Who Are Those Hungarian Wild Beasts in. (1)

8/19/2019 Who Are Those Hungarian Wild Beasts in. (1)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/who-are-those-hungarian-wild-beasts-in-1 1/6

of the millennium.While this event set the movement in an internationalcrepresented by the best selection of material. 7 Nevertheless, the term

meaning literally“wild beasts,”a loan translation from the French Fauves

in specialist literature only after the team of researchers lead by Profess

tion with the Hungarian National Gallery,released the resultsof their res

bition anda volumeof studiesin thespringof 2006.8 The350 Hungarian

for the first time together with the masterpieces of French Fauve artists

French Fauvism, and it also called attention to this period of exceptional

The exhibition also made an impression on French art historians. In 200

at museums in Ceret,Cateau-Cambrésis, and Dijon, in a version of the B

French sites.9

An Art History Category in Retrospective

If Fauvism was of such great significance in the development of Hungar

edged by international or Hungarian specialist literature earlier?The exp

minology.In the early 1900s,the French artistic terminology mostly foun

indirectly.The Hungariancriticshad adifficultjobfollowing theeffectsoftfirstdecadeof the20th century.Fora longtime,newinitiativesweredeno

Later, representatives of new trends were called “Neo-impressionists

labelled after the painters themselves, like the “Gauguins.” In Paris, the t

nated from Louis Vauxcelles’ ironic phrase. In Hungary, rebels at the free

Mare,Romania) were nicknamed “Neos”, an abbreviation of Neo-impress

The other, more significant reason is that the Hungarian Fauves never fo

notband togetherinHungaryor Paris,and theydidnot callthemselves“

aspiration,educationalbackground,or ageto forman organizationor eve

mon exhibitions.

Atthe time,the onlysimilarityamongthe HungarianFauveswas thatthe

to Hungary; others stayed in Paris and, based on the knowledge they a

tures. They did so at the same time—or with a one- or two-year lapse—

leagues.Their lack of effort to join a French movement was not consciou

Paris’s untamed variety.

Whenthefirstwaveof young Hungarianssensitiveto modernendeavours

Cézanne and Gauguin were alive; Bonnard, Vuillard, and the Nabis were i

Ina reviewwritten inFrench,Dezso Rózsaffy,apainterand artcriticin theearly20 th century,writesthe fol-lowing about the exhibition of the Group of Eight in 1911. 1 “Nous avons nos Fauves aussi tout comme Paris

a les siens.Et s’ils sont moins ingénieux,moins âpres, moins individuels,plus portés vers les concessions

que leur collègues parisiens, ce n’en sont pas moins des Fauves.” (We have our Fauves, the same as in

Paris.They may be less ingenious,harsh, and special and make more concessions than their Parisian col-

leagues, but this does not make them less wild).2 This statement was made rather late, as in 1911 there

were hardly any Fauves in Hungary. Still, there was a large number of such works among the early paint-

ings of Róbert Berény, present in a retrospective collection, and the stylistic signs of the Fauves could be

discovered in the artistic background of the other members of the Group of Eight as well. This exhibition

(their second) marked a kind of detachment from the Fauvist point of view.

Thestatementis important,sincethis expressionwasnot reallyusedby thecontemporaryHungariancrit-

ics.Artúr Bárdos used it in 1907, on the occasion of the exhibition at the National Salon, when comment-

ing on a young painter:“Körmendi-Frimm represents the youngest of the French Fauves: Matisse and his

colleagues.”3 Later,hementionedKároly Kernstok,the leadingfigureof theGroupof Eight,as belongingto

“the latest Hungarian Fauves,” but he specified this statement saying: “Just think of Matisse’s desultory

results (perhaps he was influenced most by the newest French), and you will recognize the constructive

andclear individualvalues ofKernstok’slatest achievement.He isthe farthestfromMatisse,but Kernstokis much closer to me.”4

Two decades later, Rózsaffy returned to the connection between the Group of Eight and Fauvism:“Some

gifted members of the young Hungarian generation of artists gathered in this association [the Group of

Eight] under the leadership of Kernstok in order to fight against Impressionism’s meaningless imitation of

nature,whichis meretechnicalbravadoinmost cases,at homeand abroad.Thiswas thepointwhen‘Fau-

vism’made its way into Hungarian fine arts.We need not regret it,as the new movement revealed several

realtalents.Thenovelaspirationsconsistedof muchexaggeration andextravagance,typicalof theyoung,

and as a result,their exhibitions generated contradictions for a long time.”5

Some opinions suggest that“Hungarian Fauvism”was established by the members of the Group of Eight,

but this is only partly true. In writings on art history, both Hungarian and international, the term was not

used until recently; and the phenomenon itself has not been dealt with too much, either. However, some

Hungarian artists were occasionally connected to the French Fauve movement, especially Béla Czóbel,

who took part in exhibitions together with Matisse and his colleagues at the beginning of the last century.

His invitation to the retrospective exposition of the Fauves in 1927 confirms this.6 There were Hungarian

painters—Béla Czóbel, Sándor Ziffer,Vilmos Perlrott-Csaba,and József Nemes Lampérth—present at the

exhibition entitled Le fauvisme ou l’épreuve du feu (Fauvism,or Trial by Fire) organized in Paris at the turn

90

WHO ARE THOSE HUNGARIAN

“WILD BEASTS”?

