Netherlands in the twentieth century]. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010. Driekoningen, Ferd 1991. “Inleiding” [Introduction], in: Ferd Drijkoningen and Jan Fontijn. Historische avantgarde. Amsterdam: Huis aan de Drie Grachten, 11–51. Drijkoningen, Ferd and Jan Fontijn. 1991. Historische avantgarde. [Historical avant-garde]. Amsterdam: Huis aan de Drie Grachten. Dyroff, Stefan. 2015. “Transpolonität? Gesellschaftliche Eliten in den polnischen Gebieten um 1900 jenseits der Nationalgeschichte(n)”, Zeitschrift für Ostmitteleuropa-Forschung 64, 3: 319–329. Easley, David and Jon Kleinberg. 2010. Networks, crowds, and markets: reasoning about a highly connected world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Entrop, Marco and Maurits Verhoeff. 1997. “Een vechttijdschrift, of de absolute nul: over Het Woord (1925–1926) van Jan Demets” [A combat magazine or the absolute zero: on Het Woord (1925–1926) by Jan Demets], De Parelduiker 2, 5: 3–19. Esser, Hans. 1990. “J.J.P. Oud”, in Carel Blotkamp et al. De Stijl. The formative years 1917–1922. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 123–152. Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1990. Polysystem studies [= Poetics Today 11, 1]. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Ex, Sjarel. 1996. “De blik naar het oosten: De Stijl in Duitsland en Oost-Europa” [A glance eastwards: De Stijl in Germany and Eastern-Europe], in: Carel Blotkamp (ed.). De vervolgjaren van De Stijl 1922–1932. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij L.J.Veen, 67–112. Ex, Sjarel. 2000. Theo van Doesburg en het Bauhaus: de invloed van De Stijl in Duitsland en Midden-Europa [Theo van Doesburg and Bauhaus: the impact of De Stijl in Germany and Central Europe]. Utrecht: Centraal Museum.

132

References

Ex, Sjarel and Els Hoek. 1985. Vilmos Huszár: schilder en ontwerper 1884–1960. De grote onbekende van De Stijl [Vilmos Huszár: painter and designer 1884–1960. The great unknown of De Stijl]. Utrecht: Reflex. Eysteinsson, Astradur. 1990. The concept of modernism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Eysteinsson, Astradur. 2009. “ ‘What’s the difference?’ Revisiting the concepts of modernism and the avant-garde”, in: Sascha Bru et al. (eds). Europa! Europa? The avant-garde, modernism and the fate of a continent. Berlin: De Gruyter, 21–35. Fabre, Gladys. 1990. Arte abstracto, arte concreto: Cercle et Carré, Paris, 1930 [Abstract art, concrete art: Cercle et Carré, Paris, 1930]. Valencia: IVAM Centre Julio Gonzalez. Fabre, Gladys. 1992. “International relations of the Polish avant-garde between the two wars”, in: Jaromir Jelin´ski (ed.). Łódz´ – Lyon. Muzeum Sztuki w Łodzi 1931–1992: collection – documentation – actualité. La collection du Musée de Lodz. Lyon: Musée d’Art Contemporain de Lyon, 247–250. Fabre, Gladys. 2009. “Towards a spatio-temporality in painting”, in: Gladys Fabre and Doris Wintgens Ho¨tte (eds.). Van Doesburg & the international avant-garde: constructing a new world. London: Tate Publishing, 58–67. Fabre, Gladys (ed.). 2016. Theo van Doesburg. A new expression of life, art and technology. Brussels: BOZAR BOOKS and Mercatorfonds. Fabre, Gladys et al. 1978. Abstraction Creation 1931–1936. Paris: Musée d’Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris and Munster: Westfälisches Landesmuseum für Kunst und Kulturgeschichte. Fabre, Gladys and Doris Wintgens Ho¨tte (eds.). 2009. Van Doesburg & the international avantgarde: constructing a new world. London: Tate Publishing. Fanelli, Giovanni. 1978. Moderne architectuur in Nederland 1900–1940 [Mondern architecture in the Netherlands 1900–1940]. ’s-Gravenhage: Staatsuitgeverij. Faxedas, Lluïsa. 2015. “Women artists of Cercle et Carré. Abstraction, gender and modernity”, Woman’s Art Journal 36, 1: 37–46. Finkeldey, Bernd. 1992. K.I. Konstruktivistische internationale schöpferische Arbeitsgemeinschaft 1922–1927, Utopien für eine europäische Kultur. Stuttgard: Hatje Cantz Verlag. Foster, Hal et al. 2004. Art since 1900. Modernism, antimodernism, postmodernism. London: Thames & Hudson. Frankowska, Magdalena and Artur Frankowski. 2009. Henryk Berlewi. [Gdan´sk]: Czysty Warsztat. Friedel, Helmut et al. 2011. Mondrian, De Stijl. Ostfildern: Hatje Cantz. Friedman, Mildred (ed.). 1982. De Stijl: 1917–1931. Amsterdam: Stedelijk Museum and Otterlo: Rijksmuseum Kröller-Müller. Fuchs, Elz˙bieta et al. (eds.). 1998. Katarzyna Kobro 1898–1951: w setna˛ rocznice˛ urodzin/ On the 100th anniversary of her birth. Łódz´: Muzeum Sztuki. Gabara, Justyna. 2008. “ ‘Atramentowy bój o Pana Tadeusza’. Polemika wokół wysta˛pienia Jana Nepomucena Millera” [‘Ink battle for Pan Tadeusz’. Polemics around Jan Nepomucen Miller’s publications], Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Litteraria Polonica 11: 113–127. Gast, Nicolette. 1996. “De blik naar het zuiden: De Stijl in België en Frankrijk” [A glance southwards: De Stijl in Belgium and France], in: Carel Blotkamp (ed.). De vervolgjaren van De Stijl 1922–1932. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij L.J.Veen, 153–194. Gazda, Grzegorz. 1987. Awangarda: nowoczesnos´c´ i tradycja [Avant-garde: modernity and tradition]. Łódz´: Wydawnictwo Łódzkie. van de Geer, Ceri-Anne. 2012. Between the lines: Reception and influence of De Stijl in avantgarde periodicals in Antwerp 1917–1926. [Unpublished thesis, University of Utrecht.]. van de Geer, Ceri-Anne et al. 2013. “L’intertionalisme des revues modernistes”, in Johan De Smet (ed.), Modernisme. L’art abstrait belge et l’Europe. Gent: Fonds Mercator, 165–186. Głuchowska, Lidia. 2009. “Awangarda: Berlin-Poznan´/Avantgarde: Berlin-Poznan´”, in: Robert Traba (ed.). My, berlin´czycy! Wir Berliner! Historia polsko-niemieckiego sa˛siedztwa/

References

133

Geschichte einer deutsch-polnischen Nachbarschaft. Berlin: Centrum Badan´ Historycznych PAN and Lipsk: Koehler&Amelang, 160–196. Głuchowska, Lidia (ed.). 2015. Bunt – Ekspresjonizm – Transgraniczna awangarda. Prace z berlin´skiej kolekcji prof. St.Karola Kubickiego/Bunt – Expressionismus – Grenzübergreifende Avantgarde. Werke aus der Berliner Sammlung von Prof. St.Karol Kubicki. Poznan´: Muzeum Narodowe w Poznaniu. Gold, John R. 1997. The experience of modernism: modern architecture and the future: 1928–1953. London: E&FN Spon. Gossel, Peter et al. 1990. Functional architecture: The International Style/Funktionale Architektur/Le style international 1925–1940. Berlin: Taschen. Goyens de Heusch, Serge. 1976.’7 Arts’ Bruxelles 1922–1929. Un front de jeunesse pour la révolution artistique. Bruxelles: Le Ministère de la Culture Française de Belgique. Granovetter, Mark. 1973. “The strength of weak ties”, American Journal of Sociology 6, 78: 1360–1380. Granovetter, Mark. 1983. “The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited”, Sociological Theory 1: 201–233. Greenblatt, Stephen. 2010a. “Cultural mobility: An introduction”, in: Stephen Greenblatt (ed.). Cultural mobility: A manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–23. Greenblatt, Stephen. 2010b. “A mobility studies manifesto”, in: Stephen Greenblatt (ed.). Cultural mobility: A manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 250–253. Greenblatt, Stephen (ed.). 2010c. Cultural mobility: A manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gresty, Hilary and Jeremy Lewison (eds.). 1984. Constructivism in Poland 1923 to 1936. Cambridge: Kettle’s Yard Gallery. Grislain, Jean-Etienne (ed.). 2007. Georges Vantongerloo 1886–1965: un pionnier de la sculpture moderne. Paris: Gallimard. Grüttemeier, Ralf, Klaus Beekman and Ben Rebel (eds.). 2013. Neue Sachlichkeit and AvantGarde. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi. Guarda, Sandra. 2013. Cornelis van Eesteren: ontmoeting met de avant-garde 1914–1929 [Cornelis van Eesteren: encounters with the avant-garde 1914–1929]. Bussum: Thoth. Hagener, Malte. 2014. “Mushrooms, ant paths and tactics. The topography of the European film avant-garde”, in: Per Bäckström and Benedikt Hjartarson (eds.). Decentring the avant-garde. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi, 145–168. Hammacher, A.M. 1964. “Introduction”, in: Mondrian, De Stijl and their impact. New York: Marlborough-Gerson Gallery, 5–19. Heller, Steven. 2003. Merz to Emigre and beyond: Avant-garde magazine design of the twentieth century. London: Phaidon Press. van Helmond, Toke (ed.). 1994. i10: sporen van de avant-garde [i10: traces of the avant-garde]. Heerlen: ABP. Hoek, Els. 1990. “Piet Mondrian”, in: Carel Blotkamp et al. De Stijl. The formative years 1917–1922. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 39–76. Hoek, Els. 2000. Theo van Doesburg: oeuvrecatalogus [Theo van Doesburg: complete works]. Utrecht: Centraal Museum and Otterlo: Kröller-Müller Museum. Holm, Michael et al. (eds.). 2012. Women of the avant-garde 1920–1940. Humlebæk: Louisiana Museum of Modern Art. Holtzman, Harry and Martin S. James (eds.). 1986. The new art – The new life: the collected writings of Piet Mondrian. Boston: G. K. Hall. Hoozee, Robert. 1992. L’art moderne en Belgique, 1900–1945/Moderne kunst in België, 1900–1945. Anvers: Fonds Mercator. Hulten, Pontus et al. 1978. Paris–Berlin, 1900–1933: rapports et contrastes France–Allemagne. Paris: Centre National d’Art et de Culture Georges Pompidou.

134

References

Ibelings, Hans. 1995. Nederlandse architectuur van de 20ste eeuw [Dutch architecture of the 20th century]. Rotterdam: NAi Uitgevers. ICSAC cahier 2/3. 1984. Brussels: International Centrum voor Structuuranalyse en Constructivisme. Jaffé, Hans L.C. 1956. De Stijl. The Dutch contribution to modern art. Amsterdam: J.M. Meulenhoff. Janik, Jadwiga, Zenobia Karnicka and Janina Ładnowska (eds.). 1993. Władysław Strzemin´ski (1893–1952). W setna˛ rocznice˛ urodzin/On the 100th anniversary of his birth. Łódz´: Muzeum Sztuki. Janik, Jadwiga, Zenobia Karnicka and Janina Ładnowska (eds.). 1994. Henryk Staz˙ewski (1894–1988). W setna˛ rocznice˛ urodzin/On the 100th anniversary of his birth. Łódz´: Muzeum Sztuki. Janssen, Hans. 2009. “Periode 1929–1942: van de taal van het neoplasticisme naar de wereld van het onbegrensde” [The 1929–1942 period: from the idiom of Neo-plasticism to the world of the unknown], in: Christoph Brockhaus and Hans Janssen (eds.). Voor een nieuwe wereld. Georges Vantongerloo 1886–1965 en zijn omgeving van Piet Mondriaan tot Max Bill. Den Haag: Gemeentemuseum Den Haag, 107–115. Janssen, Hans and Michael White. 2011. Het verhaal van De Stijl. Van Mondriaan tot Van Doesburg/The story of De Stijl. From Mondrian to Van Doesburg. Antwerpen: Ludion and Den Haag: Gemeentemuseum Den Haag. Jedlin´ski, Jaromir (ed.). 1992. Łódz´ – Lyon. Muzeum Sztuki w Łodzi 1931–1992: collection – documentation – actualité. La collection du Musée de Lodz. Lyon: Musée d’Art Contemporain de Lyon. Jedlin´ski, Jaromir. 2002. “Łódz´”, in: Timothy O. Benson (ed.). Central European avant-gardes: exchange and transformation, 1910–1930. Los Angeles: County Museum of Art and Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 358–361. Jelen´ski, Konstanty A. (ed.). 1965. Anthologie de la poésie polonaise. Paris: Seuil. de Jong, Cees (ed.). 2015. Piet Mondrian: life and work. New York: Abrams. Jordens, Peter. 2017. Hendrik Werkman en De Ploeg. The Next Call en het constructivisme [Hendrik Werkman and De Ploeg. The Next Call and the Constructivism]. Zwolle: WBOOKS. Joyeux-Prunel, Béatrice. 2014. “The uses and abuses of peripheries in art history”, Artl@s Bulletin 3, 1: 4–7. Joyeux-Prunel, Béatrice. 2015a. “Provincializing Paris. The centre/periphery narrative of modern art in light of quantitative and transnational approaches”, Artl@s Bulletin 4, 1: 40–64. Joyeux-Prunel, Béatrice. 2015b. “Au-delà d’un Paris-New York. L’art moderne et ses discordances spatio-temporelles”, Atala – Cultures et sciences humaines 18: 119–137. Joyeux-Prunel, Béatrice. 2016. “Un centre, des périphéries? Les arts dans la géopolitique culturelle mondiale, XIXe–XXe siècles”, in: Philippe Poirrier and Bertrand Tillier (eds.). Aux confins des arts et de la culture – Approches thématiques et transversales XVIe–XXIe siècle. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 159–176. Juneja, Monica and Margrit Pernau. 2009. “Lost in translation? Transcending boundaries in comparative history”, in: Heinz-Gerhard Haupt and Jürgen Kocka (eds.). Comparative and transnational history. Central European approaches and new perspectives. New York: Berghahn Books, 105–129. Jurkiewicz-Eckert, Dorota. 2006. “ ‘Mie˛dzynarodowa Kolekcja Sztuki Nowoczesnej’ Muzeum Sztuki w Łodzi i jej znaczenie dla dziedzictwa kulturowego Europy” [‘The International Collection of Modern Art’ at the Museum of Art in Łódz´ and its significance for cultural heritage of Europe], Studia Europejskie 4: 121–143. Kaelble, Hartmut. 2009. “Between comparison and transfers – and what now? A French– German debate”, in: Heinz-Gerhard Haupt and Jürgen Kocka (eds.). Comparative and transnational history. Central European approaches and new perspectives. New York: Berghahn Books, 33–38.

