Databáze uměleckých výstav v českých zemích 1820 – 1950

 As evident from reviews and other articles, this was a relatively small exhibition that juxtaposed works by young artists of diverse artistic perspectives, placing them into dialogue. It was organized by the Prague salon Výtvarné dílo (Artwork) and prepared by the art historian Lev Nerad who also chose the artists. He selected the painters Václav Hejna, Josef Liesler and Václav Plátek from the group Sedm v říjnu (Seven in October) which he co-founded in 1939 along with the group’s theorist, Pavel Kropáček. Nerad invited the sculptor Jan Kodet, a friend of the group, as well as the painters František Gross, František Hudeček, Jan Kotík, Zdeněk Sklenář and Václav Boštík, who exhibited together at the 1940 Youth exhibition in the Melantrich Mansard. This collection was then complemented with sculptures by Mirko Stejskal. The exhibition showcased 37 artworks of mostly small formats; all were for sale. Each of the exhibiting artists presented three to four items, most dating to 1940. Hudeček was the only artist to exhibit five works – three paintings and two small drawings. 

The artists concentrated on figural themes including portraits and depictions of everyday life expressing emotional and mental tension; there was also a number of scenes from the urban periphery. The topics clearly reflected the drama of the Protectorate period and, simultaneously, the Czech modern art tradition. In Nerad’s view, the artists “worked toward a new definition of man in the entire context of his life, in all the relationships of contemporary life, both inner and outer” [Nerad 1941, p. 2].  Nerad saw these intentions in the “rehabilitation of portrait,” a genre that had been on the periphery of artistic interest, and in “the objectiveness of themes and the way the artwork as a sign conveys them, and the inclination towards a coherently viewed space" [Nerad 1941, p. 2]. He believed that diverse creative paths are simultaneously a promise and a condition for future developments in the exhibiting artists’ oeuvres. 

The oppressive situation during the Protectorate shaped the critical response to the exhibition. Extensive reviews were scarce, as authors preferred being cautious, publishing short or simply informative reports. The show was mentioned in Volné směry’s column Pražské výstavy (Prague Exhibitions). It says that the exhibition was extended until March 5 and that the participants “included Václav Hejna, Josef Liesler and Václav Pánek (sic), alongside the group Seven in October, those of the new generation who seek a new stylistic basis beyond the imitative realism in the artistic form” [Vydrová 1940–1941, p. 222]. The daily Národní práce published a similar review; its author appreciated that the young artists followed their desire to “get rid of dogmas and prejudices, both conservative and modern” [jk 1941, p. 4] and that they “took their own way.” He believed that the focus on simple, personal experience promised “something for the future” [jk 1941, p. 4]. The reviewer for the magazine Praha v týdnu shared this expectation, considering Boštík’s paintings in particular as the most “thoughtful” at the exhibition and the “flash” of the next great talent [M. L. 1941].