ZOLTÁN ROCKENBAUER



those interested, and the guests could not only admire the collection,wh

masterpieces,but they could meet members of the modern artistic and

While studying,the experience gained in modern galleries and salons we

in art cafés and the busy world of studio-colonies. It is worth considerin

felttheinfluenceof themodernFrench paintingall atonce.Forthem,the

arranged along linear lines of evolution as the posterity would often—in

beginning of the last century. The majority of our painters would not c

exact principles; however, they often took part in discussions concerning

discussions were carried out mainly within their own group, as their kno

notadequateforrefined argumentation.They wereopen tonew ideas,bu

things.”They admired and copied the earlier masters in order to learn m

manifestos; they did not commit themselves to any idea, avoiding the “

They were not even touched by Divisionism—which was considered a st

ment of the French Fauvism—and very few came to terms with Cubism(unlikeAlfréd Réth, who made it deeply his own).

Intheir recollections,they refer toCézanneand Matisseas thesourcesof

in Paris,but they often mention Gauguin,Van Gogh,Braque, Picasso,Bo

Manguin,and Marquet,too.19 (The latter was of less importance compar

garian painters were not dogmatic.They adapted elements of any tenden

orthat theyliked.Thisisone explanationfor thedistinct eclecticism ofth

they never became menial copiers of any painter or school, either.

Their affinity to the Fauves came naturally to them, as Fauvism was rat

movement.In theconclusionof hiswell-knownessay,LouisVauxcelles,w

“Lefauvisme,nousl’avons,jepense,montré,ne futdonc pasuneécole,il

racines un peu à l’aventure, recruta des adeptes en raison des sympathi

tiond’unestricte disciplineesthétique.(Fauvism,aswe havealreadyprov

it developed,it randomly took roots; it recruited its follower based on pe

consequence of some strict aesthetic discipline).20

Inher neatcomment,KrisztinaPassuthcontends,“Onthewholewe cann

stantive‘Hungarian Fauve’style unequivocally different from the French oconcept of ‘French Fauve,’ either.Somewhat diverse trends prevail in the

we compare the compositions of the most significant painters like Matis

The Hungarians were no more d ifferent from the French than they were f

Moreover, the Hungarian painters learned from the French and each othe

colonies in Paris, and sometimes they would stress that they avoided the

majority leda doublelife.Theyfrequentlywenthome toBudapest(or insum

in Nagybánya to paint), where they would share their experiences.In a spe

workswerenot madein Paris,butin Nagybánya,Nyergesújfalu,Kaposvár,o

pérth isan extreme case,as hepainted hisFauveself-portrait22 two yearsb

Béla Czóbel and the Neos of Nagybánya

The School of Nagybánya played a decisive role in the renewal of Hunga

century.In thesummerof 1896,SimonHollósytookhis pupilsto studyat

friends to sunny Nagybánya for the first time in order to make nature st

known as the “Hungarian Barbizon” soon developed into a permanent f

significant Central European centre of plein art painting.

period,had justhadhisfirstexhibition;and Matisseandhis colleagueswereconductingcolourexperiments

which would leadtothe controversialintroduction ofthe Fauves atthe Salon d’Automnein 1905.The young

artists escaped from the rigidity of Munich and the Hungarian academic spirit to Paris, where they were

inundatedby thec ity’svastvisual experimentation.Withinone decade,this experiencebroughtabout more

changesin European paintingthanthe artistsof thepreviouscenturies.The approachof theyounggenera-

tion of Hungarian painters was moulded by what they learned in different artistic institutions, what they

couldseein thegalleries,andwhatthey learnedby watchingtheirfellow-artists.

Academies in Paris

Insofar as opportunities for organized study are concerned,the majority had their share of artistic educa-

tion in Paris.10 Since they were admitted to private schools without entrance examinations,they attended

the courses for shorter or longer periods of time depending on their interest and financial means.

AmongtheyoungHungarians,theJulianAcademywasthe mostpopularschool.From1901 to1907,Berta-

lan Pór, Ödön Márffy, Géza Bornemisza, Béla Czóbel, Dezso Czigány, Róbert Berény, József Egry, SándorGalimberti,Vilmos Perlrott-Csaba,and DezsoOrbán studiedhere. Mostof them had Jean-PaulLaurens as

a master.They did not necessarily stick to one school; they tried several in the course of time. For exam-

ple,Vilmos Perlrott-Csaba also attended the ColarossiAcademy. Most likely,this site can be seen in his oil

painting entitled Painting School (1907).11 Géza Bornemisza mentions in one of his reminiscences that he

often saw Henri Matisse12 at the evening drawing classes of the Académie de la Grande Chaumière. At the

time,Béla Czóbeland RóbertBerénysketchedat theHumbertAcademy,wheretheywerefellowstudents

of André Derain,Albert Marquet,and Henri Manguin.13

Although it was much cheaper than the Julian, few Hungarians attended the École des Beaux-Arts, the

moreconservativestateinstitutionwitha greattradition.In thefallof 1902,ÖdönMárffyenrolledthereand

was Fernand Cormon’s student for four years.The master was a mediocre painter,a philistine, but a con-

sistent teacher with such world-famous pupils as Henri Toulouse-Lautrec, Vincent Van Gogh, Henri

Matisse, Francis Picabia, and Chaïm Soutine. In 1905, Márffy made friends with Maurice Marinot, who

would exhibit with the Fauves. He also met Henri Matisse.Though formerly expelled by Cormon, he would

stilloftenturn upto visithis“old pals.”Accordingto Márffy,theywouldgivehim canvasesandbrushes,and

he would finish in half an hour whatever the academics had been agonizing over for weeks.14

In January 1908, Matisse opened his free school with mostly Scandinavian, German, and Americanpainters as disciples.Vilmos Perlrott-Csaba and Géza Bornemisza were the only Hungarians in his class.15