References

135

Kemperink, Mary. 2002. “De wiskunde van Theo van Doesburg. Avantgarde en fin de siècle” [The mathematics of Theo van Doesburg. Avant-garde and the end of the century], in: Hubert van den Berg and Gillis Dorleijn (eds.). Avantgarde! Voorhoede? Vernieuwingsbewegingen in noord en zuid opnieuw beschouwd. Nijmegen: Vantilt, 113–122. Kłak, Tadeusz. 1975. Materiały do dziejów awangardy [Materials for the history of the avantgarde]. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich. Kłak, Tadeusz. 1978. Czasopisma awangardy. Cze˛s´c´ I: 1919–1931 [Avant-garde periodicals. Part I: 1919–1931]. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich. Kłak, Tadeusz. 1981. Z´ródła do historii awangardy [Sources for the history of the avant-garde]. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich. Kłak, Tadeusz. 1991. “Listy Tadeusza Peipera do Juliana Przybosia z lat 1927–1933” [Letters from Tadeusz Peiper to Julian Przybos´ from 1927–1933], Pamie˛tnik Literacki: czasopismo kwartalne pos´wie˛cone historii i krytyce literatury polskiej 82, 4: 142–171. Kłak, Tadeusz. 1993. Stolik Tadeusza Peipera: o strategiach awangardy [Tadeusz Peiper’s table: on avant-garde strategies]. Kraków: Oficyna Literacka. Kleiverda-Kajetanowicz, Joanna. 1985. Elementen van de Nieuwe Beelding in het werk en de theorie van Henryk Staz˙ewski 1923–1936 [Elements of neoplasticism in the work and theory of Henryk Staz˙ewski 1923–1936]. [Unpublished thesis, University of Utrecht.]. Kleiverda-Kajetanowicz, Joanna. 1989. “Henryk Staz˙ewski. De Nieuwe Beelding in zijn werk en theorie” [Henryk Staz˙ewski. Neoplasticism in his work and theory], Jong Holland 5, 2: 5–17. Kłosin´ski, Michał. 2015. “Ekonomia i polityka w polskiej poezji lat dwudziestych” [Economy and politics in Polish interwar poetry], in: Piotr Rypson (ed.). Papiez˙ awangardy. Tadeusz Peiper w Hiszpanii, Polsce, Europie. Warszawa: Muzeum Narodowe w Warszawie, 396–419. Kmiecik, Michalina and Małgorzata Szumna (eds.). 2014. Awangarda S´rodkowej i Wschodniej Europy – innowacja czy nas´ladownictwo? Interpretacje [Avant-garde of Central and Eastern Europe – innovation or imitation? Interpretations]. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellon´skiego. Kohlrausch, Martin. 2008. “The communication of architecture as transnational experience: Poland in the interwar period”, CCGES/CCEAE Working Paper Series 16: 1–19. Kohlrausch, Martin. 2014. “Warszawa Funkcjonalna: Radical urbanism and the international discourse on planning in the interwar period”, in: Jan C. Behrends and Martin Kohlrausch (eds.). Races to modernity. Metropolitan aspirations in Eastern Europe, 1890–1940. Budapest: Central European University Press, 205–231. Kott, Jan. 1935. Drogi awangardy poetyckiej w Polsce [Paths of the poetic avant-garde in Poland]. Warszawa: Drukarnia Polska. Kornhauser, Jakub and Kinga Siewior. (eds.). 2015. Głuchy brudnopis. Antologia manifestów awangard Europy s´rodkowej [Deaf sketchbook. An anthology of Central-European avantgarde manifestos]. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellon´skiego. Kornhauser, Jakub, Małgorzata Szumna and Michalina Kmiecik. (eds.). 2016. Awangarda i krytyka: kraje Europy S´rodkowej i Wschodniej [Avant-garde and critique: Central and EasternEuropean countries]. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellon´skiego. Kostelanetz, Richard. 1993. Dictionary of the Avant-gardes. Pennington, GA: A Cappella Books. Kowalczykowa, Alina. 1981. Programy i spory literackie w dwudziestoleciu 1918–1939 [Literary programs and polemics in the 1918–1939 period]. Warszawa: Ludowa Spółdzielnia Wydawnicza. Kowalska, Barbara. 1985. Henryk Staz˙ewski. Warszawa: Arkady. Kubiak, Szymon Piotr. 2014. Modernizm zapoznany. Architektura Poznania 1919–1939 [Acquainting modernism. The architecture of Poznan´ in 1919–1939]. Warszawa: Fundacja Centrum Architektury. Kubiak, Szymon Piotr. 2017. “ ‘. . . That black zigzag on the ceiling . . .’ Neo-plastic inspirations in design in the Second Polish Republic”, in: Paulina Kurc-Maj and Anna Saciuk-Ga˛sowska

136

References

(eds.). Organizers of life. De Stijl, the Polish avant-garde, and design. Łódz´: Muzeum Sztuki, 119–151. Küper, Marijke and Ida van Zijl. 1992. Gerrit Th. Rietveld 1888–1964. Het volledige werk [Gerrit Th. Rietveld 1888–1964. Complete works]. Utrecht: Centraal Museum. Kurc-Maj, Paulina. 2012. “Stworzyc´ dzieło sztuki jako organiczna˛ istote˛ plastyczna˛/To create a work of art as an organic plastic entity”, in: Jarosław Lubiak (ed.). Powidoki z˙ycia. Władysław Strzemin´ski i prawa dla sztuki/Afterimages of life. Władysław Strzemin´ski and rights for art. Łódz´: Muzeum Sztuki, 109–154. Kurc-Maj, Paulina (ed.). 2014. Zmiana pola widzenia. Druk nowoczesny i awangarda/Changing the Field of View. Modern Printing and the Avant-Garde. Łódz´: Muzeum Sztuki. Kurc-Maj, Paulina. 2015. “Jakie muzeum? – uwagi na temat historii Muzeum Sztuki w Łodzi do 1950 roku” [What kind of museum? – remarks on the history of Muzem Sztuki in Łódz´ until 1950], in: Aleksandra Jach et al. (eds.). Muzeum Sztuki w Łodzi. Monografia. Łódz´: Muzeum Sztuki, 125–175. Kurc-Maj, Paulina and Anna Saciuk-Ga˛sowska (eds.). 2017. Organizers of life. De Stijl, the Polish avant-garde, and design. Łódz´: Muzeum Sztuki. Ładnowska, Janina. 1991. “Sala neoplastyczna – z dziejów kolekcji sztuki nowoczesnej Muzeum Sztuki w Łodzi” [The Neoplastic room – from the history of modern art collection at Muzeum Sztuki in Łódz´], in: Miejsce Sztuki: Museum – Theatrum Sapientiae, Theatrum Animabile. Łódz´: Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Muzeum Sztuki w Łodzi, 71–80. Ładnowska, Janina. 1998. “Katarzyna Kobro – zarys twórczos´ci” [Katarzyna Kobro – an outline of artistic activities], in: Elz˙bieta Fuchs et al. (eds.). Katarzyna Kobro 1898–1951: w setna˛ rocznice˛ urodzin/On the 100th anniversary of her birth. Łódz´: Muzeum Sztuki, 59–70. Ładnowska, Janina. 2000. “Inny Henryk Staz˙ewski” [A different Henryk Staz˙ewski], Tygiel Kultury 10/12: 28–34. Ładnowska, Janina. 2001. “La Belgique en Pologne/La Pologne en Belgique. Quelques remarques sur les avant-gardes et le Muzeum Sztuki de Łódz´”, in: Mirosław Borusewicz et al. a.r. Artistes révolutionnaires de Łódz´. Ixelles: Tempora, 15–19. Lahoda, Vojteˇch (ed.). 2006. Local Strategies, international ambitions. Modern art and Central Europe 1918–1968. Prague: Artefactum. Lambrechts, Marc (ed.). 2002. Affinités et particularités. L’art en Belgique et Pays-Bas 1890–1945. Gent: Museum voor Schone Kunsten. Laoureux, Denis. 2010. L’art abstrait en Belgique (1910–2010). La Collection Dexia/ De abstracte kunst in België (1910–2010). De Dexia Collectie. Bruxelles: Fonds Mercator. Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the social. An introduction to actor-network-theory. New York: Oxford University Press. Leen, Frederik. 2009. “Michel Seuphor, Het Overzicht en de Brusselse avant-garde van de jaren twintig” [Michel Seuphor, Het Overzicht and the Brussels-based avant-garde of the 1920s], Zacht Lawijd 8, 3: 101–113. Leen, Frederik et al. (eds.). 1992. Avant-garde en Belgique, 1917–1929. Bruxelles: Musee d’art moderne and Antwerpen: Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten. Lemoine, Serge (ed.). 1990. Theo van Doesburg. Paris: Philippe Sers Editeur. Lemoine, Serge (ed.). 2000. Art concret. Paris: Réunion des Musées Nationaux. Les´niakowska, Marta. 2000. Architektura w Warszawie [Architecture in Warsaw]. MüllerWarszawa: Arkada, Pracownia Historii Sztuki. Les´nikowski, Wojciech. 1996. East European modernism. Architecture in Czechoslovakia, Hungary & Poland between the wars 1919–1939. New York: Rizzoli. Lionnet, Françoise and Shu-mei Shih. 2005. “Introduction. Thinking through the minor, transnationally”, in: Françoise Lionnet and Shu-mei Shih (eds.). Minor transnationalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1–23. Longmead, Donald. 2000. Artists of De Stijl: a guide to the literature. London: Greenwood Press.

References

137

Luba, Iwona. 2012. “Paradoks sztuki narodowej i modernizmu. Władysław Strzemin´ski laureatem nagrody artystycznej miasta Łodzi w roku 1932” [A paradox of national art and modernism. Władysław Strzemin´ski – winner of the city of Łódz´ art award in 1932], Biuletyn Historii Sztuki 3/4: 707–732. Luba, Iwona. 2015a. “Utworzenie Mie˛dzynarodowej Kolekcji Sztuki Nowoczesnej ‘a.r.’ – kontekst polski” [The formation of the ‘a.r.’ International Collection of Modern Art – the Polish context], in: Aleksandra Jach et al. (eds.). Muzeum Sztuki w Łodzi. Monografia. Łódz´: Muzeum Sztuki, 16–35. Luba, Iwona. 2015b. “Koncepcja muzeum sztuki nowoczesnej według Władysława Strzemin´skiego – próba rekonstrukcji” [The concept of modern art museum according to Władysław Strzemin´ski – a reconstruction attempt], in: Aleksandra Jach et al. (eds.). Muzeum Sztuki w Łodzi. Monografia. Łódz´: Muzeum Sztuki, 66–83. Lubiak, Jarosław (ed.). 2012. Powidoki z˙ycia. Władysław Strzemin´ski i prawa dla sztuki/ Afterimages of life. Władysław Strzemin´ski and rights for art. Łódz´: Muzeum Sztuki. Lupton, Ellen and Elaine Lustig Cohen. 1996. Letters from the avant-garde. Modern graphic design. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Maes, Herman et al. 2007. Karel Maes 1900–1974. Drogenbos: Museum Felix De Boeck. Mansbach, Stephen A. 1990. “From Leningrad to Ljubljana: The suppressed avant-gardes of East-Central and Eastern Europe during the early twentieth century”, Art Journal 45, 1: 7–8. Mansbach, Stephen A. 1999. Modern art in Eastern Europe: from the Baltic to the Balkans, ca. 1890–1939. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marie-Saint Germain, Elsa and Jeanette Zwingenberger (eds.). 2004. Scène polonaise. Paris: Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Beaux-Arts. de Marneffe, Daphné. 2013. “Antwerp circles. Languages, locality, and internationalism”, in: Peter Brooker et al. (eds.). The Oxford critical and cultural history of modernist magazines. Volume III, Europe 1880–1940. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 313–335. Martinet, Jan. 1977. Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman 1882–1945. ‘druksels’ en gebruiksdrukwerk/ ‘druksel’ prints and general printed matter. Amsterdam: Stedelijk Museum. Martinet, Jan. 1995. The Next Call. Utrecht: André Swertz. Meissner, Jill A. 2013. Stefi Kiesler (1897–1963): Kunstlerfrau – Vermittlerin – Literatin. [Unpublished thesis, University of Vienna.]. Mertens, Phil. 1988. “Constructivisme in Polen en België: contacten en parallellen” [Constructivism in Poland and Belgium: contacts and parallels], Bulletin des Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique/Bulletin van de Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van België 1/3: 371–380. Meyer-Kalkus, Reinhard. 2010. “World literature beyond Goethe”, in: Stephen Greenblatt (ed.). Cultural mobility: A manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 96–121. Mitter, Partha. 2008. “Decentring modernism. Art history and avant-garde art from the periphery”, The Art Bulletin 4: 531–548. Minorski, Jan. 1970. Polska nowatorska mys´l architektoniczna w latach 1918–1939 [Polish innovatory architectural thought in 1918–1939]. Warszawa: PWN. Morrisson, Mark. 2000. The public face of modernism: little magazines, audiences, and reception 1905–1920. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Müller, Alexandra (ed.). 2016. Entre deux horizons – Avant-gardes allemandes et françaises du Saarlandmuseum. Metz: Centre Pompidou. Müller-Lehning, Artur. 1979. Internationale Revue i10 1927–1929. Nendeln: Kraus Reprint. Mumford, Eric. 2000. The CIAM discourse on urbanism, 1928–1960. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Mumford, Eric. 2009. Defining urban design: CIAM architects and the formation of a discipline, 1937–69. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Mus, Francis and Hans Vandevoorde 2013. “ ‘Streetscape of new districts permeated by the fresh scent of cement’: Brussels, the avant-garde, and internationalism”, in: Peter Brooker et al.

