Databáze uměleckých výstav v českých zemích 1820 – 1950

This exhibition of the French sculptor Emile Antoine Bourdelle (1861–1929) was intended as a sequel to the Mánes Association’s landmark exhibition of Bourdelle's teacher Auguste Rodin (1902). In addition to the other artists in Rodin’s Paris circle (the painter Jan Dědina and the sculptor Josef Mařatka), Rodin himself encouraged Bourdelle to exhibit in Prague [Sucharda 1909, p. 46] and he also wrote the introduction to the catalogue. Rodin described his younger colleague as a “Greek from Southern France” who came to Paris as a young man, entering the Parisian art world as a “young bull in the arena.” Bourdelle’s “fiery, powerful temperament put up mighty resistance” [Rodin 1909] to his academic training with Alexandre Falguière, and so the young sculptor began to work in Jules Dalou's workshop. In 1893, he joined Rodin’s studio, soon becoming the master’s first assistant, a position he held until 1908. Fascinated by Greek and archaic art, Bourdelle worked his way towards monumental stylisation and reductive, calm volumes. This way, he sent inspiration back to the aging Rodin who, at the end of 1907, publicly revoked his doctrine of pathos: “I used to delude myself into believing that dramatic, excited movement was absolutely necessary to express life... That was a mistake ... Reality is even more captivating when it is completely still” [Rodin 1909]. Rodin would openly declare that it was Bourdelle (along with Aristide Maillol) whom he saw as the “reviving force in sculpture” and “vanguard of the future” [ibid.].

The Mánes Association dedicated the entire issue of Volné směry (2^nd issue of the 12^th volume) to Bourdelle, who was its corresponding member between 1907 and 1913. The issue contained 24 reproductions of his works. In the introductory text by Stanislav Sucharda, one can read signs of the ongoing tension within Manes, which had been brewing between 1907 and 1911. The association was shaken by intergenerational conflict, personal animosities and disagreements about the conception of Volné směry. Sucharda, the association’s long-time chairman, was quite frustrated by this unsavory atmosphere. Surprisingly, he writes very little about Bourdelle in his text, instead giving the reader detailed account of his own position on the essence of sculpture. Sucharda is also extremely dismissive of contemporary theory and criticism. He formulates the imperative of "plastic beauty", which "must not be judged from the point of view of whatever “ism” was in vogue at a particular time” [Sucharda 1909, p. 56]. He criticizes Impressionism in sculpture (M. Rosso, P. P. Troubetzkoy), a trend that seduced even Auguste Rodin. Bourdelle restores monumentality in sculpture – “using form that is deep-felt down to the smallest detail and simplified in proportion to and in dependence on the whole" [Sucharda 1909, p. 60].

The Bourdelle exhibition in Prague featured 58 sculptures and 18 drawings and paintings, and two photographs of the artist's controversial Memorial to the Fallen in his native Mountaban. Admission was one Crown, 60 Hallers for students and workers; the price of the illustrated catalogue was one Crown. Bourdelle and his wife were present at the opening. On March 1, 1909, Bourdelle gave a lecture on Rodin at the National Club, in which he defined the current tendency toward the calmness of form: “We will not ask sculptors to tell us stories, we will concern ourselves only with the beauty of surfaces, profiles and proportions” [Wittlich 1961, 479]. In keeping with Bourdelle’s instructions, the installation was rather austere. The sculptures, placed on simple plinths, stood out against the dark walls; the popular flowers and greenery were missing. Accompanied by local artists (mostly from Mánes), Bourdelle then also visited Kutná Hora and Kuks. The exhibition was attended by over 3,500 visitors. In terms of sales, it was extremely successful by Prague standards; the numerous buyers included the City of Prague (Portrait of Ingres) and the Mánes Association. Both sculptures presented in the exhibition’s entrance area – Reclining Nude (Morning Star) and Heracles the Archer – are now in the collections of the National Gallery.

This successful project further strengthened the traditionally good relations between Prague (and Prague’s art world) and Paris. In line with the spirit of Rodin’s exhibition, it confirmed the emerging canon of modern sculpture, according to which Bourdelle was seen as the bearer and fulfiller of Rodin’s legacy. Due to personal connections with Bourdelle, the Czech milieu briefly overlooked the importance of Bourdelle’s remarkable contemporary, Astride Maillol. In hindsight, Bourdelle’s exhibition came at the right time because the first decade of the 20^th century was the most productive and inspiring period in his oeuvre [Wittlich 1961, 477]. Like the 1902 Rodin exhibition, the Bourdelle show was a milestone in the development of Czech modern sculpture, ushering in the formally reductive tendencies soon employed by the entire generation of Czech sculptors (Otakar Španiel, Josef Mařatka, Jan Štursa, Otto Gutfreund, Jakub Obrovský, Jaroslav Horejc and others). This role has traditionally been attributed to Jan Štursa, whose position was in fact analogical to that of Bourdelle – he had developed his synthetizing expression several years before Bourdelle’s Prague exhibition [Wittlich 1961, p. 482]. It is not a coincidence that it was Bourdelle who authored Štursa’s obituary for Volné směry in 1925.