Two Fauvist nude studies by Perlrott also remain from this time, and these were certainly made at the

MatisseAcademy.16

Galleries, Salons,Cafés

Apart from acquiring basic knowledge or further training, the academies were useful for the Hungarian

painters, because they met fellow artists already keen on the new ideology. Márffy would often say that

visiting the contemporary expositions at Ambroise Vollard’s gallery in Lafitte Street was much more

important for his artistic development than the École des Beaux-Arts.Vollard was the one who first held

individual exhibitions for Cézanne, Picasso, and Matisse. He got on well with Bonnard and Rouault, he

supported Gauguin, and he bought the Fauve collection from Derain and Vlaminck’s studio. Thus, it was

his gallery where they could get acquainted with the works of the Post-impressionists, Nabis, and

Fauves.17

Several sources18 suggest that a large number of the Hungarians—e.g., Czóbel, Kernstok, Berény, Orbán,

Bornemisza,Perlrott,and Mikola—were frequent visitors at the Parisian salon of the Steins, the most sig-

nificant family of contemporary painting collectors. No. 27 Rue de Fleurus was open every Saturday for

92



works.Apartfrom him,noneof themembersof theolderNagybányagen

Trueto Nagybányatraditions,landscapes were themostsuccessfulat th

colleagues,they were never bold enough to rewrite the colours of nature

sandat theseasideinred asMatissedid.TheNeos’startingpoint wasma

colours rather than highlighting them.They were inspired by the splendo

reddish shade of the ferrous soil.They often found a pretext in the choic

tures provocatively lively. For example, Béla Iványi Grünwald created a

terned carpets, fruits, and a colourful parrot. Hungarian folk art was be

turnofthe century.Theglazedcrockery,paintedboxes,and flowerycove

toformulatecompositionsfullof strongcolourcontrasts.The picturesthe

acteristically more daring than their canvases created in Nagybánya the

to make more careful use of their French experience at home.

“The unclear form of Fauvism—in other words, not the direct outcome

painting of Matisse, Derain,and Vlaminck around 1906—prevailed in Nagthusindirectand tamedversionsof thedifferentinterpretationsof theyo

were effective,” wrote György Szucs when analyzing the definition of Ne

period until WorldWar I, when examining the actual paintings,we find a s

colours (Géza Bornemisza), a room interior reminiscent of Van Gogh’s

self-portraitemployingGauguin’s decorativeness (SándorZiffer), and lan

ofCubism(Perlrott,Galimberti),all ofwhichare quitedifficultto bundle i

etc.”32

Kaposvár

Althoughtherewas nocentreof paintingin Kaposvár,it isstillworthmen

ing artists,József Rippl-Rónai and Sándor Galimberti, who originated fro

resents the typical South-Transdanubian small town environment.

In 1887, Rippl-Rónai, who began his career before the Group of Eight

Munkácsy’s assistantin Paris;but fromtheearly 1890s,he joined theNa

in that period. He became close friends with Pierre Bonnard, Edouard V

whomhe exhibited.In 1902,he returnedhome forgood,and hisspotted

ful patches (his so-called “corn kernel period”) was developed in Kapos

movement,but the inner development of his painting—the use of bright

in addition to the decorativeness of his pictures—led him to Fauvism in

progressed independentlyof theHungarianFauves,thoughhis personal

port where their activity was concerned.

SándorGalimbertiwas alsobornin Kaposvár.He wasIstvánRéti’sstuden

secondwife,ValériaDénes.Afterthe turnof themillennium,theyspentan

and their styles gradually adjusted to suit each other. They were strongly

ality and art. Valéria Dénes is also known to have attended the Matisse A

TheNeo-inspiredpainterswerethemost daring andsensitiveto theavan

vism in a constructive direction closer to Cubism. Their characteristic pa

elevated point of view and their still-lifes represent a unique style amo

promisingcareercameto a tragicend. In1914,theyhad toleaveFranceo

They returned to Hungary after detours—first in Belgium, then in Hollan

pneumonia.One d ay after her funeral,Sándor Galimberti shot himself in

The founding generation’s naturalism flourished in the first years of the 20th century, but due to the fast

changesin theworld,by1906 itwasalreadypastitszenith.Thiswastheyear—saysGyörgySzucs23—when

József Rippl-Rónai, independent of the Nagybánya group of artists, returned from Paris. In the spring, he

unexpectedly became successful with his exhibition of novel pictures at the Könyves Kálmán Salon in

Budapest and the auction following the event. In the summer of 1906, Béla Czóbel arrived in Nagybánya

with fresh pictures he had brought back from Paris, and they were a revelation for the young generation.

István Réti,the founder and theoretician of the colony of artists,relates,“In 1906, at the colony,Béla Czó-

bel presented his new style of paintings brought back from Paris […]. There were about a dozen paintings

firstshownin Bánya:a seriesof portraits,stilllifes,nudecompositions,and poster-likepaintingswithvivid,

pointillist patches of colours outlined by thick, colourful lines, with a lot of specific force in the drawing of

the figures. Stylization had not killed the necessary traces of a habitual approach toward reality, which is

the consequence of nature studies.Such pictures could already be seen in the Salon des Indépendents in

Paris in the early 1890s. In Nagybánya, and later when this style became general in Budapest as well, the

new tendency and its variations were called Neo-impressionism by the painters, and its followers weredubbed Neos.”24

So far,we have not been able to reconstruct which paintings by Czóbel generated the unusual excitement

inthe sleepysmalltownby theRiverZazar,but accordingtorecentstudies,they arenotlikelyto havebeen

the wildest ones.25 It would be an oversimplification to state that Czóbel transplanted Fauvism itself from

Paris to Nagybánya, causing the revolution of the Neos at the artist colony. However, Czóbel certainly

played a key role in the establishment of Hungarian Fauvism, and he was surely an active member in the

French Fauve movement,too.

