Review of S. A. Mansbach, Modern Art in Eastern Europe, From the Baltic to the Balkans, ca. 1890-1939.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Xvi + 384 pp., 384 illus., 48 colorplates, 6 maps. ISBN 0-521-45085-3. $65.00. This appeared in: The Art Bulletin 82 no. 4 (2000): 78185. See also Response [to Anthony Alofsins letter regarding the review of Mansbachs Modern Art in Eastern Europe], Art Bulletin 84 (2002): 539 Please note: this printout was done from a computer that lacks some Eastern European fonts, so some diacritics are wrong. Modern Art in Eastern Europe is the only study of its kind in any language, and it is the only recent survey of modernism in a number of the countries it treats. In most cases, the next-best books are decades old, and written in the countries own languages. (Soon there will be several new books on twentieth-century Hungarian art, for example; but as I write this the most recent is Lajos Nmeths book, Szzadi magyar Mveszet, rst published in 1964.) Mansbachs choices are going to provide the rst glimpse most English-speaking art historians will have of the fuller picture of the modernist avantgarde outside Western Europe, and in the nature of the discipline his book may well constitute the last look a nonspecialist will ever give to modernism in some of these countries. It raises a number of questions of interest beyond central Europe: What is the global nature of modernism? What should be counted as the essential moments of modernism, East or West? What can be ignored, and why? What is regional art, as opposed to art of the center? What was avant-garde at any given moment, and what else beside it counted? I cannot think of more important questions when the subject is twentieth-century painting: they are essential for any rm understanding of the shape of the century. Mansbachs book is clearly one of the places where western scholars of modernism will go to nd information and provisional answers. Inevitably, specialists in the countries Mansbach discusses will have their own responses to his accounts; for this forum I thought it might be most appropriate to raise questions of interest to the study of European modernism as a whole. For coherence I will be concentrating on Mansbachs treatment of Hungarian modernism, though I have also taken examples from Romanian, Czech, and Bulgarian modernism.

An introductory example can illuminate the kinds of questions I will be asking. In the course of his description of Hungarian modernism, Mansbach mentions the Hungarian modernist Vilmos Perlrott Csaba, and remarks that Csaba was inuenced by Czanne. He reproduces Csabas Bathing Youths, saying simply that its composition [stems] from the work of Czanne and Matisse (p. 271). At rst glanceand even in front of the original, which is in BudapestMansbach seems entirely correct: Csabas painting even has a bit of the truncated pyramidal groupings of Czannes Large Bathers in the Barnes Foundation and in the National Gallery, London. What concerns me is the form and the economy of this kind of reference. Because Modern Art in Eastern Europe treats so many artists, Mansbach is frequently compelled to mention a few of the most signicant inuences, and let those citations stand as provisional entry-points for our understanding of the artists styles. The problem is that very often such references also make the eastern European painters and sculptors seem like examples of some belated avant-garde entirely dependent on western European predecessors. From this simple quandary grow formidable problems that entangle the very possibility of writing the history of any modernist movement outside of western Europe. If I am writing a history of modern Hungarian painting, for example, and I decide to describe Csabas paintings on their own terms, downplaying or omitting their sources, I risk unmooring myself from historical sense. I could say, for instance, that Csaba seems unaccountably drawn to a pose in which a slender young man leans far forward, head down, arms extended. The pose is used for fully half the gures in Bathing Youths, and Csaba goes to some lengths to employ the pose even where it does not make sense. (One such gure extends his arms to massage another gure, but it ends up looking like an attack.) If I go on this way I can avoid Czanne, but I risk giving up historical meaning. Instead I would be writing poetic appreciation, or perhaps psychoanalytic criticism. On the other hand, if I go ahead and compare Csaba to Czanne, then I risk losing a sense of Csabas individuality. He would become a regional artist, belatedly indebted to late Czanne. I put this choice starkly because it is stark. The eight gures of Csabas Bathing Youths are so close to the familiar rounded tent of Czannes Bathers that it is not enough to say, as Mansbach does, that Csaba and his compatriots [transgured] the modernist vocabulary on their return from Paris and Munich: a reader also needs to know exactly how they did so (p. 272). In various places in the book Mansbach says artists are brilliant, unique, striking, or transformative, but I wonder what pitch of

eloquence could be enough to erase Czanne even momentarily from the mind of a viewer contemplating Bathing Youths. At best, a reader takes Mansbachs word that Csaba transgures the western avant-garde; at worst, Csaba is left as a painter of Parisian pastiches.
