Search Results

Abstract

The portrait collection of the Boksay József Museum of Art of the County of Transcarpathia has several unexplored items of Hungarian and European relevance. Among them there are portraits of fifteen Greek catholic bishops of Munkács (Mukačevo) and of dignitaries of the Order of St Basil the Great. Some of the portraits originated from the Basilian monastery at Munkács-Csernekhegy, the others were still decorating the dining hall of the episcopal residence in Ungvár (Užhorod) in 1942. In addition to portraits of eight bishops of the 19–20th centuries, the series contains the portraits of Bazil Taraszovics (1634–1651), József De Camelis (1690–1706), György Blazsovszky (1738–1742), and two each of Mánuel Olsavszky (1743–1767) and András Bacsinszky (1772–1809). The stylistic features suggest that the half-length portrait of bishop Bazil Taraszovics (1643–1651) was probably painted between 1643 and 1648. The portrait of the bishop of Galician descent belongs to the so-called Sarmatian portrait type of Polish noblemen. The high priest is shown in a dolman with gathered sleeves in contemporaneous fashion; his rank is alluded to by Byzantine episcopal insignia on the table in the background. The text refers to the bishop's imprisonment in the castle of Munkács by which the Protestant lord of the castle György I Rákóczi wished to forestall the bishop's attempts at the union. This turns the painting into a votive or commemorative picture customary in the age. The next group of portraits are connected by the inscription on the reverse; it is in calligraphy typical of the last quarter and end of the 18th century and is perhaps the first indication of the intention to create a unified portrait gallery of bishops or more broadly of noted Greek catholic church dignitaries. The portrait of János József De Camelis can be dated to around 1767. He is shown with a long white beard, a kamilaukion or priest's cap and a peculiar dark gown with ermine lining. The subtly painted minute details ascribe the portrait to a well-trained master; the authorship of the Spalinszky brothers active in the 1760s and ‘70s cannot be excluded. A copy of the portrait dated to the early 19th century is kept at the Greek catholic bishopric in Eperjes (Prešov). The third De Camelis portrait is preserved in the Papal Greek College in Rome. On the basis of its historicist details and stylistic traits it can be dated to the last decades of the 19th century, around 1880–90, perhaps painted for the bicentenary of De Camelis' appointment as bishop of Munkács. Two half-length portraits of identical iconography surviving among the baroque portraits of Ungvár depict bishop Mánuel Olsavszky. One rendering closely resembles the De Camelis portrait of Ungvár. The other half-length portrait corresponds to Olsavszky's full-length portrait once hanging above the gallery in the church of Pócs, showing the bishop in his library (Máriapócs, Collection of the Order of St Basil). It was painted after 1753 when the library at Pócs was being organized. It is known from the correspondence of Olsavszky's successor that a painter named Mihály received commissions for portraits at Pócs. This master can be identified as Mihály Spalinszky. The bishop's portrait datable to the 1770s inscribed Georgius Gabriel Blazsovszky (1738–1742) Episcopus Munkacsiensis in 19th century calligraphy displays embarrassing resemblance not only in all details of the attire but also in the round facial form and physiognomy to the portrait of Greek catholic metropolitan of Lemberg Atanaz Szeptycki painted in the first half of the 18th century and kept at the National Museum of Lemberg (Lviv). György Blazsovszky was ordained by Athanazy Szeptycki in Univ in 1738; he probably took with him his superior's earlier portrait which might have served as the prototype for this portrait which actually shows the metropolitan of Lemberg. A new era began in the life of the Munkács eparchy with the canonic foundation of the episcopacy in 1771 through the good offices of Queen Maria Theresa, during bishop András Bacsinszky's tenure (1772–1809). When the episcopate was shifted to Ungvár, and the former Jesuitical church and monastery were surrendered and converted to the cathedral and bishop's palace in 1773, new possibilities were created for the eparchy and its bishops. Bishop András Bacsinszky's full-length portrait in late neo-classical baroque style survives from this period. An early 20th century tradition holds that it was painted by Franz Linder (1736–1806) in 1792. The frontal half-length portrait of an earlier unidentified bishop in the Greek Catholic Collection in Nyíregyháza also shows András Bacsinszky. It was probably painted earlier than the Ungvár portrait. It is certain that the idea of arranging the bishops' portraits systematically for a gallery was first raised before 1877, during the episcopacy of János Pásztélyi Kovács. The bishop had three portraits painted of his predecessors Vazul Popovics (1837–1864) and István Pankovics (1866–1874) as well as himself by János Zahorai at the same. The successors of Pásztélyi deemed it important to continue the portrait gallery, the last piece of which was painted in 1934.