He exhibited his paintings with the most modern of them in 1905, at the Salon d’Automne, at the public

introduction of the Fauves. We have to mention that his paintings were not in Room 7, which became

famous as the cage aux Fauves (cage of wild beasts),in the company of Matisse and Derain—as specialist

literaturewould laterclaim erroneously.26 Instead,he wasin Room15,alongsidesuch artistsas Friesz,Val-

tat, Kandinsky,and Yavlensky.

According to Braque,27 from the following spring onward, he figured among the Fauves at the Salon des

Indépendants,and he was present at the later expositions,soon to be mentioned in the same breath with

“the wildest”. Vauxcelles gave him the not-too-complimentary title of fauve inculte.28 Gertrude Stein called

his nude more severe than Matisse’works,29 and the American Gelett Burgess, who conducted interviews

with Fauves and Cubists in Paris between 1908 and 1909, reported on the shocking effect of the brutality

on Czóbel’s canvases.30

The founding fathers looked askance at the Neo movement developing in Nagybánya. They thought the

harshpicturesconstituteda betrayalofpaintingwithnaturalprinciples.Nonetheless,theyoungartists,ori-

ented toward Paris and not Munich, could no longer be restrained. In Nagybánya, they only managed to

secure a separate room for themselves at the jubilee exhibition of 1912. Still, their presence became

increasingly pronounced in Budapest galleries and at exhibitions in Paris.31

In the middle of 1907, when prestigious members of modern painting like Pál Szinyei Merse,József Rippl-

Rónai,and KárolyFerenczyinitiatedthe establishmentofan artisticassociationindependentfrom theoffi-

cial one, the Circle of Hungarian Impressionists and Naturalists (the Hungarian acronym is MIÉNK, which

means ours), the par excellence Nagybánya Neos were not invited. All the same, Károly Kernstok, Ödön

Márffy, and Béla Czóbel—those who flirted with Fauvism, and later became members of the Group of

Eight—were welcome at the event. On the other hand, the Neos Tibor Bornemisza, Ervin Körmendi-Frim,

Vilmos Perlrott-Csaba, and Sándor Ziffer were allowed to take part at MIÉNK’s first salon as invitees.

Among the future Group of Eight—apart from the above-mentioned founding members—Dezso Czigány

andBertalan Pórcouldalso takepart.BélaIványiGrünwaldwas a surprise,as heturnedup withNeo-style

94



The debut exhibition of Hungary’s first avant-garde group,entitled New P

KálmánSalonin Budapestinlate December1909.(Atthispoint,theydid

which became famous later on.) The group consisted of Fauve-inspired a

themostcharacteristicrepresentativesofthe NeosofNagybányaweren

stok, Márffy, Pór, and Berény) never worked in Nagybánya, and the othe

wereonlyloosely connectedto thecolonyof artists.Czóbel,thoughnom

hardly any active role in Hungarian artistic life in the two decades after 1

32 paintings, was somewhat of a summary of the achievements of the g

scandal.The conservative critics and public were shocked by the distort

of the naked human body and the unusually bright, unnatural colours.

The Group of Eight’s second representative exposition was in April 1911

their style significantly by then.The process of development could be se

painting.At the first exhibit, he only presented one landscape.To compe

tion of almost fifty paintings—more than half of the total—at the second While the others displayed their latest pictures, Berény presented his b

young painter had attended theJulian Academy for four months,and he

Paris. From 1906 to 1908, he was regularly represented in exhibitions at

desIndépendents,andthe critic Vauxcellesmentionedhim atthe endof

him an apprentice Fauve (aprenti fauve).42 Berény’s most dynamic wo

nudes. Maurice Denis—who was not a fan of Fauvism—noticed his Nud

Liberté épuisante et stérile, he writes, “Il y a plus de simplicité chez

apparences,sa bizarrepetitefemmeauxjambesboudinéesestassezviv

simpler.Despiteher strangeappearance,hissausage-legged,bizarre littl

colourful). Berény exhibited this painting in Budapest as well, together w

executed with charming self-irony. Denis44 commented, “Le portrait est

dessiné: la laideur en est expressive.” (The portrait is not only painted,

expressive). This kind of irony, often present on Hungarian painters’can

French,as Sophie Barthélémy mentions in her essay comparing the two

Oneof Berény’searliestFauve worksis Womanwith aGlass,dated1905.T

ertheless considered one of the finest examples of still-lifes among the H

third of thecomposition,thereis a tablewithdelicatelyoutlinedred,yello

forms,p resented from an upward angle, are signs of a surprisingly matu

time as the appearance of Matisse and his colleagues. Later in his care

accomplished as his earlier nudes. By the end of the decade,he was str

themajorityof theGroupof Eight.Connoisseurscould easilyappreciatet

tures at the exhibition.

Withina year,the companywhich gatheredtogetheralmostspontaneou

group of artists,and the members’independent styles would draw neare

nection between the painters who came to N yerges,” said Márffy.“The a

scape,as wellasthe similarartistic views.Thiscould becharacterized by

turned theirbackson the‘moodpainting’so popularin Hungarianpaintin

style, subordinate to eternal artistic principles. The mutual aspirations

triedtocreatetheirpaintingsaccordingto strictprinciples,by emphasizi

forms,drawing, and essence.”47 Atthispoint,theytranscendedthe spont

andstartedto createtheirpicturesin a consciousway.Justas earlierthe

ics,now it was time to strive for some aesthetic of “lasting value”.