Martin Krummholz

Works Cited

Rodin 1909: Auguste Rodin, A. Rodin o E. A. Bourdellovi, in: Soubor děl sochaře Emila A. Bourdella (exh. cat.), Praha 1909

Sucharda 1909: Stanislav Sucharda, O dobrém sochaři. Úvod do studia díla Bourdellova, Volné směry XIII, 1909, pp. 45–61

Wittlich 1961: Petr Wittlich, E. A. Bourdelle a jeho výstava roku 1909 v Praze, Umění IX, 1961, pp. 476– 484

Further Reading

Karolína Fábelová, Bourdelle a Prague en 1909 et son rapport aux artistes tcheques et a Auguste Rodin, Umění/Art LVII, 2009, no. 4, pp. 364–384

Blanka Jiráčková, Spolek výtvarných umělců Mánes, působení jeho výstavní činnosti v letech 1898 – 1911 na vývoj českého moderního umění, thesis, FF UK, 1978, pp. 81–85

Josef Mařatka, Vzpomínky a záznamy, Praha 2003, p. 156

Antonín Šnajdauf, Klid či hnutí? Otázka výtvarnická I., Hlídka Času III, 1908, no. 37, 7. 10., p. 4

Anna Masaryková, Výstavy cizích umělců v Praze a mezinárodní orientace SVU Mánesa, Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Philosophica et historica III–IV, 1992, pp. 183–188

Roman Prahl – Lenka Bydžovská, Volné směry. Časopis secese a moderny, Praha 1993

Helena Štaubová, Bourdelle a jeho žáci. Giacometti. Richier. Gutfreund, Praha 1998, pp. 13–23

Václav Vilém Štech, Vzpomínka na E. A. Bourdella, Volné směry XXVII, 1929–1930, p. 170

Petr Wittlich, Sochařství české secese, Praha 2000

Archival Sources

Prague City Archives, Fonds Spolek výtvarných umělců Mánes, Výstavní činnost, 4009, Soubor děl sochaře Emila A. Bourdella, 1909 (únor - březen) [Mánes Fine Arts Association, Exhibitions, 4009, Collection of works by the sculptor Emile A. Bourdelle (February – March), 1909, permalink: http://katalog.ahmp.cz/pragapublica/permalink?xid=77C167CE220E11E0823600166F1163D4 

Čas XXIII, 1909, no. 55, 24. 2., p. 2; no. 56, 25. 2., p. 4; no. 58, 27. 2., p. 3; no. 61, 2. 3., p. 6; no. 66, 7. 3., p. 5; no. 69, 10. 3., p. 4; no. 71, 12. 3., p. 4; no. 73, 14. 3., p. 7; no. 76, 17. 3., p. 4; no. 77, 18. 3., p. 3; no. 79, 20. 3., p. 5; no. 86, 27. 3., p. 4; no. 92, 2. 4., p. 5; no. 97, 7. 4., p. 3; no. 98, 8. 4., p. 3; no. 101, 11. 4., p. 6

Český svět V, 1909, no. 21., 5. 3., p. 242

Moravská orlice XLVII, 1909, no. 48, 28. 2., p. 4

Národní listy XLIX, 1909, no. 55, 24. 2., p. 2; no. 56, 25. 2., p. 4; no. 58, 27. 2., p. 3; no. 59, 28. 2., p. 4; no. 60, 1. 3., p. 2; no. 61, 2. 3., p. 3; no. 62, 3. 3., p. 2; no. 63, 4. 3., p. 2; no. 65, 6. 3., p. 2; no. 66, 7. 3., p. 4; no. 73, 14. 3., p. 3; no. 76, 17. 3., p. 3; no. 80, 21. 3., p. 4; no. 83, 24. 3., p. 1; no. 86, 27. 3., p. 4; no. 87, 28. 3., p. 4; no. 90, 31. 3., p. 2; no. 94, 4. 4., p. 4; no. 96, 6. 4., p. 4; no. 101, 11. 4., p. 4

Národní politika XXVII, 1909, no. 52, 21. 2., p. 16; no. 55, 24. 2., p. 6; no. 58, 27. 2., p. 6; no. 59, 28. 2., p. 16; no. 61, 2. 3., p. 6; no. 62, 3. 3., p. 6; no. 66, 7. 3., p. 16; no. 71, 12. 3., p. 6; no. 73, 14. 3., p. 16; no. 80, 21. 3., p. 14; no. 87, 28. 3., p. 16; no. 92, 2. 4., p. 6; no. 93, 3. 4., p. 6; no. 94, 4. 4., p. 16; no. 96, 6. 4., p. 16; no. 97, 7. 4., p. 14; no. 98, 8. 4., p. 6; no. 101, 11. 4., p. 16

Osvěta lidu XIV, 1909, no. 24, 27. 2., p. 3; no. 27, 6. 3., p. 6; no. 28, 9. 3., p. 6; no. 40, 10. 4., p. 3

Pozor XVI, 1909, no. 39, 25. 2., p. 1

Volné směry XIII, 1909, p. 39

Zlatá Praha XXVI, 1909, no. 25, 12. 3., pp. 297–298