Manifesti

LATVIEÍU MÅKSLINIEKU TEOR‰TISKIE RAKSTI UN MANIFESTI THEORETICAL WRITINGS AND MANIFESTOS BY LATVIAN ARTISTS

I Z D E V N I E C È B A

Û U R N Å L S

S T U D I J A

R È G A

2 0 0 2

LatvieÍu måkslinieku teor‰tiskie teksti un manifesti Theoretical Writings and Manifestos by Latvian Artists

Sastådîtåja / Compiler I r é n a B u Ω i n s k a Redaktore / Editor L a i m a S l a v a Måksliniece / Designer I n t a S a r k a n e Literårå redaktore / Proof-reader in Latvian M å r a ˆ i k i t i n a Tulkotåji / Translators A n d r i s M e l l a k a u l s , J e r e m y H o w a r d , K r i s t i å n a Å b e l e , Viktors Freibergs, Iveta Boiko, Rita Caune Ang¬u valodas redaktore / Proof-reader in English I v e t a B o i k o

Pateicîbas / Acknowledgements Latvijas Valsts arhîvam, Dainai K¬aviñai un personîgi Mårim Brancim, Guntim Ívîtiñam Valsts Måkslas muzejam, Mårai Låcei un personîgi Gintai Gerhardei-Upeniecei, Olgai Garrosai Aivijai Evertei, Latvijas Nacionålå bibliotéka Tatjanai Ze¬ukinai, Valsts Tretjakova galerija DΩemmai Skulmei

S aturs / C ontent

Voldemårs Matvejs Krievu secesija. 1910 The Russian Secession: Concerning the “Union of Youth”Exhibition in Riga Jékabs Kazaks Müsu måksla. 1919 Our Art Teodors Za¬kalns Müsu måksla. 1922 Our Art Jåzeps Grosvalds Latvießu måksla (Jaunie). 1919 L’Art Letton (Les Jeunes) Gustavs Klucis FotomontåΩa kå jauns a©itmåkslas veids. 1931

Ajnjvjynf; rfr yjdsq dbl fubnfwbjyyjuj bcreccndf Photomontage as a New Form of Agitation Art Teodors Za¬kalns Télnieciski bütiskais. 1947 Sculptural Essence Ojårs Åbols Brînums. 1976 A Miracle Måkslinieku – teorétisko saceréjumu autoru – biogråfiskas ziñas Biographical Notes of Artists – Authors of Published Writings Latvießu måkslinieku teorétisko saceréjumu izlase. Sast. Stella Pelße (lîdz 1940. g.)

Selection – list of the Theoretical Writings and Manifestos by Latvian Artists

LATVIEÍU MÅKSLINIEKU TEOR‰TISKIE RAKSTI UN MANIFESTI THEORETICAL WRITINGS AND MANIFESTOS BY LATVIAN ARTISTS

Jékabs Kazaks MËSU MÅKSLA

THE RUSSIAN SECESSION

Jékabs Kazaks. PAÍPORTRETS. Ap 1917

Teodors Za¬kalns MËSU MÅKSLA THE RUSSIAN SECESSION

I Z D E V N I E C È B A

Û U R N Å L S

S T U D I J A

R È G A

2 0 0 1

2

Iréna BuΩinska

Jauna, neatkarîga valsts. Jauna, laikmetîga måksla. Kå pamatot nacionålås profesionålås måkslas bütîbu un tikai tai raksturîgo vecås Eiropas kultüras un måkslas kontekstå? Íis jautåjums nenoliedzami nodarbinåja visu paaudΩu måkslinieku pråtus péc neatkarîgås Latvijas valsts proklaméßanas 1918. gada 18. novembrî, taçu ar îpaßu dedzîbu un atbildîbas izjütu atbildi uz ßo jautåjumu mekléja jaunie – radikåli noskañotie avangarda måkslas pårståvji Jåzeps Grosvalds (1891–1920), Kårlis Zåle (1888–1942), Jékabs Kazaks (1895–1920), Romans Suta (1896–1944), kuri vienlaikus saprata arî jaunås valsts profesionålås måkslas popularizåcijas nepiecießamîbu.

Jau 1919. gada vasarå, daΩus méneßus péc Latvijas valstiskås neatkarîbas pasludinåßanas un pavisam neilgi pirms savas påragrås nåves 1920. gada februårî, Jåzeps Grosvalds sniedza îsu, tomér pårliecinoßu ieskatu latvießu profesionålås måkslas attîstîbas gaitå rakstå, kas tika publicéts françu valodå Parîzé kopîgi veidotajå Baltijas valstu Ωurnålå Revue Baltique. Ar tådu paßu misijas apziñu 1919. gada agrå rudenî top gleznotåja Jékaba Kazaka raksts “Müsu måksla”. Viñß uzskatîja, ka “..tautiska nokråsa ir nevis etnogråfija, literatüra vai vésture, bet gan tautas gars, kas ir tik izcils kå Pétera baznîcas gailis”1. Måkslinieka domas par måkslu sastopamas vai ikvienå kolé©iem adresétajå véstulé. Tomér seviß˚i izce¬ams jau minétais raksts, kas tapis saistîbå ar latvießu måkslas retrospektîvås izstådes sarîkoßanu Rîgas pilsétas måkslas muzejå 1919. gada oktobrî un ar ßîs izstådes organizéßanas grütîbåm. Íajå izstådé piedalîjås arî septembrî nodibinåtå “Ekspresionistu grupa”. Tås biedri bija Jékabs Kazaks, Oto Skulme, Niklåvs Strunke, Romans Suta, Konråds Ubåns, Valdemårs Tone un Ìederts Eliass. 1920. gada februårî grupa mainîja nosaukumu un k¬uva par Rîgas grupu. Neraugoties uz savu jaunîbu, divdesmit çetru gadu vecumå Jékabs Kazaks k¬uva par ßîs grupas pirmo priekßsédétåju. Jau 1920. gada martå Pilsétas måkslas muzejå Rîgas grupa sarîkoja savu pirmo izstådi.

20. gs. 20. gadu såkumå viså Eiropå iezîméjås jauns måkslas periodisko izdevumu pacélums. Izdevumi varbüt vairåk nekå iepriekß k¬uva par svarîgu teorétisko atziñu un ideju katalizatoru, arî ieroci savveida cîñå ar citu koncepciju piekritéjiem un praktiski veica jaunås, avangarda måkslas popularizéßanas lomu. Par hrestomåtiskåm 20. gs. måkslas véstures lappusém k¬uvis françu L'Esprit Noveau, po¬u Blok un Praesens, krievu Veßç un UNOVIS. Gandrîz visu ßo izdevumu kopîga îpaßîba ir izteikti internacionålais raksturs.

Latvießu periodikas vésturé ßåda unikåla izdevuma statuss ierådåms måkslas Ωurnålam “Laikmets”, kura vienîgie çetri numuri izdoti 1923. gada pirmå pusé Berlîné. Tå organizétåji bija télnieki Kårlis Zåle un Arnolds Dzirkals, bet Ωurnåla redi©éßanu veica Andrejs Kurcijs. “Laikmeta” veidotåji véléjås “..apvienot kopsadarbîbå tos måksliniekus, måkslas un rakstniecîbas kriti˚us, teoréti˚us, vés-

turniekus, kuri pédéjos gados Eiropå ir bijußi noteicéji un vadoñi måkslas mekléjumos, kå arî tos latvju måksliniekus un rakstniekus, kuri piedalås jaunås måkslas kultüras nodibinåßanå”2. Ûurnålå ßî iecere tika konsekventi realizéta, tiesa gan, pédéjos divos numuros årzemju måkslai veltîto materiålu klåsts bija krietni lielåks.

“Laikmets” joprojåm uzskatåms par unikålu daΩådu valstu måkslinieku – laikabiedru – sadarbîbas paraugu viena izdevuma ietvaros.3 Ûurnålå varam lasît Fernåna LeΩé, Karla Einßteina, Viktora Íklovska, Ivana Gola, Çårlija Çaplina u.c. måkslinieku un teoréti˚u rakstus. Te atrodam ¬oti interesantu Paula Vestheima rakstu par Kårli Zåli ar lieliskåm fotogråfijåm, Jåña Siliña apceréjumu “Lînija glezniecîbå”, Andreja Kurcija rakstu “Aktîvisms”. Jåpievérß uzmanîba arî hronikas da¬ai, kurå uzzinåm par latvießu måkslinieku lîdzdalîbu izstådés Berlîné. Ievadraksta funkcijas ir Teodora Za¬kalna rakstam “Müsu måksla” (Laikmets. – Nr.1. – 4.-5. lpp.), kurå måkslinieks raksturo latvießu måkslas bütîbu un uzdevumus.

Jékaba Kazaka raksta “Müsu måksla” ori©inåls (rokrakstå) atrodas Latvijas Valsts Véstures arhîvå un ar arhîva laipnu at¬auju tiek publicéts pirmo reizi. Savukårt “Laikmeta” eksemplårs glabåjas Valsts Måkslas muzeja kolekcijå. Kå Jékaba Kazaka, tå Teodora Za¬kalna tekstå saglabåtas autoru rakstîbas un valodas stilistiskås îpatnîbas.

1 Citéts no: Lamberga D. Jékabs Kazaks.– Rîga: Latvijas enciklopédija, 1995.– 28. lpp.

2 Laikmets. – 1923.– Nr.1.–3. lpp.

3 Kå zinåms, Latvijå iznåca “Ilustréts Ûurnåls” ( 1920–1929) un vélåk arî

“Senatne un Måksla” ( 1936–1940), tomér ßie izdevumi ar tik radikåli spirgtu Eiropas “elpu” neizcélås.

3

VOLDEMÅRS MATVEJS – "The Russian Secession" manifesto The artist's creative and theoretical activities span the period between 1905 and his death in 1914 and are related to his time in Petersburg. As we know, his involvement with the artists' group "Soyuz Molodyozhy" was a powerful influence on the future development of his theoretical thinking. While organising the group's exhibition in the summer of 1910 in Riga, Matvejs wrote the manifesto "The Russian Secession". This is regarded as one of the very first manifestos of the Russian avant-garde and has not lost its historical significance to this day.

The article was published in three languages in the Riga newspapers: firstly in German in “Rigasche Neueste Nachrichten” (1910.

Nr.155). This was followed by the Latvian text in “Dzimtenes Véstnesis” (1910. Nr.160), “Jaunå Dienas Lapa” (1910. Nr.163), “Latvija” (1910. Nr. 167). And finally, it was also published in Russian in “Rizshkaya Mislyj” (1910. Nr. 908 –909).

In 1910 the Estonian artist Kristian Raud (1865–1943) wrote "Russian artists – modernists" in the magazine “Noor Eesti”. ("Vene kunstikud – modernistid"). At the end of the article Raud wrote: "After motifs by V. Matvejs" ("W. Matwey ainetel").– “Noor Eesti” 1910–1911. P. 471–478.

In 1989 Jåzeps Kukulis-Baltinavietis republished Matvejs' manifesto in the Riga magazine “Kino” (in both Russian and Latvian in the issue Nr. 6, P. 27–28. Unfortunately the Russian text was in a modern translation. In addition, “The Russian Secession" in the original version can be found in the collection "Matvejs' Readings" (P. 175–185).

Jåzeps Kukulis-Baltinavietis has published a fragment of the article in German (transl. from “Jaunå Dienas Lapa”). (see: Jåzeps Kukulis-Baltinavietis. Hin zur aktiven und synthetischen Kunst // Unerwartete Begegnung. Lettische Avantgarde 1910–1935.

Berlin, 1990. P. 33–36).

The art historian Jeremy Howard has translated the manifesto into English. (See: Howard, J. Voldemårs Matvejs // Experiment.

1995, Nr.1. P. 45–54). J. Howard's translation and commentary have also been used in this publication by kind permission.

Translated by Andris Mellakauls

4

J‰kabs Kazaks MËsu måksla

Ar Latvijas valsts proklaméßanu ir proklaméta latvju måksla. Tie asni, kuri cauri sveßtautu slogiem müs mierinåja grütås stundås, tagad var svabadi augt. Lîdz ar to måkslai dota iespéja izteikt, kas mums müsu jaunajå valstî jåtur izcilus un paßå redzamåkå vietå – müsu îpatnéjå tautas gara ieveßana veco kultüras tautu saimé. Kad lielajås latvju izstådés Péterpilî un Maskavå1 velti mekléjåm péc tå sparîgå un moΩå, kas raksturoja ar latvju bataljoniem ievadîto atdzimßanu, tad tas bija saprotami. Müsu måksla bija tik daudzpusîga, cik måkslinieku mums bij. No Krievijas, Våcijas, Francijas viñi nåca ar savu mîlestîbu un darba gribu, un més paßi bijåm liecinieki tam, kå viñu véléßanås un gaißås ilgas izsîka müsu nåvéjoßå atmosférå.

Més savu Latviju vadîjåm cîñås ar le©ioniem ienaidnieku, un maldîgas bütu domas, ka jaunå, neparastå måksla varétu mierîgi izveidoties vésturiskå attîstîbå. Par daudz pretéji ir müsu uzskati tiem, kuri valdîja te agråk un kuru izteicéji mé©ina savu påråkumu vél tagad uztiept. Mums, latvjiem, pårmet tradîciju trükumu un to, ka més iestiegot galéjos ekstrémos. Mums, tikko tagad ieraudzîjußiem dienas gaismu, tradîciju, kå to saprot müsu pretinieki, nevar büt, bet müsu priekßå ir visu iespéjamîbu pilna nåkotne, un tå apziña, ka nesaistîti vidus laiku dogmåm varam veidot savu dzîvi un måkslu péc müsu gara, dod mums drosmi vilkt strîpu påri pagåjîbai.

To latvisko garu, kas cauri verdzîbas laikiem uzglabåjies tautas dziesmås, més tagad mekléjam gleznås, kuras radîjußi pirmie latvju gleznotåji, – kå ce¬inieks, kurß, mér˚i jau tålumå redzot, atskatås uz noieto ce¬a gabalu. Mums radusies nepiecießamîba redzét savå priekßå såkumus, mé©inåjumus un sasniegumus no glezniecîbas, kura bij krieviska, våciska un tagad grib büt latviska. Latvju retrospektîvås izstådes lieta gan ir ievirzîta, bet par noΩéloßanu nepareizås sliedés. Ar to, ka viñas sarîkoßana uzticéta privåtai biedrîbai, varétu samierinåties, jo no valsts aparåta, kurß tikko såcis darboties, més nevaram prasît, lai viñß rea©étu uz visåm, kaut arî tik svarîgåm lietåm, kåda ir ßî izståde. Atståjot privåtai uzñémîbai zinåmu grupu, stråvu un tieksmju reprezentéßanu, valdîba turpmåk ar ßådu izståΩu sarîkoßanu un tautas garîgo îpatnîbu izcelßanu güs nepiecießamo atbalstu tautå un trumpi uz årieni. Tagadéjå izstådes organizétåja – biedrîba, kura “atjauno savu priekßkara darbîbu”, – modina neuzticîbu, jo tas, kas bijis priekß kara, vairs nedrîkst atkårtoties. Latvju måkslas veicinåßanas biedrîbai2 bij nozîme tad, kad pår mums pléta savus spårnus div- jeb viengalvainie érg¬i, kad latvju pilsonîba, 10 gados uzceldama otru Rîgu un no årzemém izrakstîdama sugas lopus, 200 rubu¬us gadå izdeva gleznu iegådåßanai. Viñai bija nozîme arî tad, kad vajadzéja izsacît noΩéloßanu par kåda latvju gleznotåja påragru nåvi un nesasniegtåm cerîbåm. Tagad måksla nav vairs objekts, kurß jåveicina, bet sasniegums, nodroßinåts caur val-

sti, kura viñu dara pieietamu skatîtåjiem. Íis darbs ir veicams ne pabalstîtåjiem un “måkslas mî¬otåjiem”, bet gan paßiem måksliniekiem, kuri no sava vidus izbîda attiecîgus orgånus. Sakarå ar retrospektîvo izstådi nonåkam pie viñas sarîkoßanai vajadzîgo telpu jautåjuma. No müsu lîdzpilsoñiem més esam sañémußi mantojumu, ar kuru nezinåm jeb, pareizåki, nevaram neko iesåkt. Tas ir pilsétas muzejs. Nerunåjot par paßu elementåråko garßas trükumu åréjå izvedumå, telpu sadalîjums viñå ir sliktåks par sliktu. Izstådei vajadzîgas telpas ne vairåk kå 200 darbiem, un to viñå nav.