138

References

(eds.). The Oxford critical and cultural history of modernist magazines. Volume III, Europe 1880–1940. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 336–360. Nakov, Andrei. 1981. Abstrait/Concret. Art non-objectif russe et polonais. Paris: Transédition. Olczyk, Jacek. 2015. “Peiper w oczach współczesnych (1921–1939)” [Peiper in the eyes of his contemporaries (1921–1939)], in: Piotr Rypson (ed.). Papiez˙ awangardy. Tadeusz Peiper w Hiszpanii, Polsce, Europie. Warszawa: Muzeum Narodowe w Warszawie, 292–323. Olszewski, Andrzej. 1959. “Neoplastycyzm: najwyz˙sze stadium abstrakcji geometrycznej” [Neoplasticism: the highest stadium of geometric abstraction], Struktury 2: 8. Olszewski, Andrzej. 1967. Nowa forma w architekturze polskiej 1900–1925. Teoria i praktyka [New form in Polish architecture 1900–1925. Theory and practice]. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich. Olszewski, Andrzej. 1986. “Les influences de Le Corbusier sur l’architecture polonaise”, Polish Art Studies 7: 83–97. Olszewski, Andrzej. 1989. An outline history of Polish 20th century art and architecture. Warsaw: Interpress. Olszewski, Andrzej. 2009. “American Streamline and European modernism”, in: Maria Sołtysik and Robert Hirsch (eds.). Modernism in Europe – Modernism in Gdynia. Architecture of 1920s and 1930s and its protection. Gdynia: Gdynia City Hall, 31–36. Orsini, François. 1992. “Expressionnisme allemand et Futurisme italien”, Germanica 10: 11–34. Orsini, François. 2005. Drammaturgia europea dell’avanguardia storica: Pirandello, Rosso di San Secondo, Strindberg, Wedekind [European historical avant-garde drama: Pirandello, Rosso di San Secondo, Strindberg, Wedekind]. Cosenza: Pellegrini Editore. Orska, Joanna. 2004. Przełom awangardowy w dwudziestowiecznym modernizmie [Avantgarde turn in the twentieth-century modernism]. Kraków: Universitas. Oud, Hans. 1984. J.J.P. Oud: architect 1890–1963: feiten en herinneringen gerangschikt [J.J.P. Oud: architect 1890–1963: facts and memories classified]. ’s-Gravenhage: Nijgh & Van Ditmar. Overy, Paul. 1969. De Stijl. London: Studio Vista. Overy, Paul. 1979. De Stijl. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Artystyczne i Filmowe. Paenhuysen, An. 2010. De nieuwe wereld. De wonderjaren van de Belgische avant-garde (1918–1939) [The new world. The wonder years of the Belgian avant-garde (1918–1939)]. Antwerp: Meulenhoff Manteau. Paenhuysen, An. 2011. “Berlin am Sonntag. Die belgische Avantgarde über des Chicago am der Spree”, in: Marnix Beyen et al. (eds.). Deutschlandbilder in Belgien 1830–1940. Munster: Waxmann, 311–331. Passuth, Krisztina. 1988. Les avant-gardes de l’Europe Centrale: 1907–1927. Paris: Flammarion. Passuth, Krisztina. 2009. “De Stijl and the east–west avant-garde: magazines & the formation of international networks”, in: Gladys Fabre and Doris Wintgens Hötte (eds.). Van Doesburg & the international avant-garde: constructing a new world. London: Tate Publishing, 20–27. Piłatowicz, Józef. 2009. “Pogla˛dy Heleny i Szymona Syrkusów na architekture˛ w latach 1925–1956” [Helena and Szymon Syrkus’s views on architecture in 1925–1956], Kwartalnik Historii Nauki i Techniki 54, 3/4: 123–164. Piotrowski, Piotr. 2003. Central Europe in the face of unification. (www.artmargins.com/index. php/featured-articles-sp-829273831/263-central-europe-in-the-face-of-unification) (date of access: 5 January 2018). Piotrowski, Piotr. 2005. Awangarda w cieniu Jałty. Sztuka Europy S´rodkowo-Wschodniej w latach 1945–1989 [Avant-garde in the shadow of Yalta. Art in Central-Eastern Europe in 1945–1989]. Poznan´: Rebis. Piotrowski, Piotr. 2008. Writing Central European art history. Patterns traveling lecture set. Vienna: Erste Stiftung.

References

139

Piotrowski, Piotr. 2009. “Towards a horizontal history of the European avant-garde”, in: Sasha Bru et al. (eds.). Europa! Europa? The avant-garde, modernism and the fate of a continent. Berlin: De Gruyter, 49–58. Platzer, Monika. 1999. “Die CIAM und ihre Verbindungen nach Zentraleuropa”, in: Eve Blau and Monkia Platzer (eds.). Mythos Großstadt: Architektur und Stadtbaukunst in Zentraleuropa, 1890–1937. München: Prestel, 227–231. Poggioli, Renato 1962. Teoria dell’arte d’avanguardia [The theory of avant-garde art]. Bologna: Il Mulino. Poot, Jurrie. 2002. “Hendrik N. Werkman en de internationale avantgarde” [Hendrik N. Werkman and the international avant-garde], in: Hubert van den Berg and Gillis Dorleijn (eds.). Avantgarde! Voorhoede? Vernieuwingsbewegingen in noord en zuid opnieuw beschouwd. Nijmegen: Vantilt, 37–66. Poprze˛cka, Maria and Lidia Jowlewa (eds.). 2004. Warszawa – Moskwa/Moskwa – Warszawa 1900–2000 [Warsaw – Moscow /Moscow – Warsaw 1900–2000]. Warszawa: Zache˛ta Narodowa Galeria Sztuki. Posthuma, Sjoukje and Han Steenbruggen (eds.). 1995. Hendrik N. Werkman 1882–1945. Groningen: Groninger Museum. Prat, Marie-Aline. 1984. Cercle et Carré: peinture et avant-garde au seuil ses années 30. Paris: L’Age d’Homme. Rickey, George. 1967. Constructivism: origins and evolution. New York: G. Brazillier. Rypson, Piotr. 1989. Obraz słowa: historia poezji wizualnej [Image of the word: the history of visual poetry]. Warszawa: Akademia Ruchu. Rypson, Piotr. 2000. Ksia˛z˙ki i strony. Polska ksia˛z˙ka awangardowa i artystyczna w XX wieku [Books and pages. Polish avant-garde and artistic books in the 20th century]. Warszawa: Centrum Sztuki Współczesnej – Zamek Ujazdowski. Rypson, Piotr. 2011. Against all odds. Polish graphic design 1919–1949. Kraków: Karakter. Rypson, Piotr (ed.). 2015. Papiez˙ awangardy. Tadeusz Peiper w Hiszpanii, Polsce, Europie [The pope of the avant-garde. Tadeusz Peiper in Spain, Poland, Europe]. Warszawa: Muzeum Narodowe w Warszawie. Seuphor, Michel. 1956. Piet Mondriaan. Life and work. New York: Harry Abrams. Schraenen, Guy (ed.). 1985. Poolse avant-garde [The Polish avant-garde]. Antwerp: Cultureel Centrum Berchen. ˙ arnowerówna 1897–1949. ArS´lizin´ska, Milada and Andrzej Turowski (eds.). 2014. Teresa Z ˙ tystka kon´ca utopii [Teresa Zarnowerówna 1897–1949. An artist of the end of utopia]. Łódz´: Muzeum Sztuki. Słodkowski, Piotr. 2009. “Centrum a peryferie, kanon a inna historia sztuki” [Centre and periphery, canon and another history of art], Miscellanea 5, 9: 61–78. S´niecikowska, Beata. 2005. Słowo – obraz – dz´wie˛k. Literatura i sztuki wizualne w koncepcjach polskiej awangardy 1918–1939 [Word – image – sound. Literature and visual arts in the Polish avant-garde 1918–1939]. Kraków: Universitas. Sołtysik, Maria J. 2009. “Modern movement in Gdynia and in Europe. Inspirations and analogies”, in: Maria Sołtysik and Robert Hirsch (eds.). Modernism in Europe – Modernism in Gdynia. Architecture of 1920s and 1930s and its protection. Gdynia: Gdynia City Hall, 69–79. Somer, Kees. 2007. Functional city: the CIAM and Cornelis van Eesteren, 1928–1960. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers. Spencer, Herbert. 1987. The liberated page. An anthology of major typographic experiments of this century as recorded in ‘Typographica’ magazine. San Francisco: Bedford Press. Spencer, Herbert. 2004. Pioneers of modern typography. Revised edition. Hampshire: Lund Humphries. Stanisławski, Ryszard. (ed.). 1979. L’Avanguardia polacca 1910–1978: S. I. Witkiewicz, Costruttivismo, atisti contemporanei [Polish avant-garde 1919–1978: S.I. Witkiewicz, Constructivism, contemporary artists]. Roma: Electa.

140

References

Stanisławski, Ryszard. (ed.). 1990. Henryk Stazewski: pionero polaco del arte concreto [Henryk Staz˙ewski: a Polish pioneer of concreto art]. Las Palmas de Gran Canaria: Centro Atlantico de Arte Moderna. Stanisławski, Ryszard et al. 1971. Grupa a.r. 40-lecie mie˛dzynarodowej kolekcji sztuki nowoczesnej w Łodzi [The a.r. group. The 40th anniversary of the international collection of modern art in Łódz´]. Łódz´: Muzeum Sztuki. Stanisławski, Ryszard et al. 1973. Constructivism in Poland 1923–1936. Blok, Praesens, a.r. Stuttgart: Dr. Cantz’sche Druckerei. Stanisławski, Ryszard et al. 1983. Presences Polonaises. L’art vivant autour du Musée de Łódz´. Paris: Centre Georges Pompidou. van Straaten, Evert. 1988. Theo van Doesburg: schilder en architect [Theo van Doesburg: painter and architect]. ’s-Gravenhage: SDU Uitgeverij. van Straaten, Evert. 1996. “Theo van Doesburg”, in: Carel Blotkamp (ed.). De vervolgjaren van De Stijl 1922–1932. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij L.J.Veen, 15–66. Strauven, Iwan and Paul Dujardin. 2016. “De Stijl and Belgium”, in: Gladys Fabre (ed.). Theo van Doesburg. A new expression of life, art and technology. Brussels: BOZAR BOOKS and Mercatorfonds, 159–165. Stronias, Izabela. 2012. “Matematyczny s´wiat rzez´b Katarzyny Kobro” [The mathematical world of Katarzyna Kobro’s sculptures], in: Teksty Konferencji MathPAD 2012, UMK Torun´, 22–25 Sierpnia 2012. Torun´. Stroz˙ek, Przemysław. 2012. Marinetti i futuryzm w Polsce 1909–1939. Obecnos´c´ – kontakty – wydarzenia [Marinetti and Futurism in Poland 1909–1939. Reception – contacts – events]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Sztuki PAN. Stroz˙ek, Przemysław. 2013a. “Cracow and Warsaw: Becoming the avant-garde”, in: Peter Brooker et al. (eds.). The Oxford critical and cultural history of modernist magazines. Volume III, Europe 1880–1940. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1184–1207. Stroz˙ek, Przemysław. 2013b. “Pismo ‘Formis´ci’ i pocza˛tki mie˛dzynarodowych kontaktów polskiej awangardy (1919–1921)” [The Periodical ‘Formis´ci’ and the beginnings of the Polish avant-garde’s international relations (1919–1921)], Rocznik Historii Sztuki 38: 71–86. ˙ yd, Artysta. Toz˙samos´c´ a awangarda [Pole, Jew, artist. Suchan, Jarosław (ed.) 2010. Polak, Z Identity and the avant-garde]. Łódz´: Muzeum Sztuki. Suchan, Jarosław. 2012. “Early abstraction in Poland”, Leah Dickerman (ed.). Inventing abstraction, 1910–1925. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 324–326. S´witek, Gabriela. 2013. Gry sztuki z architektura˛. Nowoczesne powinowactwa i współczesne integracje [Art playing with architecture. Modern affinities and contemporary integrations]. Torun´: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika. Szczerski, Andrzej. 2010. Modernizacje. Sztuka i architektura w nowych pan´stwach Europy S´rodkowo-Wschodniej 1918–1939 [Modernisations. Art and architecture in the new states of Central and Eastern Europe 1918–1939]. Łódz´: Muzeum Sztuki. Szczerski, Andrzej (ed.). 2011. Modernizm na peryferiach. Architektura Skoczowa, S´la˛ska i Pomorza 1918–1939 [Modernism in the peripheries. Architecture of Skoczów, Silesia and Pomerania 1918–1939]. Warszawa: Stowarzyszenie 40 000 Malarzy. Szymusiak, Dominique et al. 2006. Avant-gardes polonaises: dialogues historiques depuis Malevitch. Gent: Editions Snoeck. Taverne, Ed, Cor Wagenaar and Martien de Vletter. 2001. J.J.P. Oud. Poëtisch functionalist 1890–1963. Compleet werk [J.J.P. Oud. Poetic functionalist 1890–1963. Complete works]. Rotterdam: NAi Uitgevers. Ther, Philipp. 2009. “Comparisons, cultural transfers, and the study of networks. Toward a transnational history of Europe”, in: Heinz-Gerhard Haupt and Jürgen Kocka (eds.). Comparative and transnational history. Central European approaches and new perspectives. New York: Berghahn Books, 204–225. Thijssen, Lucia. 1992. 1000 jaar Polen en Nederland [1000 years Poland and the Netherlands]. Zutphen: Walburg Pers.