István Csók was intrigued by the story of Erzsébet Báthory, princess of Transylvania who lived in the 17th century, already during his academic studies. Around 1885 he depicted the best-known episode of her life-story: the ruler bathing in the blood of her servants. (Prior to him, only Viktor Madarász painted a picture of this scene in 1862.) When some 15 years later he returned to this theme, he picked another less known episode. The topic of his large canvas begun in 1893 is a scene when around 1600 Erzsébet Báthory is watching with sensual pleasure her stark naked maid-servants drenched in cold water in the courtyard of her Csejte castle in the chill of winter. Csók made several studies for the 4 × 6 m composition, including a model photo for the protagonist. The painting was completed by early 1895 and sent to the Salon exhibition in Paris in February.

The theme preoccupied the master for several decades and in the 1920s–‘30s he made several variations on it. They testify to his experiments with modern forms conveying the historical theme in an expressionist style. Parallel with that, he painted several variations and replicas of the motif of his monumental picture deemed most effective: the figure of Erzsébet Báthory.

The work also features in a central role in the painter's autobiography written continuously from the 1920s (published in 1944). In My Memoirs the Báthory appears as a “masterpiece” which, like Zola's highly influential novel (“L’Oeuvre”) gradually devours its author. In the narrative of the recollections, the picture becomes identified with the misconception of academism, “the temptation of Mammon”.

Csók relied on authentic historical sources for his painting. He drew on the records of the witnesses’ testimonies attached to the documents of the case published by Hungarian historians in periodicals from the early 19th century. To model the figure of the ruler, he used a portrait reproduced several times in the late 19th century but now lost. Its reproduction was also found in his estate. The elaboration of the composition coincided with the pivotal change in the ruler's evaluation his historiography: while earlier Erzsébet Báthory was described as a blood-thirsty monster, the analyses appearing from the late 1880s increasingly attributed her state to a mental disorder.

Csók's choice of this odd theme was a symptom of late- 19th century crisis of history painting. As against his fellow-painters of Munich and Nagybánya who tried to breathe life into this dying genre from the angle of plein air naturalism, Csók rejuvenated the great tradition of history painting with the sensational illusionism of salon painting and with the subtle psychological analysis of decadence. Contemporary critics received his work as a modern piece responding sensitively to up-to-date problems. On the basis of the then quite new sexual pathological researches most of the analysts described Erzsébet Báthory as a mentally deranged woman who committed acts of sadism in her fits of hysteria. In the analyses of the picture references are made to the father of hysteria research Jean-Martin Charcot as well as Richard von Krafft-Ebing who described sadism as a pathological case. To model the facial expression of Erzsébet Báthory, Csók drew on both the art academy tradition of “tête d'expression” and on the considerable pictorial material published by Charcot as the “iconography of hysteria” based on clinical case studies.

Csók meant his Erzsébet Báthory to be a “sensation” so he made sure it was first made public at the official Paris Salon. Then in autumn 1895 he also put it on display in Budapest, in a novel form of exhibition at that time: a one-man show. The press consequently devoted distinguished attention to it. Though the picture was originally ordered for the millenary festivities of 1896, the cultural ministry was reluctant to pay the promised price. Despite its ambivalent evaluation, it was eventually bought by the state in 1896 and sent to the representative Hungarian exhibition in Munich the next year.

For a few years the painting was included in the permanent exhibition of the National Museum. Upon the local mayor's request, in 1909 it was sent to Szeged on permanent loan together with several other works and it was displayed in the permanent exhibition of Szeged museum until 1940. Conservative circles in the town disliked it, and proposed already in the 1920s that being immoral it should be removed. Csók regarded the transfer of his painting to the countryside as “exile” and even tried to buy it back from the state. The last known station of the painting's “peregrinations” was Székesfehérvár where it arrived as a representative piece for the picture collection of the newly build Culture Centre in winter 1940. Its inclusion was partly justified by Csók's local attachment (he was born in the county) and also by the aim to create a spectacular collection of history paintings.

In spring 1944 the pictures of the gallery were put into a safe place but even rolled up the Erzsébet Báthory was too large to go through the air-raid shelter's door. During the siege it got lost. A note dated 1956 says that a one-time prisoner-of-war had seen it on the walls of the renaissance castle of Austrian Spittal an der Drau, Schloss Porcia, in the summer of 1945, framed and in perfect condition. The official search launched by the Austrian authorities on the basis of this information ended without result.