Nekavéjoßi jågrieΩ pienåcîgo ieståΩu vérîba uz blakus muzejam atrodoßos bijußås BirΩas komitejas komercskolas éku, kura derétu ne tikai kårtéju un årkårtéju izståΩu sarîkoßanai, bet viñå atrastu pajumti arî latvju glezniecîbas kultüras institüts ar måkslinieku darbnîcåm.3 Citådi velti gaidîsim ne tikai ßo, bet jebkuru izstådi.

Retrospektîvås izstådes drîza sarîkoßana jåveicina ne tikai tamdé¬, ka vajadzétu apmierinåt müsu paßu prasîbas péc viñas, bet arî tås, kuras nåk no sabiedroto puses. Jådod valdîbai rokås ierocis, ar kuru atsist katru apmelojumu par müsu kultüras neiespéjamîbu un meΩonîbu. Müsu lîdzpilsoñi savå gådîbå par latvießiem ir bijußi tik tålredzîgi, ka nav iegådåjußies latvju gleznas, un tagad, caurstaigåjot muzeju, més jütamies vairåk Prüsijå jeb Saksijå kå Latvijå. Kamér muzejå nav pienåcîgi reprezentéta latvju måksla, viña durvîm jåbüt slégtåm; kamér latvju måkslinieku darbnîcås put latvju gars un îpatnîba – müs nevar barot ar seklo våciskumu un tiem svétdienas gleznotåjiem, kuri atradußi muzejå patvérumu. Kas attiecas uz muzeja vértîgo darbu sagrupéßanu, tad pie tå jå˚eras nekavéjoßi. Jåiznîcina muzeja atseviß˚o da¬u autonomija, kå Brederlo, Kunstvereina u.c. kråjumi4, un visas gleznas jåsagrupé péc skolåm un virzieniem. Tas apståklis, ka ßie kråjumi nav galîgi nodoti pilsétas rîcîbå, lai nekavé muzeja pårorganizéßanu. Mums jåtiek skaidrîbå par valsts pirmtiesîbu uz måkslas darbiem, un, gadîjumå ja rastos paraléla galerija, paßu lietu tas tikai veicinåtu. Visos ßajos jautåjumos no-teicoßo vårdu vajaga dot paßiem måksliniekiem, kuru kopéja ap-spriede tagad k¬uvusi nepiecießama. Måkslinieku kolé©ijai bütu dodama tiesîba veikt visus darbus valstî, kur vajadzîga måkslinieku lîdzdalîba, – organizét måkslas kultüras institütu, rîkoties ar valdîbas atvélétiem lîdzek¬iem, iegådåjoties darbus no agråkiem un jaunåkiem latvju un labåkiem cittautu gleznotåjiem, izdot pabalstus måksli-niekiem gan ßepat, gan årzemés, apgådåt reprodukcijas, gråmatas un ievest no årzemém vajadzîgo materiålu.

Viens no svarîgåkiem jautåjumiem bütu måkslas izglîtîbas pareiza nostådîßana. Parastås akadémijas visås zemés gåjußas pretéji patiesiem måkslas mekléjumiem un virzieniem, un, nodibinot pie

Teodors Za¬kalns MËsu måksla1

mums lîdzîgu Péterpils jeb Maskavas audzinåtavai,5 més savu jauno måkslu jau iepriekß pazudinåtu. Íå jautåjuma pareiza izß˚irßana vismazåk sagaidåma no daΩådu grupu it kå uz måjienu no augßas radîtu projektu plüdiem.

1 Latvießu måkslinieku darbu izståde tika sarîkota Petrogradå 1915. gada septembrî (piedalîjås 27 autori ar 155 darbiem). Maskavå, Lemersjé galerijå latvießu måkslas izståde notika 1916. gada martå–aprîlî (piedalîjås 29 autori ar 269 darbiem).

2 Latvießu måkslas veicinåßanas biedrîba bija nodibinåta 1911. gada novembrî, taçu faktiski darbojås no 1910. gada, kad tika sarîkota pirmå kopéjå latvießu måkslinieku darbu izståde. Biedrîba paståvéja lîdz 1925. gadam.

3 Komercskolas éka tika nodota Latvijas Måkslas akadémijas rîcîbå 1944. gada rudenî.

4 1869. gadå tika izveidota Pilsétas gleznu galerija, kas îréja telpas dazådås

pilsétas vietås. Galerijas kolekcijas pamatu veidoja privåtås – Årmitstedu, Kerkoviusu, Brederlo u.c. – kolekcijas. 1905. gadå tika uzcelta Rîgas pilsétas muzeja éka un kolekcijas izvietotas tur. Måkslas veicinåßanas biedrîba Kunstverein tika izveidota 1870. gadå, un ar tås palîdzîbu Rîgå tika sarîkotas daudzas nozîmîgas izstådes. Biedrîbai bija ierådîtas telpas izståΩu rîkoßanai Rîgas pilsétas måkslas muzejå, un tas izraisîja latvießu måkslinieku neapmierinåtîbu.

5 Latvijas Måkslas akadémija dibinåta 1919. gadå. Reålu darbîbu tå såka

1921. gadå. Latvijas Kultüras fonds, ar kura palîdzîbu måkslinieki varéja iegüt stipendijas årzemju braucieniem, dibinåts 1920. gadå.

Müsu måksla nav uzdîguse tautas klépî. Lîdzek¬us un izteiksmes veidus viña ir pårñémuse. Tå ir sveßas zemes ståds, pårvests müsu laukos.2 Lîdzi ar åréjo måkslå esam pårñémußi arî viñas bütîbu.

Måksla rodas un mainås péc saviem likumiem, kuru sapråts pamatojas dzi¬i viñas dabå. Íie likumi ir zinåmå atkarîbå no esoßå.

Tikai atkarîbå. Måksla nav esoßå noraksts vai atdarinåjums. Esoßais un ilgotais ir krasti, starp kuriem vijas måkslas gultne. Åréjå pasaule ir viela un vielu kråjums. Laikmetu un atseviß˚u ¬auΩu dvéseles îpaßîbas, lietu un pasaules izpratne noteic måkslu.

Müsu dienu dvésele ir traucîga un iegribaina. Traucîga un iegribaina ir ßî laika måksla. Traucîga un iegribaina tå ir savå iedvesmé un stingra pråta måksla åréjå koncepcijå.

Pårñémußi måkslas izteiksmes lîdzek¬us, més sekojam arî viñas likumîgai maiñu gaitai jeb, kå médz teikt, attîstîbai.

(Par måkslas attîstîbu var runåt tikai zinåmu vésturisku posmu robeΩås. Måksla attîstås, kamér viñå noskaidrojas tai uzñemtie elementi, reålås un ß˚ietoßås likumîbas un to savstarpéjå attiecîba – stils, kompozîcija, konstrukcija. Katram ßådam posmam ir savs ierosinåjumu, ziedu un paguruma laiks. Bet, paßiem posmiem sekojot, més varam runåt vienîgi par viñu maiñu gaitu.3) Raksturîgais müsu måkslå ir, ka tå vairåk kå jebkad noskaidrojusies savå bütîbå, noskaidrojusies gandrîz lîdz abstraktam.

Måksla, jådomå, kådreiz såkusies lîdzi ar viñas pamata vielas (pamata elementa) apzinåßanu. Ío pamata vielu måkslå es gribétu nosaukt par nesoßo vielu.4 Måkslas vésture råda pamata nesoßås vielas pakåpenisku apkraußanu daΩådåm vértîbåm, kuru smagums pieaug lîdz Leonardo,5 un, såkot ar 19. gadusimteni, apbrînojami seklikumîgi atkal atsva-binådamies, nonåk atpaka¬ savå izejas ståvoklî. – Te it kå slédzås måkslas maiñu gaitu griezenis.

Måkslas pamata viela ßodien ir formåli tå pate, bet tås iekßéjais saturs ir kåpinåts proporcionåli atmestajåm vértîbåm.

Un måkslas tålåkå gaitå, paredzams, ßo saturå kåpinåto, nesoßo vielu no jauna apkraus tåpat kåpinåtåm vértîbåm, un jaunais maiñu gaitu ritums, tikai nesalîdzinåmi daudz åtråks, ß˚ietas, büs attiecîgi lîdzîgs jau pårstaigåtajam. Vienîgi varbüt tikai télniecîba, iekauséta celtniecîbå, varés sasniegt jaunu uzplaukumu, neuzkraujot nesoßai vielai reålo esamîbu.

Latvießu måksla savus izteiksmes lîdzek¬us pårñémuse, pårñémuse arî ar tiem saistîtås likumîbas. Latviskå dvésele, latviskå pasaule un pasaules izpratne nåk kå jauns faktors, kurß sakusumå ar pårñemto un latviskajåm tradîcijåm radîs latvisko måkslu.

Lîdz ßim esam visu pårñemto jau pilnîgi piesavinåjußies un pår-

5

6

valdam un pa da¬ai iejausti, pa da¬ai apzinîgi tiekußies ievest måkslå savu îpatnîbu.

Radoßais spéks ir neapzinåtas dabas un ietver visas tautai piemîtoßås îpatnéjås vértîbas. – Radoßam darbam jåbüt apzinåtam, un apzinåti jåizmanto, jåizpéta un jåizloba müsu îpatnîba.

Mums ir savas tradîcijas, zieda, lineårås un kompozîciju tradîcijas, ir savs mums îpatnéjs ritums, ir sava pasaules izpratne un savi lietu ieskati. Visas ßîs vértîbas ir kåpinåjamas, un ßai kåpinåjumå ir latviskås måkslas nåkotne.

1 Glezniecîba, télniecîba un grafika. (Íeit un turpmåk – autora piezîmes.)

2 BieΩi ßim stådam lîdzi iet viña tévijas lauku smarΩa, un daΩdien tå müs

pårsteidz sveßa un asa. Måkslas burvîgo reibumu tad zin baudît gandrîz tikai viñas kopéji. Müsu måksla vél ir siltumnîcas ståds.

3 Ja måksla attîstîtos – tås iepriekßéjie posmi pamirtu lîdzi ar pårdzîvoto laikmetu. Bet senås måkslas cauri gadu tükstoßiem vél ßodien nav zaudéjußas savu kairumu. Í˚ietas, ka taisni måkslå atmetinåtas cilvéces dvéseles paliekoßås (konstantås) vértîbas.

4 Tåda ir glezniecîbå – zieds, télniecîbå – plåkne un zîméjumå – svédra (lînija).

5 Es runåju galvenåm kårtåm par glezniecîbu. Télniecîbas gaita ir tikai attiecîgi lîdzîga, lîdztekus glezniecîbai nonåkuse pie nesoßå elementa – plåknes, tå tomér izgåjuse no blîvena (masas).

THE RUSSIAN SECESSION: CONCERNING THE “UNION OF YOUTH” EXHIBITION IN RIGA For those who were there for the first time [the Exhibition] seemed to be wild and strange, frenzied ravings. For the uninitiated its principles of beauty, its unusual color, line and form were unintelligible. But before losing ourselves in explanations, let us try to set forth the why and the wherefore of such art in Russia.

The cradle is Moscow. In the private galleries of Shchukin and Morozov young Russians have come to know Puvis de Chavannes, Claude Monet, Pissarro, and the Neo-Impressionists – Van Gogh, Gauguin, and Cézanne. It is worth noting that, in both quality and quantity, Gauguin is represented in these galleries with a rare fullness. In addition, Russian artists have given particular attention to the color problems posed by the latest French artists, i.e., Matisse, Braque, Van Dongen, and Picasso, who are also well represented in these galleries.

Studying these artists and also the Pre-Raphaelites and Russian folk art has developed the taste, the color sensibility – and the eye of young Russian artists. Their direction is quite different from that of the Academy students, who, during their six years of learning, undertake a diligent and obedient study of light and shade, while fiercely competing with the laws of photography.

This new direction has proven not only to be artistically alive, but also to manifest a splendid and fertile potential. The annual “Golden Fleece” exhibitions tell us just how fresh and original the young Russia is and also indicate that true beauty in painting has – as yet – hardly been discovered.1 Then, with the help of the patron L. I. Zheverzheev in St. Petersburg, came the Union of Youth society.2 But with the birth of this new direction came energetic attempts to stifle the art, to nip it in the very bud.

Professors at art schools prohibited their pupils from visiting the Shchukin and Morozov galleries, and when this did not help, they began to take even more repressive steps. Just this year more than fifty students were expelled from Moscow art schools and the St. Petersburg Academy, because they had been working in the spirit of the “Golden Fleece” exhibitions.

The supporters of academic art have also addressed abrasive publications against both the leaders and the more moderate followers of the new movement. Let us cite the case of the Petrov-Vodkin.3 The critic Benois found Petrov-Vodkin's painting The Dream to be the best not only of all the paintings at the Union of Russian Artists' exhibition where it was shown, but of all this year's exhibitions. Professor Repin was outraged and in a letter to Benois' editor declared that any yardman could paint like that. The artist Bakst, replying to Professor Repin, insisted that Petrov-Vodkin's work was more serious, bolder, and more artistic than any of Repin's. A protest of thirty professors, led by the late A. I. Kuindzhi, in defence of Repin, ended with the words: “Shame on Bakst.” Furthermore, a variety of opinions on various artists and writers such as Ginzburg, Volkonsky, and Chukovsky appeared in print. The story ended with the Moscow artists of the Union protesting against Benois' critical articles and soon afterwards the great Union divided. All this shows how many-sided views about the principles of beauty are and to what lengths of uncompro-

mising fanaticism the representatives of different art schools will go.

Let us now move on to an explanation of the principles of the Secession, prefacing it with a brief essay on modern French painting.

There was a time when pointillism ruled. Claude Monet, Pissarro, and others were the teachers of this delightful school and there are echoes of it even today. But now, as a movement, pointillism has passed. New, grandiose paths are being discovered in the world of color and form. The pointillists possessed something of a mechanical beauty: they preferred the division of color tones into small particles of prime colors, but for painting this was an impasse. Van Gogh was the bridge to NeoImpressionism.

Van Gogh loved the poetry of exaggeration, possessed a volatile technique, and sought passionate tones. The Neo-Impressionists Gauguin and Cézanne founded the new school. Gauguin was a true painter. A mere jingling of color fragments meant little to him, for he wished that colors sound full and rich with harmony. He introduced melody and logic into color combinations, while omitting unessential or fortuitous tones from his painting. His ideal was not colored drawing, but colored painting. Gauguin taught us to accentuate, to think in terms of color, and he brought particles of blissful poetry to the world of color.

As for form and line he turned to the primitive.

In his works Cézanne advocated these principles: beauty of simplification, harmony of mass, and noble refinement of color.

Matisse and Picasso, who have also discovered new worlds, are also worthy of mention, but to analyze their work would take us too far from our goals. Hence, let us turn our attention to the painterly principles of the young Russian artists.

We express our relation to nature, but not nature herself. From her we take only that which may be called its radium. Thus nature is not the aim, but the departure-point for our creative work, since she provides our imagination with a melody of colors and lines, which, when transferred to the canvas in all their fullness, have nothing in common with nature.

In nature the colors of the spectrum exist not by themselves, not independently, but in relation to all those phenomena that are essential and organic parts. Here light, water, air, etc. are indefeasibly linked. In nature every color is in total unity with the concept of the material, while eliciting the image of the object. In nature all color combinations appear at the same time as material phenomena.

