Databáze uměleckých výstav v českých zemích 1820 – 1950

This exhibition was the first public presentation of artists associated with Kruh výtvarných umělkyň (Circle of Women Artists, KVU). KVU’s organization base emerged from the Arts Department, founded in 1917 as part of the Central Association of Czech Women. The organizers focused on the efforts of female artists to achieve emancipation in the Czechoslovak art world. The concept was likely created by Valérie Hachla-Myslivečková, the first KVU chairwoman, and Zdenka Burghauserová[-Mokrá], KVU’s executive director and one of the most talented and active members of the association.

The show featured 149 artworks made primarily by 26 Prague-based artists [I. výstava KVU 1921]. Except for the painter Jana Michálková, all were registered members of the KVU [Archives of Regional Museum in Chrudim, fonds Z. Burghausenová]. To commemorate the tragic death of a fellow artist, the organizers chose a third of the exhibited artworks from the estate of Jarmila Burghauserová (1896–1920), selected by her sister, Zdenka Burghauserová. Next to Marie Fischerová-Kvěchová, Zdenka Burghauserová was the third best represented artist, with 17 works on display.

Most of the artworks at the exhibition were paintings (oil painting, pastel, watercolour, gouache), drawings (charcoal, pencil, ink), coloured drawings and prints (etching, woodcut, linocut). The organizers decided to significantly reduce the number of applied art objects, which were represented by a collection of vases and jewelry by the professional designer Valérie Hachla-Myslivečková.

The exhibition drew mostly negative reactions from "male" critics. Václav Nebeský, Josef Čapek, Karel Čapek and many others viewed "women's art" with persistent disdain. According to them, the vast majority of the exhibited works were the result of carefree play, illustrating the artists' inability to create out of inner necessity and to focus on creative solutions to real artistic problems. “Viewed as a whole, this exhibition presents women’s art as a work and occupation for free moments, a festive relaxation of sorts, often coming across as summer holiday improvisation. Painting in the true sense of the word, real painting as the male world pursues it for better or worse, is a struggle and a great task” [Čapek 1921]. Nebeský denied the very purpose of the show by claiming that “most of the works at the exhibition are conceived and executed in a counter-representative manner, … half of them suffer from schoolish shabbiness, while the other half is marked by a more or less poorly concealed eclectic cluelessness or an equally hopeless and misplaced stylistic affectation” [Nebeský 1921].

F. V. Mokrý, who was married to Zdenka Burghauserová, was among the first critics to defend KVU’s pioneering efforts and countered doubts about the creative abilities of women: “It is perhaps in the selfish nature of men that ... they simply cannot understand that a woman could also create art independently, although they must certainly know the importance of women artists in other countries. There was even a case of a critic, now by far the most respected, who belittled a quality artwork by a woman as something out of date, without remembering what the most obstinate of The Obstinates were painting and reproducing ten years ago!” [Mokrý 1921] Mokrý also stated that the exhibition featured a number of mediocre works that, with a few exceptions, failed to reflect the artists' efforts to find their own voice. But he also expressed his hope that women’s artistic production would improve, if the democratic state would give them equal access to artistic education.

In terms of quality, landscapes by Julie Winterová-Mezerová and Marie Chodounská clearly stood out among the artworks at the exhibition, as did the set of expressive oil paintings by Zdenka Burghauserová (Pain, Underworld, Shame, Leda, Organ Tones Rise…). The latter paintings also provoked the most polarized criticism. The reviewers unanimously pointed to the boldness of the works, which were strikingly out of character with the rest of the exhibition. Some critics, however, suspected the painter of staging theatrical displays of false emotionality, fake depth and quasi-modernism [KN 1921–1922, Nebeský 1921]. Otakar Marvánek on the other hand, appreciated the spontaneity, inventiveness and confidence with which the artist was able to express various moods and sensual excitement [Marvánek 1921]. Mokrý’s view of his wife’s paintings resembled today’s evaluation – he believed they were evidence of her “extraordinarily mature artistic personality.”  Her ability to convincingly use painting “as if in one breath, in moments of deep excitement” reflected the state of her psyche, then severely destabilized by the death of her beloved sister and her hasty marriage [Mokrý 1921].