It is entirely inevitable that Mansbach mentions Czanne when he mentions Csaba: as far as I know, every other art historian who has written about Csaba has done the same. So I am not faulting Mansbach for making the reference. But in context of a book structured around such references, the simple phrase (composition stemming from Czanne and Matisse) nearly attens the Hungarian painter, draining him of virtually all his independent interest. (And Csaba is lucky, because his picture cannot be mistaken for one of Czannes. Others could: I think for example of the Bulgarian painter Vasil Barakov [1902-1991], who painted incrementally close to Czanne in the mid-1940s. In his case, the Czanne citation would be both unnecessary and wholly disastrous.) This is the pattern throughout Mansbachs book, despite his best efforts, and it is even more striking and damaging in any number of other books on the art of individual nations. (Compare, as an elective afnity, John Clarks Modern Asian Art [Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1998], which has an even larger geoegraphic reach.) I am speaking about a methodological problem here, and it is true that Mansbach rescues a number of other paintings and painters. In fact it is infuriatingly difcult not to name western styles that inuence eastern artists, and not to think continuously of Czanne while studying Csaba. But comparisons like these are quicksand. In Mansbachs account, Csabas painting is little more than a close copy of Czanne and Matisse, infused somehowwith a transformative purpose related to Hungarian nationalism.
It is necessary to attend to such comparisons to see how insidious they can be, how destructive of the artworks they are trying to bolster. The Hungarian art colony at Gdll, Mansbach says, produced work in a palette of styles including impressionism and postimpressionism in the handling of light and color, preRaphaelitism and Jugendstil in the rendering of outline and contour; and symbolism in the representation of theme and gures (p. 270). The phrase, palette of styles, is both canny and crucial. It implies that the styles were mixed, like colors on a palette, and used to produce something unied and new: but it also avoids the question of exactly what that new thing was. There are many similar instances. The artists of the Hungarian group Aktivistk, which emerged between 1913 and 1915 in the wake of the earlier group Nyolcak, were among the rst of Hungarys avant-garde groups to draw on futurism, cubism, and expressionism as the basis for a new point of view. Here too, the

perspectival metaphor point of view conjures a synthesis that remains just out of sight in the text. The Aktivistks rich blend of modern styles epitomizes their inventiveness in adapting styles from abroad: that is to say they adapted them and made something rich and inventivebut what was that inventive result? (p. 278). A painting by Sndor Bortnyik, Mansbach says, epitomizes the Aktivistks belief in drawing on a variety of modernist sources to compose a singular statement (p. 288): but what statement, exactly? Transguration, palette, point of view, and singular statement are four tropes that hint at more than they say; another is medley. As an ex-Aktivistk, the painter Bla Kdr pursued a highly individualized medley of expressionist, futurist, folk, and ideological paths (p. 303). Medley conjures something harmonious, and highly individual hints that some medleys are less than successful: but a reader does not know what the medley sounded like.
