Databáze uměleckých výstav v českých zemích 1820 – 1950

The second exhibition of the Tvrdošíjní (The Obstinate) group was, as Václav Špála put it, “more crystallized” [Špála 1921, p. 42]. Only four artists took part this time: Špála, Josef Čapek, Vlastislav Hofman and Jan Zrzavý; there has been no explanation for Rudolf Kremlička and Otakar Marvánek’s absence. The exhibited sets included primarily recent works but they are difficult to identify. Hofman exhibited 37 works, mostly pastels and watercolours with landscape and figural motifs; Špála chose 30 of his works, mainly bathing themes, landscapes, female figures and flower still lifes. Čapek was represented by 38 more recent works, most of which grappled with social issues, depicting drinkers, prostitutes and beggars; the selection also included intimate female portraits and landscapes, as well as drawings for linocut illustrations accompanying the Czech translation of Thomas De Quincey's Levana and Our Ladies of Sorrow. Zrzavý exhibited one painting, Morning from 1919, and 11 drawings from 1918–1919 including the famous Melancholy, Friends and Cafe. The catalogue contained a bilingual list of exhibited artworks including the title and in most cases the date of origin; most of the works were for sale. The short introductory text was penned by Karel Čapek who was familiar with the work and views of the participating artists through his brother Josef. In this introduction, Čapek reflected on the nature of art, and especially what he called the new art. His reflection was deliberately aimed at the local milieu with its pedantic conservatism and unwillingness to accept and understand anything new. Čapek's essay called for natural creativity, which he compared to Spring: “fresh creativity that yields something new,” while also bringing a new “principle” [Čapek 1920, pp. 1–2]. According to Čapek, the exhibiting artists lived up to this principle: their expression was convincing and reflected the situation at the time. Another positive review, written by Karel Teige, appeared in the magazine Musaion. This was full-fledged art, wrote Teige, even though it was made during the war when art was left to fend for itself. He recognized that these four artists represented a generation coming to maturity and that, despite the differences in their individual approaches, they “form a unified group representing the next important chapter in the history of Czech painting” [Teige 1920a, p. 78]. In the newspaper Právo lidu, Teige wrote that the exhibited artworks were an expression of modernity and the new artistic methods, displaying a “triumphant inner certainty; a certainty that one is not only going somewhere, but going ... forward, where one must go." [Teige 1920b, p. 3]. Ladislav Süss, too, mentioned the triumph of and increased interest in modernity in his 1920 report on exhibition activities. He viewed the second Tvrdošíjní exhibition with appreciation. In his words, it was “as trailblazing as the first one (in April 1918), but more resolute and mature.” Süss devoted his attention to each of the four artists, noting the difference in sensibility between Čapek's works and the vividly colourful, stylized and simplified paintings by Špála on the one hand, and Zrzavý's “new classicism” on the other; for him, this was a general phenomenon, “the creative range of our new painting.” Süss particularly appreciated Čapek's poetically poignant works on social topics, but criticized Hofman for uncertainty and “the occasional slip into mannerism” [Süss 1920–1921, p. 28]. Other critics, such as Teige, V. Patzak, Václav Nebeský and Stanislav Kostka Neumann, also disliked Hofman's unevenness in his artistic approach.

According to Neumann, who examined each of the exhibiting artists in his extensive review, Tvrdošíjní's second show was received “kindly, without rudeness, ridicule and abuse” [Neumann 1920, p. 284]. The only sarcastic remarks appeared, quite predictably, in the review by the conservative critic F. X. Harlas in Národní politika and in Arnošt Procházka's text for Moderní revue.

Václav Nebeský's comprehensive review in Tribuna from January 18, 1920 offered a deeper analysis of both the show and the exhibiting artists' views. Nebeský assessed the group's position in the context of postwar Czech modern art. The exhibition's high quality reaffirmed his belief that “we have something to say to the world” and that the question of “new art” which Tvrdošíjní had brought “was not only a question of a new form, it was also a question of a new language. It was not only an artist's question, it was also a poet's question. In sum, a problem of a brand new, 'Cubo-Expressionist’ realism” [Nebeský 1920, p. 2]. By this Nebeský meant the process of abstracting the object's natural appearance – its accentuation and redefinition. He wrote that the distortions in Cubist painting do not touch the innermost essence of the viewed object and that it is precisely this essence that Tvrdošíjní aimed to grasp. Further on, Nebeský wrote that Tvrdošíjní steered their topics “toward a purely visual, poetic reinterpretation of the immediate reality, unadulterated by the ostentatious gadgets of decadent eclecticism.” With some exaggeration, he wrote that the "tendency towards poeticization in both painting and drawing” can be connected to "the unbroken tradition of specifically Czech painting, so auspiciously set forth by Mánes and Aleš." [ibidem, p. 3]. In retrospect, Nebeský's concept of Czech poeticism should be treated with some reserve. He came up with it in the period when the question of local art's national character came to the fore after the establishment of the independent Czechoslovak republic. But Nebeský was not the only one to coin the idea – the issue was also discussed elsewhere in cultural periodicals at the time. Czech national characteristics in Tvrdošíjní's art are mentioned in reviews of the show's successful reprise in Germany. Held from February 1920 onward in Dresden, Berlin and Hannover, this reprise was organized with the help of Friedrich Feigl who had left Prague for Berlin in 1911.

In addition to bringing international recognition, these German shows made the group a part of the postwar Central-European modern art scene. As Camill Hoffmann wrote in his review, Tvrdošíjní enriched European art with national, Slavic features which Nebeský had associated with poeticism. The appreciation Tvrdošíjní received in the foreign press significantly improved their position in Czech art. Typically of the Czech milieu, the success abroad contributed to the group's recognition at home.

Mahulena Nešlehová

Works Cited

Čapek 1920: Karel Čapek, Tvrdošíjní (kat. výst.), Praha 1920, pp. 1–2

Nebeský 1920: Václav Nebeský, Druhá výstava Tvrdošíjných, Tribuna II, 1920, no. 16, 18. 1., pp. 1–3

Neumann 1920: Stanislav Kostka Neumann, Druhá výstava Tvrdošíjných, Kmen III, 1920, no. 41–42, 19. 2., pp. 283–284

Süss 1920–1921: Ladislav Süss, Tvrdošíjní, Umělecký měsíčník Orfeus I, 1920–1921, no. 1, July, p. 28

Špála 1921: Václav Špála, Jak to bylo, Veraikon VII, 1921, 3–4, p. 42

Teige 1920a: Karel Teige, II. výstava Tvrdošíjných, Musaion I, 1920, January, p. 78

Teige 1920b: Karel Teige, Druhá výstava Tvrdošíjných, Právo lidu XXIX, 1920, no. 10, 11. 1., p. 3

Further Reading

Jaroslav Slavík, Skupina Tvrdošíjných, Umění XXX, 1982, s. 193–213

Jaroslav Slavík, Tvrdošíjní, in: Vojtěch Lahoda – Mahulena Nešlehová – Marie Platovská – Rostislav Švácha – Lenka Bydžovská (edd.) Dějiny českého výtvarného umění 1890/1938 IV/1, Praha 1998, pp. 205–311

Karel Srp, Tvrdošíjní (exh. cat.), Galerie hlavního města Prahy 1986

Anonym, Právo lidu XXIX, 1920, no. 10, 11. 1., p. 10

Anonym, Národní listy LX, 1920, no. 4, 4. 1., p. 5