Nyergesújfalu

ThissettlementalongtheDanubewas ofgreatsignificanceforthe HungarianFauves,andwe arewellenti-

tledto callitthe spiritualcradleofthe Group ofEight.From1906on,KárolyKernstok’svineyardestatewas

regularly visited by the artists receptive to modern tendencies such as Dezso Czigány, Béla Czóbel, Ödön

Márffy, Gyula Kosztolányi-Kann, Anna Lesznai, Dezso Orbán, Bertalan Pór, János Vaszary, and Márk

Vedres, as well as the prominent figures of contemporary intellectual life: the poet EndreAdy, the philoso-

pher György Lukács, the art historian Károly Lyka, the art collector Marcell Nemes, and the journalist Pál

Relle.Theywerethe maincreativeintellectuals whoplayeda crucialrolein theestablishmentof themove-

ment of the Group of Eight.

Inartisticcircles,it wassoonwidespreadthat somekindof nonconformistcompanyof paintershad start-

ed to organize at the Kernstoks’. On 29 April 1907, Károly Ferenczy wrote a resentful letter to István Réti,

sayingthat someof theyouthsfromNagybánya,“theNeo-impressionists,Zobel [Czóbel],asI cansee,are

organizing in Nyergesújfalu around Kernstok. Let them go! I consider those Rippli-Gauguin [sic] types a

separate group, totally different from those respecting nature more intimately.”34

Ferenczy’s remark sug-gests a budding organized movement, but his suspicion is groundless, as there was no “anti-colony of

artists” in Nyergesújfalu, and there were hardly any Neo artists there, either. Actually, Czóbel and Márffy

weretheonlyHungarianFauvesto visitKernstokfor longerperiodsof time—especiallyfor creativepurpos-

es—though some say that Dezso Czigány spent several summers there, and he even rented a room in

Nyerges. 35 Bertalan Pór, Dezso Orbán, and the sculptor Márk Vedres (the “silent partner”of the Group of

Eight) dropped by only occasionally,particularly for the social life.

Czóbel was first active on Kernstok’s estate in the summer of 1907,and Márffy followed a year later.Czó-

bel’sprovedtobe aninspirationagain,sincehe hada fundamentaleffectnot onlyonthe young artistsfrom

Nagybánya, but upon the more experienced Károly Kernstok, too. In 1914, Miklós Rózsa, the head of the

subsequent Artist House, wrote that Kernstok’s painting became modern under Czóbel’s influence.

“[Kernstok] started to observe the new art only during Béla Czóbel’s stay at his estate, but he himself

joined the new tendency only after studying the works of the chercheurs (Cézanne,Matisse, Picasso,and

others)in Parisand sawthatthe newartcould notbe stopped.”36 Atthistime,he paintedthe sensitivepor-

trait of Czóbel,37 and Czóbel made his bright yellow canvas depicting the yard in Nyergesújfalu.38

A year later, Márffy arrived at Kernstok’s, and this visit d eveloped their artistic approach. Although their

Fauvist painting was based on their direct experience gained in Paris, this period of their art came to

fruition in Nyergesújfalu—but not primarily in the genre of landscape, as one may assume.“In Nyergesúj-

falu, the countryside did not impress me too much,”remembered Márffy.“At the time, it was not scenery

that occupied me, b ut rather pictorial problems par excellence: form, colour, and light motifs. Kernstok’s

garden was especially suitable for such profound activity.”39 Portraiture was a much more p romising area

for this “new style of picture”, particularly in the genre of nudes. While in Nyergesújfalu, Márffy strongly

gravitated towardsthe paintingof nudesforthe first time.Thanksto Kernstok,they couldfindcheapmod-

els among the young local population. Some of Kernstok’s paintings from this period are very close to

Márffy’s in style. Where the rhythm of lines and colours are concerned, his large-scale Standing Female

Nude resemblesMárffy’s BoyandGirlona GreenBench,whileone ofthe masterpiecesof theperiod,Nude

Boy Leaning against Tree, reminds us of the progressive solutions of Peasant Girl from Nyerges.40 On the

other hand, Kernstok was much more careful with his choice of adjacent colours than Czóbel or Márffy,

who were practically inebriated by light.His nudes show a conspicuous use of colour,like the above-men-

tioned peasant pictures. His Colourful Female Nude is one of his best Fauve paintings,as well as his com-

position entitled Bathing Women, which was one of the scandalous pieces at the Group of Eight’s debut

exhibition.Károly Kernstok’s Youths, another significant and famous work, was also created there.41