If the artists individuality cannot be spelled out except as a formula of ingredients, then the artists relation to his or her surrounding society isn not going to be much clearer. Mansbach begins each chapter with a review of the regions history, but there are seldom clear connections between the raw historical facts and the rst modernist movements he mentions. (The Czech Republic is a counter-example, because the 1867 elevation of Hungary had direct effects on Czech n-de-sicle art.) Usually the capsule summaries of each countrys politics go to the more general question of cultural context, rather than to any namable link between individual paintings and political events. The Nolycak (Group of Eight) painters, Mansbach says, understood themselves, romantically, as revolutionaries in the just cause of social reconstruction. Kroly Kernstock, their leader, demanded that the modern artist assume political responsibilities to alter the structure and form of visual expression. To achieve that transformation (another word that works like palette, medley, and point of view) Nyolcak combined imaginatively the progressive styles of the West (fauvism, cubism, expressionism, and the idiom of Czanne) with traditional genre types (still lifes, nudes, portraits, and landscapes). The results, Mansbach says, were immediately striking, but the artists were unsystematic, philosophically unsophisticated, nave, politically disorganized, and too much given to ponticating about the role of modern art in moving Habsburg Hungary toward a democratic republic to achieve results (p. 275). The passage conjures a typical disorganized artists movement, full of sound and fury, and it seems to link the movement with its politics. But what precisely is the link between Nyolcaks politics and its painting? They used an imaginative combination of styles, and they had a disorganized combination of idealism and political purpose. Could it be

the case that their disorganized but imaginative styles are related to their disorganized but assertive politics? It is hard to know what connection is being proposed, or indeed whether the politics is relevant at all, except as a spur to the artists eclecticism.
For these reasons even the very best books on national and regional styles tend not to make good on their initial promises not to lean their descriptions on foreign art. What is national in the art often turns out to be the content of the painting (folk motifs, depictions of particular places in the country) and what is international turns out to be the style. It still seems necessary to tell the countrys history, but the politics will not adhere to the art any more than it did for Wlfin.
Even if the paintings are compelling, it can be next to impossible to say why. Bla Kdrs Mother with Child, which Mansbach reproduces (p. 303), is actually a strong painting, though it looks weak in reproduction; and Csabas and Kernstocks paintings are also strikingbut to conjure their power for readers who havent seen the originals, it is necessary to try to say, with utter exactitude, how they are different from Czanne et al. Kdrs painting, for example, plays with an odd contrast between the mother and baby, their unexpected geometrical shadow, and the silhouette of a dog done in perfect prole, heraldry-style. In the original the dog looks cut-out, the woman carved, and her shadow stamped: why Kdr would have thought to do such a thing, or put the ensemble on a canted street, is hard to say: but at least it is the direction I would go if I were trying to describe what he achieved. At some point, though, I would have to mention Picasso, constructivism, and expressionism: how could it be otherwise?
What is to be done about this problem of description, in which every work that is made at a distance from the center becomes a soup pot of styles from other countries? How is it possible to quell the art historical analysis, and stop it from pulling out the ingredients of the soup one by one until nothing is left? Here I will list ve possibilities that might improve the situation. They are options I am exploring for myself, so they are not polemical and they do not come with the imprimatur of some cultural theory. They are each awed, but they are the best I have found so far.