Colors serve as slaves. In nature there are no unnecessary colors just as there are no unnecessary color combinations. From the first everything is subordinated to laws that are uniform and unchanging.

The world of color should be quite different. When color frees itself from its servile duties it opens up new worlds with a new poetics and new mysteries.

If music can be musical, then why can't painting be painterly? Only when colors are free, when they are independent from this or that concrete idea, only then can one color cling to another in cherished affection. Only then can color concepts come into being to reveal a new, strange, forbidden, and profane world.

The world of colors possesses scales and cross-scales, but in real nature they do not exist. Where, for example, do we find the museum tones of the Old Masters – the gold Venetian lacquer tones, the mustard tones of

Luini, the browns of Leonardo, the sunny tones of Giorgione, the muddyflesh tones of Titian? How infinitely diverse and fabulously rich are the brown tones in museums, from the age of Byzantium and the catacombs to the present day. But we can never exchange this brown world for the natural flesh tones, in which, according to the layman, we should paint our pictures.

The color scales of the artist Barna da Siena (a corner of paradise), the fluidity, pointillism, pictorial accents and counter-accents, harmonies and symphonies – where is such beauty in nature?

Whenever a color appears as an expression of temperament it can be pure, innocent, sinful, dirty, wild, naive, sweet, loud, childish, national, mystical. Is that not a rich world? Anyone who has the ability to perceive this delights in it. But the existence of this world of color is possible only when color is transmitted in total freedom,4 when it is not in the service of material phenomena and ideas.

We hate the copying of nature, this insolvency of thought and feeling.

We hate studies of light and shade, studies of air and light, studies of sun and rain. None of this has anything in common with the study of the world of color. Conveying the facture of visible objects is a mere children's exercise in grammar, for it is the aim not of art, but of the handicrafts and can give pleasure neither to the public nor to the artist.

After that we study the world of lines. Lines, free from anatomical laws and conventions, are also rich in surprises. The square, cone, cylinder and sphere have infinite variations in architecture, although it is to be regretted that the pyramid, with its inclined planes and large base, has been so little developed and is rare in modern architecture. Greece expelled this grandiose, monumental, and mystical form, and today we cannot find its application in a single palace, temple or house.

In the Gothic style the lines extend to infinity and it is cold and sober here. The East, however, enjoys passionate and infinite variations. India, China, Assyria, Byzantium – every country, every nation breaks linear sequence according to its own taste and manner. Each possesses its own ornamentation, and not only nations, but every great artist, too, has his own calligraphy: Neroccio, Lorenzetti, Boticelli, Cranach, Beardsley, and so on.

Nature never creates what man creates. Buildings and piazzas, fashion drawings and caricatures are all the concern of the human hand.

Zola's formula that art is nature passing through the prism of temperament is inappropriate – because we have no need of nature. We try to express whatever we wish by the simplest of means. In order to apprehend the beauty that hides beneath the cloak of realism, we sometimes, where fitting, distort nature.

We seek only beauty.

Buddhism teaches us that there exist several circles of our existence.

The innermost circle is that of the lowest instincts, the circle of earthly desires and earthly sensations. It stands furthest from the deity and light. Next comes the exterior circle – of the spirit, of intangible nature.

One must possess refined and keenly ordered thoughts and feelings in order to forget the ordinary and mundane so as to penetrate this circle.

Here there is a completely different type of desire, a different kind of beauty, different mysteries, and different motives. The ancient peoples

7

8

knew how to penetrate this world, but now we can only envy the East, the cradle of so many great religions. Assyria, India, and Japan have gathered so many miracles that our hearts sink and our minds weary as we come to the realize just how weak we are.

This spring there was a Buddhist exhibition in St. Petersburg that displayed paintings and sculptures from the Tibetan town of Hara-Hoto.

All the art was ancient. General Kozlov,5 with an Imperial subvention, found and excavated this town in sand, and brought to St. Petersburg all the frescoes, canvases, and boards upon which anything had been drawn, together with all the sculpture that had been discovered. The painting had been executed in vegetable dyes. The technique was simple. But one could hardly have imagined the delicacy, the voluptuousness, and the mystery of this lost kind of painting. The color combinations were so unexpected and yet so logical; everything was arranged with such diabolical richness and mystery that one realizes that these people were unadulterated; their feelings had not been distracted by the dirt of realism: they were able to apprehend beauty, to feel, believe, love, and reason.

But technique and crafts are now assuming pride of place – a tawdry phenomenon.

Art and craft are always at loggerheads. As a rule, beauty functions and manifests itself with particular strength whenever the crafts are in a rudimentary state or where, ostensibly, they are non-existent. The deft brushstrokes of Zorn6 or Sorolla7 are no more than salti mortali, cheap effects. But now just about everything has become technique with superficial mastery.

Deft facility and acrobatics in painting – we reject them!

The treasure-houses of the past are the models and schools for our creative work.

The twentieth century has lost the principles of beauty. But mankind has possessed marvelous art: Egypt, Heliopolis, Samarra, Japan, Byzantium, the frescoes of catacombs, mosaics, Islamic fantasies, and Russian art. Can all this be called talentless and feeble?

Maybe that art lacked technique. But it had the great gift of expressing beauty and recording personal and national fantasies by invisible means.

As for public demand, especially in the twentieth century, it is that art be brought to the level of photography.

The problem of beauty is difficult to discuss. It is so capricious and cannot be forced into the academic molds supported by professors or the rules of photography. More often than not, beauty is found where it is least expected: in caricatures, children's drawings, folk art, and even signboards which sometimes present and resolve color problems unbeknown to their artists.

People do reproach us for painting real objects. But, in fact, real objects are never the goal of our work, only the departure-point. We need a text for our melodies, and if we paint teapots, then, of course, we are not concerned with teapots, but almost certainly with something else.

People are surprised by our penchant for the primitive. But the world of the naive is very rich in poetry and the study of this world evokes much joy.

Yet another charge is that our colors are very loud. Strangely enough, this is exactly what we are accused of. So how come the colors of church stain glass windows that shout and resound so powerfully, that are so rich

in vivid contrast, do not cause a similar discomfort to the eye?

Why try and understate color? Bright tones may be just as bewitching, just as enchanting, as ephemeral gray tones. Shouting in loud color may convey the very issues of color, although these are not solved merely by pouring a bucket of Egeen paint on to a canvas.

We are charged with distorting nature. But these anomalies also carry much of distinctive, even conventional beauty. Let us take Beardsley. His work is full of anomaly – twisted legs, large laces, little faces – and yet all these things are still beautiful. Or take Greece: little heads, earthenware faces, but still very beautiful. Again, take Gauguin: awkward legs, idol-like forms, bodies like sacks and blocks, broken parts of the body – all very heavy, cumbersome, ugly, and repulsive, but still beautiful. This is the poetry of the ugly.

In the old days an artist who painted icons and madonnas could reform nature according to his will, so why aren't modern artists allowed to do the same today?

In nature everything is subordinate to laws. But in art everything should be permitted.

First published in “Dzimtenes Véstnesis”. 1910, 16th July (No. 160).

Nikolai Raibushinsky's journal Zolotoe runo [Golden Fleece] organized three exhibitions of modern art in Moscow in 1908, 1909, and 1909–10. The first two included works by both French and Russian artists, while the third was Russian only.

1

Levkii Ivanovich Zheverzheev (1881–1942) was a collector of stage designs and theater memorabilia. He contributed funds to the Union of Youth and subsidized its two theatrical productions, i. e., Victory over the Sun and Vladimir Maiakovsky.

A Tragedy, in 1913.

2

Kuzma Sergeevich Petrov-Vodkin (1878–1939) was not an extremist in the way Larionov or Malevich were, but his experiments in perspective drew much comment. His painting, Dream (1910), is in the collection of the Russian Museum.

St. Petersburg.

3

This and earlier phrases concerning the freedom of artistic representation and the relation of the artist to nature appear to be derived from Nikolai Kulbin's theories of artistic creativity, which he put forth in lectures in St. Petersburg in 1909 and 1910, and published in March 1910 in the miscellany Studiia impressionistov (St. Petersburg: Butkovskaia). Kulbin's ideas, while concerned with a more psychological approach and with a real world more active in the artist's psyche than Matvej allows, must have been known to the latter. It is worth noting that the Union of Youth was established by a number of artists that seceded from Kulbin's group called The Impressionists.

4

Petr Kuzmich Kozlov (1863-1935) led many expeditions in Central Asia. Between 1907 and 1909 he headed a Mongolian-Szechwan expedition which discovered the remains of the ancient city of Hara-Hoto in the Gobi Desert. Many items relating to the Tangut material and spiritual culture were discovered, which formed the basis of the St. Petersburg exhibition.

5

The Swedish artist Anders Zorn (1860-1920), a Romantic Realist, visited Russia in 1897 at the invitation of Diaghilev and Savva Mamontov. His portrait of the latter is in the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow.

6

Joaquin Sorolla y Bastida (1863-1923), a master of chiaroscuro and coloring, was the leading Spanish Impressionist. A number of his works are in Russian collections, including And They Still Say Fish Is Expensive (1894) and Drying Raisins (1901) at the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow.

7

Translated by Jeremy Howard

LATVIEÍU MÅKSLINIEKU TEOR‰TISKIE RAKSTI UN MANIFESTI THEORETICAL WRITINGS AND MANIFESTOS BY LATVIAN ARTISTS

Teodors Za¬kalns T‰LNIECISKI BËTISKAIS SCulptural ESSence

I Z D E V N I E C È B A

Û U R N Å L S

S T U D I J A

R È G A

2 0 0 2

2

Iréna BuΩinska 1947. gada såkumå, laikå, kad likås gandrîz vai neiespéjami

At the beginning of 1947 when it seemed almost impossible to

nodalît måkslu no jaunås politiskås varas diktatüras, top viens no

separate art from dictatorship of the new power, Teodors Za¬kalns wrote

vispårinåtåkiem latvießu måkslinieku saceréjumiem – Teodora

his essay “Sculptural Essence”: it is one of the most comprehensive

Za¬kalna “Télnieciski bütiskais”, kurå lakoniski, izsvaroti analizéti tél-

texts by Latvian artists in which the questions of the plastic composi-

niecîbas darba plastiskås uzbüves un formas jautåjumi jeb, kå måk-

tion of sculptural work are presented in a concise form or, as the artist

slinieks pats saka, – “télniecîbas formålå bütîba”. T. Za¬kalns

puts it himself: “the formal essence of sculpture” is presented. The art-

apceréjumu iesåk ar atziñu, ka viss tajå minétais ir “personisko, tîri

ist begins the essay with a statement that the text is based on the “tes-

subjektîvo ieskatu apliecîba”. Tießi ßî apgalvojuma dé¬ rodas

timony of private, purely subjective views”. This is the very phrase that

iespaids, ka T. Za¬kalna rakstîto tolaik pilnîbå nesaprata, nenovértéja

indicates that the artist’s text was not fully understood at the time and

tå “bîstamîbu”. Parasti, raksturojot måkslas procesus un parådîbas

its “danger” was not recognized. Usually when describing artistic pro-

péc 1945. gada, més uzsveram, ka måkslinieks kå suveréna, radoßa

cesses and manifestations after 1945 we emphasize that the artist as a

individualitåte bija pak¬auts vai vismaz bija spiests ré˚inåties ar

sovereign, creative individuality was subject to or at least had to con-

vairåkuma – kolektîva, sabiedrîbas – ideolo©iskås varas gribu un

sider the will and prohibitions of the majority – the community, society

aizliegumiem. Viss Latvijas måkslas véstures péckara periods ir pår-

and ideological power. All the post-war history of Latvia abounds in

bagåts ar ßådiem negatîviem varas diktatüras piemériem. Tießi tåpéc

such negative examples of the dictatorship of power. Therefore Teodors

T. Za¬kalna apceréjums ir izñémums, jo pauΩ personîgu viedokli par

Za¬kalns’ text is clearly an exception since it expresses a personal

måkslai svarîgiem formåliem jautåjumiem, tåtad it kå “runå pretî”

opinion about formal questions that are significant for art, hence as if

vésturiskai situåcijai, kurå radies. Nedomåju, ka visus iespéjamos

“objects” to the historical situation in which the text was written. I do

konfliktus bütu varéjusi nogludinåt par le©endu pasludinåtå T.

dot believe that all the possible conflicts could have been solved by

Za¬kalna “romantizétå lénpråtîba” vai tas, ka jau tad måkslinieku såka

Za¬kalns’ almost legendary “romanticized prudence” or the fact that he

izvirzît îpaßi godåjama måkslas patriarha lomå. Drîzåk tam varétu büt

was even then being promoted to the status of a patriarch of art. Most

citi iemesli. Domåju, ka 1947. gada 28. februårî, kad måkslinieks ßo

probably there are other reasons. I believe that on 28 February 1947

apceréjumu kå Latvijas PSR Valsts Måkslas akadémijå izstrådåtu

when Za¬kalns red his essay to the teachers and students as a research

zinåtnisku darbu nolasîja pasniedzéjiem un studentiem, neviens vél

elaborated at the State Academy of Art of Latvia SSR, nobody was able

îsti neprata izskaidrot jaunås – padomju måkslas saturu, bütîbu un

yet to explain the contents, essence and tasks of the new soviet art.

uzdevumus. Pieñemu, ka måksliniekam bija jåpilda direktîvi norådîju-

Apparently the artist had to accomplish tasks delegated to him “from

mi “no augßas”. T. Za¬kalns kå vecåkais kolé©is uzñémås ßo godpilno

above” and being the oldest of his colleagues, Za¬kalns undertook this

misiju. Rezultåtå tapa saceréjums, kurå autors runå nevis par

honorary mission. As a result, a text was written in which the author

padomju Latvijas måkslas konkrétiem uzdevumiem konkrétå situåcijå

does not speak about specific tasks of art in the specific situation in

(un ßådas runas måksliniekam arî bija jåraksta kå deputåtam un

Soviet Latvia (Za¬kalns had to write such speeches as a deputy and

Tautas måksliniekam), bet gan par måkslai vispår bütisko, funda-

People’s artist), but about what is generally significant in art. Za¬kalns’

mentålo. Tießi T. Za¬kalna spéja “nogludinåt” ne tikai savu darbu tél-

ability to “polish” not only sculptural form but also the language, as

niecisko formu, bet arî valodu, kå arî tas, ka måkslinieks zinåtnisko

well as the fact that the artist immediately transformed this research

darbu “Télnieciski bütiskais” tüda¬ arî pårstrådåja par metodisku

paper “Sculptural Essence” into a methodological study programme for

måcîbu programmu télniecîbas studentiem (vismaz liela da¬a teksta

sculpture students (at least its large part was used in the curriculum

tika izmantota viña sastådîtajå måcîbu programmå), pasargåja to no

compiled by him), saved it from “more correct” editions and “improve-

“pareizåkåm” redakcijåm un “uzlabojumiem”. Tiesa gan – laika gaitå

ments”. It is true though that the “formal” character of the text was

tomér atklåjås teksta “formålais” raksturs, un måkslinieka dzîves laikå

revealed in the course of time, and during the artist’s life this composi-

ßis saceréjums tå arî nepiedzîvoja publicéßanu viså pilnîbå...

tion was not published in full.

Publikåcijas sagatavoßanå izmantots autora manuskripts un

The present publication has been prepared from the manuscript

vecåkå iespéjamå maßînraksta kopija (abi glabåjas Valsts Måkslas

and the oldest possible typewritten copy that are both stored at the

muzejå). Tekstå saglabåts T. Za¬kalna izteiksmes stils, labotas vienîgi

State Art Museum. The author’s style of expression has been retained,

nenozîmîgas neprecizitåtes.

only insignificant incongruities have been corrected.

T‰lnieciski bËtiskais Runåjot par ßo tematu, gribu uzsvért, ka, izñemot zinåmu ierosmi, tießi pakalpot télniecîbas laukå nezin vai varéßu.