The exhibition fulfilled its goal. It boldly demonstrated these artists were ready to fight for the right to freely pursue their creative work and to receive objective evaluation in the general context of modern art. The aftermath of the KVU exhibition confirmed that women indeed needed to organize exhibitions independently of the existing art associations, which were mostly dismissive of “women's art.” At its next general meeting, the Jednota výtvarných umělců (Union of Fine Artists, JVU) en bloc expelled the women artists registered with JVU who had participated in the KVU exhibition. The JVU board argued that members were not allowed to exhibit outside the Union, although they had previously given the artists permission to do so. The reviewer who commented on this incident concluded that it had its value in the end – the women artists freed themselves from the directives of the hostile conservative Union [Sigma 1921, p. 50].

Alena Kavčáková

Works Cited

I. výstava KVU 1921: I. výstava Kruhu výtvarných umělkyň (exh. cat.), Obecní dům Praha 1921

Čapek 1921, J. NO. [Josef Čapek], I. výstava Kruhu výtvarných umělkyň. Obecní dům (review), Národní listy LXI, 1921, no. 40, 10. 2., p. 5

KN 1921–1922, KN, Pražské výstavy. Výstava Kruhu výtvarných umělkyň (review), Volné směry XXI, 1921–1922, p. 77

Marvánek 1921, O[takar] Marvánek I. výstava kruhu výtvarných umělkyň. (Obecní dům – únor.) (review.), České slovo XIII, 1921, 13. 2., p. 4

Mokrý 1921, F. V. M. [František Viktor Mokrý], Členská výstava Kruhu výtvarných umělkyň. Obecní dům města Prahy (review), Právo lidu XXX, 1921, no. 43, 20. 2., p. 11

Nebeský 1921, V. N. [Václav Nebeský], Výstava klubu výtvar. umělkyň. Obecní dům (review), Tribuna III, 1921, no. 37, 13. 2., p. 8

Sigma 1921: Sigma, První výstava Kruhu výtvarných umělkyň. (V pražském Obecním domě.) (review), Ženský svět XXV, 1921, no. 3, 25. 2., pp. 49–50

Further Reading

Libuše Heczková – Martina Pachmanová – Petr Šámal (edd.), Jak odlesk měsíce v jezeře. Česká teorie a kritika umění v genderových souvislostech, 1865–1945, Řevnice 2014, pp. 203–204, 229–232

Archival Sources

Regionální muzeum v Chrudimi, fonds Zdenka Burghauserová, file SPM 931, První sešit (seznam členek Výtvarného odboru při Ústředním spolku českých žen a Kruhu výtvarných umělkyň) [Book 1 (list of members of the Arts Department at the Central Association of Czech Women and the Circle of Women Artists)]

anonymous author, I. členská výstava „Kruhu výtvarných umělkyň“ […], Národní listy LXI, 1921, no. 31, 1. 2., p. 4

anonymous author, I. členská výstava »Kruhu Výtvarných Umělkyň« […], Venkov XVI, 1921, no. 31, 6. 2., p. 9

anonymous author, I. výstava »Kruhu výtvarných umělkyň« v Praze […], Venkov XVI, 1921, no. 37, 13. 2., p. 9

anonymous author, Nový výbor Kruhu výtvarných umělkyň, Ženský svět XXVI, 1922, no. 8–9, 10. 5., p. 117

anonymous author, Umělecké výstavy v Praze, Venkov XVI, 1921, no. 30, 5. 2., p. 6

anonymous author, Výstavy, Československá republika CCXLII, 1921, no. 36, 6. 2., p. 6

anonymous author, Ženský Klub český […], Národní listy LXI, 1921, no. 53, 23. 2., p. 5