The Group of Eight movement

96



1 The association of avant-garde painters known as theGroupofEightwasfoundedin1909by RóbertBerény,DezsoCzóbel, DezsoCzigány, KárolyKernstok, ÖdönMárffy, DezsoOrbán, Bertalan Pór, and Lajos Tihanyi, but they only calledthemselves the Group of Eight in 1911, on the occasion oftheir second exhibition.2 Didier Rózsafy:“Les ‘Huit’” (National Salon). Revue de Hon- grie, 15 June 1911,pp 709.3 (B-s) [Artúr Bárdos]: Exhibition of the National Salon.Egyetértés (Accordance) 13 October 1907,p 16.4 Artúr Bárdos: “Kernstok”. Nyugat, 16 January 1910 Thirdyear 2nd issue,p p 142-144.5 Dezso Rózsaffy’s re port on the awards in Magya r mu vészet(HungarianArt),1931,I,p 50.6 CataloguefortheexhibitionLesFauves1904à 1908,GalerieBing, Paris,15-30 April 1927.7 Lefauvismeou l’épreuvedufeu.Éruptiondela modernitéenEurope,Muséed’Artmodernede laVillede Paris,29 October1999 - 27 February 2000, Paris Musées, 1999, Cat. pp. 326-335.8 Kriszti na Passuth, and Szucs, György (ed.): Magyar vadakPárizstól Nagybányáig, 1904-1914 (Hungarian Fauves fromParis to Nagybánya, 1904-1914). Budapest: HungarianNational Gallery, 2006. Catalogue for the exhibition at theHungarian National Gallery, Budapest, 21 March - 30 June2006 (future reference: MAGYAR VADAK, 2006). Englishcatalogue translated by Ervin Dunay and Zsuzsa Gábor.Budapest: Hungarian National Gallery, 2006 (future refer-ence: HUNGARIAN FAUVES,2006).9 Fauveshongrois.1904-1914. Paris:Biro, 2008.Catalogue forthe exhibitions in Musée d’art moderne, Ceret, 20 June - 12October 2008; Cateau-Cambrésis, Musée départementalMatisse, 25 October 2008 - 22 February 2009; and Dijon,Musée des Beaux-Arts,13 March - 15 June 2009(Future ref-erence: FAUVES HONGROIS,2008).10 Formoredetail,see KrisztinaPassuth: FranciaVadak,magyar Fauve-ok.In: MAGYARVADAK,2006,pp.19-21(KrisztinaPassuth: Wild Beasts of Hungary Meet Fauves in France. In:HUNGARIAN FAUVES, 2006,pp. 20-22).11

Gergely Barki: De l’Académie Julian à l’Académie Matisse.In: Fauves hongrois, 2008, p.49; Vilmos Perlrott-Csaba, Fes-t k iskolája (Painters’ School), 1907, 66 x 80 cm, HungarianEmbassy in Berlin.12 Géza Bornemisza: “Henri Matisse”. In: Kékmadár (Blue-bird),1923,II,1 April 1962.13 GergelyBarki: “Del’Académie Julian à l’AcadémieMatisse”.In: FAUVES HONGROIS,2008, p.50.14 Ödön Márffy speaks about his life and painting to BélaHorváth, 1957.Compilation from a 32-page manuscript withÁrpád Somogyi’s questions, 1-12 typewritten pages, privateproperty,p 1.15 Vilmos Perlrott-Csaba is very recognizable in a tableauphoto of the Academy, 1909 or 1910. Géza Bornemiszareportedin severallettersthatheattendedMatisse’sschool,and he had a certificate written by Matisse in 1909, accord-ing to which the Hungarian painter was the pupil of hisschool. Emese L. Pápai,: “Bornemisza Géza fest m vészfauve-os korszaka” (Géza Bornemisza’s Fauve period).Muvészet törté neti Értesí t ,2002,III-IV,pp. 309-321.16 GergelyBarki. “De l’AcadémieJulian à l’AcadémieMatisse”.In: Fauves hongrois, 2008, pp. 51-52; Vilm os Perlrott-Csaba,

Female Nude, 1910, 55.403; Same: FemaLot No. 69.144.17 Ödön Márffy: Drág1903),March1906.FMárffyÖdönszellemmentum alapján (Addbasedonsomedocusis paper for ELTE – written,pp.22-24.18 Apart from memorGertrudeStein herse Alice B. Toklas.NewY19 For example, as Czigány, Ödön MárfOrbán:Matisse(byafor Perlrott-Csaba, referred to living painCsaba, and Czóbel), Orbán), Gauguin (byandBonnard(byMáguin, and Marquet (“Czigány Dezso” (DezbelBélafestm vészkCzóbel). MTA MKI beszél életérl és festMárffy speaks about1957), 12 typewrittenkéziratos levele Dévmanuscript letter to MTA MKI archives, Csaba: Életem (My These sources are onames mentioned arthey still signify somour artists’ opinion especiallyCézanne’sof their painting.20 Louis Vauxcelles: L

Thislargeressaywasin Geneva in 1958.21 Krisztina Passuth:MAGYARVADAK,200of Hungary Meet Fauv2006,p. 15).22 József Nemes LamHNG,Budapest,Lot 23 György Szucs: Dismuvészet Na gybányá(Gyö rgy Szucs: Dissoà Nagybánya. In: FAU24 IstvánRéti: A nagybNagybánya).Budape25 Gergely Barki: A vaportréin. In: MAGYARBarki: Évolution ve jeunesse de Béla Czó188-190).26 Béla Czóbel: Önéleönarcképe(AutobiogNewHungarian Art).

In fact,itwas Cézanne’s rediscovery,andthe processtakingplace withinthe Group ofEight wassimilar to

whatoccurredin FrenchFauve paintingat thesametime.In France,itwas Braquewho actedas a forerun-

ner,but the same changes can be observed in Derain,Dufy, Vlaminck,and Friesz’painting, too.Instead of

the eccentric, poster-like pictures confined to planes, Cézannes’s solid, spatial structures became domi-

nant. The earlier bright colours became more moderate, the contrasts were blunted, and mostly earth

tones dominated the paintings. In the case of Braque,the process lead quickly to analytical Cubism,while

the rest were only touched by the Cubist approach.The same happened to the majority of the Hungarian

Fauves.The Group ofEightweremore cautious,buton thecanvasesof VilmosPerlrott-Csaba,SándorGal-

imberti,and Valéria Dénes, the demands of Cubism are more forcefully asserted.