3

veram ci¬ñu iedarbîbas ce¬å. Ci¬ñu iedarbîba savukårt izriet no to uzbüves. Stingri noteiktå sistémå, kuras pamatå ir

Tå galvenokårt büs manu personisko, tîri subjektîvo

téla arhitektoniskå uzbüve, organizéjas plastisko ener©iju

ieskatu apliecîba. Péc citu arodu atziñåm, to teorétiskås

nesoßie, plastiski radoßie elementi. Téla uzbüve kårtojas

pamatnes radît savus darbus més nevaram. Katram ßîs

kå apjomu secîba, to veidojoßås virsmas ©eometrisko

at­ziñas jåiegüst paßam, paßam jåatrod un radoßi jåpiedzî-

saståvda¬u – plåkßñu kopdarbîbå, tå radot téla plüdumu, tå

vo. Ja jau tas bütu citådi, tad cilvéce, izpétîjusi, pieméram,

plastisko ritumu.

Leonardo traktåtu par glezniecîbu un piesavinåjusies tur

Plastisko elementu izkårtoßana ir télniecîbas

ieguldîto lielå meistara pieredzi ar sîkiem un vissîkåkiem

meistarîbas galvenå prasme un galvenais uzdevums. Téla

glezniecîbas aroda iztirzåjumiem un norådîjumiem, bütu

uzbüve parasti veidojas ap zinåmu asi vai centru un tiecas

radîjusi daudz ievérojamu, paliekoßu måkslas darbu. Taçu

uz noteiktu ©eometrisku formu savå periférijå. Téla veido-

tå tas nav – més nezinåm neviena tåda. Visas ßîs atziñas un receptes varéja kalpot vienîgi Leonardo.1

joßam plüdumam ir savi balsti un virzîtåji elementi: lîdzi

Atceros kådreiz domåto, mekléto, visas kådreiz gütås atziñas, arî tås, kuras gandrîz aizmirstas – novecojußas.

ritoßi, kontrastéjoßi un atbalsojußi. Tie darbojas un uzsveras svérteniskå un lîmeniskå virzienå – veido téla pilnskanîgo, vienoto formu.

Såkot ar vientiesîgo priekßstatu zéna gados, ka måkslas

Plastiski konstruktîvås uzbüves augståkos un savå

augståkais sasniegums bütu ideåli pilnîga dabas atda­

ziñå arî tîråkos sasniegumus télniecîbå atrodam pie senaji-

rinåßana, påri tematiskå romantisma uzplüdiem, påri aka-

em é©iptießiem. ‰©iptießu plastiskå, konstruktîvi radoßå

démiskajåm doktrînåm un kanoniem, påri impresionismam

fantåzija, kura mîl stipri vienkårßotas, ©eometriski iesaistî-

un citiem måkslas novirzieniem lîdz futürismam un kubis-

tas formas, savå senlikumîbå uzliesmo citreiz tik

mam izlobîjås atziñas par måkslas darba formålås pamat-

pårdroßos konstruktîvos risinåjumos, ka tie pat müsu

nes galveno saturu un bütîbu. Pie tam jåsaka, ka liela noskaidrojoßa nozîme man bijusi nesen pårdzîvotajiem

dienås vél pårsteidz. Es te domåju kubå vai prizmå iemetinåtos vai, pareizåk, ieslégtos Bekenhonsu3 un Senmuta4

galéjiem måkslas novirzieniem. Tås bija savå ziñå måkslas

statujås.

sairßanas parådîbas. Un lîdzîgi kå organiskajå dabå, arî

Lielie, tålie apvårkßñi radîja é©iptießos ilgas laiku

måkslai sairstot, viss atkrita atpaka¬ savos pamata elemen-

tålés. Tå viñi céla savas varenås piramîdas un tikpat vareni

tos, kuri parådîjås kaili – pårskatåmåki kå jebkad.

iemetinåja lielås formås savus télus, lai tie, tåpat kå viñu

Télniecîbas formålå bütîba, pilnîgi noteikta un skaidra,

piramîdas, izturétu gadu tükstoßu pretestîbu un ieietu

vérojama jau dzi¬å senatné. Jau aizvésturiskajå Villendorfas Venerå2, par kuru grüti teikt, vai tå radusies

müΩos.

erotisku skatîjumu ce¬å vai kå kulta dievekle, téla plas-

tå, kas to iznesa laikos, bet gan viña plastiskais saturs –

tiskå, formålå bütîba parådås reti augstå briedumå. Par

tå plastiskå dzîvotspéja.

apzinåtu plastisku uzbüvi müsu izpratné te gan nevar

Nevis kåda téla célonîga raßanås un tapßanas ideja ir

Téla bütiski veidojoßå saståvda¬a ir cilnis. Cilnim kå

runåt. Bet tas jau nekå nemaina. Íî téla cilniskå uzbüve ir

plastisko apjomu veidotåjam ir sava noteikta uzbüve un

tik bagåti izjusta un dinamiski piesåtinåta, ka tas ierindo-

savas uzbüves un reizé arî iedarbîbas centrs. No ci¬ña

jams pie télniecîbas augståkajiem sasniegumiem.

plastiskås piesåtinåtîbas atkaråjas téla dinamika un

Plastisks – télniecîbas nozîmé – ir viss, ko més uzt-

izteiksmes spéks. Cilnis var büt klusinåts, tådu més viñu

4

atrodam pie é©iptießiem; stipri uzsvérts pie MikelandΩelo

no seno kultüru izrakteñu – vara télu un trauku, kå arî

vai arî pastiprinåti kåpinåts Rodéna Balzaka galvå. Visos

akmeña veidojumu laika zoba un atmosféras radîto virsmu

ßajos gadîjumos tas ir stingri büvéts, un tådam viñam

bagåtîgå skaistuma.

arvien ir jåbüt. Iedarbîbas piesåtinåtå forma var büt stipri

Vielu télniecîbai dod daba. Bet kå skatît dabu, kå to

vienkårßota. Ío piesåtinåtîbu tådå gadîjumå rada tajå

vértét? Télnieciskai dabas skatîßanai ir savi îpaßi izejas

iemetinåtais vesela reåla ci¬ña kompleksa plastiskais

momenti – savi îpaßi kritériji. Tå ir radoßa dabas skatîßa-

sa­turs. Formas piesåtinåta vienkårßoßana nav izdaråma

na – dabas vértéßana uz tås plastisko saturu. Vieliski aktî-

matemåtiski, iemetinot lielå formå kådas ci¬ña kopîbas

vas vértîbas dabå jåpårrada plastiski aktîvås. Pie kam

sa­turu, bet gan vienîgi sintézes ce¬å. Íî sintéze notiek,

daudz kas plastiski mazvértîgs un lieks atmetams, daudz

vadoties no télnieka izjütas. Plastiskå sintéze ir summåra

kas apvienojams un atseviß˚i dabas plastiskie elementi

ci¬ñu dinamikas iek¬außana lielå vienkårßotå formå.

kåpinåjami. Gadås arî, ka jåatkåpjas no kådas dabas

Kå tålåka télniecîbas neatñemama saståvda¬a jåmin

parådîbå esoßas likumîbas, ka formu sintézes labå plas-

zîméjums. “Zîméjuma noslépums”– tulkojot Sezana for-

tiskå izjüta izlauΩas, iedragåjot dabas fenomena reålo bütî-

muléjumu télniecîbas izpratné – ir ci¬ñu saskañå un pret-

bu. Tikai ßåda iedragåßana nedrîkst iedarboties kå k¬üda,

statos. Jo harmoniskåk veidojas ci¬ñi, jo noteiktåks un

un tå vienîgi tad ir attaisnojama, ja tå palîdz sa­sniegt plas-

tîråks k¬üst zîméjums. Zîméjums savå norisé ir lînija.

tiski augstu izteiksmîbu. Dabå kådai télnieciskai problémai

Stipri uzsvértå un tîrå veidå – kå lînija zîméjums darbojas

bieΩi dod tikai atseviß˚us momentus, no kuriem, summåri

téla siluetos.

skatot, uzkråjas nepiecießamå télnieciskå viela. Tåda

Pie télniecîbas pamatelementiem pieder arî virsmas apdare – faktüra.5 Faktüra radås kå veidoßanas vai cirßa-

uzkråßana, tåda télnieciska sintéze prasa lielu pieredzi un

nas mehåniskås darbîbas sekas vai pédas. Pa da¬ai neapz-

jams, ka lielie meistari daΩreiz pie kåda darba strådå 10 un

inåtas, pa da¬ai apzinåtas dabas, tå arvienu satur sevî

vairåk gadus (Leonardo Sforcas monuments, Rodéna Balzaks u. c.).6

emocionålo elementu. Faktüra kå galéjais téla iedarbîbas kåpinåjums nes téla virsmas vissmalkåkos, visjütîgåkos

laika ziñå citreiz uzkråjas tikai gadiem. Ar to arî izskaidro-

Télniecîba ir apjomu un plåkßñu måksla, méru måksla,

nianséjumus. Tå savå ziñå télu apdveß un vibréjot to

kuras méra vienîba pamatojas izjütå. Íî izjüta tad arî noteic

iesaista atmosférå.

müsu dabas skatîßanu un tås vértéßanu. Íai izjütå balstîtå

Faktüra var büt raupja vai gluda. Veidojot mîkstå,

méra vienîbå slépjas viss jaukais, visi pårsteigumi, visas

plastiskå vielå – målå, tai büs viens, kurpretim, cértot

tik daudzås pretiß˚îbas, visi nesapraßanas, strîdu un cîñu

akmenî, – cits raksturs. Pie faktüras jåpieskaita arî grafis-

iemesli daΩådo paaudΩu un måkslas virzienu starpå. Tå arî

ka veida virsmas atdzîvinåßana, kå to médz pielietot

visa måkslas progresa vai – pareizåk – måkslas maiñu

é©iptießi. Viñu granîta télu sîki lineåri ornamentålie

célonis. Tå ietver visu jauno måkslu, ko nes sevî müsu

priekßautu un galvas segu izgreznojumi nav cilniskas

radoßais “es”.

dabas, tie ir ir faktüras elementi. Tåpat faktüras elements

Télnieciski bütiskajam iemiesojoties materiålå, rodas

péc iedarbîbas ir puléta granîta virsmas struktüras zvirgzdi

måkslas darbs. Materiåls nemaina plastiskå bütîbu, tas tai

un kråsu pigmenta plankumi. Un beidzot vél vara

vienîgi piedod zinåmu nokråsu vai skañu.

sübéjums – patina, vienalga, vai téls dabîgi nosübéjis vai

Vismonumentålåkais no télniecîbas materiåliem ir granîts.

måkslîgi sübinåts.

Mans priekßstats par granîta télu saistås ar maniem pirm-

Faktüras ziñå müsu laiku télniecîba ir stipri izsmalcinåta. Tå savas apdares izveidoßanå lielå mérå aizguvusi

ajiem bérnîbå gütajiem iespaidiem par akmeni – ar müsu laukakmeni, tå mîkstajåm, lielajåm, plüstoßajåm, neie-

dragåtajåm formåm, kåds tas pie mums nonåcis caur gadu

5

tükstoßiem. Gadu tükstoßus tas savå ce¬å ßurpu saskåries

1 T. Za¬kalns te domåjis Leonardo da Vinçi (1452–1519) “Traktåtu

ar daΩådåm pretestîbåm. Dragåts un trîts, tas tiktål

par glezniecîbu”, ko péc Leonardo nåves apkopoja viña måcek¬i.

pielågojies, ka viña formålå esîba nodroßinåta ilgam

2 Villendorfas Venera (smilßakmens, h – 11 cm, Dabas véstures

müΩam. Liekas, te, pie dabas pieredzes, mums bütu jåpår-

granîtå, jåiek¬aujas granîtå – laukakmeña bütîbå. Tåds ir

muzejs, Vîne) – agrînå paleolîta periodå (ap 20. gadu tükst. p.m.é.) darinåta sievietes statuja, atrasta Austrijå un piesaistîjusi daudzu måkslinieku uzmanîbu ar “müsdienîgo” plastisko valodu, tådéjådi ro­sinot tos daudz radikålåkiem cilvéka ˚ermeña risinåjumiem visa 20. gs. laikå.

mans pilnîgi subjektîvais viedoklis, kas, saprotams, neno-

3 Bekenhonsu – télnieks, kura vadîbå Senås E©iptes Jaunås valsts

liedz citus asåkus, granîtam raksturîgus formålus risinåju-

laikå (XIX dinastija) tika uzcelts pilons ar faraona Ramzesa II figüråm no rozå un melnå granîta.

bauda savi télnieciskie nodomi granîtå, kurus arî més domåjam müΩiem. Téla formålai koncepcijai, veidojot

mus.

Par bronzu – varu jåsaka, ka tas iztek lîdzi müsu iegribåm. Íe tiklab formålås, kå arî fakturålås varbütîbas ir ¬oti plaßas. Man personîgi, tåpat kå granîtå, arî varå mî¬as lielas plüstoßas formas, kå arî bagåti kontrastéjoßas formas, raupjå tå gludå apdare.

Vél no télniecîbas materiåliem minéßu porcelånu.

Porcelåna bütiskå izpratné visaugståkos sasniegumus guvußi ˚înießi. Pie ßiem klasiskajiem porcelåna meistariem jånoiet katram, kas grib dzi¬åki ieskatîties porcelåna bütîbå. Müsu Valsts Vakareiropas muzejå7 ir ¬oti skaists 18. gadusimteña ˚înießu porcelåna Bodisatvas téls. Íai télå izvilinåts daudz no tå, ko porcelåns lielå stila izpratné var dot télniecîbå: plaßi savå îpatnéjå plastiskå plüdumå uztverta seja ar asi akcentétåm acîm un muti. Tåpat plaßi, ¬oti interesanti veidotas ©érba lielås masas ar pretskata sîkåm kroku kopåm. Èpatnéjå ˚înießu meistara uztveré ßis téls raksturîgi liecina par augsto ˚înießu porcelåna kultüru.

Lîdz ßim teiktais attiecas uz måkslas arodu, tås åréjåm parådîbåm, uz to, kas padodas analîzei. Måkslas bütîbas dzi¬åka izpraßana un zinåßana, måkslas darbu tapßana visdzi¬åkå nozîmé grüti padodas definéjumiem. Måksla lîdzîgi dzîvîbai mums pieietama caur savu iedarbîbu. Més to apjaußam un uztveram emociju ce¬å. Visi augßå minétie slédzieni un atziñas ir måkslas darba tapßanas pavadoßas parådîbas.

Pati tapßana, tåpat kå dzîvå raßanås, paliek neatminama. Principi, péc kuriem més radoßi skatåm pasauli, gu¬, dzi¬i iemetinåti, müsu tautas bütîbå – ir visdzi¬åk neap­ zinåti.

4 Senmuts vadîja valdnieces Hatßepsutas temp¬a celtniecîbu Deirelbahrî (XVIII dinastija), kuram arî ir veltîta ståjskulptüra (granîts, h – 1m, Berlîne, Valsts muzeji).

5 Te un turpmåk tekstå sacîtais par faktüru liecina, ka T. Za¬kalns bija studéjis V. Matveja darbu “Radoßie principi plastiskajås måkslås.

Faktüra”, kas 1914. gadå tika izdots Péterburgå. Atgådinåsim, ka T. Za¬kalns uzñémås V. Matveja pécnåves izstådes organizéßanu Rîgå 1914. gada decembrî Ceturtås latvießu måkslinieku darbu izstådes ie­tvaros, kå arî uzrakstîja nelielu komentåru par viña darbiem izstådes katalogå.

6 Leonardo da Vinçi pie Françesko Sforcas pieminek¬a Milånå strådåja vairåk nekå desmit gadus – no 1481. gada; darbs nav saglabåjies.

Ogists Rodéns pie Onoré de Balzaka pieminek¬a strådåja no 1893. lîdz 1897. gadam.

7 Muzeja nosaukumi daudzreiz mainîti: Latvijas PSR Vakareiropas måkslas muzejs (1941, 1944–1952); Latvijas PSR Télotåjas måkslas muzejs (1952–1964); LPSR AizrobeΩu måkslas muzejs (1964–1989); AizrobeΩu måkslas muzejs (1989–1992); kopß 1992. gada – Årzemju måkslas muzejs.

