COURAGE

seotud kollektsioonid

This painting is part of the series Compoziţii (Compositions), which contributed decisively to Hans Mattis-Teutsch’s international fame at the beginning of the 1920s (Almási 2001, 29). The work reflects the tendency towards the abstract visible in his creative work in that period, marked by the artist’s involvement in the expressionist group Der Sturm in Berlin (Mesea 2009, 23–24). The rhythmic character of his works has made certain art historians characterise his style as “musical expressionism” (Gassner 2001, 45; Mesea 2009, 24). The natural motifs present in his work before the 1920s are turned in this series into abstract forms. The paintings in this series, which were very well received both by the general public and by art specialists in the interwar period, were not exhibited during the first part of the communist period, because avant-garde art was considered “decadent” and “bourgeois” by the new regime (Popica 2015, 3). Nevertheless, the Art Museum in Braşov (which at the time was a section of the Braşov Regional Museum) purchased certain paintings in this series (including the one described here) in the years 1967–1968, in the context of a relative liberalisation of the cultural policies of the communist regime. None of these works was exhibited as part of the museum’s permanent collection, which shows that Mattis-Teutsch’s recuperation during this liberalisation period was limited.

Although it is not officially dated, Muncitor forestier (Forestry Worker) was probably painted in the late 1940s or early 1950s, when its author was trying to adapt his artistic creation to the new cultural policies. From the point of view of the technique used, the painting combines tempera and oil painting on plywood. According to the art historian Radu Popica, the painting Muncitor forestier (Forestry Worker) illustrates the “difficulties” encountered by Mattis-Teutsch in the process of adapting to socialist realism (Popica 2015, 12). The artist tried to combine techniques of his art from the 1930s with the precepts of socialist realism. However, this synthesis, called by the artist “constructive-realism,” failed to convince the authorities (Popica 2015, 13). As has been observed by Dan-Octavian Breaz, although Mattis-Teutsch’s art in the 1930s suggested the “new man” of socialist realism, the modernist techniques used by Mattis-Teutsch were in fact incompatible with socialist realism, because they were unsuitable for the purpose that art was supposed to serve in the new society (Breaz 2013, 124). This explains the negative reception of Mattis-Teutsch’s artistic creation in the 1950s, despite his honest attempts to integrate into the new cultural context.

The work belongs to Hans Mattis-Teutsch’s constructivist period. According to the art historian Gheorghe Vida, constructivism was assimilated by Mattis-Teutsch at the time of his involvement in the Romanian avant-garde during the 1920s and at the beginning of the 1930s (Vida 2009, 80). During this period, Mattis-Teutsch collaborated closely with groups of avant-garde artists formed around the cultural publications Contimporanul, Integral and Alge, sharing the artistic vision of these groups, as well as their socialist views. His artistic vision marked by constructivism was theorised in his work Kunstideologie. Stabilität und Aktivität im Kunstwerk published in interwar Germany (Mattis-Teutsch 1931). This vision, which sees art as a “messenger” of the “new man” in the “technological era without traditions,” is marked by the mobility and rhythm of modern life (Mattis-Teutsch 1977, 76–79). The work and rhythms specific to modern man are also central themes in this painting from the end of the 1920s, and the title of the work is a direct reference to the relationship between intellectuals and the proletariat in Marxist ideology. As with all the works of Hans Mattis-Teutsch created during the interwar period, this item could not be displayed during the 1950s due to the fact that the avant-garde techniques were in contradiction with socialist realism.

The handwritten letter from Matulaitis to the Academy of Sciences. In the letter, he criticises the Academy and the Institute of History. The letter (written in 1950) reflects very well the situation of Lithuanian historians during the late Stalinist period. Matulaitis, who spoke out about the need to research the history of the Lithuanian nation, came under pressure, was accused of ‘bourgeois nationalism’, and was dismissed from his job.