Databáze uměleckých výstav v českých zemích 1820 – 1950

Six months before Mikoláš Aleš's sixtieth birthday, the gallery spaces of Prague's Rudolfinum housed a comprehensive retrospective of his work, intended to be the most extensive presentation of Aleš's œuvre to date. The event was organized by the Fine Arts Section of the Artistic Forum (Umělecká beseda) together with the newly formed Circle of Visual Artists (Kruh výtvarných umělců). This was a group of young members of the Fine Arts Section, led by Jaroslav Jareš (it was also referred to as "Jareš's group faction"), who were working to reform what had become a somewhat ossified institution.

The vernissage took place on March 23, 1912 at 11 am and the exhibition opened to the public in the afternoon. During the ceremonial inauguration, the chairman of the Artistic Forum, Jaroslav Vlček, welcomed Mikoláš Aleš in the exhibition rooms, and Augusta Nekolová, a member of the organizing committee, read aloud a passage from the introductory essay in the exhibition catalogue. This introductory text, in which the Circle of Visual Artists sought to define its position vis-à-vis Aleš and to outline the intentions behind the exhibition, attracted great attention from the journalists. Virtually every correspondent reporting on the opening simultaneously quoted shorter or longer passages from this programmatic manifesto, evidently compelled to comment on it (Lidové noviny, Zvon, Právo lidu, Venkov, Máj, Nové pařížské mody, Budivoj). Dílo, the journal of the Union of Fine Arts (Jednota umělců výtvarných), described the text as a somewhat incoherent speech containing altogether too many words – pompously ambitious, it wrote, but entirely unsuited to the catalogue of an Aleš exhibition. The most frequently cited passages from the introduction included the following: "We wish this exhibition, conceived as the work of the youngest generation of artists, to serve as an impetus for the revision of all artistic endeavour in Bohemia. And we wish for still more […]: that the work of Aleš, as an immutable value, should become the measure of the viewer's inner content, rather than the viewer measuring the master's creation against his inner content. […] We confess to the errors and weaknesses of prodigal sons returning from abroad to their father. In this spirit, we wish this exhibition to be an act of our penance." [Jareš 1912, n.p.] Karel Boromejský Mádl, the foremost theorist of Aleš's work, responded to these words with pronounced reserve, bordering on outright criticism: "A mysterious Circle of Visual Artists (…) sets forth in its introduction peculiar assertions, to which one nods with pleasure in one part, only to shake one's head with concern or skepticism in another. […] on the whole, this Aleš exhibition is neither different nor richer than the one held ten years ago in 'Mánes'" [the Aleš exhibition organized in 1902 by the Mánes Association], "and therefore brings nothing that would call for a revision of the well-established and settled evaluation of Aleš's art." According to Mádl, no revision of Aleš's work could be claimed based on an exhibition that "could not have been assembled through any critical or methodical process of selection, but only by the goodwill of lenders." [Mádl 1912, p. 18] If the organizers genuinely wished to revise anything in relation to Aleš's work, Mádl argued, they ought to have directed greater attention toward an assessment of his achievements as a painter. It should be noted that the Circle of Visual Artists fully demonstrated its program the following year at the Jubilee Exhibition, in which the young artists presented their own work anonymously in one of the exhibition rooms, arranged around a work by Mikoláš Aleš.

Mádl's words evidently struck a nerve, as evidenced by the response of the Fine Arts Section of the Artistic Forum, published in the periodical Čas as an article entitled How Art Criticism is Written [Fine Arts Section of the Artistic Forum in Prague 1912, p. 6]. The Section took Mádl's critique literally and, citing the specific number of exhibits and the installation area of the Mánes pavilion and the Rudolfinum respectively, set out to demonstrate by how many works the current exhibition surpassed its predecessor – accusing Mádl of falsehood. It seems likely, however, that Mádl had in mind not a quantitative but a qualitative comparison of the two exhibitions, considered against the backdrop of the catalogue's high-flown introductory remarks. Similarly, the contributor to Lidové noviny contested the idea that contemporary and future art could meaningfully draw upon a personality as complete and fully realized as Aleš, continuing in his distinctively Czech, characterful, and unique mode of artistic expression. [J. M. 1912, p. 3] He thus called into question both the manifesto of the Circle of Visual Artists and, to some extent, the very rationale for the exhibition.