Abstract

From a late 16th century Four Elements series two, the depictions of Air and Water, can be found in the Hungarian National Gallery. Another element is identified by the author in a painting of a female head at the Múzeum Červený Kameň. The picture is badly damaged, the original inscription is missing. On the basis of the ochre and red colours it can be taken for the allegory of Fire: the figure is holding a pair of tongs between two fingers. The picture in the Múzeum Červený Kameň is registered as a work by someone in the circle of Matthias Gundelach. When it turned out that the painting belonged to the Budapest series (whose style is alien to Gundelach), this attribution had to be discarded. The Budapest allegories are now put up in the exhibition as works created by someone close to Bartholomäus Spranger, but in the present paper they are defined as works by Spranger himself. It is first of all the depiction of Air that can be easily tied to the authentic works of the Prague painter (Venus, Ceres and Bacchus, c. 1590, Graz, Joanneum; Christ Appearing to Mary Magdalene, 1591, Bucharest, Muzeul de Arte), while the rendering of Water is closest to the allegorical female figures in the lower part of his picture The Triumph of Knowledge (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum). The pictures were probably painted in the early 1590s, which dating may be confirmed by the lack of any trace of J. Heintz's and H. von Aachen's influence. Art historians ascribe the change in Spranger's style to the influence of these two painters which began to be felt in the first half of the 1590s. This altered style is characterized by a metallic modelling, powerful contours and strong light-and-shade effects. The painting in the Múzeum Červený Kameň came to the museum from Alsó-Korompa (Dolná Krupa), from the country house formerly belonging to the Brunszvik, later to the Chotek families. This provenance is also a clue to the Budapest paintings. Chief justice Count József Brunszvik's collection was in Buda in the early 19th century, and about half of its items were transferred to Alsó-Korompa after his death. In the detailed inventory taken on that occasion no trace of the series or its parts can be found, which means that they did not originate from the Brunszvik collection. As the country house went over to the Chotek family through the marriage of József Brunszvik's daughter, it is not impossible that the Four Elements series had once been possessed by that family.

In 1983 the Hungarian National Gallery purchased a canvas tapestry painted in tempera as Ferenc Rákóczi II's itinerant tapestry. Originally it belonged to a series of seven pieces and was still in the Zboró (Zborov) castle of the Rákóczi family as late as around 1870. Another piece found its way into the Hungarian National Museum. What shed light on the iconography of the series was the identification of the engraving serving as precursor: the depictions visualize quotations from Horace's poems after the engravings of Otto van Veen's Emblemata Horatiana, a book of emblems (Antwerp, 1607). The tapestry in the Hungarian National Gallery shows Diogenes with the hedonist philosopher Aristippus in dispute. In the other tapestry there are two pictures: the allegory of “material sobriety” and a parable of wise understanding and tractability illustrated with the story of the mythological twins Amphion and Zethus. The prototypes suggest that the series was made sometime in the 17th century, using the 1607 or 1612 Antwerp edition. As no copy of the publication can be traced in 17th-century Hungary, the cycle was probably not painted in Hungary, or in Central Europe. Since the tapestry cannot be found in any inventory of Prince Rákóczi's property, it was probably later imported, presumably in the 18th century – when the castle of Zboró was at the hands of the later owners Count Aspremont and Erdődy families.

The composition of the St Martin episode in the St Martin Church of Szombathely – formerly on display at the Hungarian National Gallery – originates in an engraving by Adriaen Collaert made after Jan van der Straet's (Giovanni Stradano) invention. Figure of Saint Martin in the painting dated to around 1653 is perhaps a crypto portrait of a person with initials “M(artinus) A” written on the dog's collar. Around him Hungarian noblemen are depicted. The coat of arms in the picture – maybe of the client who ordered it – is so far unidentified.

Abstract

General Jean-François L'Huillier had a baroque country house built in Edelény in Borsod county between 1716 and 1728, on an estate he had received from the emperor for his military services. The wall paintings of the rooms as seen today are associated with the third generation of owners: contracts with several painters survive from the time of Countess Ludmilla Forgách, the granddaughter of the founder, and her husband István Eszterházy of Zólyom. The characteristic style and rococo motifs of the figural murals brought other works into connection with the Edelény paintings, those at Taktabáj and Lelesz (Leles) also preserving the name of Ferenc Lieb, a Viennese painter who can be demonstrated between 1758 and 1788 at Igló (Spišská Nová Ves); he was most likely the painter of the six rooms ordered by the countess in 1769. The decorative painting by János Voronieski, who was contracted four years earlier, perished. Later, in 1780, Lieb's son-inlaw Jakab Ignác Fabricius, a painter of Miskolc, adorned the walls of a seventh room in the western wing.