References

141

Thomas, Angela. 2009. “Uit de turbulente geschiedenis van de internationale kunstenaarsvereniging Abstraction-Création, Parijs 1931–1935” [From the turbulent history of the international artistic association Abstraction-Création, Paris 1931–1935], in: Christoph Brockhaus and Hans Janssen (eds.). Voor een nieuwe wereld. Georges Vantongerloo 1886–1965 en zijn omgeving van Piet Mondriaan tot Max Bill. Den Haag: Gemeentemuseum Den Haag, 227–242. Thomsen, Mads Rossendal. 2008. Mapping world literature: international canonization and transnational literatures. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Tołłoczko Zdzisława and Tomasz Tołłoczko. 1999. W kre˛gu architektury konstruktywistycznej, neokonstruktywistycznej i dekonstruktywistycznej [Between Constructivist, NeoConstructivist and Deconstructivist architecture]. Kraków: Polska Akademia Nauk. Troy, Nancy J. 2013. Afterlife of Piet Mondrian. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tschichold, Jan. 1995. The new typography. A handbook for modern designers (Translated by Ruari McLean. With an introduction by Robin Kinross). Berkeley: University of California Press. Tuijn, Marguerite I. 2003. Mon cher ami . . . Lieber Does . . .: Theo van Doesburg en de praktijk van de internationale avant-garde [Mon cher ami . . . Lieber Does . . .: Theo van Doesburg and the practices of the international avant-garde]. [Unpublished thesis, University of Amsterdam.]. Turowski, Andrzej. 1973a. “Listy Władysława Strzemin´skiego do Juliana Przybosia z lat 1929–1933” [Władysław Strzemin´ski’s letters to Julian Przybos´ from 1929–1933], Rocznik Historii Sztuki 9: 223–268. Turowski, Andrzej. 1973b. “Komentarz do korespondencji Władysława Strzemin´skiego” [Commentary to Władysław Strzemin´ski’s correspondence], Rocznik Historii Sztuki 9: 269–283. Turowski, Andrzej. 1979. “De Stijl i polska awangarda” [De Stijl and the Polish avant-garde], in: Paul Overy. De Stijl. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Artystyczne i Filmowe, 140–163. Turowski, Andrzej. 1981. Konstruktywizm polski: próba rekonstrukcji nurtu (1921–1934) [Polish Constructivism. An attempt to reconstruct the trend (1921–1934)]. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich. Turowski, Andrzej. 1986. Existe-t-il un art de l’Europe de l’Est?. Paris: Editions de la Villette. Turowski, Andrzej. 1990a. “L’avant-garde polonaise et Theo van Doesburg”, in: Serge Lemoine (ed.). Theo van Doesburg. Paris: Philippe Sers Editeur, 172–179. Turowski, Andrzej. 1990b. Wielka utopia awangardy [The great utopia of the avant-garde]. Warszawa: Pan´stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Turowski, Andrzej. 1998. Awangardowe marginesy [Margins of the avant-garde]. Warszawa: Instytut Kultury. Turowski, Andrzej. 1999. “Rytmologia teoretyczna czyli fantastyczny s´wiat rzez´b Katarzyny Kobro” [Theoretical rhythmology, or the fantastical world of sculptures of Katarzyna Kobro], in: Elz˙bieta Fuchs et al. (eds.). Katarzyna Kobro 1898–1951: w setna˛ rocznice˛ urodzin/ On the 100th anniversary of her birth. Łódz´: Muzeum Sztuki, 85–90. Turowski, Andrzej. 2000. Budowniczowie s´wiata: z dziejów radykalnego modernizmu w sztuce polskiej [Builders of the world. The history of radical modernism in Polish art]. Kraków: Universitas. Turowski, Andrzej. 2002a. Malewicz w Warszawie: rekonstrukcje i symulacje [Malevich in Warsaw: reconstructions and simulations]. Kraków: Universitas. Turowski, Andrzej. 2002b. “The phenomenon of blurring”, in: O. Benson (ed.). Central European avant-gardes: exchange and transformation, 1910–1930. Los Angeles: County Museum of Art and Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 362–373. Turowski, Andrzej. 2015. “O rozkwitaja˛cej formie Tadeusza Peipera” [On the flourishing form of Tadeusz Peiper], in: Piotr Rypson (ed.). Papiez˙ awangardy. Tadeusz Peiper w Hiszpanii, Polsce, Europie. Warszawa: Muzeum Narodowe w Warszawie, 354–395. Urbanowicz, Bohdan. 1959. Poolse schilderkunst van nu [Polish contemporary painting]. Amsterdam: Stedelijk Museum.

142

References

Vandevoorde, Hans. 2013. “L’art communautaire au début des années 1920: de l’expressionisme au consructivisme”, in: Johan De Smet (ed.), Modernisme. L’art abstrait belge et l’Europe. Gent: Fonds Mercator, 224–232. Veen, Lodewijk A. 2011. Het geschreven werk van Piet Mondriaan [The written works of Piet Mondrian]. [Unpublished thesis, University of Utrecht.]. Veivo, Harri (ed). 2012. Transferts, appropriations et fonctions de l’avant-garde dans l’Europe intermédiaire et du nord. Paris: L’Harmattan. Versari, Maria E. 2006. “International Futurism goes national: the ambivalent identity of a national/international avant-garde”, in: Jacek Purchla and Wolf Tegethoff (eds.), Nation style modernism. Kraków: Mie˛dzynarodowe Centrum Kultury and München: Zentralinstitut für Kunstgeschichte, 171–184. de Vries, Anneke et al. (eds.). 2015. H.N. Werkman 1882–1945. Leven & werk [H.N. Werkman 1882–1945. Life & work]. Zwolle: WBOOKS. Walczak-Delanois, Dorota. 2001. Inne oblicze awangardy: o mie˛dzywojennej poezji Jana Brze˛kowskiego, Jalu Kurka i Adama Waz˙yka [Another face of the avant-garde: on interwar poetry of Jan Brze˛kowski, Jalu Kurek and Adam Waz˙yk]. Poznan´: Poznan´skie Studia Polonistyczne. Seria Literacka. Warncke, Carsten-Peter. 1990. Het ideaal als kunst. De Stijl 1917–1931 [The ideal as art. De Stijl 1917–1931]. Hedel: Librero and Keulen: Taschen. Weisgerber, Jean (ed.). 1991. Les avant-gardes littéraires en Belgique. Brussels: Centre d’Etude des Avant-Gardes Littéraires de l’Université de Bruxelles. Welsh, Robert P. 1971. “Mondrian and Theosophy”, in: Piet Mondrian Centennial Exhibition. New York: S.R. Guggenheim Museum, 35–51. Welton, William A. 2014. Phaedrus. Commentary (http://kentzendo.org/welton/PhaedrusTP1. html) (date of access: 5 January 2018). Wenderski, Michał. 2015a. “The influence of interpersonal relationships on the functioning of the Constructivist network – a case study of Poland and the Low Countries”, Journal of Dutch Literature 6, 2: 1–20. Wenderski, Michał. 2015b. “Mutual exchange between Polish and Belgian modernist magazines as a case study in cultural mobility within the interwar network of the avant-garde”, Tijdschrift voor Tijdschriftstudies 37: 37–52. Wenderski, Michał. 2015c. “Polen, Vlaanderen en Nederland: tussen de oost–west en centrum– periferie scheidslijnen van de historische avant-garde” [Poland, Flanders and the Netherlands: between east–west and centre–periphery lines of division of the historical avant-garde], in: Jana Engelbrechtová (ed.). De Nederlandstalige literatuur internationaal. Centraal-Europese blikken op de Nederlandstalige literatuur. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci, 85–103. Wenderski, Michał. 2017a. “Literary, artistic and architectural exchange between Dutch and Polish avant-gardes: a case study in European cultural mobility in the 1920s and 30s”, Dutch Crossing: Journal of Low Countries Studies 41, 2: 143–159. Wenderski, Michał. 2017b. “Between Poland and the Netherlands: an attempt at a reconstruction of mutual contacts and cultural mobility between selected avant-garde groups”, in: Paulina Kurc-Maj and Anna Saciuk-Ga˛sowska (eds.), Organizers of life. De Stijl, the Polish avant-garde, and design. Łódz´: Muzeum Sztuki, 79–97. White, Michael. 2003. De Stijl and Dutch modernism. Manchester: Manchester University Press. White, Michael. 2009. “Theo van Doesburg: a counter-life”, in: Gladys Fabre and Doris Wintgens Ho¨tte (eds.). Van Doesburg & the international avant-garde: constructing a new world. London: Tate Publishing, 68–75. Wicha, Marcin. 2015. Jak przestałem kochac´ design [How I stopped loving design]. Kraków: Karakter.

References

143

Wieczorek, Marek. 2002. Georges Vantongerloo. Het heelal in de huiskamer en de Nieuwe Beelding van De Stijl/The universe in the living room in the space of De Stijl. Utrecht: Centraal Museum. Wieczorek, Marek. 2009. “Voor de nieuwe wereld: Georges Vantongerloo en de beloofde van de kunst” [For the new world. Georges Vantongerloo and the promise of art], in: Christoph Brockhaus and Hans Janssen (eds.). Voor een nieuwe wereld. Georges Vantongerloo 1886–1965 en zijn omgeving van Piet Mondriaan tot Max Bill. Den Haag: Gemeentemuseum Den Haag, 11–47. Wierzbicka, Anna. 2009. We Francji i w Polsce 1900–1939. Sztuka, jej historyczne uwarunkowania i odbiór w s´wietle krytyków polsko-francuskich [In France and in Poland 1900–1939. Art, its historical conditions and reception according to Polish–French critics]. Warszawa: Instytut Sztuki PAN. Wierzbicka, Anna. 2016. S´wiadectwa obecnos´ci. Polskie z˙ycie artystyczne we Francji w latach 1900–1939. Diariusz wydarzen´ z wyborem tekstów. Cze˛´sc´ II: lata 1922–1929 [Proofs of presence. Polish artistic life in France in 1900–1939. A diary of events with a selection of texts. Part II: 1922–1929]. Warszawa: Instytut Sztuki PAN and Fundacja Historia i Kultura. van Wijk, Kees. 2011. “Een Europees platform voor de avant-garde: de Internationale Revue i10 (1927–1929)” [A European platform for the avant-garde: de Internationale Revue i10 (1927–1929)], Tijdschrift voor Tijdschriftstudies 30: 107–123. Wintgens Hötte, Doris. 2009. “Van Doesburg tackles the continent: passion, drive & calculation”, in: Gladys Fabre and Doris Wintgens Ho¨tte (eds.). Van Doesburg & the international avant-garde: constructing a new world. London: Tate Publishing, 10–19. Wisłocka, Izabella. 1968. Awangardowa architektura polska 1918–1939 [Polish avant-garde architecture 1918–1939]. Warszawa: Arkady. Yanoshevsky, Galia. 2009a. “Three decades of writing on manifesto: the making of a genre”, Poetics Today 30, 2: 257–286. Yanoshevsky, Galia. 2009b. “The literary manifesto and related notions: a selected annotated bibliography”, Poetics Today 30, 2: 287–315. Yúdice, George. 1999. “Rethinking the theory of the avant-garde from the periphery”, in: Anthony L. Geist and José B. Monléon (eds.). Modernism and its margins. Reinscribing cultural modernism from Spain and Latin America. New York: Garland, 52–80. Zagrodzki, Janusz. 1984. Katarzyna Kobro i kompozycja przestrzeni [Katarzyna Kobro and the composition of space]. Warszawa: Pan´stwowe Wydawnicto Naukowe. Zagrodzki, Janusz. 2000. Henryk Staz˙ewski: w kre˛gu awangardy/within the circle of the avantgarde 1921–1933. Łódz´: Muzeum Sztuki. Zagrodzki, Janusz. 2014. Władysław Strzemin´ski. Obrazy słów [Władysław Strzemin´ski. The images of words]. Łódz´: Wydawnictwo Pan´stwowej Wyz˙szej Szkoły Filmowej, Telewizyjnej i Teatralnej. Zajas, Paweł. 2014. “Transfer w czasach konfliktu. Aktorzy propagandy kulturowej w czasie pierwszej wojny s´wiatowej” [Transfer in times of conflict. Actors of cultural propaganda during World War I], Przegla˛d Humanistyczny 4: 31–51. Zajas, Paweł. 2016. Niemilkna˛ce muzy. Wydawcy, pisarze, tłumacze i pos´rednicy kulturowi na frontach Wielkiej Wojny (1914–1918) [Unmuted muses. Editors, writers, translators and cultural intermediaries in the Great War (1914–1918)]. Poznan´: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.