6

Sculptural Essence

about any deliberate plastic structure in contemporary interpretation. But it does not change anything. The relief structure

Speaking about this theme I want to stress that except

of the sculpture is so deeply felt and dynamically satiated that

some inducement I would not be able to render a service in

it can be ranked among the highest achievements of sculp-

the sphere of sculpture.

ture.

This will be mainly the certificate of my personal, purely

Plasticity in the sense of sculpture is everything we per-

subjective opinion. We cannot create our works on theoretical

cept by influence of reliefs. The influence of reliefs on its turn

basis of other trades nor according to their conclusions.

comes from their structure. Plastically creative elements with

Everybody must obtain these inferences by himself, every-

inherent plastic energy are organized in a strict system, which

body must find them and experience creatively. If it were dif-

is based on the architectonic structure of a sculpture which

ferently, then the mankind, having explored Leonardo da

on its turn is organized as a sequence of volumes, in correla-

Vinci’s treatise about painting and appropriating the great

tion of its geometric surface constituents – plates, thus creat-

master’s experience with elaborate and most detailed analysis

ing the flowing outline of the sculpture.

and directions would have created many remarkable perma-

The arrangement of plastic elements is the main skill and

nent works of art. But it is not so – at least we do not know

the main task of the sculptor. The structure of a sculpture

any artwork of the kind. All these inferences and ready-made formulas could render any service only to Leonardo.1

usually forms around a certain axis or center and has a ten-

I remember once thought over, searched and gained

dency towards a definite geometrical form in its periphery.

The sculpture-forming flow has its own strongholds and

inferences even those half forgotten to have become antiquat-

guiding elements: co-rolling, contrasting and echoing. They

ed. Beginning with the simple-minded notion of the boyhood

are acting and stressed both in vertical and in horizontal

that the acme of art would be utterly perfect imitation of

direction and create a full-toned oneness of form.

nature – through the surge of thematical romantism, over

The highest and in certain aspects the purest achieve-

academical doctrines and canons, through Impressionism

ments in plastic constructive structure we can find with

and other art trends till Futurism and Cubism – husked the

ancient Egyptians. Their plastic, constructive creative fantasy,

inferences about the chief content and essence of the formal

that loves simplified geometrically involved forms, in its

basis of artworks. I must say that the recently experienced

ancient regularity sometimes blazes up in such audacious

extreme art tendencies which in some respect were phenome-

constructive development that they astonish us even nowa-

na of art disintegration left a great clarifying impact on me.

days. I am referring to the statues of Beken Khonsu and Senmut3 incarnated – or rather locked – in a cube or prism.

Like in the organic nature also in the process of art disintegration everything fell back in its basic elements, which emerged bare – more lucid as ever.

The formal essence of sculpture, absolutely definite and clear is observed already in deep antiquity. Already in the prehistoric Venus of Willendorf2 (which is difficult to tell whether it appeared as a result of erotic visions or as a cult

The great distant horizons roused in Egyptians yearnings in time distances. Thus they built their mighty pyramids and in the same way they incarnated their images in huge forms, that they, like their pyramids, would endure the resistance of millennia and enter eternity.

Not the causative origination and the idea of creation of

goddess) – the plastic formal essence of the statue appears

an image is the cause, which brought it through times but its

in especially high maturity. However, here we cannot speak

plastic content – its plastic vitality.

The texture can be rough or smooth. Moulding in a soft

Sculpture is the art of volumes and plates, it is the art of

plastic substance, e.g. clay, it will have one, but cutting in

measures, the unit of which is based on feeling. This feeling

stone – another character. We must add to the texture also

determines our nature observation and its evaluation. The unit

the graphic enlivening of surface which was widely used by

of measure embedded in this feeling encloses everything

Egyptians. The detailed linear ornamental apron and headgear

lovely, every surprise, each of so numerous contradictions,

decorations of their granite statues do not possess the nature

every cause for misunderstanding, quarrel and struggle

of relief, they are elements of texture. Another elements of

among different generations and art movements. It is the

texture are structural grains of polished granite surface and

cause for the whole art progress – or more exactly – the

spots of colour pigments. And last but not least – copper tar-

cause for changes in art. It includes everything new in art –

nish – patina, no matter whether the statue is naturally or

everything that our creative “I” contains.

artificially tarnished.

Sculpture of our time is rather exquisite in terms of tex-

When the sculptural essence incarnates in a material substance an artwork is created. The material does not

ture. In forming of its artistic arrangement it has greatly

change the essence of the plastic, it imparts to the essence a

adopted from the excavations of ancient cultures – the rich

certain shade or sound. The most monumental among sculp-

beauty of the surfaces of the copper statues and dishes as

tural materials is granite. My notion about the granite sculp-

well as stone carvings created by time and atmosphere.

ture is connected with my first childhood impressions about

Nature gives substance to sculpture. But how to observe

the stone, our boulder with its soft, big, flowing, unbroken

and estimate the nature? Sculptural nature observation has its

forms – just as it has come to us through millenia. Over

own particular starting moments – its own particular criteria.

many thosands of years on its way here it has to overcome

It is creative nature observation – nature evaluation by its

various resistances. Having been crushed and rubbed it has

plastic content. Materially active values in nature must be

adapted itself to such an extent that its formal existence is

recreated into plastically active ones. At the same time much

well secured for a long life. It seems, that here, at nature’s

is to be rejected as plastically inferior and unnecessary,

experience, we should test our sculptural intentions in gran-

something has to be united and some natural plastic ele-

ite, because we like them to be eternal. The image’s formal

ments are to be increased. It happens, that one must deviate

conception when cutting in granite must join in granite’s –

from a regularity inherent in a nature phenomen, that in

boulder’s – essence. It is my, fully subjective standpoint

favour of form synthesis the plastic sense breaks out under-

which, naturally, does not deny other sharper, granite-like

mining the real essence of the nature phenomenon. Only

formal developments.

such undermining should not work as a mistake, and it can

About bronze – copper I must say that it flows like our

be justified only if it helps to attain plastically high expres-

fancy. Here the formal as well as textural possibilities are very

sion. In nature sculptural problems often find only some sep-

wide. I myself like big, flowing forms in granite, also in cop-

arate moments from which the necessary sculptural matter

per, as well as richly contrasting forms with rough or smooth

sums up. Such accumulation, such sculptural synthesis

treatment.

demands great experience and stores up only over the period

I shall mention one more sculptural material – porcelain.

of years. This accounts for the work of great masters with one

The Chinese have got the highest achievements in porcelain’s

statue for 10 and more years (Leonardo’s monument of Sforza, Rodin’s Statue of Balsac,4 etc. ) .

essential understanding. Everybody who wants to look deeper into the essence of porcelain should come to these classical

7

8

porcelain masters. In our State Museum of West European Art5 we have very beautiful XVIII century porcelain statue of Bodisathva. In this statue they have managed to capture much of the characteristics that porcelain can give to sculpture in the sense of high style. The face have been cought in its peculiar plastic flow with sharply emphasized eyes and mouth. Likely the great masses of the gown with smaller groups of folds are moulded very broadly and interestingly. In a peculiar manner of the Chinese master the statue typically shows the high Chinese porcelain culture.

All above discussed refers to the craft of art and its outer phenomena, to the aspects which submit to analysis. Deeper understanding and knowledge of the essence of art, the process of creating of an artwork is hardly to be defined. Art like life is accessible through its influence. We apprehend and percept it through emotions. All above mentioned conclusions and inferences are accompanying phenomena in the process of creating an artwork. The very creation like the emergence of life remains insoluble. The principles according to which we look upon the world creatively, are deeply set in the mentality of our nation – and they are the least mastered.

1 Here Teodors Za¬kalns has meant Leonardo da Vinci’s (1452-1519) “Tractatus on Painting” that was compiled after his death by his disciples.

2 Venus of Willendorf (stone, h. 11 cm, Museum of Natural History, Vienna), the woman’s statue made at the Old Stone Age (about 20,000 B.C.) has been found in Austria, and it has attracted attention of many artists with its “contemporary” plastic language and thus has inspired much more radical human body representations during the 20th century.

3 A sculpture of Senmut (granite, h. 1 m, Berlin, State Museums), a sculpture made during the New Kingdom of Ancient Egypt (XIX dynasty).

Beken Khonsu, the artist under whose guidance during the reign of Ramesses II (XVIII dynasty) a pylon with pharaoh’s figures made of pink and black granite was built.

4 Leonardo da Vinci worked at Francesco Sforza’s monument in Milan for more than 10 years from 1481; the work has not been preserved.

Auguste Rodin worked at the monument of Honore de Balsac from 1893– 1897.

5 The names of the museum have been repeatedly changed. In 1941, from 1944-1952 it was West European Museum of Latvia SSR, 1952– 1964 Museum of Fine Art of Latvia SSR, 1964–1989 Foreign Countries’ Art Museum of Latvia SSR, 1989–1991 Foreign Countries’ Art Museum, since 1992 – Foreign Art Museum.

LATVIEÍU MÅKSLINIEKU TEOR‰TISKIE RAKSTI UN MANIFESTI THEORETICAL WRITINGS AND MANIFESTOS BY LATVIAN ARTISTS

Ojårs Åbols BRÈNUMS A MIRACLE

I Z D E V N I E C È B A

Û U R N Å L S

S T U D I J A

R È G A

2 0 0 2

2

Iréna BuΩinska

Måkslinieks Ojårs Åbols saceréjumå “Brînums”, kas iek¬auts

Ojårs Åbols in his essay, included in the present issue, states

ßajå izdevumå, saka, ka “måkslinieka biogråfijas såkas ar le©endu”.

that “an artist’s biography starts from a legend.” To a large extent

Lielå mérå ßie vårdi attiecinåmi arî uz paßu autoru, jo viñß bija ßåda

this phrase can be applied to the author himself since he was an out-

¬oti spilgta personîba, le©enda latvießu 20. gs. 60.–70. gadu måk-

standing personality, a legend in Latvian art in 1960s and 70s and

slå – vispirms tåpéc, ka centås ne tikai sevî, bet arî citos saglabåt

primarily because he attempted “to keep the world” not only in his

“pasauli sevî”, pats fiziski kå visi dzîvojot atrauti, aiz “dzelzs aizkara”,

own self but also in others, even though his life proceeded in utter

lielå izolåcijå. Garîgå piederîba pasaulei un aktuåliem laikmetîgås

isolation behind “the iron curtain”. Spiritual bonds with the world

måkslas procesiem caurvij kå O. Åbola glezniecîbu, tå viña teoré-

and with the dominant trends of contemporary art have found mani-

tiskos saceréjumus. Viñß gleznoja un rakstîja ne tikai ar skaidru, pre-

festations both in Ojårs Åbols’ paintings and in his writing. He paint-

cîzu, viña paßa vårdiem – “konstruktîvu lo©iku”, bet radîja visu ar ¬oti

ed and wrote not only with clear-cut, precise, and, as he put it him-

poétisku attieksmi un ar romantisku, varbüt pat ar 20. gs. avangarda

self, “constructive logic” but also created everything with a very

måkslai raksturîgu utopisku ticîbu jaunås måkslas ideåliem un izde-

poetic attitude and with romantic, perhaps even with a utopian trust

vumiem.

in ideals and objectives of the new art that characterizes 20th century

O. Åbols 1972. gada 19. februårî saceréjumå “Laiks, telpa un poézija” saka: “Íobrîd jauna pasaules izjüta ar konstruktîvu, optimis-

avant-garde.

In his essay “Time, Space and Poetry” (19 February 1972) he

tisku ideju pamatå veido jaunu måkslu ar jaunu atribütiku, tieksmi

says: “Today a new perception of the world based on constructive,

izteikties simbolos un ar simbolu palîdzîbu papildinåt un atvieglot

optimistic ideas generates new art with new attributes, desire to

realitåtes apguvi ar jauniem priekßstatiem par Visuma harmonijas

express oneself in symbols and through the use of symbolism to

likumiem..”

assist the grasp of reality with subsequent new understanding of the

Laiks parådîjis, ka O. Åbola “poétiskais slédziens” joprojåm

laws of harmony of the universe, the ancient and eternal desire of

izraisa interesi kå noteiktas pozitîvas un radoßas dzîves uztveres

human beings is presented as poetic inferences about the world.”

paraugs, kas savu aktualitåti nav zaudéjis arî 21. gs. såkumå.

The time has shown that Åbols’ “poetic inference” still evokes interest as a sample of certain positive and creative perception of life

O. Åbola saceréjums “Brînums” pirmo reizi publicéts Ωurnåla

that has not lost its significance in the 21st century.

“Avots” 1987. gada 7. numurå, izraisot cieñu un apbrînu par måkslinieka spéju tik precîzi raksturot kultüras procesus Latvijas måkslå

Ojårs Åbols’ essay “Miracle” was first published in the magazine

pagåjußå gadsimta 20. gados. Tådé¬ likås svarîgi iek¬aut måkslinieka

“Avots”, No. 7, 1987, and created respect and admiration for the art-

teorétisko saceréjumu arî ßajå izlasé.

ist’s ability to give poignant description of cultural processes in Latvian art of 1920s. Therefore it seemed important that the essay should be included also in the present selection.

BrÈnums Ågenskalnå aug koki. Lieli, veci koki. Ap namiem, dårzos, ielås, kur tie sastådîti alejås, pagalmos, üdens malå. Te påri galvai vienmér jüt spécîgu lapotni, kas dod patvéruma sajütu.

3

savå varå totåli un neatgrieΩami, tålåk parådîdamies tükstoß daΩådås sejås.

Måkslinieka biogråfija ir ståsts par viña ce¬a krustojumi-

Vairumå tås ir liepas, gobas, k¬avas. Kuldîgas ielå aug arî

em un saskarsmi ßajos krustojumos. Pie måkslas müs noved

ozoli. Vienîgås priedes te ir “Ågenskalna priedes “ – visiem

nevis skaisti dabas skati, ne arî müsu dvéseles pårdzîvojumi,

Rîgas iedzîvotåjiem labi pazîstamå vietå. Priedes aug arî

ne fantåzija, bet gan pati måksla. Par måksli­nieku top muzejå.

Baltås muiΩas kalnos. Bet tur, kur såkas smilßu kalni, lapot-

Un tåpéc, iespéjams, visåm ietekmém, agråm un vélåkåm, ir

nes vairs nav, un te gaiss vasarå k¬üst tveicîgs.

svarîga nozîme måkslinieka biogråfijå, kaut arî parasti tås

Basåm kåjåm ejot, pédas paßas zina ce¬u uz måjåm.

médz aizplîvurot, tiecoties izcelt måksli­nieka suverenitåti.

Pédas pazîst ˚ie©e¬u ietves nelîdzenumu, bru©a apa¬os akme-

Latvießu måkslinieks nav bijis izlutinåts pasaules ßedevru

ñus, izdedΩu asumu, zå©u skaidu staignumu un paßas meklé

baudîtåjs. Pirms Jåzepa Grosvalda un Voldemåra Matveja reti

gludi noblietétu melnu smilßu taku, kas te atrodama visur, pie

kurß müsu gleznotåjs pazinis måkslas lielos centrus. Bet

katras ietves, Zunda malå un ce¬å uz Råtsupîti Spilves p¬avu

Grosvalds un Matvejs arî bija tie, kuri ierosinåja müsu måk-

vidü. Tas, kurß, savas gaitas såkot, ¬åvis pasaulei ienåkt sevî

sliniekus tålåkam skatîjumam, izkustinåja akmeñus estétisko

arî caur kåju pédåm, pratîs vélåk îstå reizé nomest apavus, lai

aizspriedumu müros.

labåk izprastu sveßu pamatu, nepazîstamu vidi. Un tas, kurß

Tas sanåca samérå vélu, bet îstå laikå.

pazîst lapotnes jumtu virs galvas, meklés to vienmér. DaΩreiz

Bet vai véls briedums nenozîmé briedumu? Un vai véls

viñß to atradîs, daΩreiz neatradîs...