The organizers' somewhat ill-chosen, at times excessively declamatory rhetoric thus partly overshadowed what was undoubtedly a well-intentioned undertaking, and sat at odds both with the intimate, reflective tone of Miloš Jiránek's introductory essay in the catalogue and, above all, with Aleš's own modest and affable manner. Moreover, the exhibition was relatively short-lived – running for little more than a month – apparently due to the demands on the exhibition space (it was preceded by an exhibition of the sculptor Franz Metzner and followed immediately by the international spring exhibition of Fine Arts Association [Krasoumná jednota]). Nevertheless, it was genuinely the most comprehensive exhibition of Mikoláš Aleš's work organized during his lifetime; the gallery spaces of the Topič Salon and the Mánes Association’s pavilion in the Kinský Garden, which had housed the previous Aleš retrospectives (and in which his work had never occupied the entire pavilion, only the larger half of it), were no match for the nine halls of the Rudolfinum. The exhibition presented 389 of Aleš's works, encompassed by 253 catalogue entries and installed according to a design by the architect Mayer (most probably Leo Mayer [1900–1944]). The organizers drew particular attention to the display of all fourteen lunettes of the Vlast (Homeland) cycle, the series At Home, Elements, and The Life of the Ancient Slavs – the last of which had not been seen since the Provincial Jubilee Exhibition – as well as designs for the lunettes of the Prague Municipal Savings Bank. Aleš was further represented by nineteen oil paintings (among them Gypsy Camp, Rákóczi March, and the triptych Painting, Poetry, Music, exhibited for the first time), illustrations, small-scale drawings, and more monumental compositions of historical figures, as well as sgraffito designs and invitation cards. Among the oldest exhibits was a design for the curtain of the National Theatre dating from the late 1860s; the final decade of Aleš's oeuvre was represented by 42 works. The critics assessed the composition of the exhibition in strikingly divergent ways: "The sheer number of works affords a comprehensive overview, with the exception of the relatively sparse oil paintings" [V. 1912, p. 2]; "Works in colour, both oils and watercolours from earlier and more recent periods, are also particularly well represented" [V. P. 1912, p. 3]; "Compared to the Mánes exhibition, the present selection was richer in illustrations and lightly sketched drawings and studies." [Redakce 1912, p. 94] Setting aside the relative proportions in which the various aspects of Aleš's work were represented, it can be said that the organizers genuinely endeavoured to showcase the full spectrum of his diverse creations, presenting each series of works as a cohesive group within a single exhibition room – in contrast to the 1902 Aleš exhibition. It must be acknowledged, however, that unlike the first comprehensive Aleš retrospective of 1896, the present exhibition did not include, for example, his decorative furniture painting, and the reviewer in Zvon also complained about the absence of Aleš's heraldic studies. [J. L. 1912, p. 495]

In their official report, the organizers themselves tacitly acknowledged certain gaps in the selection, describing the exhibition as a torso – albeit one containing the finest details of Aleš's work. This inherent incompleteness was conditioned by two fundamental circumstances. The first was the sheer scale of Aleš's output — the exhibition had initially been envisioned as fully comprehensive, but this quickly proved an unrealistic ambition. The second obstacle was the fact that a great many of Aleš's works were in private hands, and the owners approached did not always cooperate. One such appeal to private collectors, issued in preparation for the exhibition, was published in Národní listy on February 18. The organizers then asked Aleš to oversee the critical selection from works thus submitted. Some of the private lenders who had responded to the appeal and whose works had passed Aleš's selection were mentioned in the newspaper Máj; the full list of lenders appeared in the exhibition catalogue. The largest loans came from Salvátor Kominík, Dr. Jaroslav Franta, and Count Osvald Thun. Institutional lenders included the Provincial Committee of the Kingdom of Bohemia, the Board of Trustees of the Modern Gallery, the Krasoumná jednota, the Council of the Royal Capital City of Prague, and the Citizens' Savings Bank in Dolní Kralovice.