In the meantime the count employed portraitist Sámuel Horváth in Pest in 1768 to create a historical series of 225 pieces: the models for the small full-length representations of Hungarian chieftains, kings and ancestors of the Esterházy family were the Nádasdy Mausoleum (1664) and the Esterházy Tropheum, family histories of engravings (1700) — a copy of the latter also included in the Edelény library. The prototype of the gallery of ancestors at Fraknó (Burg Forchtenstein) might have been known to the count, but in his Zólyom (Zvolen) castle there was also a similar series made after the Mausoleum: panels of a wooden ceiling from the first quarter of the 18th century. The Edelény paintings were arranged like a frieze in the upstairs great hall, until then only embellished by stucco work from the time of the construction and by stone carvings with the Forgách arms on the fireplace.

The double enfilade upstairs in the eastern wing of the mansion — the sources claim — constituted the private sphere of the couple. In the first room the personifications of the four seasons in costumes appear in genre scenes of agricultural work, accompanied by putti symbolizing the four elements. The walls of the new dining room are adorned with idyllic scenes from the life of the mansion including the itinerary motif of the maiden on the swing, with Venus on a swan-drawn cart opposite her. The four battle-scenes imitating framed paintings allude to the heroic deeds of the ancestors. In the next room the walls of which are painted with wallpaper pattern the ceiling is dominated by Hermes and Amor, while the count's bedroom ceiling is devoted to Jupiter. Here in the door and window reveals a selection of emblems refers to the virtues of the husband, while in the vault sections contemporaneous portrait-like figures — two couples — are shown in fashionable costumes, in the company of Gypsy musicians. In the room of the countess next to the oratory the allegory of good government eulogizes Ludmilla Forgách; the cosmological symbols and personifications of the four parts of the world are depicted on the ceiling of the adjacent cabinet.

While the count wished to emphasize the dynastic roots and imperial position of his family and conserved the earlier tradition of the gallery of ancestors, the wife adopted the recent European fashion of profane rococo wall paintings. However, István Eszterházy applied in vain to the empress for the chief administrator's post in the county on several occasions, nor did he receive the St Stephen order. The couple had no children of their own. In 1775 Ludmilla Forgách became a Dame of the Star Cross order; she was extolled for the support of orphans, but at the same time a mocking poem was also written of her supercilious way of life. It is a fact that she left Edelény burdened with debt to her son from her first marriage. The pictorial program completed with the — now lost — gallery of ancestors roots in the baroque tradition of representing the “connubium” of two families which may be fed by rivalry and mutual support alike. The surviving rococo wall paintings represent a singular, genrelike attempt at this iconography.

The study was originally written for the volume introducing the Medieval Buda (Medieval Buda in Context. Ed. Szende, Katalin-Nagy, Balázs. Leiden [Brill] 2014, to be published). It was written with the aim of giving an image of the present situation of the researches of the Buda Sigismund sculpture findings to the readers abroad. However, beyond this, it also attempts to formulate certain questions and suggestions that could give directions for further investigations in the future.

In 1974 an important finding of sculptures was explored in the field of the medieval Buda Castle. The fragmentary ensemble became by its existing suddenly such a phenomenon, concerning the period of court art of Sigismund of Luxembourg’s reign in Hungary (1387–1437) that one could not even know about before. Intensive researches began after the sculptures had been found, acknowledging not only their Hungarian but Europeanlevel importance, too. These researches had calmed down approximately after one decade, giving answers to some questions, nevertheless leaving even more dilemmas after. It is uncertain where were the sculptures intended to put, in other words exactly where were they erected; we do not know which part of them and how many parts were unfinished; we do not know their grouping, and we can formulate about their themes of topics only conjectures; their dating is strongly vacillating; the date of their devastation and circumstances is not entirely clear; concerning their style connections the opinions are strongly divided. Beyond these problems, because of the important uncertainties concerning the European sculpture, the Buda Castle sculpture ensemble, enriched since 1974 with further findings, could not up to this time incorporate into Europe’s, not even into the Central European artistic overall view.

