Databáze uměleckých výstav v českých zemích 1820 – 1950

This exhibition was held upon the initiative of the Czechoslovak Student Union as a fundraiser for the tombstone of the Bavorov student Jan Votava. The students approached František Bílek who soon suggested that the Union organize an exhibition, the proceeds of which would be donated to finance Votava’s monument. The exhibition was to be held in the Old Town’s Church of St. Martin in the Wall, recently renovated by Kamil Hilbert, and subsequently in other Czech cities.

The Prague exhibition, taking place under the auspices of Jaroslav Goll, the Rector of Charles University, was very well attended. It became an important milestone in Bílek's life. This show was the first and for a long time the only comprehensive presentation of his work, even though the early period of Bílek's oeuvre is generally considered his most prolific. Bílek himself chose and installed the artworks. He exhibited 62 sculptures, paintings and prints, as well as his ceramic works. Most of the exhibited works were for sale, including the large Crucifix, the monumental standing figures of the Astonishment and the kneeling Moses. The latter sculptures enjoyed the greatest attention along with the large model of the National Monument which Bílek had just created as an alternative to the much-discussed memorial of the Battle of White Mountain. Admission was 80 cents, 40 cents for students and workers. Total revenue amounted to 4,875 crowns. After deducting the expenses, the net revenue of 801 crowns was divided in half between the Union and the city, which had provided the space in the church.

Bílek’s spiritual works resonated in the austere interior of the newly renovated church with its rough plaster and tiles. The sculptor wrote the following to Otokar Březina, the author of the catalogue introduction: “The church and my works make a good impression together; as if they have always been there.” [František Bílek’s letter to Otokar Březina, LA PNP, fonds Otokar Březina, received correspondence, František Bílek, undated]. Most of the visitors and reviewers shared this opinion, even though Bílek was otherwise a highly polarizing figure. In his review of the show, Karel B. Mádl writes: “Bílek is our most controversial artist. He fights everything, he is attacked; he is condemned by some and glorified by others.” [Mádl 1908]. The most divisive aspect of Bílek’s work was its much-discussed “literary character.” Critics wrote of Bílek’s intensity, and the manipulative character of his work, viewing these qualities as either positive or negative depending on the position they were speaking from. The sculptor’s worldview was regarded as unforgiving and somewhat elitist. Critics often used the words “Czech character” and “Hussite spirit,” concepts that likely came from the recent reviews of Bílek’s exhibitions in Germany. It is not a coincidence that beginning in this period (1908/1909), Bílek himself embraced this role. While his admirers and advocates included literary figures and those who tended toward spirituality, the modernist scene was bothered by his apostolic pathos and emphasis on content which, in his work, had absolute primacy over form. Karel Čapek published a particularly scathing criticism, describing the exhibition as a “freakshow” with “curious artistic liturgy against the gloomy backdrop of Gothic walls.” In Čapek’s eyes, Bílek’s works were “epileptic phantasies and wizardly specimens of a brain tortured by delusions,” accompanied by “cabalistic inscriptions and internal cryptograms” [Čapek 1908]. Bílek's tortured intensity and passion were repeatedly contrasted with the positive vitality of Auguste Rodin's work [J. Č. 1908, p. 1]. Interestingly, several reviewers commented dismissively on the “ugly” patination in some of the sculptures (Arnošt Procházka, S. V. Friedl).

Due to what they perceived as Bílek's “Hussitism,” the Strahov Premonstratensians refused to let Bílek use their space which had been his workshop since February 1908. As a result, he had nowhere to store his artworks after the end of the exhibition. He repeatedly asked the city council to let him use the Church of St. Martin as a gallery and studio, emphasizing the “Czech” character of his work and his deep interest in Hussite themes. The city did not grant him permission but allowed Bílek to keep the artworks in the church until it was handed over to the Anglican Church. Later on, the artist ignored the repeated calls to vacate the church and in early 1909, the Anglican Church agreed to keep some of the works in the south aisle where they would not interfere with the liturgy. They remained there until January 1912; the large Crucifix stayed in the church for the next few years. [Krummholz 2010, p. 135]

Martin Krummholz

Works Cited

J. Č. 1908: J. Č., Beseda. Výstava Fr. Bílka, Právo lidu XVII, 1908, no. 134, 15. 5., pp. 1–2

Čapek 1908: Karel Čapek, Výstava prací Františka Bílka, Snaha III, 1908, no. 39

Krummholz 2010: Martin Krummholz, Pražská vila v kontextu Bílkova života a díla, in: Sandra Baborovská – Karel Srp (edd.), František Bílek a jeho pražský ateliér, Praha 2010, pp. 105–111