Appendix

The following tables include an overview of traces of Polish–Dutch and Polish–Belgian mobility identified in the analysed periodicals and books. Tables 1, 2 and 3 include texts, reproductions and mentions of books: both Belgian and Dutch elements in Polish publications (including L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna), and Polish contributions to Dutch and Belgian periodicals, as well as to Cercle et Carré and Abstraction-Création. Table 4 presents traces of mutual references between the analysed periodicals from Poland and the Low Countries. Selected architectural periodicals are also included in the tables. For untitled texts published in the analysed periodicals, the names of their editor(s) are given in square brackets. If possible, titles of untitled works have been identified and are given in square brackets.

Table 1 Written contributions of Polish, Dutch and Belgian provenance in the analysed books and periodicals No. Author

Title

Source

1

Baugniet, Marcel-Louis

“Wieczysta wartos´c´ dzieła sztuki maleje jez˙eli . . .”

Blok

–

11

03.1926

2

Berlinerblau, Tadeusz

“Budowa domu biurowego towarzystwa asekuracyjnego O.L.V.E.H w Haadze” “Holenderskie mieszkania na jednej kondygnacji (Flatbouw)”

Dom Osiedle Mieszkanie

5

7/8

07/08.1933

12

1

01.1936

3

Architektura i Budownictwo`

Vol. Issue Date

4

Bourgeois, Victor

“Sztuka Grupowania” Blok

–

11

03.1926

5 6

[Bourgeois, Pierre et al.]

“Artysta a rewolucja” “Revue de la presse. Pologne littéraire – Złota 8 – Varsovie”

– 5

11 17

03.1927 03.1927

144

Zwrotnica 7 Arts

No. Author 7

Brze˛kowski, Jan

8 9

Title

Source

Vol. Issue Date

“De nieuwe kunst in Het Overzicht Polen” “Après une vingtaine Cercle et Carré d’années de recherche . . .” “Pour le film abstrait” Cercle et Carré

–

21

04.1924

–

1

03.1930

–

3

06.1930

10

Carlsund, Otto et al.

“Deklaracja sztuki konkretnej”

Europa

–

11

08.1930

11

Dermée, Paul

“O literaturze proletarjackiej” “Literatura proletarjacka”

Europa

–

1

05.1929

Europa

–

1’

09.1929

“Odnowienie architektury” “Ku sztuce elementów” “Klassiek–Barok– Moderne” [fragment] “Uwagi. Ankieta ‘Europy’” “Belangrijke nieuwe uitgaven over nieuwe architectuur” “Kunst- en architectuurvernieuwingen in Polen” “Ewolucja architektury nowoczesnej w Holandji”

Blok

–

5

07.1924

Praesens

–

1

06.1926

Almanach. Katalog. Salon modernistów Europa

–

–

1928

2

10/11.1929

Het Bouwbedrijf

7

20

09.1930

Het Bouwbedrijf

7 8

18 5

08.1930 02.1931

Architektura i Budownictwo

7

8/9

08/09.1931

12 13

van Doesburg, Theo

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21

[editos of] Blok

“7 Arts et le modernisme international. Pologne: ‘Blok’”

7 Arts

4

20

02.1926

22

van Eesteren, Cornelis

“Funkcja–przestrzen´– forma”

Praesens

–

2

05.1930

23

Eiger, Antoni

“Cement en beton in Polen”

Het Bouwbedrijf

8

26

08.1931

24

Flouquet, PierreLouis

“Panorama malarstwa Praesens nowoczesnego” “Un peintre Polonais Anthologie Leopold Survage” du Groupe Moderne d’Art

–

2

05.1930

9

5/6

4

6

25

26

Goriély, Benjamin “Lettres étrangères. Anatol Stern: le poète polonais”

7 Arts

05/06.1929

11.1925

(Continued)

145

Table 1 (Continued) No. Author

Title

Source

27

de Horion, Constant

“Wladyslas Reymont, Lauréat du Prix Nobel”

Anthologie du Groupe Moderne d’Art

28

[Jankowski, Józef et al.]

“Kronika”

29 30

Vol. Issue Date 5

3/4

03/04.1925

Dom Osiedle Mieszkanie “Dom z˙elbetowy arch. Dom Osiedle L. H. de Koninck” Mieszkanie “Kronika. Hendrik Dom Osiedle Petrus Berlage” Mieszkanie

2

7

07.1930

3

2

02.1931

4

5

05.1932

“O nowem trzytraktowem rozwia˛zaniu holenderskiem”

Dom Osiedle Mieszkanie

3

3

03.1931

31

Jasien´ski, Henryk

31

Kobro, Katarzyna “L’action de sculpteur . . .”

AbstractionCréation

–

2

1933

32

Korngold Syriusz

“Les éléments du dessin . . .”

Documents Internationaux de l’Esprit Nouveau

–

1

1927

33

Lauterbach, Alfred

“Tanie mieszkania w Holandji”

Architektura i Budownictwo

2

4

01–05.1926

34

Leppla, Heinrich

“Schiedam (Holandja)”

Dom Osiedle Mieszkanie

6

2

02.1934

35

Limperg, Koeb

“Organizacje architektoniczne w Holandji”

Architektura i Budownictwo

10

6

06.1933

36

Linze, Georges

“Słowo. O nowej sztuce”

Anthologie du Groupe Moderne d’Art

5

3/4

03/04.1925

37 38 39 40 41 42

Lubin´ski, Piotr

“Współczesna architektura holenderska”

Architektura i Budownictwo

“H.P. Berlage”

Architektura i Budownictwo

6 6 6 6 6 10

1/2 3 4/5 6 7 11

01/02.1930 03.1930 04/05.1930 06.1930 07.1930 11.1934

43 44

Mondrian, Piet

“Nowa plastyka” “Neo-plastycyzm”

Europa Praesens

–

3 2

11/12.1929 05.1930

45

Otlet, Paul

“Osiedle s´wiatowe”

Europa

2

10/11.1929

46

Oud, J.J.P.

“Wychowanie przez architekture˛” “Mys´li” “Wpływ Franka Wright’a na architekture˛ europejska˛”

Praesens

–

1

06.1926

Praesens Architektura i Budownictwo

– 9

2 6

05.1930 06.1933

47 48

146

No. Author

Title

Source

49

Peiper, Tadeusz

“7 Arts et la presse étrangère. Pologne”

7 Arts

4

24

04.1926

50

Servranckx, Victor

“Za najwaz˙niejsze zadania artysty . . .”

Blok

–

11

03.1926

51

Seuphor, Michel

“Filozofja aktualnos´ci”

L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna

–

1

04.1929

52

“Sardaigne/Sardynja”

L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna

–

1

04.1929

53

“Spokój wód”

L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna

–

2

05.1930

54

“Cœur tendre”

L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna

–

3

06.1930

“La revue ‘Europa’ de Varsovie”

Cercle et Carré

–

3

06.1930

Anthologie du Groupe Moderne d’Art

5

55

[Seuphor, Michel and Joaquín Torres-García]

56

Staz˙ewski, Henryk “L’Art abstrait”

Vol. Issue Date

3/4 03/04.1925

57

“L’homme nouveau sait voir le monde . . .”

Cercle et Carré

–

1

03.1930

58

“L’art plastique comme résumé de la vie culturelle”

AbstractionCréation

–

1

1932

59

“Ni le classicisme . . .” AbstractionCréation

–

2

1933

60

Stern, Anatol

“Europe”

7 Arts

4

6

11.1925

61

Strzemin´ski, Władysław

“Là, où il y a une division, le tableau est coupé en parties”

AbstractionCréation

–

1

1932

“En peignant le nu . . .”

AbstractionCréation

–

2

1933

“De l’architecture et de la production des habitations ouvrières”

L’Équerre

7

7

07.1935

7

8

08.1935

“Une colonie pour 3.000 familles . . .”

L’Équerre

8

3/4

62 63 64 65

Syrkus, Helena and Szymon Syrkus

03/04.1936 (Continued)

147

Table 1 (Continued) No. Author

Title

Source

66

“Quand on a compris que . . .”

L’Équerre

9

1

01.1937

“La généalogie de l’architecture fonctionnelle”

L’Équerre

10

5

05.1938

“L’Architecture ouvrant le volume” “Charakterystyczna˛ cecha˛ architektury współczesnej jest . . .” “Het nieuwe bouwen in Polen. De buitenmuur”

Internationale Revue i10 Dom Osiedle Mieszkanie

1

5

05.1927

3

6

06.1931

de 8 en Opbouw

5

13

06.1934

03/04.1925

Syrkus, Helena and Szymon Syrkus

67

68

Syrkus, Szymon

69

70

Vol. Issue Date

71

Szczuka, Mieczysław

“Le mouvement artistique en Pologne”

Anthologie du Groupe Moderne d’Art

5

3/4

72

[Szczuka, Mieczysław and Teresa Z˙arnower]

7 Arts “Notre enquête internationale sur le modernisme. Pologne. La revue Blok (Varsovie) nous répond. Quelques principes. Quelques exemples” “Qu’est-ce que le Anthologie ‘Constructivisme’” du Groupe Moderne d’Art

3

5

5

3/4

Dom Osiedle Mieszkanie

3

2

02.1931

Dom Osiedle Mieszkanie Dom Osiedle Mieszkanie

3

3

03.1931

5

1

01.1933

73

74

Toeplitz, Teodor

75 76

“Societé nationale d’habitation à bon marché” “Krajobrazy przyszłos´ci” “Belgijski domek robotniczy”

12.1924

03/04.1925

77

Tołwin´ski, Stanisław

L’Équerre “5me Congrès International d’Architecture Moderne ‘Logis et Loisirs’ (Juillet 1937)”

9

7

07.1937

78

Vantongerloo, Georges

“Ankieta Europy”

Europa

–

3

11/12.1929

79

van de Velde, Henry

“Le style moderne”

Blok

–

11

148

03.1926

Table 2 Reproductions of artworks of Polish, Dutch and Belgian provenance in the analysed books and periodicals No. Author

Title

Source

Vol.

Issue Date

1

Baugniet, Marcel-Louis

[furniture design]

Blok

–

11

03.1926

2 4 8

Berlage, H.P.

[various architectural projects] – 7 figures

Architektura i Budownictwo Dom Osiedle Mieszkanie

6 6 4

1/2 3 5

01/02.1930 03.1930 05.1932

9

Bourgeois, Victor

La Cité Moderne in Brussels Houses in Brussels

Blok

–

11

03.1926

Praesens

–

2

05.1930

6

6

06.1930

7 6

2 6

02.1931 06.1930

10 27

Brinkman Johannes and Leendert van der Vlugt

Van Nelle factory in Rotterdam – 19 figures Van Nelle offices in Leiden – 2 figures

Architektura i Budownictwo

33

Brukalska, Barbara

Polish pavilion at the Parisian exhibition in 1937–2 figures

de 8 en Opbouw

8

35

Brukalska, Barbara and Stanisław Brukalski

House in Warsaw – 2 figures

Het Bouwbedrijf

7

18

08.1930

37

Brukalski, Stanisław and Józef Szanajca

House in Warsaw – 2 figures

de 8 en Opbouw

7

19

09.1936

40

[Warszawa Chmielewski, funkcjonalna] – 3 Jan and figures Szymon Syrkus

L’Équerre

7

8

08.1935

41

van Doesburg, Theo

29 31

42

43

Architektura i Budownictwo

18/19 09.1937

[Compositie XIII]

Blok

–

2

04.1924

[Compositie XX]

L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna Architektura i Budownictwo Architektura i Budownictwo Praesens Architektura i Budownictwo Praesens Kompozycja przestrzeni

–

3

06.1930

7

8/9

08/09.1931

7

8/9

08/09.1931

– 7

1 8/9

06.1926 08/09.1931

– –

1 –

44

Compositie VI op zwart grond Contra-compositie VI

45 46

Contra-compositie VIII Contra-compositie XIII

47 48

Contra-compositie XIV

06.1926 1931 (Continued)

149

Table 2 (Continued) No. Author

Title

Source

49

Contra-compositie XIV – sketch

Praesens

–

1

06.1926

Kompozycja przestrzeni Architektura i Budownictwo

–

–

1931

7

8/9

Blok Kompozycja przestrzeni Dom Osiedle Mieszkanie Praesens Kompozycja przestrzeni

– –

5 –

5

3/4

– –

1 –

– 21 7

8 1 8/9

Dom Osiedle Mieszkanie

1

4

van Doesburg, Theo

50 51 53 55 56

Simultane compositie XXIV van Doesburg, Theo and Cornelis van Eesteren

57 59

Maison Particulière – 5 figures

Maison d’Artiste – 3 figures

08/09.1931 07.1924 1931 03/04.1933 06.1926 1931

van Doesburg, Theo, Cornelis van Eesteren and Gerrit Rietveld

65

van Doesburg, Hall in Theo and J.J.P. Noordwijkerhout Oud

66

Domela Nieuwenhuis, César

[linocut]

Blok

–

8/9

68

Dudok, W.M.

De Bijenkorf in Rotterdam – 2 figures Collège néerlandais in Paris Columbarium in Westerveld House in Hengelo – 2 figures Various school buildings in Hilversum – 10 figures

Architektura i Budownictwo Architektura i Budownictwo Architektura i Budownictwo Architektura i Budownictwo Architektura i Budownictwo

6

3

03.1930

6

3

03.1930

6

3

03.1930

6

1/2

01/02.1930

6 6 6

3 5/6 7

03.1930 05/06.1934 07.1930

[Openluchtschool voor Dom Osiedle het gezonde kind in Mieszkanie Amsterdam]

6

5/6

05/06.1934

84

[interior design]

6

7

07.1930

85

Cinema in Amsterdam

10

11

11.1934

70 72 82

83

Duiker, Jan

Zwrotnica Architekt Architektura i Budownictwo

Issue Date

60 63 64

69

Hôtel Particulier – 5 figures

Vol.

150

Architektura i Budownictwo Architektura i Budownictwo

06.1926 1926 08/09.1931

06.1929

11/12.1924

No. Author

Title

Source

Vol.