As it became clear for nowadays, the sculpture-ensemble was found among the ruins of a sculpture workshop at stem neighbourhood of the Royal Palace. The main part of the pieces was never raised, erected, nevertheless they were devoted to the buildings of the Royal Palace and to the Saint Sigismund’s Collegiate Church founded by Sigismund. Although their dating upon stylistic basis for the moment is unsolvable, on the basis of the historical data of the reign of Sigismund, furthermore upon the period of the building of the parts of the collegiate church and the royal castle the workshop’s functioning can be put rather definitely to the second and third decade of the 15th century. On the one hand a part of the sculpture ensemble consists of a serial of smaller pieces of apostles (perhaps prophets) while on the other hand we can see large sized court figures that flocked around the emperor somehow presenting them genealogically, dynastically. Nevertheless, certainly there were further figures depicting saints, representing participants of Biblical scenes. Therefore we have to speak about several programs dealing with the decoration of several properties with the sculptures, sculpture-groups.

The style of the sculpture-ensemble is not homogeneous either, within this group different, partly strong, marked directions are interconnected. The source of the apostle prophet-figures was undoubtedly the Franco- Flemish art around 1400 within which mostly the determinative branch could have been the multi-coloured sculpture of the French royal and ducal courts. As regards the other rest sculptures, according to the researches, they are bound predominantly to the ensemble of the so called Grosslobming group located in Styria and through this way it was interpreted within the frame of Central European art. However, this direction is strongly questionable therefore by all means it would be worth to examine more thoroughly the French origin style having already arisen in connection with them. In the secular theme sculpture of the French royal and ducal courts besides the iconography there are closer relations concerning the types, motives and style than what we can find in either the Austrian or the Central European sculptural materials.

The background that could have served the possible French origin of the majority of the Buda Castle ensemble was the longer 1416 Paris staying of Sigismund. According to the written sources the king received numerous French masters at his service and sent them to Buda. Behind this decision there were probably representational power factors in connection with which it is worth to quote the multiple, emphatic manifestations of the imperial supremacy in Paris against the French king.

Since the question of the origin of the Buda sculptures is mostly unclear, momentarily even in their outline it is not known their onetime possible influence. Because of the time frame of the workshop’s functioning the sculpture-ensemble cannot play the role of the international style’s Central European disseminates – as it emerged previously. However, their role is conceivable just because of their disengaging with that style. For the moment it is unclear but in any case – concerning both the ordering person and the style – the line should be followed in the sense that the Buda figures have to do at several points with the art of Hans Multscher. The mere idea of these possible relations represents well that the sculptures made for Sigismund form one of the most important ensembles of this era’s Central European and possibly even the European art.

Abstract

The archive has been one of the most popular topics in the humanities of the past few decades. The archive as such has not only influenced historical, art historical, cultural anthropological research, but it has also become a corner stone for philosophical and art theoretical thinking. In Derrida's conception, there are two forces at work in an archive: one is that of conserving, the other is destructive, the latter phrased as “the archive fever” (mal d'archive) which works against conservation, wishing to destroy (to suppress). A good example of this two-way force may be the so-called “Heidelberg suitcase” which, after Lukács's death, turned out to have been deposited in a Swiss bank safe. It contained the philosopher's early writings, sketches, diary and correspondence. In Lukács's oeuvre biographical and autobiographical elements are mixed, life is replaced by “lived thinking”.