1. Decide on the relation between the center and the margins. Hungarian modernism is extremely complex, arguably more so than Czech or Polish modernism, which at least are articulated by fairly well-dened movements and styles. It stands to reason that in such a turbulent period, so rife with evanescent interconnections, there will be more than one relation with western Europe. But that historical commonplace should not obscure the problem of determing what, for the course of a page or a chapter or book, is to be the model for East-West relations. Mansbach uses three principal models, without

naming them as such: that the West and East are equal conspirators in modernism; that they are incomparable; and that the East is inferior. Mansbach starts out on page one claiming that eastern European modernism was a co-equal partner with western European modernism. The character and aims of contemporary art and aesthetics, he says, were being fundamentally redrawn by pioneering artists located far distant from the art centers of Paris and Berlin. In eastern Europe, scores of painters, sculptors, and designers were redening the nature of modern visual expression and its social meanings; in the 1930s they were forging a new aesthetics, and publishing avant-garde periodicals which reciprocated Western interest by fostering an appreciation of Western advanced art. The resulting crossfertilization was fully international: the margins overcame their peripheral location to assume a critical and formative role in the genesis of advanced art (p. 1). This co-equality is a strong claim, and the stakes are very high. In the course of the Introduction, Mansbach supports it in several ways. First, he notes that eastern Europe occasionally led the way in modernism: dada began in Romania, constructivism in Russia, and uniquely creative forms of cubo-expressionism in Habsburg Bohemia (p. 2). But this is a short list, and it is a bit strained even at three items. The third term is especially odd, because it seems apparent that an innovation (cubo-expressionism) which needs to be described in terms of two prior innovations (cubism and expressionism) may be hard to present as an avant-garde. Even the initial claim that dada began in Romania is heavily qualied later in the book, when Mansbach gives only two very brief examples of Tristan Tzaras activities in Romania in 1915 before he left for Zurich. The fourth issue of the journal Chemarea (Call), Mansbach notes, exhorts contemporaries to replace pencils with knives, in order to bomb bourgeois chimneys (hearths). That is the evidence of an aesthetic stance we can only dene as dada avant la lettre (p. 248). Two pages later, Mansbach calls the Romanian journals a mild form of proto-dadism: hardly as important a precedent as it sounded in the Introduction. Naturally these are sliding criteria, and it would be possible to produce a more substantive argument that dada is Romanian; what I want to point out is that in the book, there is little evidence that eastern Europe led the way in modernism. The idea that East and West can be partners in forging a new aesthetics (p. 1) is supported inter alia by these arguments. But then, when a reader might think that the book will turn out to be a massive substantiation of the idea of equal cross-fertilization, Mansbach says several things that suggest eastern European art is fundamentally different from western European art, so that the two cannot really be compared, much less treated

as equals. From Estonia to Slovenia, he writes, the makers of modern art most often emphasized national individuality rather than universality. Professions of national identity were as widespread in the East as they were rare in the West, because political, economic, and spiritual constraints left cultural expression as the only means of preserving national self-consciousness. In that atmosphere legions of modern artists rushed to enlist their talents in service to their respective nations (p. 4). The small cadres of dedicated modernists in the East were not primarily interested in the international avant-garde, and especially not in what their eastern neightbors were doing. They preferred to picture themselves as unique representatives of their emerging nations, and as arbiters of progressive thinking (p. 7). And again, eastern Europes reconciliation of literary reference and abstraction, narrative context and nonobjective styles departed fundamentally from the absolutist purity demanded by many western modernist artists and critics (p. 5). Together such passages point toward a different model of East-West relations, where it doesn not really make sense to think of the two sides as partners in the creation of modernism. Emphasizing fundamental differences between East and West insulates eastern modernism, so it cannot be assimilated into the western avant-garde. According to this argument the East was fundamentally different: neither better nor worse, neither equal or unequal. That is two possible positions for eastern European modernism: indispensable partner, and incommensurate term. On the very last page of the Introduction, Mansbach describes a third possibility, the one that is latent in the majority of textbooks on modernism written in America and western Europe: the East might be less important that the West. Eastern modernism, Mansbach says, might be a source of historical richness, but not a crucial term; it might contribute to the full signicance of modernism, but not as one of its basic building blocks (p. 8). The majority of Modern Art in Eastern Europe ends up working with forms of the second model, where East and West are (somehow) incommensurate. But it helps, I think, to be clear about the seductiveness of the rst claim (the equal West and East), which launches the book; and to be honest about the depressing reality of the third claim (the inferior East), which drags at the readers heels until the books nal page. Every good multiculturalist wants something resembling the second model, but it cannot make sense of history because it will not allow the comparisons that help produce historical narratives. Many publishers and specialists want something like the rst model, because it promotes the interest of regional art. And every guilty reader recognizes something of herself when she reads about artists who seem very interestingeven compelling,

amazing, and uniqueand yet ultimately less important than Czanne. Thinking about these three options, and the slide from the rst and second to the third, can help shore up narratives about negional and national art, even if it cannot protect them from the magnetic pull of the third option.