Issue Date

87 Duiker, Jan and Sonnenstraal Bernard Byvoet sanatorium, 89 Hilversum – 4 figures

Praesens Architektura i Budownictwo

– 6

2 3

05.1930 03.1930

91 van Eesteren, Cornelis

Praesens

–

2

05.1930

Architektura i Budownictwo

3

1

01.1927

94 Flouquet, Pierre- [painting] – 2 figures Louis

Praesens

–

2

05.1930

95 Golus, Jan

[painting]

Anthologie du Groupe Moderne d’Art

5

3/4

96 van ’t Hoff, Robert

Huis-ter-Heide

Architekt

21

1

Praesens Architektura i Budownictwo Architektura i Budownictwo

– 6

2 1/2

05.1930 01/02.1930

6

1/2

01/02.1930 07/08.1933

92

Commercial centre by Laan van Meerdervoort in The Hague – 2 figures Unter den Linden in Berlin [competition entry]

97 de Klerk, Michel Eigen Haard, Amsterdam 98 99

[painting]

03/04.1925

1926

101 de Koninck, L.H. 104

[Lenglet] House in Brussels – 2 figures [residential building] – 3 figures

Dom Osiedle Mieszkanie Dom Osiedle Mieszkanie

5

7/8

3

2

02.1931

105 Kobro, Katarzyna 106

[Kompozycja przestrzenna 5] [Kompozycja przestrzenna 7] [Kompozycja przestrzenna 8] [Kompozycja przestrzenna 9] [Akt 5]

AbstractionCréation AbstractionCréation AbstractionCréation AbstractionCréation AbstractionCréation

–

2

1933

–

2

1933

–

4

1935

–

4

1935

–

5

1936

111 Korngold, Syriusz

[drawing] – 2 figures

Documents Internationaux de l’Esprit Nouveau

–

1

1927

112 Lachert, Bohdan and Józef 113 Szanajca 114 115

PWK pavilion Szyller’s Villa in Warsaw Row house in Warsaw [residential building]

Het Bouwbedrijf Het Bouwbedrijf

7 8

18 5

08.1930 02.1931

Het Bouwbedrijf L’Équerre

8 7

5 8

02.1931 08.1935

107 108 109

(Continued)

151

Table 2 (Continued) No. Author

Title

Source

116 Mondrian, Piet

[Tableau No. IV. Ruitvormige Compositie met Rood, Grijs, Blauw, Geel en Zwart] [Tableau I: Ruit met vier lijnen en grijs] [Compositie met rood, zwart, blauw en geel]

L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna

–

3

06.1930

Praesens

–

2

05.1930

Praesens Dom Osiedle Mieszkanie Dom Osiedle Mieszkanie

– 3

2 6

05.1930 06.1931

3

6

06.1931

Dom Osiedle Mieszkanie Praesens

3

6

06.1931

–

2

05.1930

L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna Praesens Dom Osiedle Mieszkanie

–

1

04.1929

– 3

2 6

05.1930 06.1931

L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna Praesens

–

1

04.1929

–

2

05.1930

117 118 119 120

123

[Compositie II met rood, blauw, zwart en geel] [Tableau Losangique II] [library for Ida Bienert – interior design] [painting 1]

124 125

[painting 2]

121 122

Vol.

Issue Date

126 Mondrian, Piet and Michel Seuphor 127

Tableau-poème (Textuel)

128 Nicz-Borowiak, Maria

[painting]

Anthologie du Groupe Moderne d’Art

5

3/4

130 Norwerth, Edgar

Architectural project – 2 figures

Het Bouwbedrijf

8

5

131 Oud, J.J.P. 133 136 138

Row houses in Hoek van Holland – 8 figures

– 21 – 6

11 5 2 1/2

143

Blok Architekt Praesens Architektura i Budownictwo Praesens

Kiefhoek estate, Rotterdam – 5 figures Weissenhof estate, Architektura i Stuttgart – figures Budownictwo

–

2

144 145 146 147 152

Oud-Mathenesse estate Blok – 10 figures Blok Praesens

152

3 6

03/04.1925

02.1931 03.1926 1926 05.1930 01/02.1930 05.1930

11/12 11/12.1927 1/2 01/02.1930

–

8/9

11/12.1924

– –

11 1

03.1926 06.1926

No. Author

Title

153 Oud, J.J.P.

Oud-Mathenesse estate– Dom Osiedle 10 figures Mieszkanie Architektura i Budownictwo Dom Osiedle Mieszkanie Café de Unie in Architekt Rotterdam Architektura i Budownictwo [other architectural Blok projects] Architektura i Budownictwo

154 155 156 157 158 166

Source

168 170 172

Vol.

Issue Date

1

4

06.1929

6

1/2

01/02.1930

5

3/4

03/04.1933

21 6

1 3

– 2

11 4

6 6 6

3 6 7

03.1930 06.1930 07.1930

1926 03.1930 03.1926 01/05.1926

174 Peeters, Jozef

[linocuts] – 2 figures

Blok

–

11

03.1926

175 Rafałowski, Aleksander

[painting 1]

5

1/2

12.1924/ 01.1925

176

[painting 2]

Anthologie du Groupe Moderne d’Art 7 Arts

3

5

12.1924

178 van Ravesteyn, Sybold 181 182

[interior design] – 5 figures

6

7

07.1930

– –

11 11

03.1926 03.1926

183 Rietveld, Gerrit 184 185 186 187

[Berlijnse stoel]

– 21 – – 6

11 5 11 11 7

03.1926 1926 03.1926 03.1926 07.1930

6

7

07.1930

– 21 21 – – 6

1 1 5 11 11 7

06.1926 1926 1926 03.1926 03.1926 07.1930

– – – – – –

11 10 10 10 2 11

03.1926 04.1925 04.1925 04.1925 05.1930 03.1926

190 191 192 194 196 197 199 200 Servranckx, Victor 201 202 203 204 205

Architektura i Budownictwo Blok Blok

[railway building]

Blok Architekt [Rood-blauwe stoel] Blok Blok [N.V. Goud- en Zilversmidcompagnie Architektura i shop] Budownictwo Schröder House, Architektura i Utrecht – 9 figures Budownictwo Praesens Architekt Architekt Blok [other projects] – 3 Blok figures Architektura i Budownictwo [interior design] [painting 1] [painting 2] [painting 3] [painting 4] [sculpture]

Blok Blok Blok Blok Praesens Blok

(Continued)

153

Table 2 (Continued) No. Author

Title

Source

206 Stam, Mart

Weissenhof estate, Stuttgart

Praesens

–

2

207 Staz˙ewski, Henryk 208

[painting 1] [painting 2]

3 5

5 3/4

209

[painting 3]

1

5

05.1927

210 211

[painting 4] [painting 5]

– –

2 1

04.1930 1932

212

[painting 6]

–

1

1932

213

[painting 7]

–

2

1933

214

[painting 8]

7 Arts Anthologie du Groupe Moderne d’Art Internationale Revue i10 Cercle et Carré AbstractionCréation AbstractionCréation AbstractionCréation AbstractionCréation

–

2

1933

8

5

02.1931

216 Stefanowicz, Jan Market hall in Kon´skie Het Bouwbedrijf – 2 figures 217 House in Warsaw Het Bouwbedrijf

Vol.

Issue Date 05.1930 12.1924 03/04.1925

8

5

02.1931

7 Arts

3

5

12.1924

AbstractionCréation AbstractionCréation AbstractionCréation AbstractionCréation AbstractionCréation AbstractionCréation AbstractionCréation

–

1

1932

–

1

1932

–

2

1933

–

2

1933

–

4

1935

–

4

1935

–

5

1936

PWK pavilion – 2 figures PWK pavilion – 2 figures

Het Bouwbedrijf

7

20

09.1930

Het Bouwbedrijf

7

18

08.1930

230 Syrkus, Szymon and Stanisław Hempel

House in Katowice

de 8 en Opbouw

3

18

09.1932

238 Syrkus, Helena and Szymon 243 Syrkus 249 259 261

[various architectural projects] – 31 figures

de 8 en Opbouw

5 10 7 7 10

13 17/18 7 8 5

06.1934 09.1939 07.1935 08.1935 05.1938

218 Strzemin´ski, Władysław 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 227 Syrkus, Szymon 229

[Kompozycja syntetyczna] [Kompozycja architektoniczna 6] [Kompozycja architektoniczna 7] [Kompozycja unistyczna] [Kompozycja unistyczna] [Kompozycja unistyczna 12] [Kompozycja unistyczna 13] [Kompozycja unistyczna]

L’Équerre

154

No. Author

Title

Source

Vol.

Issue Date

262 Szanajca, Józef

Crematorium project

Het Bouwbedrijf

7

18

08.1930

263 Szczuka, Mieczysław 264

[Montaz˙ fotograficzny] [collage]

3 5

5 3/4

12.1924 03/04.1925

265

[painting]

7 Arts Anthologie du Groupe Moderne d’Art 7 Arts

3

10

01.1925

266 Szczuka, Mieczysław, Piotr Kozin´ski and Antoni Karczewski

[Zabudowania blokowe]

7 Arts

4

20

02.1926

267 Vantongerloo, Georges 268

Construction des Praesens rapports des volumes L’Art Contemémanant du carré porain – Sztuka inscrit et le carré Współczesna circonscrit d’un cercle Kompozycja przestrzeni [Construction dans la L’Art Contemsphère] porain – Sztuka Współczesna Construction xy = k Kompozycja przestrzeni Construction des Kompozycja rapports des przestrzeni volumes émanent de l’ellipsoïde Construction des Kompozycja rapports des volumes przestrzeni

– –

2 3

05.1930 06.1930

–

–

1931

–

2

05.1930

–

–

1931

–

–

1931

–

–

1931

269 270 271 272

273 275 van de Velde, Henry 277 278 van der Vlugt, Leendert

La Nouvelle Maison in Brussels – 2 figures Theatre in Koln – 2 figures

Dom Osiedle Mieszkanie

5

9

09.1933

Blok

–

11

03.1926

Houses in Ommen and Rotterdam – 5 figures

Blok

–

11

03.1926

Architektura i Budownictwo Blok Architekt

6

1/2

01/02.1930

– 21

11 5

03.1926 1926

6

3

03.1930

3

12

12.1931

–

8/9

11/12.1924

282 284 285 286

Nijverheidsschool in Groningen – 3 figures [other projects] – 2 figures

Architektura i Budownictwo Dom Osiedle Mieszkanie

287 288 Werkman, Hendrik Nicolaas

[druksel]

Blok

(Continued)

155

Table 2 (Continued) No. Author

Title

Source

289 Wils, Jan

[interior design]

6

7

07.1930

292

Olympic Stadium in Amsterdam – 3 figures OLVEH offices in The Hague – 16 figures House in The Hague

Architektura i Budownictwo Architektura i Budownictwo

6

3

03.1930

Dom Osiedle Mieszkanie Architektura i Budownictwo

5

7/8

07/08.1933

6

4/5

04/05.1930

318 319 320 Z˙arnower, Teresa

[Konstrukcja filmowa]

321 322 323

[painting 1] [painting 2] Construction théâtrale

325 Z˙arnower, Teresa, Piotr Kozin´ski and Antoni Karczewski

Vol.

Issue Date

Anthologie du Groupe Moderne d’Art 7 Arts 7 Arts 7 Arts

5

3/4

03/04.1925

3 3 5

5 10 3

12.1924 01.1925 11.1926

[Projekt kina] – 2 figures

7 Arts

4

20

02.1926

326 [various authors] 327 332 342 364 369 378 384 385

[various projects and photos] – 125 figures

7 Arts Praesens Architektura i Budownictwo

4 – 6 6 6 6 6 7 10

23 2 1/2 3 4/5 6 7 2 12

03.1926 05.1930 01/02.1930 03.1930 04/05.1930 06.1930 07.1930 02.1931 12.1934

386 [various authors] 387 399 402 403 404 416 432 434 435 442 450

[various projects and photos] – 125 figures

Architektura i Budownictwo Het Bouwbedrijf Dom Osiedle Mieszkanie

11 11 8 1 1 2 3 3 5 6 6 5

2 3/4 26 2 3 7 2 3 1 2 5/6 13

02.1935 03/04.1935 08.1931 04.1929 05.1929 07.1930 02.1931 03.1931 01.1933 02.1934 05/06.1934 06.1934

de 8 en Opbouw

156

Table 3 Mentions of books of Polish, Dutch and Belgian provenance in the analysed periodicals No.

Book Author

Book Title

Source

Vol.

Issue

1

Aronson, Chil

L’Art polonais moderne [exhibition catalogue]

2

van Doesburg, Theo

3

Praesens

–

2

05.1930

Grundbegriffe der Neuen Kunst

Praesens

–

2

05.1930

Kurek, Jalu

Upały

De Stijl

7

75/76

4

van Loghem, J.B.

Bouwen

Dom Osiedle Mieszkanie

5

2

02.1933

5 6

Mondrian, Piet

Le Néo-plasticisme Neue Gestaltung (Le Néoplasticisme)

Praesens Praesens

– –

2 2

05.1930 05.1930

7

Oud, J.J.P.

Architektura holenderska [unpublished] Holländische Architektur

Praesens

–

1

06.1926

Praesens

–

2

05.1930

A

Het Overzicht Het Overzicht De Stijl

–

21

04.1924

–

22/23/24

02.1925

7

75/76

8 9

Peiper, Tadeusz

10

Z˙ywe linje

11

Szósta! Szósta!