Cézanne’s grand retrospective exhibit in 1907 had a profound effect on the Hungarian Fauves, but the

experience was not processed until the beginning of the next decade. In the meantime, the artists in the

Group ofEight—exceptfor Pórand Kernstok—paintedtheirCézanne-like still-lifesone aftertheother.The

influence of the hermit ofAix can be felt in the landscapes andArcadian scenes, too.His bathing pictures

servedas models forHungarianand FrenchFauves alike.Ten yearslater,in1924,Ern Kállai,therenownedarthistorian,tookexceptiontothis ina studywrittenaboutMárffy:“Theway wasshownbyCézanne’stec-

tonics.” However, the majority of the Group of Eight did not observe the essential element of his tectonics

thatleadsto future—namely,the foreshadowingof geometric,homogeneousstructure inspaceand form.

Theconsistentdevelopmentofthisnew structurewould haveledto Cubism andConstructivism,toplaces

which were unattainable as far as the experiments with classic and baroque compositions were con-

cerned. The Group of Eight (including Márffy) overemphasized the marginalities of Cézanne’s tectonics.

Amazingly, they wanted to learn the most from Cézanne’s weakest points: the French master’s classical

compositionideas.48 Nevertheless,Cézannewasnotthe onlysourcefor theArcadiansceneswhichsocap-

tivated the Group of Eight. In terms of the “artistic principles of lasting value,” they harkened back to Etr-

uscan statues, Greek vase paintings, the Italian Renaissance, and Hans von Marées’ and Ferdinand

Hodler’s compositions,which were fulfilled in murals or on vast canvases.

In this respect, Hungarian painting is of French inspiration, but World War I put an end to its autonomous

and inventive phase. France and the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy became enemies; the majority of the

Hungarian painters had to escape from France to avoid internment. In the early 1910s, a great number of

works byour artistslivingin Paris scattered tothe fourwinds,withmanypaintings presumably destroyed.

Itis anenormouslossthatthereis almostnothingthatremainsof SándorGalimberti’sand ValériaDénes’

joint oeuvre, or from Béla Czóbel’s first period in Paris. Some of the Group of Eight became war painters,

and although the group never broke up, it gradually died away.

Theend ofthe world wardidnot meanthequickrevivalof internationalartisticrelations.Asa consequence

of the Treaty of Trianon, French-Hungarian relations drastically deteriorated.Nagybánya (now Baia Mare)

becamepartofRomania,andthemaintrendsin Hungarianpaintingwereno longersteeredbymovements

in Paris.French influence returned gradually,starting in the second half of the 1920s, in the tame forms of

the École de Paris.

98



WAS BELGIUM ONE OF THE CRADLES

OF HUNGARIAN FAUVISM?

BARKI GERGELY

So far professional literature on Hungarian art history has ignored the endeavours developing at the beginning of the 20th century, besides

Hungary at Nagybánya (present-day Baia Mare in Romania) and Kecsk

points like Kaposvár, Nyergesújfalu, Budapest, and so onóHungarian co

cities in Belgium,albeit without regularity,organization, or official forms

Belgium-based artist colonies,documents at our d isposal testify that m

Paris visited Bruges, Zeebrugge, and Ostend in particular, for longer o

returningguests.Duringtheirtimein Belgium,theymoreor lesscameinc

Hungarianartists walkedthe streetsof Brugeslookingfor subjects.None

originated the custom of Belgian study excursions, whether they took

whetherthey formed relationshipswiththe local artists.1 Thefirstsignific

an extended period of time in Belgium was József Rippl-Rónai, the “Hu

Belgian public had the opportunity to see on this very same walls a few y

Rónairecordedthe story ofhis 1901summervacationin Flanders.3 Them

were Ostend, Bruges, Veurne, Brussels, and Mariakerke. In the course o

quick impressions, and he brought home to Hungary an entire series o

successat anexhibitionorganizedat theMerkurPalacein 1902.Rippl-Ró

the development of modern Hungarian art. Later, he was even a well-kn

the Hungarian Fauves. It is possible that it was this exhibition that fir

Hungarians to Belgian locations. In fact, in the following years primaril

fledging Hungarian painters residing in Paris at the time, an actual em

North, to Bretagne and the centres in Belgium. The main reason for the

besides the beauty of the seaside and old cities, could very well have b

living.

“From Paris, I always went to work in Bretagne, Pont-Aven, and Bruges i

painters’settlements,”recalledÖdönMárffy,oneof themostprogressive

Fauves.4

Inthe treatment ofthe HungarianFauvessofar,neithertheBudapestexh

inFranceplacedenoughemphasisupon Belgiancentres.Still,thankstoa

documents that have recently come to light, we can definitively state th

painters towards Fauvism,Bruges counts as a very important site indeed

The city played an especially important role in the formulation of Bé

distinctive styles and in the course of their future artistic development.