Overall, the exhibition was well-received, though it did not generate much enthusiasm. This was not due to Aleš's work itself – by this time, he was widely recognized and considered part of the canon of Czech visual art – but rather due to the absence of a clearly articulated concept, or in the unavoidable failure of the aspiration to exhibit his entire body of work, a shortcoming that stood in stark contrast to the grandiose declarations of the catalogue's introductory words. The exhibition was described on the one hand as fine and prepared with great care (Lidové noviny, April 23, 1912), which despite its gaps remained a significant document and survey of Aleš's work (Lidové noviny, 31 March 1912); on the other hand, many observers concurred that it offered no new perspective on Aleš (though it remains an open question whether the organizers had truly aimed for such a goal): "Overall, this exhibition does little to expand our knowledge of Aleš, yet it is always a pleasure to walk through the rooms of his work..." [V. P. 1912, p. 3]. Most critically inclined commentators thus found themselves, willingly or otherwise, aligning with Mádl's view as cited in the introduction, while unequivocally praising Aleš's work itself. The question of attendance is also ambiguous: while Čas reported high visitor numbers – reaching about 3,000 paying visitors by April 18 (Čas, April 18, 1912) – Venkov noted just one day later that attendance had been meagre and that a deficit was looming. [Venkov, 19 April 1912] Aleš was reportedly to receive the net proceeds of the exhibition [ibid.], which may partly explain why the exhibition was conceived in part as a commercial venture, though only a fraction of the exhibits – those without an owner – were offered for sale. Interested buyers could choose from twenty-five catalogue items, priced between 50 crowns (for a drawing) and 1,000 crowns (for an unspecified frieze design).

Journalists often pointed out Aleš's precarious financial situation, which had plagued him virtually his entire life. The artist's 60th anniversary thus became an opportunity to organize public fundraising efforts – not always successful – initiated by, among others, the writer Gustav Jaroš and the painter Jan Dědina. These appeals eventually prompted the Svatobor association to make a modest financial contribution, distributed among Mikoláš Aleš, Alois Jirásek, Jakub Arbes, and Leoš Janáček. Aleš's appointment as Chief Inspector for Drawing in Prague's elementary and civic schools also provided him with some degree of material security. The Czech-American communities of Cleveland, Ohio, and Chicago likewise did not wish to be left behind and sent Aleš a commemorative monetary gift for his birthday. They also considered a collection to fund the reconstruction of his childhood home in Mirotice, which burned down (Dennice novověku, Osvěta americká, Slavie). However, this idea never materialized, and Aleš died the following July. Some consolation for his family was that, in the final years of his life, he had lived to see – if not material reward, then certainly spiritual – vindication and public recognition, with his birthday celebrated in grand style. As his anniversary approached, the Aleš Committee was formed to centralize preparations and prevent the efforts of various groups – the Union of Fine Arts, the Group of Visual Artists, the Mánes Association, and the Fine Arts Section of the Artistic Forum — from becoming fragmented. To mark the occasion, bronze commemorative medals were minted in Prague, and Aleš was named an honorary citizen of Prague. The Modern Gallery acquired his drawing Hussite Warriors and two studies for St. George. In Chicago, jubilee celebrations took the form of an Aleš Evening held on November 13 at the home of the painter Antonín Štěrba (a professor at the Art Institute of Chicago), accompanied by a public exhibition of originals and reproductions of Aleš's works. From July to September, a further exhibition was held in Aleš's native region, specifically in the town of Písek – the Regional Anniversary Exhibition organized by the regional association Prácheň, featuring around two hundred exhibits, a portion of which had previously been shown at the Rudolfinum. Aleš's jubilee was a welcome commercial opportunity for booksellers and dealers in reproductive prints: the Artistic Forum published the cycle The Life of the Ancient Slavs in print form; the Jiří Otto publishing house issued the cycle Five Senses and the book Second Špalíček with accompanying texts by K. B. Mádl; the Mánes Association dedicated a monograph in its Zlatoroh series to Aleš, also written by Mádl; and the Dědictví Komenského publishing house released Knížka o Alšovi (A Small Book on Aleš) by František Žákavec.