Pråts vienmér büs droßs starpnieks, atsveßinåts no dabas, bet nojautas tiks uzklausîtas.

Visi més måkslai tuvojamies bijîgi, atståjot savus pråta slédzienus malå un ¬aujot runåt måkslas patiesîbai, un, tåpat

kontakts ar Luvru un Prado bütu kavéjis måkslinieku paust sevi un savu årpasauli? Teofils Gotjé iepazinås ar Itåliju 39 gadu vecumå. Stendåls, kura domas par måkslu mums ir ¬oti svarîgas, vispår maz ko savå müΩå bija redzéjis.

Müsu gadsimts ir reprodukciju gadsimts. Íobrîd katram,

kå dabai, més måkslai ¬aujam ienåkt sevî ne jau nu gluΩi caur

kas to vélas, var büt savs muzejs måjå, våcot tikai reprodukci-

kåju pédåm, bet caur sirdi, kauliem un audiem, pa aplinkus

jas vien.

ce¬iem, ko vél neviens nav noskaidrojis.

Måkslinieku biogråfijas såkas ar le©endu par pirmo sas-

Kad Daugavå iet ledus, visa satiksme ar Pårdaugavu iespéjama tikai pa veco dzelzs tiltu. Tramvajs ar nosalußajiem

tapßanos ar måkslu, kas parasti ir liktenîga. Ja neievéro

pasaΩieriem abos va¬éjos vagona galos, ar vagona vadîtåju

izpuß˚ojumus, ßis notikums ar müsdienu acîm gandrîz visos

biezos velteños un kroña kaΩokå ar uzsistu aitådas apkakli

gadîjumos liksies maz ievérojams un maz izteiksmîgs: daΩs

vienmér apståjås tilta vidü, lai palaistu garåm pretimbraucoßo

labs latvießu måkslinieks pirmo impulsu guvis no lubu bildî-

tramvaju. Tad arî pamanîjås izspraukties smagie ormañi ar

tes, kas pielîméta skapja durvju iekßpusé, daudzus pårsteidzis

saviem gan pieticîgi, gan labi uzturétajiem zirgiem un mucåm,

Arnolds Beklîns, “Miroñsalas” autors un sava laika mistiski

un maisiem, gan drabiñåm barotiem alus darîtavu érze¬iem,

romantiskå gara paudéjs. Bagåtîgi pavairots oleogråfijås,

kuriem alus darîtavas prestiΩa vårdå vajadzéja izskatîties vis-

Beklîns labi pieståvéja pilsoñu tumßajåm ozolkoka mébelém.

maz kå Venécijas dodΩu kara zirgiem viså mi­siña spoΩumå, ar

Måkslinieka pirmajiem iespaidiem, protams, maz sakara ar

alus kastém spécîgi kaltajos ratos un respektabliem vaΩoñiem

visu vélåko, jo tajos nav nobriedußa meistara pamatpozîcijas

uz augstås bukas ådas skotelé, no kuriem nepieklåjîgs vårds

ne pret dzîvi, ne pret måkslu, taçu apiet tos nevar, jo te vél

nekad nav ticis dzirdéts. Uz tilta tådås reizés bija liela jezga,

tumså gars pirmo reizi sastopas ar vilinoßo un stindzinoßo

gåjéju bija daudz, da¬a nåca ßurp, da¬a gåja turp. Véjß, dub¬i.

Medüzas spîdumu, kas turpmåk paturés måksli­nieka esamîbu

Pilsétas pusé gåjéjs varéja vai nu iet lejup pa bru©éto uzbéru-

4

mu stacijas virzienå, vai arî nok¬üt Daugavmalå pa koka kåp-

dentiem un ierédñiem.

ném abås tilta gala pusés. Vecrîgas pusé, gandrîz uz Kår¬a

Òauties nojautåm vél nenozîmé aklu rîcîbu. Kam ir nojau-

ielas un Daugavmalas stüra, atradås Bartußevska gråmatu

ta, tam jåbüt pieredzei. Varbüt ßo pieredzi kråjußi müsu vecté-

antikvariåts, patiesîbå noliktava, spî˚eris, un ziemå te bija

vi un vecvectévi, to nododot savien bérniem un bérnu­bérniem

auksts.

gan ar asinîm, gan gara kontaktiem, neviens nepiedzimst kå

Nav taisnîba tiem, kas divdesmitos gadus attélo tikai kå nepårtrauktus fokstrotus un bankrotus. Manå atmiñå drîzåk ir gråmatas un diskusijas. Un dzejnieka portrets – nevis kå

neaprakstîta lapa, bet varbüt ßajå gadîjumå lielåka nozîme videi un laika garam.

Divdesmito gadu gara pasaule... Tå ir parådîba gara

gurds dendija profils ar cigareti ziloñkaula iemuté, bet

attîstîbas desmittükstoß gadu vésturé, kas pelnîjusi pétîjumus

Austras Skujiñas tips ar zéngalviñå iespraustu matu suku.

un disertåcijas. Izmocîtais un rezignétais pråts, noskatîjies

Visa literatüra toreiz bija laba, izñemot bulvåru lubu literatüru.

veco vértîbu bojåejas dråmu, solîdås Rietumu pasaules

Te, Bartußevska antikvariåtå, ßis tips bija sastopams. Un

patolo©iskås anatomijas priekßnesumu Pirmajå pasaules karå

pretéjå dzimuma pårståvji – apméram tådi, kådus tos zîméjis

un juzdams no jauna påri sev klåjamies augoßus draudîgus

E. M. Remarks savos “Trîs draugos”.

spékus, tagad meklé sev jaunus pamatus.

Ko viñi ßeit mekléja, to més nekad nedabüsim zinåt. Es

Péc katra sabrukuma dzîve tiek konstruéta no jauna.

varu tikai liecinåt par sevi. Bet pats es nezinu, ko ßajå vietå

Divdesmito gadu konstruktîvisms, kas piedzima padomju

esmu mekléjis. Te plauktos, uz galdiem un grédås uz grîdas

Krievijå un péc tam apgåja pasauli, bija ar skaidru program-

atradås noslépumå tîta pasaule, daΩåda spéka magnéti, kas

mu – celt jaunu pasauli. Visur un visås izpausmés tiek

gan pievilka, gan atstüma. Pelékajam îpaßniekam vienmér bija

mekléta jauna paradîze. Arhitektiem un måksliniekiem tå

ko darît kådå no kaktiem, un viñß ß˚itås neintereséjamies ne

parådås kå jaunas, skaistas un lielas pilsétas vîzija, kå dzîvo-

par vienu no apmeklétåjiem, un zéniem, kuru augums

jamå maßîna, kå cilvéks ar mehåniskiem spårniem. Dzejnieks

ne­sniedzås viñam lîdz padusém, viñß skatîjås vienkårßi påri.

vairs nav vienpatis. Starp viñu un paradîzi atrodas atbildîbas

Tießi tas bija izdevîgi. Padomi man nebija vajadzîgi, tos dabüju dzirdét måjås, un te varéja ¬auties turp, kurp nes kåju pédas. Tur, kur viss nesaprotams, staigns un nedroßs, sveßs

lauks, kam jåiet påri. Turp iedams, viñß sev lîdzi aicina visus.

Visiem jåtop atbildîgiem.

Jauns laiks rada jaunus jédzienus. Katrå ziñå Rîgå bija arî

un tåls, – tur notiek pa¬außanås uz vilinoßåm nojautåm. Tas ir

sava sabiedrîba, kurai jédzienu pasaule paplaßinåjås ar jauni-

privile©éts moments, kas iespéjams tikai agrå dzîves posmå;

em koktei¬u nosaukumiem. Més to nepazinåm, bet tådai kaut

vélåk pråts vairs ne¬auj brîvi dreifét esamîbas laikå, un tåpéc

kur bija jåbüt. Jaunums bija Pestîßanas armijas bungas, zie-

ßo momentu més atceramies ar skumjåm un sentimentu.

dojumu katli un uniformas. Tikai tas viss vél nepårvértås

Atgriezties tajå vairs neizdosies.

jédzienos. Toties Ceturtå vidusskola bija jau jédziens.

Te bija kåds kakts, kurå blå˚os uz dé¬iem guléja reproducétas gravîras. Tajås bija visa 19. gadsimta gara pasaule ar savåm absolüti nemainåmi sakårtotåm vértîbåm, vértîbu

Jédziens bija Tautas augstskola... Rîgas måkslinieku grupa bija jédziens...

Rüdolfs Egle tulko Rabindranatu Tagori latviski.

skalu, kaut ‰©ipte, Nînive un Mikénas sen bija jau atklåtas ar

Bezaizspriedumainås sabiedrîbas pråts, kas pauda daudzas

visiem saviem ideåliem un elkiem. Juku jukåm Rafaéls, bet

jautåjumu zîmes, Rietumu tradîcijai te meklé jaunas iespéjas

arî Ívinds, Knauss, Kurbé, Botiçelli, Kaspars Dåvids Frîdrihs,

jaunam domåßanas veidam. Dailes teåtris aicina prom no

Runge, Leonardo, Ípicvégs... Viss nav uzskaitåms.

ikdienas ik savå jaunå uzvedumå. Andrejs Kurcijs a©ité par

Gråmatu tirdziñå Vérmañdårzå, kas notika reizi gadå, bija

“aktîvo måkslu”, kurai bütu jauni uzdevumi. Divdesmito gadu

pavisam cita publika, tå, kas bija sastopama turpat uz ielas

måkslas gars Latvijå izveidojås par savdabîgu hibrîdu, kas

pécpusdienås. Te izpårdeva sadzeltéjußos, bojåtos gråmatu

varéja dot un deva vértîgu raΩu, un tas saståvéja no da¬as

eksemplårus par nieka naudu, un tas bija kårdinåjums stu-

katram tuvå romantisma Raiña izpratné un da¬as modernå

tehnikas laikmeta gara un idejåm. Romantiskais vériens

Leonardo intelektuålisms, tåpat kå Bellîni, bija nepieejams.

pieß˚îra måkslai apgarotîbu, darîja jaunås idejas skaistas,

MikelandΩelo miesas spéks, tåpat kå Ûaks Luî Davids un Gro,

deva tåm célus nosaukumus. Varbüt tießi romantika bija tas

nerada atbalsi sirdî un pråtå, kas vél nepazina nekådas patosa

vilinåjums, kas ar savu nemieru daudzus aicinåja tuvoties

izpausmes ne savå tuvåkå, ne tålåkå apkaimé.

måkslai.

Pasaule atveras ap mums tå, kå més to redzam. Måkslå

Nemantîgå sabiedrîbas da¬a orientéjås uz nåkotni, tålu,

katrs meklé tikai to, ko var sameklét, un ne vairåk. Cilvéks

vél nesatveramu, raugoties påri tuvplånam un mé©inot sas-

veido savus uzskatus par måkslu no tås izvéles, kas viñam

katît tålos siluetus. Nåkotnes teåtris, nåkotnes måksla, nåkot-

dota lîdz tam brîdim. Måkslå katrs meklé tikai to, ko vélas

nes skola...

sameklét, to, kas paßam iekßå. Måkslå ienåk bez paskaidro-

Skolotåjs Taivåns atver skolu, kur måcîbu process pårvé-

jumiem, komentåriem. Ko tad var gribét pråts, kas vél snauΩ?

rsts par domåßanas procesu. Skola bez atzîmém, bez måjas

Pilna va¬a dota jütåm un nojautåm, kas tåpat savukårt vél

uzdevumiem, ar kalnu sauli, zivju e¬¬u un sabiedriskås dar-

nepårbaudîtas, toties ir droßs starpnieks, bez kura vidutåjîbas

bîbas prakses stundåm bija eksperiments, bet tas izaudzi­nåja

nevar sagaidît, ka måkslas darbs sacîs kådu vårdu.

jaunas eksperimentétåjas dvéseles.

Agrais padsmitnieks ir perfekts un pilnîgs estéts – viñam

Kreisås arodbiedrîbas 1928. gadå bija izliktas uz ielas.

svarîgs mirk¬a prieks un bédas. Jütu pasaule ir viña apziñas

Vienas paaudzes labå gaume k¬üst par otras paaudzes

apakßéjais ståvs, viñß skatås apkårt bez atbildîbas un rüpém,

slikto gaumi. Jügendstilu divdesmitajos gados pieminéja jau

bez jautåjumiem par dzîves jégu – kå teåtra izrådé. Vél viñß

ar sarauktu degunu. Sentiments, sirds juteklîba, kas

nepazîst cîñu ar sevi un ar citiem, vél viñß nezina, ko nozîmé

iepriekßéjai paaudzei bija gandrîz vai neatñemama cilvéka

térét spékus, sevi apspieΩot.

îpaßîba, tagad netika dévéta citådi kå par salkanîbu.

Kurß no meistariem tad spétu pasniegt pirmo poétikas

Divdesmito gadu paaudze veidojusies bez tå rituåla attiecîbås,

stundu viselementåråkajå pakåpé, turklåt bez pårliecîbas, ka

ko médz dévét par “labo toni”.

jaunatnåcéjs patießåm grib k¬üt par måcekli?

Arî visi citi rituåli tika pildîti tå, kå tos varétu büt pildîjußi

Tåds atradås. Årpus visas renesanses rafinérijas, brîvs no

savå laikå tikko kristîtie Daugavas lîbießi. Un, tå kå vecåkiem,

mîklåm, bez tumßås simbolikas, bez teatrålåm togåm un

kas pieredzéjußi Piekto gadu, tåds jédziens kå “autoritåte”

pårapgarotîbas, uzticoties tikai paßam såkotnéjam cilvéciska-

nebija pilnîgi skaidrs, tad arî bérni tika audzinåti, neizskaidro-

jam ståvoklim – tîråm jütåm. Starp putek¬ainåm, dzeltét

jot ßo jédzienu.

såkußåm kartona lapåm atradås Fra AndΩeliko, kas spéja

Poza un diΩmanîba ßim laikam vispår sveßa, bet tå nespéj iedvest bijîbu arî vélåk, péc 15. maija, kad tå parådås un pat afißéjas jau kå valstiskuma atribüts.

Bartußevska gravîru un litogråfiju kaudzes pievilka kå apburtas, un katram, kas tås bija såcis pårcilåt, bija jåatgrieΩas pie tåm no jauna, lai atkal sameklétu to, kas vakar bija ß˚itis neatvairåms, un lai ßajå azartå laimétu vél vairåk.

Mana izvéle, jådomå, da¬éji bija kaut kur zemapziñå iepriekß sagatavota. Pret 19. gs. våcu autoriem aizspriedumi bija jau nobriedußi. Tå bija sîkpilsonîbas tukßå, ßaurå pasaule ar visiem saviem måjas piederumiem, par kuru dzirdéts tik daudz nicinoßu novértéjumu.

Dîrers bija par vésu, bez tam viñß bija jåskatås pa deta¬åm, un manam pråtam tas viss bija par gudru. Arî

uzpirkt varbüt tießi ar ßo îpaßîbu.

5

6

A Miracle There are trees in Ågenskalns. Tall, old trees. Around houses, in the streets, they are planted in alleys, yards, by the water. Heavy foliage is always above your head; it gives a sense of shelter. Mostly they are lime trees, elm trees, maple trees. There are also oaks in Kuldîga street. The only pinetrees are the “Ågenskalns pine-trees” in the place well-known for Riga dwellers. Pine-trees grow also on the slopes of the White estate. But where sand hills begin, there is no foliage any more, and the air in summer becomes sultry.

Walking bare-footed the legs know the way home by themselves. The feet know the roughness of the brick pavements, roundness of cobblestones, sharpness of slag, springiness of sawdust and they search by themselves for the smoothly trodden black sand path that can be found here everywhere, by each pavement, by Zunda and among the Spilve meadows on the way to the Råtsupîte river. The one, who at the beginning of existence has allowed the world to come into himself through soles of feet, will be able later to cast away the shoes at the right moment, to feel better strange soil, unknown environment. The one who knows foliage shelter above the head, will seek it for ever. Sometimes he will find it, sometimes not...