27 “Depuis 1906, que nous avons exposé ensemble dans lasalle des Fauves des Salon des Indépendants, vous avez faitvotre chemin, ce qui n’a pas toujours été des plus simple.”(Since 1906, when we exhibited together in the Fauve roomof the Salon des Indépendants, you have made your ownway,whichhas notalwaysbeeneasy).GeorgesBraque’slet-tertoBéla Czóbel,26 October1952.PublishedphotobyKra-tochwill,Mimi: “Czóbel”.Veszprém-Budapest: Magyarképek ,2001,p.50.28 LouisVauxcelles:“Le Salon des Indépendants”.Gil Blas, 20March 1907.29 Gertrude Stein: The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas. NewYork:Vintage Books,1990, p. 18.30 GelettBurgess:“TheWildMenof Paris”.In: TheArchitectur-al Record, May 1910, pp. 401-414.31 For a current source on Hungarian exhibitions at the Salond’Automne and the Salon des Indépendants in Paris, seeKrisztina Passuth: A párizsi szalonok m vészei. In: MAGYARVADAK, 2006, pp. 95-100 (Krisztina Passuth: Hungarian Artists at the Salons of Paris. In: Hungarian Fauves, 2006, pp.87-92.).Forthe receptionof HungarianFauvesin thecontem-poraryFrenchpress,see SophieBarthélémy: Pan!Dans l’œil…La réceptioncritiquedes Fauveshongrois auSalon parisiende1904à 1914.In: FAUVESHONGROIS,2008,pp. 71-83.32 György Szucs: Disszonancia vagy új harmónia? A ‘neós’muvészet Nag ybányán . In: MAGYAR VADAK, 2006, p. 52.(György Szucs: Dissonance ou nouvelle harmonie. L’art‘néo’à Nagybánya. In: FAUVES HONGROIS,2008, p. 97.)33 Zsófia Dénes: Tegnapi új mvészek (New artists of yester-day).Budapest: Kozmosz,1974,p. 88.34 Károly Ferenczy’s letter to István Réti, 29 April 1907, HNGArchives, 8270/1955. Published in Edit András and MáriaBernáth (ed.): Dokumentumok a nagybányai mvészteleptörténetéb l II. Válogatás a nagybányai m vészek lev-eleib l,1893-1944 (Documents from the History of the ArtistColony in Nagybánya II: Selection from the Letters of Artistsin Nagybánya,1893-1944).Miskolc, 1977,pp. 144-145.A sim-ilar thought was written in a letter two weeks earlier. SeeKároly Ferenczy’ letter to István Réti, 18 April 1907, HNG

Archives,8271/1955.Ibid, p.144.35 Imréné Zsiga, (Mrs Imre Zsiga): “Czigány is járt kint.”Horváth Béla interjúi (“Czigány was here.” Béla Horváth’sinterviews), p. 35; dr. Zsiga Imréné Horváth Bélának (Mrs.Imre Zsiga, doctor, to Béla Horváth) [1957-?], manuscript:“There was Oszkár Jászi. His wife, Anna Lesznai, loved mymother very much. Márffy was there very often. Czóbel and

Czigány spent whole summers there. They rented a room.”Béla Horváth’s interviews, p. 36; Feszty Masa Horváth Bélá-nak (MasaFesztytoBélaHorváth)[1957-?],manuscript,pri-vate property.36 Miklós Rózsa: A magyar impresszionista festésze (Hungar-ian Impressionist Painting). Budapest: Pallas, 1914,p. 265.37 Károly Kernstok, Czóbel Béla szalmakalapos képmása(Portrait of Béla Czóbel in a Straw Hat), 101 x 470 cm,HNG,Budapest,Lot No.6826.38 Béla Czóbel, Nyergesújfalui udvar (Yard in Nyergesújfalu),72 x 80 cm,JPM, Pécs,Lot No.62.6.39 Márffy Ödön beszél életéro l és festészetéro l Horváth Bélá-nak (Ödön Márffy speaks about his life and painting to BélaHorváth),1957.Compilationfroma 32-pagemanuscriptwithÁrpád Somogyi’s questions 1–12, typewritten, private prop-erty,p. 6.40 Kernstok, Károly, Álló noi ak t (Standing Female Nude),1908, 210 x 98 cm, Kunyi Domonkos Museum, Tata, LotNo. 64.1.8; Ödön Márffy: Fiú és lány zöld padon (Boy andGirl on a Green Bench), 1908, 95 x 115 cm, private proper-ty; Károly Kernstok, Fához támaszkodó fiúakt (Nude BoyLeaning against a Tree), circa 1909, 66 x 44 cm, HNG,Budapest, Lot No. 9035; Ödön Márffy, Nyergesiparasztlány (Peasant Girl from Nyerges), circa 1908, 88.5x 62 cm, private property.41 Ödön Márffy, Színes noi ak t (Colourful Female Nude),circa1908, 64 x 49 cm, RRM, Kaposvár, Lot No. 55.367; ÖdönMárffy, Für do nok (Bathing Women), circa 1909, 78 x 96.5cm, JPM, Pécs, Lot No. 74.453; Károly Kernstok, Ifjak(Youths), 1909,165 x 127 cm, private property.42 LouisVauxcelles:“Le Salon des Indépendants”. In: Gil Blas,20 March 1907.43 Maurice Denis: “Liberté épuisante et stérile”. La GrandeRevue, 10 April 1908; Róbert Berény, Olasz lány aktja (Nudeof an Italian Girl),1907,81 x 44 cm, private property.44 Ibid.; Róbert Berény, Cilinderes önarckép (Self-portraitwithTop Hat),1907,79 x 60 cm,JPM, Pécs,Lot No.87.8.45 Sophie Barthélémy: Fauves d’ouest en est. La leçon deMatisseetde soncercle.In: FAUVESHONGROIS,2008,p.32.46

Róbert Berény, N pohárral (Woman with a Glass),1905,61 x 46,private property.47 Iván Dévényi:“Márffy Ödön levele a Nyolcak törekvésér l”(ÖdönMárffy’sletterabouttheGroupof Eight’saspirations).In: Muvés zet , 10August 1969.48 Ern Kállai: “Márffy Ödön újabb munkái” (Ödön Márffy’slatest works).In: Ars Una, April 1924,VII,p.269.

100

Who Are Those Hungarian Wild Beasts in. (1)

Documents

Transcript of Who Are Those Hungarian Wild Beasts in. (1)