In November, a wide range of periodicals covered the Aleš anniversary, including the leading dailies and journals (Světozor, Český svět, Besedy lidu, Právo lidu, Národní listy, Čas, Lidové noviny) and the regional press (Šumavan, Stráž podbrdská). This breadth of coverage corresponded to the diversity of Aleš's work: Česká škola (Czech School) and Malý čtenář (Little Reader) responded to his illustrations for children's literature; Věstník sokolský (The Sokol Newsletter) to his collaboration with the Sokol movement; Zemědělské listy (Agricultural Journal) and Venkov (Countryside) to his South Bohemian rural origins and his drawings of folk life. The journal Zvon (The Bell) published across several issues the reminiscences of Alois Jirásek (From My Memoirs), in which Jirásek repeatedly recalled his old friend, while Umělecký měsíčník (The Art Monthly) examined Aleš's work from an art-historical perspective (V. V. Štech). The illustrated weekly Zlatá Praha dedicated an entire issue to him. Not all journalists, however, allowed themselves to be swept along by the festive spirit of the occasion; in deliberate contrast to it, some reminded their readers of the hardships Aleš had endured throughout his life – the incomprehension and narrow-mindedness of certain critics and cultural institutions that persisted to that very day. A contributor to Lidové noviny lamented the fact that the decoration of the Municipal House had not been entrusted to this foremost Czech decorative artist [J. M. 1912, p. 3], while a reviewer in Venkov, writing in reference to the cartoons for the Vlast cycle, asked: "Who will alert our competent circles to the fact that this Vlast original deserves the most honoured public placement, and not a dusty storeroom?" [Anonymous author 1912, p. 8]. Readers of the daily press thus experienced a déjà vu of sorts: the display of the charcoal cartoon for Žalov from the Vlast cycle at Aleš's first retrospective in 1896 had already prompted journalists to voice analogous criticism of the prevailing storage conditions for the cycle's cartoons, which "hang in large sheets, drawn in charcoal and chalk, gathering dust in the passageway of Lehmann's establishment in Prague. These immortal creations, so admired by foreigners, wait in vain for a buyer at the laughable price of 700 guldens!" [F. X. L. 1896, p. 4] The cartoons were eventually purchased by the Provincial Committee of the Kingdom of Bohemia, the institution that lent them to the Rudolfinum. However, the committee made no effort to arrange for the work’s lasting public presentation.

Anežka Mikulcová

Works Cited

Anonymous author 1912: Anonymous author, Poznámky k výstavě Mikoláše Aleše, Venkov. Orgán České strany agrární VII, 1912, no. 91, 19. 4., p. 8

F. X. L. 1896: [F. X. L.], Ze světa uměleckého II., Mikuláš Aleš, Plzeňské listy XXXII, 1896, no. 80, 4. 7., p. 4

J. L. 1912: [J. L.], Výtvarné umění, Zvon. Týdenník belletristický a literární XII, 1912, no. 31, pp. 494–495

J. M. 1912: [J. M.], Umění, divadlo a literatura. Dvě jarní výstavy v Praze, Lidové noviny XX, 1912, no. 88, 31. 3., pp. 2–3

Jareš 1912: Jaroslav Jareš (et al.), Výstava děl Mikoláše Alše (exh. cat.), Praha 1912

Mádl 1912: Karel Boromejský Mádl, Výtvarné umění. Výstava M. Aleše, Národní listy LII, 1912, no. 89, 31. 3., p. 18

Redakce 1912: Redakce, Výstava děl Mikoláše Aleše v Rudolfinum, Dílo. List věnovaný původní tvorbě české, hlavně dekorativní X, 1912, no. 1, pp. 94–95

V. 1912: [V.], Denní zprávy, Budivoj XLVIII, 1912, no. 33, 23. 4., p. 2

V. P. 1912: [V. P.], Umění, divadlo a literatura. Mikoláš Aleš a mladí výtvarníci, Lidové noviny XX, 1912, no. 110, 23. 4., pp. 2–3

Výtvarný odbor Umělecké besedy v Praze 1912: Výtvarný odbor Umělecké besedy v Praze, Jak se píšou výtvarné kritiky, Čas XXVI, 1912, no. 99, 10. 4., p. 6

Archival Sources

Literary Archive of the Museum of Czech Literature, Collection Umělecká beseda [Artistic Forum], Box 47 (+ unprocessed portion of the collection)

Anonymous author, Výstava děl Mikuláše Aleše v Rudolfinu, Venkov. Orgán České strany agrární VII, 1912, no. 76, 31. 3., p. 6

Anonymous author, Výtvarné umění. Výstava děl mistra Mikuláše Alše na počest 60. jeho narozenin v Rudolfinu, Venkov. Orgán České strany agrární VII, 1912, no. 71, 24. 3., p. 11