2. Distinguish species of regionalism. If I believe, following the rst model of East-West relations, that Csaba and Czanne are equally important examples of modernist paintings of bathers, then I will not slight Csaba by mentioning Czanne. (It would be as much of a slight to omit Csaba in a book on Czanne.) But if I think the eastern and western painters are fundamentally incommensurate (the second model) or that the eastern painting is basically less important (the third model) then it is treacherous to mention Czanne when I am trying to get a sense of Csaba. The tricky thing is to know when and how to intoduce the western precedent. It also helps, I think, to rene the concept of regionalism so that it comprehends three slightly but crucially different options.
The word regionalism can be applied specically to cases in which an artist knows what is happening in some other region, but decides to continue making art that is particular to her own culture. Thus Mansbach points out that artists in Riga were cognizant of progressive developments in Belgrade or Budapest through the exchange of journals: an example of regionalism in this sense. Parochialism would be a better word to describe the case of an artist who knows something is happening in some other region, but is afraid to nd out too much. Mansbach notes that some eastern European groups avoided outside contact for fear of compromising their perception of their own unique contribution to their nations art: a cautious parochial attitude. A provincial artist, then, would be one who wants to know about art that is taking place in some other region, but is prevented for political and economic reasons. Mansbach notes the difculty Polish artists had in forming contacts across the lines of partition separating Russian, Austrian, and Prussian (German) provinces: a good example of provincialism (p. 7). I have found this simple classication (regional, parochial, provincial) tremendously useful. It can help distinguish artists who really should be described as sums of inuences from those who should not: Sndor Bortnyik and Kroly Kernstock are regionalists, well aware of what they took, and what they altered, from cubo-futurism, constructivism, expressionism, and other movements. Bla Kdr is different: he knew what was happening outside the Hungarian avant-garde, but he chose not to look too

closelyhis work is more parochial, and it would not be well described as a response to some mixture of western styles. Many eastern European painters were compelled to become provincial during Communism. In Romania, for example, Czanne could only be mentioned openly in art instruction beginning in the mid-1950s, and much recent art was discovered only after the revolution in 1989. In Bulgaria, Detchko Uzunov might be a provincialist or a parochialist, but he surely was not a regionalist. (The late twentiethcentury painter Pamukchiev has something of the parochialist about him.) Mansbach always notes examples of provincialism, where artists just did not know what was happening outside the borders of their country. But he does not distinguish between regionalists who sought knowledge of western art, and parochialists who tried to insulate themselves from it. The difference is crucial for deciding whether or not to mention western inuences. 3. Note when it is right, and when it is wrong, to mention precedents. The most difcult of the triad regionalist-parochialist-provincialist is the second term, because that is where it may or may not be right to describe the artist in terms of western inuences. A regionalist knows and tries to keep her independence, so mentioning outside inuences is entirely appropriate. A provincialist does not know the relevant outside inuences, and so an historian might well try to steer clear of them. But a parochial painter is entangled in denial, so it can be unclear how outside inuences should be introduced. In that case, it is useful to distinguish when references to western inuences are adequate, inadequate, or misleading. The great majority of the time Mansbach nds it is adequate to name the style an artist depends on. He mentions Czanne and Matisse in Csabas case, because that is all he has time to do. It is nearly enough to name Czanne in the case of other Hungarian modernists: Kroly Patks Washerwomen (1930) is a big, diffuse, and very easy version of mid-career Czanne. In certain contexts, it would not be necessary to say much more. But there are cases where such an explanation is inadequate. Speaking of iconography, Mansbach says the wholesale application of western concepts may be inadequate to describe eastern artworks. Despite shared formal attributes, for example, cubist still-life paintings by Picasso did not carry the intellectual and often political meanings that Czech modernists vested in their unique form of cubo-futurism (p. 3). In that sense it would be inadequatenecessary but not sufcientto name the western precedents for someone like Emil Filla or Vclav Spla. The challenge would be to provide enough additional information to ensure that Filla or Spala look independent. In the case of Czech cubism, work by Tomas Vlcek and others has provided such

