While the new art of a new generation was emphatically present from the mid-Sixties, today thanks to the canonisation of the Iparterv exhibitions, the year of 1968 appears as the primary turning point in Hungarian art. The change was signified by the concentrated and programmatic appearance of the ‘new strivings’ of the avant-garde that publically went against the officially accepted guiding principles and artistic thinking in relatively greater numbers. The border between the official art of the time, and the overstepping of that border by unofficial art, appeared as an important problem.
The state (party) principles and preferences of power that were applied in the area of art were most systematically communicated to the professional audience and a broader public through the art journal Művészet. Based on the examination of the published articles and images in the issues of Művészet from 1968, the study highlights the frame provided by official art theory. It makes the ideological boundary lines visible, so that the criteria of preferences appear more systematically, and from this it is possible to convey the way in which the official system related to artists who partly defined themselves outside of these frames.
From the beginning of the Sixties through the changing viewpoint of the journal it was possible to observe both the gradual deflation of a socialist realist tendency that asserted its dominance and was strongly anti-abstraction, as well as fluctuations: short episodes of ideological loosening were often followed by stricter, more hard-line periods. In the contemporary criticism and exhibition accounts of Művészet the officially specified values, above all the intelligibility of art had to be defended. Művészet saw a guarantee of this, amongst other factors, in the maintenance of the characteristics of Hungarian painting as intelligible to everyone and the continued focus on socialist themes. In the second place, the audience had to be protected since ‘without an audience there is no viable cultural revolution.’ In the third place, ethical commitment had to be defended: ‘humanity’ believes in socialism, and therefore socialist artists have to be prepared to cater to the spiritual nourishment of the masses.
Characteristic of 1968 was the adoptive strategy, which attempted to bring the young artists closer to the categories of the system. In this category sensitivity towards social problems, the illumination of the problems of the present, or an affinity for humanism was enough for a young artist to go from being a representative of progressive art to being tolerated or even temporarily supported. Over the course of 1968 numerous young artists appeared in Művészet who at the December Iparterv exhibition turned directly against the ideals of official art. In 1968 from the official side, the broadening of the picture seemed possible by situating the young in the field between decadence and progress.
Az esszé áttekinti, mit jelentett 1968 a politika világában Nyugaton és Keleten.
Felidézi Párizs és a hasonló ihletésű német diákmozgalmak újbaloldali,
anarchista gondolatvilágát, az ugyanebben az időben Amerikában kibontakozó
polgárjogi és háborúellenes mozgalom törekvéseit. Szembehelyezi ezzel a
szocialista Közép-Európa 68-as történetét: prágai tavasz, varsói márciusi
tüntetések, magyarországi újbaloldali megmozdulások. Egy második, részletesebb
áttekintés bemutatja, hogy alakult ki az ellenkultúra, milyen helyet foglalt el
ezekben a mozgalmakban, hogy alakította át a politika tárgyát, színtereit és
eszközeit Amerikában, majd az egész világon, és hogyan jutott el a vasfüggönyön
túlra, Közép-Európába is.
inseparable from the work of the Croatian Mathematical Society since 1990, of the Society of Mathematicians and Physicists of the Croatian Socialist Republic from 1946 to 1990, respectively. Since 1968 the Society has issued annual reports on activities of its
As an overt response to the Soviet bloc invasion of Czechoslovakia, Karel Husa’s Music for Prague 1968 makes an obvious nationalistic statement. In his foreword to the published score, Husa describes Prague’s use of the Hussite war song “Ktož jsú boží bojovníc” as its most important unifying motive. He says this song has long been “a symbol of resistance and hope.” The author does not debate the work’s nationalistic intent, he finds remarkable that, in 1968, Husa was an American citizen, teaching at Cornell, and using compositional techniques not frequently associated with Eastern European nationalism. If musical nationalism (expressed by folkloric elements) in Eastern European countries can be used to express primacy over avantgarde music, Music for Prague 1968 presents the opposite — a traditional war song submersed in an entirely Western European/American musical language. The study examines several portions of the composition to demonstrate the ways in which Husa expresses his nationalism in a non-nationalistic manner, including chromatic transformations of the Hussite song; the integrally serial third movement, in which unpitched percussion instruments are intended to represent the church bells of Prague; and the opening movement’s non-tonal bird calls, intended to represent freedom. Furthermore, Music for Prague 1968 uses a Western avant-garde language in a way that Husa’s other overtly nationalistic post-emigration pieces (Twelve Moravian Songs, Eight Czech Duets, Evocations of Slovakia) do not. In this light, it will be seen that Music for Prague 1968 fills a special role in Husa’s nationalistic display.
How shall we define the quality of a published piece of research or are we able to find a less emphatic way to assess quality? The paper tries to answer these questions and comes to the conclusion that citation analysis might be refined to prove an objective index of importance. On the basis of citation analysis an attempt is made to find research papers published in the Journal of Radioanalytical Chemistry 1968–1981 which had a remarkable impact on the subfield of radioanalytical chemistry.