Otakar Mrkvička, a painter, art critic and former member of Devětsil published a particularly insightful review in Lidové noviny. He found the exhibition interesting and informative because it represented artists known to the public through exhibitions in the Topič Salon alongside the Seven in October group, the previous two shows of which had aroused public interest but also critical reactions. Mrkvička revisits this criticism. In his view, the works by the Seven in October artists at the 1941 show confirm that it was justified. In the case of Liesler and Hejna, Mrkvička points to the danger of slipping into “smoothness and effortlessness.” The juxtaposition of their respective artistic expressions, says Mrkvička, may help us predict the way art would evolve in the future. Both these artists “content themselves with improvisation, sometimes quite casual. The effort to define shapes slackens. They do not go beyond a sketch, an impressionistic blot. They look for mannerism rather then a new artistic principle” [om 1941, p. 7]. Liesler, in Mrkvička’s view, “takes his good things from elsewhere.” Further on, he justifies his objections by the following statement: “They cannot be spared criticism precisely because from the beginning they tend to linger on what they had achieved the first time” [om 1941, p. 7]. In contrast, the work by future members of Skupina 42 (Group 42) – Gross, Hudeček and Kotík – earned Mrkvička’s appreciation. He praised their painterly style but also the way they “find their own world and the expression for their experiences.” Mrkvička was unequivocal in his view of Gross’s work: “it is painting that wants to seize new emotional areas, it is a poetic force gushing from the acute imagery of a man who sees and thinks. It is simply creativity.” Hudeček’s paintings evoke similar admiration in Mrkvička. “Hudeček knows how to discover things,” his “imagination is attracted by the simplest and closest objects” (…), he “presents his subject matter objectively but adds such strangeness to the mundane that he achieves precision bordering on hallucinatory expression.” Kotík’s expressive style, too, convinced Mrkvička that this artist was a “strong painterly talent” [om 1941, p. 7]. In his review for the magazine A – Zet, Jiří Kotalík was similarly positive about the exhibiting artists. Unlike Mrkvička, he tolerated the occasional unevenness in quality, understanding that some of these works were “experiments,” “cut-and-try” creations of young and “anti-convention” artists. Kotalík writes: “Only chaos and contradictions, confusions and the unconscious give rise to positive values. (…) Going together and challenging one another with artistic truths to see which is more courageous. This seems to be the point of this new exhibition. We can sense from it the rough contours of young art. (...) But no one should see these artists as a generation. After all, they have only come together to confront one another” [kot 1941, p. 4]. Jindřich Chalupecký also appreciated the show’s good quality but pointed out that Nerad’s conception did not sufficiently emphasize the “poetic value of these new paintings and sculptures, which distinguishes them from the formalism of previous generations [ch. 1941]. Another reviewer, Miroslav Míčko, believed that the selection of artists and works contained “crystallizing poles” of future development. Although the show could not be exhaustive in terms of the number of names and works, it did, according to him, “showcase the profile and possibilities of the youngest generation.” He expected that this exhibition would lead artists of opposing camps to further exchange of opinions and creative forces [M. Míčko 1941, p. 128.].

With hindsight, we can appreciate Nerad’s intention to present a dialogue between artists whose work was very different in both the style and content. This “confrontation” was the main point of the exhibition. By presenting works by Hejna, Gross, Hudeček, Kotík and Boštík, it brought new promises and humanistic messages to Czech modern art, tendencies that took shape one year later when the Group 42 was established. 

Mahulena Nešlehová

Works Cited

ch. 1941: ch. [Jindřich Chalupecký], Z pražských výstav, Pozor, 1941, 21.2., Archive of the National Gallery Prague, Book of Clippings no. 15, 1940–1942

jk 1941: jk, Výstava nové generace, Národní práce III, 1941, no. 49,  18. 2., p. 4

kot 1941: kot [Jiří Kotalík], Konfrontace mladých výtvarníků. Nová výstava ve Výtvarném díle,  A – Zet XIII, 1941, no. 35, z 21. 2., p. 4

L. M. 1941: L. M., Konfrontace deseti mladých, Praha v týdnu, 1941, 21. 2., Archive of the National Gallery Prague, Book of Clippings no. 15, 1940–1942

M. Míčko 1941: Miroslav Míčko,  Konfrontace, Brázda IV, 1941, no. 11, 12. 3., p. 128

om 1941: om [Otakar Mrkvička], Konfrontace. Výstava skupiny malířů a sochařů v salonu Výtvarné dílo, Lidové noviny XXXXIX, 1941, no. 107, 28. 2., p. 7 

Nerad 1941: Lev Nerad, Konfrontace (exh. cat.), Praha 1941, p. 2

Vydrová 1940–1941: Jiřina Vydrová, Pražské výstavy, Volné směry XXXVI, 1940–1941, p. 222

vj 1941: vj, Salon Výtvarné dílo, Národní listy LXXX1, 1941, no. 37, 6. 2., p. 4

Further Reading

 Vojtěch Lahoda, Melancholie, expresionismus a skupina Sedm v říjnu, in: Dějiny českého výtvarného umění [V] 1939/1958, Praha 2005, p. 101

Jindřich Chalupecký, Kultura za okupace, Listy I, 1946–1947, no. 1, pp. 132–134 

Anonymous author, Čeští mistři štětce a dláta. Jan Kodet, sochař–figuralista, Expres XIV, 1941, no. 81, 7. 4., p. 3

vj, Salon Výtvarné dílo, Národní listy LXXX1, 1941, no. 37, 6. 2., p. 4