information, but it needs to be presented in detail and made persuasive. The Hungarian group A Nolycak is an especially interesting example: Mansbach says that they [synthesized] the subjectivism of the East and the objectivism of the West into a new kind of art. (Synthesize is another word like palette: it is a gesture in the direction of something new, which does not quite say what the new thing is.) Nolycak did that despite a somewhat willful misreading of [Czannes] intentions (p. 271). This is almost the only passage in the book in which Mansbach allows artists may have intentionally misinterpreted western art, and it opens the way to much more reective accounts of Rbert Berny, Bla Czbel, and others. In regard to Berny, for example, Mansbach might have noted how Bernys still lifes neaten Czanne, replacing lost swatches of color, bridging broken outlines, scouring the compositions until they are almost too clean. Interior (c. 1930) is very trim: a teapot tilts slightly to one side, as if it wee bewitched, and two cups cant a little in response. That certainly looks like a meditated misuse, and it is no surprise to learnas Andras Zwickl informs methat Berny owned Fritz Burglers book called Czanne and Hodler: Einfhrung in die Probleme der Malerei der Gegenwart (1916). But if we were to say Berny was intending to willfully misread Czanne for his own purposes (and what purposes were they, exactly?), it would still be difcult to account for pictures like Idyll (Composition) (1911), which is the psychological carbon copy of Czannes Picnic: in it a doughy white nude with hair fallen over her eyes is watched by a crudely distorted man who sprawls down in front of her, the both of them on a curved ground planted with clammy-looking grass and trees bent to the point of falling. Idyll (Composition) does not look like Picnic, but the mood and the dramatis personae are uncannily similar. Is that willful misreading? It may also happen that it is misleading to name the style an artist depends on. That is the case when the artists did not imagine themselves as working in anyone elses styles: in Czech cubism, that sometimes applies even to Bohumil Kubista, who worked along very different lines from Picasso; and in Hungarian modernism, I would try applying it to Kdr, Kernstock, and idiosyncratic artists like Bertalan Pr. I do not think there is any way to write an art historical account of these artists without mentioning their obvious precedents, but it is possible to mention the inuences with such circumspection heaping the references with qualications, hedging and qualifying and continuously retreatingthat their misleading nature is manifest. For example, Kubistas Hurdle (1913, National Gallery, Prague) starts out looking like a tossed-off Picasso done about two years earlier. But as Vojtech Lahoda has pointed out, the fragmented head in the

picture is literally skewered by a hand, advancing from the right and carrying a trowel or triangular plate. (Lahoda, The Primal Head, Bulletin of the National Gallery in Prague 3-4 [1993-94]: 92.) And that changes everything. The picture is about the violent splitting of a head: the literal division of a mind, and the metaphorical pain of selfalienation. Where is Picasso in all that? The best western discourse on Picassos work from 1910-1913, by writers such as T. J. Clark, Patricia Leighton, Pierre Daix, Rosalind Krauss, and Leo Steinberg, has to do with the tension between Picassos ever-moreintricate ambiguation of space, and his vexed relation to the political concerns of the day. Here such difculties and ambiguities are absolutely beside the point, and a good account of the painting, like Lahodas, can be built up without it. In this case, then, a straightforward mention of Picasso would be misleading, but a qualied reference might work well. All in all, I think there are few cases where references to western precedents are adequate, more where they are inadequate, and more still where they are misleading. 