Date

1926

1926

12

Poupeye, Camille

La mise en scène théâtrale d’aujourd’hui

Praesens

–

2

13 14

Przybos´, Julian

Z ponad S´ruby

De Stijl De Stijl

7 7

75/76 75/76

15

Seuphor, Michel

Diaphragme intérieur et un drapeau

Praesens

–

2

05.1930

16

Strzemin´ski, Władysław and Witold Kajruksztis

catalogue of Exhibition of New Art in Vilnius

Het Overzicht

–

18/19

10.1923

17

Vantongerloo, Georges

L’Art et son avenir

Praesens

–

2

05.1930

18

Werrie, Paul

L’Œuvre créatrice et critique du peindre Flouquet

Praesens

–

2

05.1930

19

Wattjes, J.G.

Moderne villa’s en landhuizen in Europa en Amerika

Dom Osiedle Mieszkanie

3

11

11.1931

20

[unknown author]

L’Art Polonais [exhibition catalogue]

Praesens

–

2

05.1930

157

05.1930

1926 1926

Table 4 Mutual references between the analysed periodicals No.

Title Mentioned

Source

Vol.

Issue

1

Almanach Nowej Sztuki

7 Arts

3

2

Architektura i Budownictwo

3

de 8 en Opbouw L’Équerre

4

5 6 7 8

Blok

9 10 11 12

Date

Form

25

04.1925

list “Remerciments”

6

20

09.1935

short note

9

7

1937

Praesens

–

2

05.1930

list “Echange de revues” short note “Czasopisma nadesłane”

7 Arts

2 3 3 5

30 18 25 10

07.1924 03.1925 04.1925 01.1926

Anthologie du Groupe Moderne d’Art De Stijl

5

1/2

13

5 5 6 6

14

Het Overzicht

15

– –

16

The Next Call

–

list “Remerciments” table list “Remerciments” reproduction of Hannes Meyer’s “Die Neue Welt” from Das Werk table

12.1924/ 01.1925 3/4 03/04.1925 table 1 11.1925 table 8 1924/1925 short note (rather enthusiastic) 8 1924/1925 list “Tijdschriften en boeken” (enthusiastic) 21 04.1924 list “Tijdschriften (5e aanvullingslijst)” 22/23/24 02.1925 cover table “Tijdschriften – Revues modernes” 6 10.1924 list “The Next Call onderhoudt . . .”

17

Europa

Cercle et Carré

–

3

06.1930

18

Pologne littéraire

7 Arts

5

17

Praesens

–

2

13.03.1927 article “Revue de la presse. Pologne littéraire” 05.1930 short note “Czasopisma nadesłane”

Cercle et Carré

–

3

21

De Stijl

7

75/76

22

L’Art Contemporain L’Équerre

–

1

04.1929

7

12

12.1935

7

20

09.1930

19

20

23 24

Praesens

Het Bouwbedrijf

158

06.1930 1926

short article

short note (very enthusiastic) list “Toegezonden tijdschriften en boeken” reference (big) article by Victor Bourgeois article by Theo van Doesburg

No.

Title Mentioned

Source

Vol.

Issue

Date

Form

25 26 27 28 29 30

Warsaw

De Stijl

6 6 6 7 7 8

9 10/11 12 73/74 75/76 85/86

1925 1925 1926 1926 1926 1928

listed on the cover as one of De Stijlcities

31 31 32

Zwrotnica

7 Arts

2 3 3

30 25 11

07.1924 04.1925 10.1923

list “Remerciments” list “Remerciments” note in “Mouvement d’art en Europe”

–

1

03.1924

list “Przegla˛d czasopism zagranicznych”

Blok

–

3/ 4

06.1924

35

De Stijl

7

75/76

36

Het Overzicht

–

16

–

20

L’Art Contemporain

–

1

table “Przegla˛d pism modernistycznych polskich i zagranicznych” 1926 list “Toegezonden tijdschriften en boeken” 05/06.1923 list “Wij ontvingen als periodieken O.M.” 01.1924 table “Het netwerk” 04.1929 reference (big)

Blok

–

1

03.1924

40

–

3/4

41 42

– –

8/9 11

5

9

44

6

2

45

6

5

Anthologie du Groupe Moderne d’Art Blok

33

34

Zwrotnica

37 38 39

43

7 Arts

De Stijl

list “Przegla˛d czasopism zagranicznych” 06.1924 table “Przegla˛d pism modernistycznych polskich i zagranicznych” 11/12.1924 table 03.1926 note on the 100th issue of 7 Arts 9.1922 list “Ontvangen boeken en tijdschriften” 4.1923 list “Ontvangen boeken en tijdschriften” 1923 list “Ingekomen tijdschriften en boeken” (Continued)

159

Table 4 (Continued) No.

Title Mentioned

Source

Vol.

Issue

46

7 Arts

De Stijl

6

8

47

48

7

Het Overzicht

–

49

–

50

–

51

–

52

–

53

Praesens

54

55

– –

Zwrotnica

list “Tijdschriften en boeken” 75/76 1926 list “Toegezonden tijdschriften en boeken” 16 05/06.1923 list “Wij ontvingen als periodieken O.M.” 18/19 10.1923 short note in “Tijdschriften” 20 01.1924 table “Het netwerk” 21 04.1924 short note in “Tijdschriften” 22/23/24 02.1925 cover table “Tijdschriften – Revues modernes” 1 06.1926 list “Czasopisma modernistyczne” 2 05.1930 short note “Czasopisma zagraniczne” 11 03.1927 article quotation from 7 Arts 5, 1 25

04.1923

57 58 59

2 3 4

30 25 1

07.1924 04.1925 10.1925

60

5

22

61

5

25

Blok

–

3/ 4

De Stijl

– – 6

6/7 8/9 8

7

75/76

62

63 64 65 66

Form

1924/1925

1

56

7 Arts Anthologie du Groupe Moderne d’Art

–

Date

160

list “Remerciments”

list “Remerciments” list “Remerciments” list “La cité moderne et la presse” 04.1927 list “Revue des revues belges” 06.1927 list “Revue de la presse et revue des revues” 06.1924 table “Przegla˛d pism modernistycznych polskich i zagranicznych” 09.1924 table (big) 11/12.1924 table 1924/1925 list “Tijdschriften en boeken” 1926 list “Toegezonden tijdschriften en boeken”

No.

Title Mentioned

Vol.

Issue

67

Anthologie Het Overzicht du Groupe Moderne d’Art

–

68

–

69

–

70

L’Équerre

71

72 73

Source

Form

17

09.1923

21

04.1924

list “Aanvullingslijst van ontvangen tijdschriften” short note in “Tijdschriften” cover table “Tijdschriften – Revues modernes”

22/23/24 02.1925

11

12

1935

short note from the magazine

Documents Zwrotnica Internationaux de l’Esprit Nouveau

–

11

03.1927

reference (big)

Het Overzicht

1 1

9 24

12. 1922 04. 1923

74 75 76 77

1 2 3 4

25 30 25 1

04. 1923 07. 1924 04. 1925 10. 1925

78

5

10

01. 1926

79

5

25

06.1927

–

1

03.1924

–

3/4

06.1924

4

12

12.1921

83

5

1

01.1922

84

5

9

09.1922

long note article “Revue de la presse” list “Remerciments” list “Remerciments” list “Remerciments” list “La cité moderne et la presse” reproduction of Hannes Meyer’s “Die Neue Welt” from Das Werk list “Revue de la presse et revue des revues” list “Przegla˛d czasopism zagranicznych” table “Przegla˛d pism modernistycznych polskich i zagranicznych” list “Ontvangen boeken en tijdschriften” list “Ingekomen boeken en tijdschriften” list “Ontvangen boeken en tijdschriften” table “Het netwerk” list “The Next Call onderhoudt . . .” list “Otrzymalis´my”

80

Architektura i Budownictwo

Date

7 Arts

Blok

81

82

De Stijl

85 86

Het Overzicht The Next Call

– –

20 6

01.1924 10.1924

87

Zwrotnica

–

6

10.1923

(Continued)

161

Table 4 (Continued) No.

Title Mentioned

Source

Vol.

Issue

88 89

Cercle et Carré

90

de 8 en Opbouw

L’Art Contemporain

– –

2 3

05.1930 reference (small) 06/07.1930 reference (small)

Architektura i Budownictwo

10

8

1934

91

10

9

1934

92

10

11

1934

93

10

12

1934

94

11

1

1935

95

11

2

1935

96

11

3/4

1935

97

11

5/6/7

1935

11

10

1935

11

12

1935

7 Arts

1 2 3 3 5

25 30 18 25 10

04. 1923 07. 1924 03. 1925 04. 1925 01. 1926

Blok

–

1

106

–

3/4

107 108 109

Het Overzicht

– – –

6/7 8/9 16

110

Praesens

–

1

111

The Next Call

–

6

98

de 8 en Opbouw

Architektura i Budownictwo

99 100 101 102 103 104

105

De Stijl

162

Date

Form

short note from the magazine short note from the magazine short note from the magazine short note from the magazine short note from the magazine short note from the magazine short note from the magazine short note from the magazine short note from the magazine short note from the magazine

list “Remerciments” list “Remerciments” table list “Remerciments” reproduction of Hannes Meyer’s “Die Neue Welt” from Das Werk 03.1924 list “Przegla˛d czasopism zagranicznych” 06.1924 table “Przegla˛d pism modernistycznych polskich i zagranicznych” 09.1924 reference (very big) 11/12.1924 table 05/06.1923 list “Wij ontvingen als periodieken O.M.” 06.1926 list “Czasopisma modernistyczne” 10.1924 list “The Next Call onderhoudt . . .”

No.

Title Mentioned

Source

112

i 10

113 114 115

Mécano

116 117 118

Vol.

Issue

Date

Form

Praesens

–

2

05.1930

4

14

07.1933

short note in “Czasopisma zagraniczne” article (long)

de 8 en Opbouw 7 Arts Blok

2 –

30 3/4

07. 1924 06.1924

De Stijl

– – 5

6/7 8/9 1

6

8

The Next Call

–

6

7 Arts De Stijl

3 6

25 8

Het Overzicht

–

119 120 121 122 123

The Next Call

list “Remerciments” table “Przegla˛d pism modernistycznych polskich i zagranicznych” 09.1924 table (big) 11/12.1924 table 01.1922 list “Ingekomen boeken en tijdschriften” 1924/1925 list “Tijdschriften en boeken” (enthusiastic) 10.1924 list “The Next Call onderhoudt . . .” 04. 1925 1924/1925

22/23/24 02.1925

163

list “Remerciments” list “Tijdschriften en boeken” (enthusiastic) list “Tijdschriften (6e aanvullinglijst)”

Index

7 Arts 4, 15–16, 18, 23–6, 43–5, 47n4, 48n28, 55–7, 59, 66, 70, 76, 79, 82, 93–4, 144–5, 147–8, 153–6, 158–62, 163 de 8 en Opbouw 32, 148–9, 154, 156, 158, 162–3 a.r. 2, 19–20, 28, 38, 40, 48n17, 49n40, 74, 99 Abstraction-Création 2, 4, 15, 32, 39, 41, 47, 62, 64, 90, 110, 144, 146–7, 151, 154 Albatros 94 Alkema, W. 14 Almanach. Katalog. Salon modernistów 32, 145, 158 Amsterdam 15, 30, 38, 91, 97–8, 102, 150–1, 156 Anthologie du Groupe Moderne d’Art de Liège 4, 15–16, 24–5, 28, 44, 145–8, 151–6, 158–60 Antwerp 8, 15–16, 47n4, 82, 93 Apollinaire, G. 8, 10, 84 Architecture Vivante 97 Architekt 28, 38, 150–3, 155 Architektura i Budownictwo 28, 31, 38, 144–6, 149–53, 155–6, 158, 161–2 Arp, H. 8, 15, 74, 108n28 Art Concret 2, 4, 15, 41, 59, 62 Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna 4, 19–20, 27–8, 32, 39–40, 42, 58, 144, 147, 149, 152, 155, 158–9, 162 Athens 32 Baczyn´ski, S. 19 Baugniet, M.-L. 144, 149 Bauhaus 36, 67, 70, 80, 83 Behne, A. 15, 55, 77 Béothy, É. 15 Berckelaers, F. see Seuphor, M. Berlage, H.P. 34, 38, 79n7, 146, 149 Berlewi, H. 4, 6, 18, 28–30, 56, 84, 92–4, 111 Berlin 8, 16, 21, 28, 34, 93, 95, 110, 144, 151

Bielski, M. see Peiper, T. Bijdorp 108n28 Blok 2, 4, 14, 18, 20–1, 23–9, 32–5, 44–6, 48n15–16, 49n40, 57, 63, 66, 70–3, 77–83, 85–6, 90–1, 98, 101, 106, 107n6, 109, 111, 144–5, 147–50, 152–3, 155, 158–62, 163 Bonset, I.K. see van Doesburg, T. Bourgeois, P. 16, 24, 26, 56, 60, 63–4, 66, 70, 76, 144 Bourgeois, V. 16, 23, 26–7, 31, 79, 104–5, 144, 149, 158 Het Bouwbedrijf 15, 31–2, 74, 103, 145, 149, 151–2, 154–6, 158 Bouwkundig Weekblad 32, 70 De Bouwwereld 15 Braque, G. 24 Brinkman, J. 102, 104–5, 149 Brno 29 Brukalska, B. 32, 66, 101, 104, 107, 111, 149 Brukalski, S. 66, 101, 104, 107, 111, 149 Brussels 16, 23, 26–7, 49n34, 66, 82, 104, 149, 151, 155 Byvoet, B. 151 Brze˛kowski, J. 5, 8, 19–23, 27–8, 30, 32, 39–42, 44, 48n12, 49n40, 50n63, 58–60, 78, 89, 110–11, 145 Ça Ira! 43 Caden, A. 47n7 Camini, A. see van Doesburg, T. Carlsund, O. 15, 32, 59, 62, 145 Casteels, M. 76–7 Cendrars, B. 18 Cercle et Carré 2, 4, 17, 27, 39–42, 47, 50n71, 61–2, 67, 71, 80, 110, 144–5, 147, 154, 158, 162 Chenoy, L. 56, 64, 70 Chmielewski, J. 105–6, 149 Chodasiewicz-Grabowska, W. 19, 41