Anonymous author, M. Aleš, Zlatá Praha XXIX, 1912, no. 29, 5. 4., p. 349

Anonymous author, Zprávy literární a umělecké, Besedy lidu XX, 1912, no. 13, 13. 4., p. 205

Anonymous author, Výstava prací Mikuláše Aleše v Rudolfinu, Ženský svět. List paní a dívek českých XVI, 1912, no. 8, 20. 4., p. 107

Anonymous author, Výstava Mikoláše Alše, Čas XXVI, 1912, no. 82, 22. 3., p. 4

Anonymous author, Výstava tvorby Mikoláše Alše, Čas XXVI, 1912, no. 83, 23. 3., p. 3

Anonymous author, Výstava děl Mikoláše Alše v Rudolfinu, Čas XXVI, 1912, no. 102, 13. 4., p. 4

Anonymous author, Výstava děl Mikuláše Alše v Rudolfinu, Čas XXVI, 1912, no. 107, 18. 4., p. 3

Anonymous author, Umělecká beseda v Praze, Národní listy LI, 1911, no. 359, 30. 12., p. 3

Anonymous author, Výtvarný odbor Umělecké besedy, Národní listy LII, 1912, no. 48, 18. 2., p. 4

Anonymous author, Výstava Mikuláše Alše, Národní listy LII, 1912, no. 80, 21. 3., p. 4

Anonymous author, Výstava děl mistra Mikuláše Alše v Rudolfinu, Národní listy LII, 1912, no. 87, 29. 3., p. 4

Anonymous author, Výstava děl mistra Mikoláše Aleše v Rudolfinu, Národní listy LII, 1912, no. 88, 30. 3., p. 3

Anonymous author, Výstavy. Výstava děl Mikoláše Aleše v Rudolfinu, Národní listy LII, 1912, no. 96, 7. 4., p. 4

Anonymous author, Výstava děl mistra Mik. Alše v Rudolfinu, Národní listy LII, 1912, no. 99, 11. 4., p. 3

Anonymous author, Výstava děl Mikoláše Aleše v Rudolfinum, Národní listy LII, 1912, no. 102, 14. 4., p. 5

Anonymous author, Výstavy. Výstava děl Mikoláše Aleše v Rudolfinum, Národní listy LII, 1912, no. 105, 17. 4., p. 3

Anonymous author, Výstava děl Mikoláše Aleše v Rudolfinu, Právo lidu. Časopis hájící zájmy dělníků, maloživnostníků a rolníků XXI, 1912, no. 89, 31. 3., p. 2

Anonymous author, Výstava děl Mikuláše Aleše v Rudolfinu, Právo lidu. Časopis hájící zájmy dělníků, maloživnostníků a rolníků XXI, 1912, no. 101, 13. 4., p. 1

A. M., Literatura a umění. Výstava Mikoláše Aleše, Právo lidu. Časopis hájící zájmy dělníků, maloživnostníků a rolníků XXI, 1912, no. 96, 7. 4., pp. 1–2

Edvard Bém, Feuilleton. Mikuláš Aleš, Venkov. Orgán České strany agrární VII, 1912, no. 271, 17. 11., pp. 2–3

Gamma, Mikuláš Aleš (Několik poznámek k jeho výstavě rudolfinské), Čas XXVI, 1912, no. 97, 7. 4., pp. 4–8

J. P., Nové pařížské mody. List paní a dívek českých XXIV, 1912, no. 15, 1. 5., p. 8

František Oupický, Výtvarné umění. Výstava děl Mikoláše Aleše. Rudolfinum, Přehled. Týdenník věnovaný veřejným otázkám X, 1912, no. 31, 26. 4., pp. 535–536

František Oupický, K šedesátým narozeninám Mikoláše Alše, Přehled. Týdenník věnovaný veřejným otázkám XI, 1912, no. 9, 22. 11., p. 159

Redakce, Výstava děl Mikoláše Aleše v Rudolfinum, Dílo. List věnovaný původní tvorbě české, hlavně dekorativní X, 1912, no. 1, pp. 94–95

[V.], Denní zprávy, Budivoj XLVIII, 1912, no. 33, 23. 4., p. 2

Výtvarný odbor Umělecké besedy v Praze, Jak se píšou výtvarné kritiky, Čas XXVI, 1912, no. 99, 10. 4., p. 6