4. Name the source of judgments. Mansbach says the composition of Bla Uitzs Red Soldiers Forward! (1919) is poorly resolved, especially in the relation between four soldiers in the foreground and the seemingly innite procession of the background irregulars (p. 292). (He nds Sndor Bortnyiks paintings of 1918-1919 the most completely resolved Aktivist contributions to the revolutionary cause of 1919.) But where does this criterion (that a work is unresolved when it does not harmonize a foreground frieze with a background ll) come from? Why not read Uitzs device as a purposeful disjunction, a device that makes the image more forceful? It sounds as if Mansbachs verdict is imported from some other style where it might be more at home. The moral here would be simply to watch each judgment, and try to x it to its proper time and place. I would rather have read Uitz might have found the juxtaposition unsettling, or the harsh difference between front and back goes puzzlingly against Uitzs earlier work, or in the eyes of a contemporary critic, the front row of soldiers didnt t the picture. Judgments have to be monitored, especially where the historical text itself is right in the middle of a eld of politically contested and historically specic judgments. 5. It is not possible to avoid thinking about national characteristics. If Mansbach had written his book back in the 1920s, his readers might have expected him to dene the spirit of each nation in turn. In 1999, it was enough to promise that each chapter would be written in a different style, with varying emphases and perspectives, so that the reader could discern the distinctive cultural and political histories in each land (xiii). At rst that may sound more prudent and reective than Ern Kllais condent assessment

of his countrys art, made in 1925: our painters go to study in Paris, Vitzebrod, Verlin, he says. They study Czanne, Matisse, and Van Gogh but in the end the overheated, uncontrolled Hungarian nature wins out. (Kllai, j magyar piktur 1900-1923 [Budapest: Gondulat, 1990 (1925)], 8.) The word overheated (tlfttt) would not even be whispered these days, and an historian might ask Kllai to consider where he got it. Is Bortnyik tlfttt? Or Jnos Kmetty, the sober cubist? These days assertions like Kllais are sitting ducks. But even today, when it seems best to stress varying emphases and perspectives at the expense of nationalist ideologies, it may be helpful to bear in mind that it probably is not possible to spend much time considering the art of a nation before thoughts of the national style or mood begin to guide ones thoughts. I do not see evidence that historians have made much progress on this issue since debates about nationalist styles were dropped from scholarly discourse. The problem, I think, is that when historians set out to avoid words like tlfttt and other expressions of national characteristics, they let such ideas percolate freely through the texts, nding new (and perhaps more insidious) voices. As long as tlfttt is a fair replacement for the expressionism in the phrase Hungarian cubo-expressionism (I think it is, to the extent that expessionism carries just as uncertain a burden of freedom, regionalism, disparate political valences, and even spirituality), then there is no appreciable gain in avoiding the word. Nor do todays abstractions about varying emphases and perspectives solve the issue. Is it any better to be cautious, and hope that varying emphases and perspectives will dene each nations art automatically, without direct critical intervention? Mansbachs and Kllais solutions are nicely set at opposite ends of the problem of how to speak, or avoid speaking, of national styles. The key, I think, is not to assume that avoiding suspicious words (tlfttt) or explicit nationalist discourse, will rid the text of nationalist assumptions. It would be nice to see a long essay on tlfttt: it might clear up a number of problematic descriptions in other texts.
6. Settle on the meaning of avant-garde. By denition, avant-garde art is new. The very project of writing about avant-garde art in places where it was not new means the artists Mansbach mentions tend to sound belated, watered-down, confused, or otherwise secondary. Its inevitable that Mansbach has to exert himself to prove the interest of his subjects, as long as he is describing them as products of a foreign avantgarde. He says Kroly Ferenczys work from the rst years of the century marks one of the high points of impressionism in east-central Europe (p. 269). There have been more ringing endorsements: one of the high points in east-central Europe. But the avant-garde

is an ironclad doctrine, and Ferenczy, like every other artist in the book, has to be measured against the appropriate scale, with Impression: Sunrise at the 100 percent mark.
The solution to this problem, I think, is not to think of the avant-garde as merely a succession of works in western European painting. By philosophic denition, the avantgarde is something never before seen, and therefore, by denition, one cannot expect it. When it is tempting to describe an artist in terms of western precedents, then the artist is not avant-garde. Naturally in art history there are belated avant-gardes, and Mansbach is speaking here of a n-de-sicle Hungarian avant-garde, running about forty years behind the times as measured in Paris. But philosophically Ferenczis impressionism isnt avantgarde.