Mind will always be a reliable intermediary, alienated from nature, but Anticipations will be heard: We all approach art with piety, leaving conclusions of our mind aside and letting the truth of art speak, and like nature, we let art come within us not quite through the soles of feet but through heart, bones and tissues, in roundabout ways that no one yet has fully identified.

Artists’ biographies begin with a legend about the first confrontation with art that usually is fatal. If one ignores embellishments, this event will seem in the eyes of contemporaneity insignificant and inexpressive: quite a few Latvian artists have gained their first impulse from a banal pin-up pictures on the inside of the wardrobe door, many have been surprised by Arnold Böcklin, the author of the “Island of the Dead” and a mouthpiece of the mystically romantic spirit of his time. Numerously multiplied in oleographs, Böcklin was a good match for the dark oak wood furniture. The artist’s first impressions certainly have little to do with what comes later because they do not represent a mature artist’s attitude to life

or art, yet they cannot be ignored, since it is that the spirit still being in the darkness, confronts for the first time the alluring and mesmerizing glow of Medusa, that will eventually keep the artist’s existence in its power totally and irrevocably, later manifesting itself in thousand different faces.

The artist’s biography is a story about intersections of his roads and confrontations at these crossroads. We are led to art neither by beautiful landscapes, nor by experiences of our soul, nor fantasy but the art itself. Artists are made at museums. And therefore perhaps all the influences, early or later ones, have a significant role in the artist’s biography, although they are usually somewhat concealed to foreground the artist’s sovereignty.

Latvian artists have not been spoiled by opportunities to enjoy world treasures of art. Before Jåzeps Grosvalds and Voldemårs Matvejs only few of our painters were familiar with the large art centres. But Grosvalds and Matvejs were also the ones to inspire our artists to a wider vision, moved the stones in the walls of artistic prejudice.

It happened quite late but right on time.

Yet doesn’t late maturity mean maturity? Would late contacts with Louvre and Prado had prevented the artists to express themselves and their external reality? Théophile Gautier got to know Italy at the age of 39. Stendhal, whose ideas about art are very significant for us, had seen little at all in his life.

We live in the reproduction century. Today anyone who wishes can have their own private museum by collecting only reproductions.

When ice breaks in the Daugava river, one can get across only along the old iron bridge. A tram with the frozen passengers at both open platforms of the carriage, with the driver in heavy felt boots, in his fur coat uniform with lifted sheep skin collar always stopped in the middle of the bridge to let the tram from the opposite direction past. Then the cabmen managed to get through with humbly fed or well-kept horses and tubs, and sacks, as well as with studs fed with brewery refuse, that on behalf of the prestige of the breweries were to look at least like war horses of Venetian doges in all their brass glory, with beer boxes in the heavily cast carriages and respectable cabmen on the high coach-box, in leather apron, from whom not a single impolite word had been heard. There was a big hustle on the bridge at times like that, lots of

pedestrians, some came here, some went over to the other side. Wind, mud. On the city side of the bridge the pedestrians could get down along the cobble-stoned embankment towards the railway station, or go to the banks of the river along wooden stairs at both ends of the bridge. Near the old town, almost right on the corner of Kårlis street and Daugava embankment there was Bartußevskis’ second-hand book shop, in fact it was a storehouse, and it was cold in winter there.

It is not true that the 20th century is depicted as incessant fox-trots and bankruptcies. My memories are rather about books and discussions. And a poet’s portrait – not a weary dandy’s profile with a cigarette in ivory cigarette-holder, but Austra Skujiña type with brush in the short-cut hair.

All literature was good then, except for the pulp fiction.

Here at Bartußevskis’ second-hand bookshop, you could meet the type. And representatives of the opposite sex – approximately like the ones drawn by Remarque in his “Three Friends”.

We will never find out what they were looking for here. I can only speak for myself. But I don’t know myself what I was searching there. Here on the shelves and tables and in stacks on the floor was the world steeped in mystery, there were magnets of various power that both attracted and repulsed.

The gray owner had things to do in the corners, and he seemed to have no interest whatsoever about any customers and he simply looked over the heads of the boys who were in height below his armpit.

That was the very advantage. I did not need advice, that I got at home, and here I could go wherever my feet carried me. Where everything lies beyond comprehension, where the ground is swampy and insecure, one trusts the luring insights. That is a privileged moment possible only at an early stage of life; later on one’s mind does not let one drift freely in the time of existence, and therefore we recall such a moment with sadness and sentimentality. It is impossible to return to it.

There was a corner with heaps of engraving reproductions on the floorboards. It contained the whole of the 19th century spiritual world with all of its unchangeable values, although Egypt, Ninive and Mycenae had been discovered long ago, with all of their ideals and idols. There was a mixture of Raphael, also Scwindt, Knaus, Courbet, Caspar David

Friedrich, Leonardo, Spitzweg... One cannot enumerate them all.

In the book market at Vérmanis park held once a year, there was a completely different public, the one you could meet there on the street in the afternoon. Yellowish, damaged books were sold for ridiculous price, and it was a temptation to students and clerks.

Surrendering to intuition does not mean acting blindly.

Those who have an insight must have an experience. Perhaps this experience has been collected by our grandfathers and great-grandfathers, passing it over to their grandchildren with blood, with spiritual links, no one is born like a blank sheet of paper, and perhaps in this case environment and the spirit of the time are of greater importance.

Spiritual world of 1920s... It is quite a phenomenon in the 10 thousand years of development of spirit that deserves research and thesis. The tormented and resigned mind, having witnessed the drama of collapse of the old values, the performance of the pathological anatomy of the Western world in World War I and sensing again the pending doom of the growing menace of some power, now is in search of new foundations.

After each collapse life is constructed anew.

Constructivism of 1920s that emerged in the Soviet Union and afterwards swept all the world, had a clear-cut programme – to build a new world. Everywhere and in all possible manifestations a new paradise is sought. For architects and artists it appears like a vision of a new, beautiful and large city, as a living machine, as a man with mechanical wings. The poet is not a loner any more. There is a field of responsibility between him and the paradise, and that has to be crossed. Going there he appeals everyone to follow. All have to become responsible.

New times create new notions. There was certainly a community in Riga for whom the world of notions was expanded with new cocktail names. We did not know it but it had to be around. One of the novelties was the drum of the Salvation Army, donation pots and uniforms. But it all did not turn into notions yet. But secondary school number four was a notion. Also the Folk High School... Riga artists’ group was a notion...

Rüdolfs Egle translates Rabindranath Tagore into Latvian.

The mind of unprejudiced society that came forth with many

7

8

questions, here seeks for the Western tradition new options for a new way of thinking. Daile theatre invites the audience away from the daily life in each new staging. Andrejs Kurcijs propagates “active art” with new tasks. The spirit of art in 1920s in Latvia became an unusual hybrid that could give and that gave rich harvest, and it consisted partly of romanticism, as postulated by Rainis and was so close to everyone, and partly of the spirit and ideas of the modern technological epoch. The romantic scope endowed art with spirituality, made the new ideas beautiful, allocated to them noble names.

Perhaps the romanticism was the very temptation that with its restlessness inspired many to get closer to art.

The part of society with no wealth had a vision of future, distant or incomprehensible, casting their glance beyond close-ups and trying to decipher the distant outlines. Future theatre, future art, future school...

The teacher Taivåns opens the school where the teaching process is turned into a thinking process. The school without grades, without home assignments, with mountain sun, with cod liver oil and lessons of public activity practice was an experiment but it brought up new experimenting souls.

The leftist trade unions in 1928 were evicted in the street.

Good taste of one generation becomes bad taste of another one. Art Nouveau in 1920s was already mentioned with a frown. Sentiment, sensuality of heart matters, that was almost an inalienable part of the previous generation, now was classified only as soppy. The generation of 1920s was formed without the ritual of mutual relationships that is called “good style”.

All the other rituals also were performed in the same way as they could have been performed by the newly christened Livonians. And since for the parents that had experienced 1905 events, such a notion as “authority” was not completely clear, the children were also brought up without being explained this notion.

Pomposity and swaggering were strangers for these times but it cannot inspire piety also after May 15 when both appear and are manifested as an attribute of statehood.

Bartußevskis’ engravings and litographs possessed magic powers, and anyone who had started to browse them, had to return to them ever again to find that which had seemed irresistible the other day and to win by this gambling more. My choice must have been prepared somewhere in the subcon-

scious. Prejudice against the 19th century German authors had already formed. It was the empty philistine world with all its household items of which so many despising evaluations have been heard.

Dürer was too cold, besides he was to be examined by detail and it was much too clever for my mind. Also Leonardo’s intellectualism, like that of Bellini, was inaccessible. Michelangelo’s power of flesh, like Jean Louis David and Gros did not re-echo in my heart and soul, that knew no manifestations of pathos in the closest and more distant reality.

The world opens up around us like we see it. Everyone searches in art only that which he can find, no more than that.

People build their beliefs about art on the basis of the choice that they are given at that particular moment. Everyone seeks in art only what they want to find, only that which they have within. One comes into art without explanations, commentaries. What could the mind that is still dormant want?

Full freedom is given to feelings and insights that anyway have not been tested yet, and still are a safe go-between without whose mediation it is hard to expect that the piece of art will convey a message.

The early teenager is perfect and a complete aesthete – the momentary joy and sorrow are of importance to him. The world of feelings is the lowest floor of his conscience, he looks around without responsibility or care, without questions about the meaning of life, – like in a theatre performance. He does not yet know the struggle with himself or others, he does not know yet what it means to waste energy by suppressing his own self.

Who of the masters would be able to teach the first poetics lesson in its most elementary form, besides having no certainty that the newcomer really wants to become his pupil?

There was one. Beyond all the refinement of Renaissance, free of enigmas, without the dark symbolism, without theatrical togas and hyperspirituality, trusting only the very primal human state of being – pure feelings. Among the dusty, yellowish cardboard sheets Fra Angelico was found, and conquered maybe with this particular feature.

M åk s l i n i e k u – t e o r ‰ t i s ko s a c e r ‰ j u m u a u to r u – b i og r å f i s k a s z i ˆ a s Voldemårs Matvejs Pseidonîms – Vladimirs Markovs. Gleznotåjs, måkslas vésturnieks, kriti˚is. Dzimis 1877. gada 13. oktobrî Rîgå. Miris 1914. gada 16. maijå Péterburgå. Apbedîts Rîgå.

1902. gadå beidzis V. Blüma måkslas skolu. I902.–1905. gadå strådåjis par zîméßanas skolotåju Tukumå. Kopß 1905. gada dzîvoja Krievijå.

1906.–1907. gadå Péterburgå redi©éja un izdeva Ωurnålu Dscnfdjxysq dtcnybr. Vienlaikus apmekléja po¬u izcelsmes måkslinieka Jana Cionglinska privåto glezniecîbas studiju. 1905. gadå ieståjås Péterburgas Måkslas akadémijå, studéja Ainavas meistardarbnîcå såkumå profesora Aleksandra Kise¬eva, tad Nikolaja Dubovska vadîbå. Viens no krievu avangarda måkslas grupéjuma Cj/p vjkjlt;b dibinåtåjiem un aktîviem biedriem. 1910. gada vasarå sarîkoja grupas izstådi Rîgå un saistîbå ar to publicéja manifestu “Krievu secesija”. 1912. gadå publicéja rakstu “Jaunås måkslas principi” grupas Cj/p vjkjlt;b kråjumos Nr. 1 un Nr. 2. Kopß 1907. gada katru vasaru apmekléja Eiropu, våcot mate­riålus radoßiem un teorétiskiem darbiem. Grupa Cj/p vjkjlt;b izdeva V. Matveja gråmatas “Radoßie principi plastiskajås måkslås. Faktüra”, “Lieldienu salas måksla”, “înas stabule” (visas ar pseidonîmu Vladimirs Markovs). 1919. gadå Petrogradå péc nåves izdota “Né©eru måksla”. Izstådés piedalîjies kopß 1902. gada. Piemiñas izstådes Rîgå (1914, 1967, 1977, 2002) un Visbijå (2000).

Jåzeps Grosvalds Gleznotåjs. Dzimis 1891. gada 24. aprîlî Rîgå. Miris 1920. gada 1. februårî Parîzé. 1925. gadå pårapbedîts Rîgå.

Vidusskolas gados måcîjies pie J. Rozentåla. Turpinåjis izglîtîbu Minhené pie ungåru måkslinieka Íimona Holloßi (1909–1910), vairåkås privåtås måkslas skolås Parîzé (pie gleznotåjiem Ermenhildo Angladas, Íarla Geréna, Késa van Dongena u.c.). 1914. gadå atgriezås Latvijå. Såka rosîgu sabiedrisko darbîbu, pulcinådams ap sevi jaunås paaudzes radoßås personîbas, aicinådams tås aktîvi iesaistîties latvießu nacionålås måkslas pilnveidé. Apvienîbas “Za¬å pu˚e” dibinåtåjs. 1919. gadå ßî organizåcija iegüst nosaukumu “Ekspresionistu grupa”, bet 1920. gadå – “Rîgas måkslinieku grupa”. 1916.gadå mobilizéts armijå kå rezerves virsnieks. Kopå ar ang¬u ekspedîcijas korpusu devies pårgåjienå uz Aråbiju (1918). 1919. gadå demobilizéjås un såka diplomåta karjeru Latvijas véstniecîbå Francijå. Izstådés piedalîjås no 1910. gada. Piemiñas izstådes Rîgå (1924, 1991, 2001).

Gustavs Klucis Grafi˚is, dizainers, viens no fotomontåΩas pamatlicéjiem un krievu konstruktîvisma redzamåkiem pårståvjiem. Dzimis 1895. gada 16. janvårî Valmieras apriñ˚a oñu pagastå. Noßauts 1938. gada 26. februårî Maskavå.

Måcîjies Rîgas pilsétas måkslas skolå pie Jaña Rozentåla, Vilhelma Purvîßa, Jåña Roberta Tillberga (1913–1915), eizariskås måkslas veicinåßanas biedrîbas skolå Petrogradå (1915–1917). 1915. gadå iesaukts armijå. Turpinåjis måcîbas pie Kazimira Ma¬eviça un Konstantîna Korovina (1918–1921). 1919. gadå k¬uva par Komunistiskås partijas biedru.

Darbojås Måkslinieciskås kultüras institütå (1921–1924). Måcîja kråsu

teoriju Augståkajås måkslinieciski tehniskajås darbnîcås (1924–1930).

Strådåja par pedagogu Poligråfijas institütå (no 1930. gada). Viens no måkslinieku grupéjuma “Oktobris” dibinåtåjiem (1928). Maskavas Måkslinieku savienîbas biedrs (no 1932. gada). Darbojies arî latvießu kultüras un izglîtîbas biedrîbå “Prometejs”. Izstådés piedalîjies no 1918. gada. Personålizstådes un piemiñas izstådes Maskavå (1920 – kopå ar N.Gabo un A.Pevzneru; 1961), Rîgå (1958, 1970, 1984, 1998), Valmierå (1971), Kaselé (1991).

Jékabs Kazaks Gleznotåjs. Dzimis 1895. gada 18. februårî Rîgå, miris 1920. gada 30. novembrî Rîgå.

Måcîjies Rîgas pilsétas måkslas skolå (1913–1915), Penzas måkslas skolå (1915–1917). Aktîvs såkumå “Ekspresionistu”, vélåk Rîgas måkslinieku grupas biedrs, tås pirmais priekßsédétåjs. Izstådés piedalîjies no 1914. gada. Piemiñas izstådes Rîgå (1920, 1995).

Teodors Za¬kalns Télnieks. Dzimis 1876. gada 30. novembrî AllaΩu pagastå, miris 1972. gada 6. septembrî Rîgå. Rakstîjis par måkslu (arî ar pseidonîmu Krißa Mednieks); dzeju (kråjums 1924).