Mádl 1908: Karel Boromejský Mádl, Výtvarné umění. Frant. Bílek, Národní listy XXXXVIII, 1908, no. 129, 10. 5., p. 10

Further Reading

Hana Larvová (ed.), František Bílek (1872–1941), Praha 2000

Petr Wittlich, Sochařství české secese, Praha 2000, pp. 143–158

Archival Sources

AHMP, Magistrát, Spisovna [Prague City Archives, City Hall, Registry], dept. B, 1905 - 1910, sign. B 21/278.

AHMP, Magistrát, Spisovna [Prague City Archives, City Hall, Registry], dept. B, 1911 - 1920, sign. B 52/96

ANG, sign. AA 1407, Bílkovy rukopisné poznámky [Bílek’s hand written notes]

GHMP, Centrum Františka Bílka, inventář archivního fondu [Prague City Gallery, František Bílek Centre, archival collection inventory]: https://www.ghmp.cz/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/bilkuvfond_obsah_uvod_text-inventare-1.pdf

LA PNP [Museum of Czech Literature], fonds Otokar Březina, korespondence přijatá [received correspondence], František Bílek

Čas XXII, 1908, no. 63, 4. 3., p. 8; no. 88, 29. 3., p. 9; no. 101, 11. 4., p. 5; no. 118, 29. 4., p. 3, no. 120, 1. 5., p. 3; no. 133, 14. 5., p. 6; no. 137, 18. 5., p. 3; no. 142, 23. 5., p. 5; no. 166, 17. 6., p. 6; no. 190, 12. 7., p. 8; no. 198, 20. 7., p. 3; no. 204, 26. 7., p. 7; no. 237, 23. 8., p. 6; no. 252, 12. 9., p. 6; no. 266, 26. 9., p. 6; no. 276, 7. 10., p. 6

Lidové noviny XVI, 1908, no. 86, 27. 3., p. 6

Moravská orlice XLVI, 1908, no. 54, 5. 3., p. 5

Národní listy IIL, 1908, no. 62, 3. 3., p. 3; no. 73, 14. 3., p. 2; no. 109, 19. 4., p. 5; no. 115, 26. 4., p. 3; no. 124, 5. 5., p. 3; no. 128, 9. 5., p. 6; no. 132, 13. 5., p. 3; no. 138, 19. 5., p. 3; no. 148, 29. 5., p. 4; no. 154, 4. 6., p. 3; no. 162, 13. 6., p. 4; no. 166, 17. 6., p. 4; no. 173, 24. 6., p. 3; no. 190, 12. 7., p. 4; no. 198, 20. 7., p. 2; no. 203, 25. 7., p. 3; no. 223, 14. 8., p. 3; no. 235, 26. 8., p. 3; no. 252, 12. 9., p. 4; no. 258, 18. 9., p. 3; no. 276, 7. 10., p. 4; no. 280, 11. 10., p. 5; no. 283, 14. 10., p. 4; no. 335, 5. 12., p. 3; no. 341, 11. 12., p. 3

Národní politika XXVI, 1908, no. 62, 3. 3., p. 5; no. 94, 4. 4., p. 4; no. 109, 19. 4., p. 9; no. 122, 3. 5., p. 11; no. 125, 6. 5., p. 3; no. 127, 8. 5., p. 5; no. 133, 14. 5., p. 4; no. 137, 18. 5., p. 5; no. 149, 30. 5., p. 7; no. 162, 13. 6., p. 3; no. 166, 17. 6., p. 5; no. 173, 24. 6., p. 5; no. 191, 13. 7., p. 5; no. 198, 20. 7., p. 4; no. 204, 26. 7., p. 10; no. 224, 15. 8., p. 1; no. 231, 22. 8., p. 7; no. 252, 12. 9., p. 7; no. 258, 18. 9., p. 5; no. 276, 7. 10., p. 5; no. 281, 12. 10., p. 5

Pozor I, no. 45, 4. 3., p. 8

Pozor II, no. 81, 28. 4., p. 4

Právo lidu XVII, 1908, no. 174, 25. 6., p. 9; no. 258, 18. 9., p. 9

Světozor VIII, 1908, no. 20, 6. 3., p. 479