Could it make sense in art history to attend to the philosophic denition, at the expense of the usual usage? I think it can. Some of Ferenczys work is very strong and unexpected, the sign of a real avant-garde. At times he is clearly the equal of Pissarro: his Evening in March (Mrciusi est, 1902) is one of the most accomplished studies of latewinter shadows, more daring and incisive, and more successfully poetic, than many impressionist essays on the same theme. In other canvases, such as Birds Song (1893) and Gypsies (1901) he has done things Manet wanted to doand somehow, he learned them through Mihly Munkcsy (1844-1900). There is still a good book waiting to be written on Ferenczys understanding of n-de-sicle painting, and it does not depend on his demotion to one of the high points of impressionism in east-central Europe.
As long as I am following this philosophic train of thought, I should probably push it to its logical end-point. An avant-garde work should be a surprise, and should seem sui generis: therefore Mansbachs project could well have included painters who just plain cannot be well described in terms of anyone. The problem is that because he is searching for eastern examples that answer to the canonical moments of the western avant-garde, he has trouble with painters who are the avant-garde in the philosophic sense. Speaking of Tivadar Csontvry Kosztka he admits that the paintings recondite symblism owes little to his training in Munich under [Simon] Hollsy or his studies in Paris (p. 270). But then he only speaks blandly of monumental canvases depicting biblical sites, including one of overscaled cedars of Lebanon sheltering a queue of dancing celebrants. In fact Pilgrimage to the Cedars of Lebanon (1907) is an excruciatingly eccentric painting, big and sunny and cartoonish and primitive and altogether hard to pigeonhole. It is no surprise that Hungarian historians and critics still point to Czontvrys work as an example of something Hungarian.


Most every one of the countries Mansbach treats have examples of such painters. It seems to me a book about them would be a book about a real avant-garde, a legitimate challenge to American and western European art historians immured and complacent with the priority of their chosen culture. In Romania, for instance, there is Ion Tuculescu (1910-1962), who painted a Triple Self-Portrait as three sinister dolls lined up under a sky as unsettled as Van Goghs Starry Night. In the Czech Republic there is Jan Zrzavy, one of my happiest discoveries in the last several years, and an artist as consistently unaccountable as any I know. His Cleopatra exists in several versions; one I have seen dated 1942-57 shows a bright tomato-red creature, entirely boneless, reclining like a cross between Madame Rcamier and a pile of raw sausages, and smiling at us with a face that is part cartoon schoolgirl and part Mona Lisa. Zrzavy painted inexcusable outrageous paintings through most of the deaces Mansbach discusses, but he is treated mainly as an eccentric follower of Munch and cubism. He was never either in any way I can make sense of.
And so on. The moral I am drawing here is that we are still in thrall of the avantgarde, so it pays to nd a legitimate avant-garde that can still hypnotize us. I understand that Mansbachs project was to complete the picture of the western avant-garde; it seems to me that project is necessary, important, and doomed to deate the artists it means to promote. I wonder how many students will be inspired by Mansbachs book to study in eastern Europe, or how many teachers will be moved to travel there and inspect the paintings Mansbach describes. I will end with my deepest reservation, which would not be easy to expand without many more examples: it seems to me that the continuous description of artists in terms of others, with dollops of exotic politics, language, and geography thrown in, is really nothing less than a kind of orientalism. Here is the rich, full tapestry of modernism, the book says, all of it accessible to the adventurous traveler, and all of it ultimately--at the very end, after the last analysis and the nal comparison, when all the arguments are made--inferior. James Elkins School of the Art Institute of Chicago I thank Krisztina Szipcs, Irina Cios, Adriana Crainic, Vojtech Lahoda, and Andrs Zwickl for assistance with this review.