1899. gadå beidzis Ítiglica Centrålo tehniskås zîméßanas skolu Péterburgå. Papildinåjies Minhené un Parîzé pie Ogista Rodéna, Emila Burdéla un Ûana Dibuå (1899–1901). Bijis måkslinieku grupu “Rü˚is” (Péterburgå, 1893–1899) un “Sadarbs” ( Rîgå, 1924–1939), kopß 1945. gada Latvijas Måkslinieku savienîbas biedrs. Apbalvojumi: Kultüras fonda prémija (1926), LPSR Tautas måkslinieka goda nosaukums (1945), Darba Sarkanå Karoga ordenis (1946, 1956), PSRS Måkslas akadémijas îstenais loceklis (1947), PSRS Tautas måkslinieka goda nosaukums (1957), Sociålistiskå Darba Varonis (1971). Jekaterinburgas Måkslas amatniecîbas skolas pedagogs (1903–1907), Latvijas Måkslas akadémijas pedagogs (1945–1958), profesors, Télniecîbas noda¬as vadîtåjs, dekåns. Izstådés piedalîjies no 1903. gada. Personålizstådes un piemiñas izstådes Rîgå (1946, 1956, 1966–1967, 1971, 2001), Òeñingradå (1967, 1979), Maskavå (1979).

Ojårs Åbols Gleznotåjs. Dzimis 1922. gada 25. jülijå Rîgå, miris 1983. gada 1. martå Rîgå.

Paraléli måcîbåm Rîgas 2. ©imnåzijå apmekléjis Romana Sutas studiju (1938–1940). Profesionålo izglîtîbu ieguvis Latvijas Måkslas akadémijå, 1951. gadå absolvéjis O. Skulmes Monumentålås glezniecîbas meistardarbnîcu, 1956. gadå – I. Repina Òeningradas Glezniecîbas, télniecîbas un arhitektüras institütu, ieguvis måkslas zinåtñu kandidåta grådu. Latvijas Måkslinieku savienîbas biedrs no 1956. gada, atkårtoti ievéléts par savienîbas valdes locekli un Gleznotåju sekcijas priekßsédétåju. Darbojies arî TV pårraidés, publicéjies presé. Izstådés piedalîjies no 1951. gada.

Piemiñas izståde Rîgå (1993).

B i og r a p h i c a l Not e s o f A r t i s t s – A u t h o r s o f P u b l i s h e d W r i t i n g s Voldemårs Matvejs Pseudonym – Vladimir Markov. Painter, art historian, critic.

Born 13 October 1877 in Riga, died 16 May 1914 in Petersburg. Buried in Riga.

Since 1905 studied and worked in Russia. In Autumn of 1905 he entered the Academy of Arts, studied under professors Aleksander Kiselev and Nikolai Dubovskoi. In 1906–1907 he edited Vystavochnyi Vestnik (Exhibition Messenger) in Petersburg. At the same time he attended Polish artist Yan Tsionglinsky’s private painting studio. One of the initiators and active members of the Russian Avant-garde group “The Union of Youth”. Organised an exhibition of the group in summer 1910 in Riga.

Alongside the exhibition he published manifesto “The Russian Secession”. Ideas on the same subject have been developed in the series of articles “The Principles of the New Art” published in 1912 in the ma­gazine of “The Union of Youth”, 1st and 2nd issues. Since 1907 Matvejs spent summers in Europe, collecting material for his creative and theoretical work. “The Union of Youth” published his books “ The Creative Principles in the Plastic Arts: Texture”, “The Art of Easter Island”, “The Chinese Flute”. After his death “The Negro Art” was published in 1919 in Petrograd by Narkompros. Participated in exhibitions since 1902. Memorial exhibitions in Riga (1914, 1967, 1977, 2002), Visby (Sweden, 2000).

Jåzeps Grosvalds Painter. Born 24 April 1891 in Riga, died 1 February 1920 in Paris. In 1925 was reburied in Riga.

Studied under Janis Rozentåls. Continued education in Munich under Hungarian artist Simon Hollosy (1909–1910), in several private art schools in Paris (with painters Hermenegildo Anglada, Charles Gerain, Kees van Dongen etc). In 1914 returned to Latvia. He commenced bustling artistic activities gathering around himself creative personalities of the younger generation and urging them to participate in the development of the Latvian national art. Grosvalds was the founder of the artists’ association Za¬å pu˚e (Green Flower). In 1919 this organization acquired the title “Expressionists Group”, but in 1920 – “The Riga Artists Group”.

From 1916-1917 served in the 6th Tukums regiment and in the British Expeditionary Force in 1918. In 1919 he was demobilized and commenced a career of a diplomat at the Latvian embassy in France.

Participated in exhibitions since 1910. Memorial exhibitions in Riga (1924, 1925, 1991, 2001).

Gustavs Klucis Graphic, designer. One of the most outstanding representatives of the Russian Constructivism. Born 16 January 1895 in the oñi village of the Valmiera district, was executed 26 February 1938 in Moscow.

Has studied at the Riga City Art School under Janis Rozentåls, Vilhelms Purvîtis, Jånis Roberts Tillbergs (1913–1915), and at the school of the Royal Art Promotion Society in Petrograd (1915–1917). In 1915 was called up for military service. Klucis participated in the February revolution of 1917 and in the October coup. He continued studies at the studio of Ilya Mashkov as well as in the State Free Art Workshops under Kazimir Malevich and Konstantin Korovin (1918–1921). In 1919 he became a

member of the Communist party. He has worked at the Institute of Artistic Culture (1921–1924). Has taught colour theory at the Higher Art and Technics Workshops (1924–1930). Has worked as a teacher at the Institute of Polygraphy (from 1930). Member and deputy chairman of the Association of Russian Revolutionary Graphic Artists (1929–1932).

Co-founder of the artists group “October” (1928). Member of the Artists’ Union of Moscow (from 1932). Has been active also in the Society of Latvian Culture and Education “Prometheus”. Participated in exhibitions since 1918. Solo and memorial exhibitions: Moscow (1920 – together with Naum Gabo un Antoine Pevzner; 1961), Riga (1958, 1970, 1984, 1998), Valmiera (1971), Kasel (1991).

Jékabs Kazaks Painter. Born 18 February 1895 in Riga, died 30 November 1920 in Riga.

Studied at the Riga City School of Art (1913–1915) and the Penza School of Art (1915–1917). Member of the Riga Artists Group and its first chairman. Participated in exhibitions since 1914. Memorial exhibitions in Riga (1920, 1995).

Teodors Za¬kalns Sculptor. Born 30 November 1876 in the AllaΩi parish, died 6 September 1972 in Riga.

Has written about art (also under the pseudonym Krißs Mednieks), poetry (collection of poems published in 1924). Has graduated from the Stieglitz Central School of Technical Drawing in Petersburg (1899), studied in Munich and Paris under Auguste Rodin, Emile Bourdelle and Jean Dubois (1899–1901). Was a member of the artists group Rü˚is (Gnome) (Petersburg, 1893-1899) and “Sadarbs” (Riga, 1924–1939). Member of the Artists’ Union of Latvia since 1945. Awards include a Cultural Foundation award (1926), was declared a People’s Artist (1945), received the Order of the Red Flag of Labor (1946 and 1956), was elected a full member of the Academy of Art of the Soviet Union (1947), was declared a People’s Artist of the USSR (1957), and was declared a Hero of Socialist Labor (1971). Taught at the Jekaterinburg School of Arts and Crafts (1903–1907) and at the Latvian Academy of Art (1944–1958), head of the Department of Sculpture and dean of the academy, was appointed professor. Participated in exhibitions since 1903. Solo and memorial exhibitions in Riga (1946, 1956, 1966–1967, 1971, 2001), Leningrad (1967, 1979), Moscow (1979).

Ojårs Åbols Painter. Born 25 July 1922, died on 1 March 1983 in Riga. While studying at Riga Gymnasium No. 2 he attended Romåns Suta’s studio (1938– 40). Received his professional education at Latvia Academy of Art, in 1951 graduated from Oto Skulme’s Master Workshop of Monumental Painting, in 1956 – from Leningrad Institute of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture, received a PhD in arts. Member of the Artists’ Union of Latvia since 1956, he has been repeatedly elected as a member of the Artists’ Union Board and chairperson of the Painters’ Section.

Participated in TV programmes, published for the press. Participated in exhibitions since 1951. Memorial exhibition in Riga (1993).

LA T V IE Í U M Å K SLINIE K U T E O R ‰ T IS K O SACER ‰ J U M U I Z LASE 1. Rozentåls, Janis. Par Vilhelmu Purvîti un viña måkslu. Vérotåjs. 1903.

Nr. 1. 109. – 119. lpp.

23. Strazdiñß, Jékabs. Ornaments un Ωanrs – latviskås måkslas pamati.

Brîvå Zeme. 1934. Nr. 218. 9. lpp.

2. Rozentåls, Janis. Rîgas jaunå Måkslas muzeja atvérßana un Baltijas måkslinieku izståde. Vérotåjs. 1905. Nr. 10, 1267.–1272. lpp.; Nr. 11.

1383.–1387.lpp.; Nr. 12. 1493. – 1500. lpp.

24. Íterns, Roberts. Måkslas ce¬u maldugunis. Latvju måkslinieku biedrîbas darbu klåsts. Rîga. 1936. 7.–17. lpp.

3. Rozentåls, Janis. Måksla un tehnika. Zalktis. 1906. Nr. 1. 157.–160. lpp.

4. Í˚ilters, Gustavs. Vecie un jaunie måkslå. Zalktis. 1908. Nr. 1. 76.– 88. lpp.

5. Í˚ilters, Gustavs. Par måkslas kritiku. Dzimtenes Véstnesis. 1910.

Nr. 213. 5. lpp.

6. Í˚ilters, Gustavs. Par télniecîbu. Dzimtenes Véstnesis. 1910.

Nr. 264.–267. 1.–2. lpp.

7. Zariñß, Rihards. Par måkslas kritiku. Dzimtenes Véstnesis. 1910. Nr. 228. 1. lpp.

8. Madernieks, Jülijs. Jaunåkå françu måksla. Domas. 1912. Nr. 8. 884.– 885. lpp.

9. Madernieks, Jülijs. Ceturtå latvießu måkslinieku izståde. Latvija. 1914.

Nr. 287. 1.–2. lpp.; Nr. 289. 2.–3. lpp.; Nr. 295. 2.–3. lpp.; Nr. 298. 5. lpp.; Nr. 301. 2. lpp.

10. Íterns, Roberts. IV latvießu måkslinieku izståde. Lîdums. Nr. 188.

2. lpp.; Nr. 189. 2. lpp.

25. Bîne, Jékabs. Müsu måksla. Séjéjs. 1939. Nr. 3. 309.–310. lpp.

26. Saldavs, O¬©erts. Måkslinieciskie principi un tradîcijas. Rîts. 1940.

Nr. 35. 2. lpp.

27. Saldavs,O¬©erts. Tematiskås glezniecîbas izcilåkie paraugi. Rîts.

1940. Nr. 67. 6. lpp.

28. Suta, Romans. Par kompozîciju glezniecîbå. Raksti un Måksla. 1940.

Nr. 3. 254.–259. lpp.

29. Åbols, Ojårs. Laiks, telpa un poézija. Literatüra un Måksla. 1972. 19. febr.

30. Åbols, Ojårs. Cilvéka vieta uz müsu nemierîgås planétas. Literatüra un Måksla. 1981. 20. nov.

31. [O. Pétersons, A. BreΩe, I. Mailîtis, J. Putråms par måkslu]. Liesma.

1984. Nr. 1. 34.–35. lpp.

32. Blumbergs, Ilmårs. “EΩu” måksla. Måksla. 1986. Nr. 3. 5.–8. lpp.

33. Polis, Miervaldis. Miervaldis intervé Poli. Karogs. 1986. Nr. 1 188.– 190. lpp.

11. Strunke, Niklåvs. Jaunå måksla. Taurétåjs. 1919. Nr. 1/2. 54.–55. lpp.

34. Polis, Miervaldis. Miervaldis intervé Poli Nr. 2. Måksla. 1988. Nr. 1.

16.–20. lpp.

12. Suta, Romans. Par müsu glezniecîbu. Latvijas Sargs. 1919. Nr. 86.

3. lpp.; Nr. 94. 3. lpp.; Nr. 100. 3. lpp.; Nr. 115. 5. lpp.; 1920. Nr. 45, 3. lpp.; Nr. 48. 3. lpp.

35. Aktîvå måksla: [Latvijas müsdienu måkslinieki]. Materiålu apkop.

I. Riñ˚e. Avots. 1987. Nr. 1. 44.–46. lpp.

13. Íterns, Roberts. Sinkrétisms un diferenciåcija måkslå. Brîvå Zeme.

1919. Nr. 43. 5. lpp.; Nr. 45. 5. lpp.

14. Íterns, Roberts. Måksla ce¬å uz entropiju. Brîvå Zeme. 1919. Nr. 55.

6.–7. lpp.; Nr. 56. 7. lpp.; Nr. 58. 6.–7. lpp.; Nr. 59. 7. lpp.

15. Íterns, Roberts. Sintéze un analîze måkslå. Brîvå Zeme. 1919.

Nr. 119. 6.–7. lpp.; Nr. 121. 2. lpp.

16. Markvarts, Helmuts. Naturålistiskie elementi modernå glezniecîbå.

Latvis. 1921. Nr. 74. 5. lpp.

17. Skulme, Uga. Nacionålå måksla un glezniecîbas ce¬ß. Latvijas Véstnesis. 1921. Nr. 52. 3. lpp.

18. Markvarts, Helmuts. Kas gleznotåjam jåredz. Latvis. 1922. Nr. 345.

3. lpp.

19. Markvarts, Helmuts. Kurp iet müsu glezniecîbas ce¬i? Latvis. Nr. 107.

3. lpp.

20. Siliñß, Jånis. Lînija glezniecîbå. Laikmets. 1923. Nr. 4. 77.–80. lpp.

21. Í˚ilters, Gustavs. Tautiska vaj starptautiska måksla. Latvis. 1926.

Nr. 1452. 6. lpp.; Nr. 1453. 5. lpp.

22. Í˚ilters, Gustavs. Totålisms. Latvis. 1930. Nr. 2751. 5. lpp.

36. Borgs, Jånis. Ìipßa cilvéks. Avots. 1987. Nr. 4. 35.–40. lpp.

37. Lediñß, Hardijs. Avangards nav avangards. Avots. 1987. Nr. 5. 43.– 45. lpp.

38. Lediñß, Hardijs. Laika gars un vietas atmosféra // Zeitgeist und geistige Toposphare. Gråm.: Riga – Lettische Avantgarde. Berlin: Elefanten Press. 1988. S. 29–32, 79.

39. Låcis, Normunds. HL: NL. Avots. 1988. Nr. 4. 50.–55. lpp.

40. Borgs, Jånis. Pretspéku spriegumå diedzéta måksla: Ieskats avangardisma attîstîbå Latvijå. Gråm.: Riga – Lettische Avantgarde. Berlin: Elefanten Press. 1988. S. 76–77. (Teksts arî våcu val.)

41. Pavlovs, Vladimirs. “Brîvås måkslas “ grupas manifests (rokraksts).

1989.

42. Lancmanis, Imants. Apmastymai, papildyti dailininko mintimis.

Krantai. 1990. Balandis. P. 28–31.

43. Borgs, Jånis. Par Providenci, par måkslu un politiku, un par to, kå dzîvot pilî... Laikraksta “Diena” pielikums “SestDiena”. 1991. 3. aug.

Saceréjumi kårtoti hronolo©iskå secîbå.

Sastådîjusi Stella Pelße (lîdz 1940. g.)

Sagatavots / Prepared i z d e v n i e c î b å “ N e p u t n s ” Iespiests / Printed in J e l g a v a s t i p o g r å f i j a Metiens 500 eksemplåru R î g a

2 0 0 2