The Lukács Archives is located in the philosopher's last apartment in Budapest, it is both a memorial and a research place. Contemporary artists' Interventions in May 2010, in memory of the 125th anniversary of the philosopher's birth, partly explored the law-creating power (arche) of the archive and partly the hidden sides of Lukács's life and work. Lukács had been an inspiring source for contemporary art. László Lakner's book objects and hyper-realistic book pictures (1970) tried to explore the relationship between philosophy and art in general and presented, at the same time, Lakner's (critical) attitude to the philosophical sources. Lukács also appeared in a different role, in film, approximately at around the same time: in the legendary, censored and banned film by Dezső Magyar entitled Agitators (1969). The script was the adaptation of Ervin Sinkó's documentary novel, Optimists by Dezső Magyar and Gábor Bódy. Writing the history of the Hungarian Republic of Councils of 1919, they used several personal recollections, including those of Lukács' and Sinkó's. The directors of the film approached the events of the Republic from the viewpoint of the so-called “ideological group”, action was often replaced by speech in the film, and they used archive film footages, uniting Eisenstein's “intellectual montage” and Jean-Luc Godard's propaganda language. Also, György Kemény painted a secco in a room of Ferenc Kőszeg's apartment in 1972, at a time when the renaissance of Marxism and the rejection of “existing socialism” did not yet involve total disappointment from Marxism. The iconography of the mural was worked out by the then-tenants of the room, philosophers György Bence and János Kenedi. The secco represented not only Lukács himself but also Angela Davis, as well as Leo Trotsky. Photographer Gabriella Csoszó and curator Lívia Páldi have been working on an accurate photo-documentation of the Lukács Archives since 2008. Some of these photos under the title Shelves were on view at the Budapest Kunsthalle's exhibition Other voices, other rooms – reconstruction attempt(s), fifty years of the Balázs Béla Studio. Interventions was conceived and organized by artist Tamás Soós who, like Lakner, was inspired to study Lukács by his childhood and youth memories. Soós' approach to the archives and also to Lukács is esoteric: the figure of the philosopher can only exist in allusions (consequently, his attitude to him is uncritical), through his books and the narration of his most important student and follower. The figure of Lukács has been faded by time: even to talk about him is already history, he himself belongs to the archive, simple past has turned to past perfect. Soós is preoccupied by the melancholy of this transiency against which one may fight with dreams, remembrance, meditation.

In János Sugár's intervention, the archive appeared as the place of preservation and law. Sugár did not wish to evaluate Lukács' oeuvre: in his interpretation it is the archive itself that is to be preserved. Sugár focused on the actual state of the Lukács Archives, its functioning at the mercy of economic and political decisions. The central element of his intervention is the gesture of conservation. He sprayed onto the wall, under a picture of the study room, one of his earlier graffiti works (Arbeite gratis oder verrichte eine Arbeit die du auch gratis machen würdest [Work for free or do a work that you would do for free]) so that, in case of an evacuation of the archive it is revealed as a warning, a deterrent for the liquidators.

Miklós Erhardt's intervention presents the philosopher as an active political actor, “Realpolitiker” whose activity in this capacity also raises ethical questions. Addressing those who were present, he revived a historical event of 1919 (as the political commissar of the Red Army, Lukács ordered seven people to be shot dead), a fact that is to be faced up to here and now. The covering of a crushed memorial plaque was his reflection upon the inclusion of a historically and politically laden monument in the archive as a piece of furniture, i.e. meaningless surface.

Balázs Beöthy addressed Lukács' the Soul and Forms, and installed his research findings in the memorial room of the archives on Lukács desk. Beöthy was interested to pinpoint the biographical-philosophical moment that made the young Lukács choose between personal life and work. Of all Intervention participants, it was Beöthy alone who studied the documents in the archives instead of just trying to capture the “spiritus loci” or the figure of the archive-founder philosopher in general. Next to photo copies of Lukács's private letters (first of all Irma Seidler's letters) Beöthy put a video piece (Hancsi) narrating a love story from his own life that had some similarities with that of Lukács'. Beöthy does not only question Lukács's choice: the video is a testimony that the question itself – life or work? – is fundamentally wrong. Life is the source and model of the work – as the dedication of Soul and Forms also supports.

It was Lukács “alive” (impersonated) who was the protagonist of the intervention of Little Warsaw (András Gálik and Bálint Havas). Their attempt to present the real person in his original setting can be seen both as a minimalist performance and as a hyperrealist statue. By giving shape to a quasi mythical figure, Little Warsaw also put their finger on one of the sorest points of Lukács' esthetic thinking. Their intervention confronted Lukács' realism concept with the everyday realities of contemporary art. By conjuring up the figure of Lukács in this environment, the dusty backdrop of the archive, they did not only ask how it was possible to preserve anyone's memory, but also pondered how to face the historical-esthetic and political legacy and its contradictions of the most prominent and influential Hungarian philosopher of the 20th century.

The present paper is the second part of two connected essays (following One night at the Lukács Archives: György Lukács and contemporary art, Művészettörténeti Értesítő 61. 2012/1. 1–31). Both attempted to present a special point, Lukács' antipathy to modern, avant-garde art that is obviously there in his work ever since its beginning. Even though Lukács carried the flag for 19th century classical realist art, his writings influenced the art discourse, he influenced thinking in the 20th century, and his ideas were important for contemporary artists, even if in the form of rejecting them. The Archive Fever was working in these Interventions as well, and the same fever may help to demolish the wall between Lukács and contemporary art.