Index CIAM 2, 17, 26–7, 30, 32, 36, 47, 66, 79, 104–6, 110 Cieszyn 19 Code 15, 17 Contimporanul 28 Czyz˙ewski, T. 57, 84, 86–7 Dekeukelerie, C. 70 Demets, J. 15, 66, 85 Dermée, P. 8, 17, 39, 42, 89, 145 Documents Internationaux de l’Esprit Nouveau 4, 17, 39, 146, 151, 161 van Doesburg, T. 10–13, 15–18, 28–32, 34–6, 38, 41, 43–5, 49n40, 53–5, 57–61, 63–4, 66–71, 73–6, 79–80, 82–8, 93–101, 103–4, 106–7, 108n18, 108n28, 111, 145, 149–50, 157–8 Dom i Osiedle 31 Dom, Osiedle, Mieszkanie 28, 38, 148–53, 155–7 De Driehoek 4, 15–16, 45, 47n7, 55, 77, 82 Dudok, W.M. 102, 150 Duiker, J. 102, 108n28, 150–1 Düsseldorf 6, 28, 75, 93–4 Dz´wignia 73, 91–2 von Ebenteh, L. 15 Eemans, M. 63, 66, 79 van Eesteren, C. 13, 18, 31–2, 36–8, 60, 68–70, 73, 97, 101, 110, 145, 150–1 Équerre 4, 16, 26, 147–9, 151, 154, 158, 161 Esprit Nouveau 17–18, 43, 80 Europa 19, 28, 32, 58, 88, 145–8, 158 Fitschy, P. 26, 48n29 Flouquet, P.-L. 16, 27, 145, 151, 157 Formis´ci 84 Fornari, A. 47n7 Frankfurt 27 G: Material zur elementaren Gestaltung 28 Gdynia 102, 104 Het Getij 15 Gleizes, A. 36, 49n40, 88 Goldberg, M. 105 Gorin, J. 67 Goriély, B. 24, 145 Gräff, W. 68 Grafika 88 Greenberg, C. 52, 62–3 Groningen 13–14, 44, 155 Gropius, W. 31, 105–6, 108n28 Hannover 29 Hansen, J. 14 van Hardeveld, J.M. 77

165

Hélion, J. 15, 41 Hengelo 150 Henvaux, E. 56, 59 Herbin, A. 15, 41 Herwarth, W. 15 Hilversum 108n28, 150–1 Hitchcock, H.R. 100 Höch, H. 15 Hoek van Holland 34, 102, 152 van ’t Hoff, R. 13, 151 de Horion, C. 16, 24, 146 Hoste, H. 26, 41, 49n32, 55, 60 Hryniewicz-Piotrowska, A. 102, 104 Huis-ter-Heide 151 Huszár, V. 5, 10, 12, 15, 32, 92–3, 97–9, 108n18, 108n20, 111 Iancu, M. 47n7 Internationale Revue i10 4, 13, 15, 17, 26, 30–1, 36, 44, 148, 154, 162 Jasien´ski, B. 38, 83–4 Jeanneret, C.-E. see Le Corbusier Jespers, O. 84 Kahn, G. 63 Kajruksztis, W. 10, 18, 21, 95, 157 Kallai, E. 59 Kandinsky, W. 15, 47n7, 90 Karczewski, A. 26, 104, 155–6 Kassák, L. 63, 81 Katowice 154 Katwijk aan Zee 97 Katzee, H. 38 Kiesler, F. 29, 95–96 Kiesler, S. see (de) Saga, P. Kiev 9 de Klerk, M. 151 Kobro, K. 2, 5, 10, 18–19, 32, 41, 60–1, 64, 66, 74, 79, 88–90, 99, 106, 107n14, 111, 146, 151 Kok, A. 12, 54 Koluszki 19 de Koninck, L.H. 28, 104, 146, 151 Kon´skie 154 Korngold, L. 102, 146, 151 Kozin´ski, P. 26, 104, 155–6 Krakow 1, 20–1, 23, 48n12 Kubicki, S. 28, 75 Kurek, J. 20, 38–40, 48n12, 50n67, 57, 64–5, 157 Lachert, B. 66, 98–9, 101–4, 107, 111, 151 Le Corbusier 15, 17–18, 31, 40, 48n17, 57, 79n2, 88, 100, 103, 105–6 van der Leck, B. 12–13, 73, 79n7

166

Index

Léger, F. 17–18, 55 Leiden 1, 8, 12, 29, 104, 149 Liège 4, 15–16, 24–6, 28 Lincoln 108n28 Linia 18, 20, 32 Linze, G. 16, 24, 146 Lissitzky, E. 75, 81, 94–5, 107, 111 van Loghem, J.B. 157 Łódz´ 2, 8, 20, 27, 41–3, 47, 48n22, 49n40, 73, 96, 99, 107, 110 Ma 43, 48n15, 80, 88 Maes, K. 16, 47n4, 92–4, 111 Malevich, K. 9, 11n10, 18–19, 31, 36, 48n15, 48n17, 74, 83, 95, 100 Mallet-Stevens, R. 103–4 Marcoussis, L. 10 Marinetti, F.T. 18, 84–5 Mécano 13, 15, 29, 44–5, 82–3, 163 Meller, P. 34 Merkelbach, B. 105 Merz 4, 43, 80, 87–8 Méudon 104 Meyer, H. 80, 158, 161–2 Micic´, L. 15, 81 Mickum, L. 39 Miller, E. 18, 60, 85–6 Miller, J.N. 79n3, 86 Minkiewicz, W. 31 Minsk 10 Młodoz˙eniec, S. 88 Moholy-Nagy, L. 15, 28, 81 Monaco 10 Mondrian, P. 2, 5, 8, 10, 12–13, 15, 17, 27, 31–2, 36, 38–42, 45, 47, 52–5, 57–60, 63–4, 71, 73, 78–80, 87–9, 96, 98–9, 106, 110–11, 146, 152, 157 Monier, G. 16 Moscow 10, 20 Müller-Lehning, A. 15, 17, 31 Nasz Kurjer 28 New York 1, 19–20, 95–6 The Next Call 4, 13–14, 16, 29, 44–5, 82–3, 90–1, 96, 106, 158, 161–3 Nezval, V. 27 Nicz-Borowiakowa, M. 25, 152 Niemirowska, H. see Syrkus, H. Niemojewski, L. 104 Nieuwenhuis, C. 32, 150 Noi 43 Noordwijkerhout 150 Norwerth, E. 152 Nowa Sztuka 17 Ommen 155 van Ostaijen, P. 16, 56, 59, 84–6 Otlet, P. 28, 146

Oud, J.J.P. 12–13, 15, 18, 30–2, 34–6, 38, 47n4, 54–5, 59–60, 64, 66, 73, 79, 100–2, 104, 108n28, 110–11, 146, 150, 152, 157 Het Overzicht 4, 6, 15–16, 21–3, 26, 39, 42–6, 47n4–5, 48n24, 55, 59, 63, 70–1, 77, 82, 94, 109, 145, 157–63 Ozenfant, A. 17, 57, 79n2, 80 Paris 5, 7–8, 10, 15–17, 19–21, 27, 29–30, 32, 34, 38–40, 42, 49n41, 59, 77, 79n6, 87, 89, 93, 95, 102, 104, 110, 149, 150 Pásmo 4, 21 Peeters, J. 15–17, 21, 27, 45, 47n4, 55, 63, 70–1, 77, 98, 153 Peiper, T. 7, 17–21, 23–4, 26, 30, 44, 48n12–13, 48n24, 48n28, 49n40, 50n67, 57, 60, 63–4, 77–8, 79n3, 147, 157 du Perron, E. 15–16 Picasso, P. 8, 24, 42 Pijnenburg, G. 15, 77 Piotrowski, R. 27, 102 Plater-Zyberk, Z. 102 De Ploeg 14 Pniewski, B. 102 Pologne littéraire 24, 144, 158 Polski Klub Artystyczny 26 Ponowa 86 Poupeye, C. 27, 157 Poznan´ 19, 74, 93, 102 Poznan´ski, V. 49n41, 93 van Praag, S. 38 Praesens 2, 4, 18–20, 26–7, 31–2, 34–6, 38, 40, 44, 48n17, 48n19, 49n40, 54, 57, 66, 71, 74, 81, 87, 89, 98, 103, 145–6, 149–58, 160, 162–3 Prampolini, E. 27, 47n7 Pronaszko, A. 18, 31 Przybos´, J. 18–20, 28, 39–40, 48n12, 57, 73, 84, 88, 157 Purmerend 100 Rafałowski, A. 25, 34, 42, 153 van Ravesteyn, S. 34, 153 Ray, M. 108n27 ReD 4, 27 De Reclame 92 Reymont, W. 24, 146 Richter, H. 28, 75 Rietveld, G. 13, 15, 30, 32, 34, 38, 68–70, 97–9, 101, 104, 111, 150, 153 Rodchenko, A. 81 van der Rohe, M. 28, 100, 107n9 Rome 10 Rosenberg, L. 17 Rotterdam 13, 31, 36, 38, 50n62, 73, 102, 104–5, 149–50, 152–3, 155

Index Rousseau, H. 28, 49n39 Rutkowski, H. 105 Rutkowski, S. 34 (de) Saga, P. 95–6, 107, 111 Scheveningen 12, 92–3 Schoenmaekers, M.H.J. 52 Schuitema, P. 82 Schwitters, K. 20, 81, 86–7 Sert, J.L. 106 Servranckx, V. 25–7, 71, 147, 153 Seuphor, M. 5, 8, 10, 13, 15–17, 21, 23, 26–8, 32, 39–42, 45, 47, 50n71, 55, 61, 63, 71, 73, 77, 89, 110, 147, 152, 157 Sigalin, R. 31 Skolimów 1045 S´liwin´ski, J. 39 Słuz˙ewiec 102 Soziale Bauwirtschaft 34 Stam, M. 32, 102, 154 Staz˙ewski, H. 2, 17–20, 24, 31–2, 34–5, 38–42, 57–8, 63–4, 71, 74, 78–80, 87–90, 98–9, 106, 110–11, 147, 154 Stern, A. 24, 48n16, 84, 87, 145, 147 De Stijl 1–2, 4, 7, 10–15, 26, 28–32, 34–5, 44–6, 49n41, 52–5, 64, 67–70, 73–6, 79n6, 82, 86–8, 92, 95–8, 100, 104, 106–9, 111, 157–62, 163 Stowarzyszenie Architektów Polskich 31 Strasbourg 74 Strzemin´ski, W. 10, 18–20, 24, 28, 31–2, 36, 40–2, 44, 48–9, 59–61, 63–4, 66, 72–4, 78–80, 83–4, 88, 90, 95–6, 99, 107n7, 108n18, 147, 154, 157 Der Sturm 4, 43, 93–4 Stuttgart 102, 152, 154 Stynen, L. 102 van der Swaelmen, L. 56 Syrkus, H. 2, 18, 26, 30, 35–7, 98, 104–6, 110, 147–8, 154 Syrkus, S. 2, 18, 26–7, 30–2, 34–8, 52, 60, 64, 66, 71, 73–4, 78–9, 98, 102, 104–6, 110, 147–9, 154 Szanajca, J. 32, 66, 101–4, 107, 111, 149, 151, 155 Szczekacz, S. 96–7 Szczuka, M. 18–19, 21, 24–6, 28, 31, 44, 48n22, 66, 73, 79, 84, 90–2, 98–9, 102, 104, 106, 111, 148, 155 Taelemans, E. 28 Taeuber-Arp, S. 74

167

Teige, K. 27, 80 The Hague 12, 15, 144, 151, 156 Torres-García, J. 17, 40–1, 147 Tołwin´ski, S. 26, 36–7, 148 Tschichold, J. 80–1 Tutundjian, L. 15 Tzara, T. 18, 83 Uccle 104 Utrecht 98, 101, 153 Vantongerloo, G. 2, 10, 13, 15, 17, 27–8, 31, 36, 38–9, 41–2, 47n5, 55, 60, 64, 71, 79n4, 88–90, 106, 111, 148, 155, 157 van de Velde, H. 26–7, 48n16, 148, 155 Victor, R. 84 La Vie des Lettres et des Arts 18, 43 Vienna 29 Vilnius 18, 21, 44, 59, 81, 95, 157 Vitebsk 95 van der Vlugt, L. 34, 38, 102, 104–5, 108n28, 149, 155 Vouloir 35 de Vries, J. 15 Walden, H. 15, 55 Wantz, M. 15 Warsaw 18–19, 21, 23–4, 26, 29–30, 34–5, 41, 44, 48n17, 91, 98, 101, 103–7, 149, 151, 154, 159 Wat, A. 84 Wattjes, J.G. 157 Weimar 34, 75, 83 Das Werk 158, 161–2 Werkman, H.N. 13–18, 32, 40–3, 45, 82–3, 87, 90–2, 96–7, 106, 108n17, 111, 155 Werrie, P. 27, 56, 63, 70, 157 Wiegers, J. 14 Wilrijk 102 Wils, J. 13, 38, 60, 73, 98, 108n25, 156 Het Woord 4, 13, 15, 47n3, 66 Wright, F.L. 100, 146 Z˙arnower, T. 18, 24–6, 44, 66, 73, 100–2, 104, 148, 156 Zdanyevich, I. 85 van der Zee, J. 14 Zenit 43 Zurich 4 Zwart, P. 82 Zwrotnica 4, 7, 14, 17–19, 21, 23–4, 26, 32, 43–5, 48n12, 48n28, 49n40, 77, 79, 81, 83–4, 86, 144, 150, 159–61