Emphases and omissions

When the spotlight focusses on something which was regarded as permanent and when previously petrified positions come into a new light, conflicts, feelings and ideas that were swept under the carpet always come to the surface. That’s what happened when the Hungarian National Gallery restaged its permanent exhibition presenting post-war art under the title Shifts. (See issue 39 of MúzeumCafé – Ed.) After its opening art historian Zsolt Petrányi, curator of the new exhibition and head of the Hungarian National Gallery’s Contemporary Collection, experienced how ambivalently critics related to the selection. The interview below aims to review his original intentions and the reception of the show.

Where did the initiative to restage the permanent exhibition of contemporary art originate? Was it your own idea or the National Gallery’s plan?

I applied for and got my present position in 2011. That was when I became the head of the Contemporary Art Collection, but I had already worked at the Hungarian National Gallery earlier for seven years, between 1989 and 1996, so I knew the gallery well. At the interview in 2011 it was said that the gallery would consider as timely the restaging of the permanent contemporary art exhibition and in that respect, although I was not taken on with this in mind, planning it has been part of my duties though, it’s true, it was still postulated as a long-term aim and did not have priority. Restaging became concrete and current when the National Gallery and the Museum of Fine Arts merged.

What was your initial conception?

I am one of those art historians who like staging exhibitions. My initial challenge involved trying to devise the concept and the structure of the exhibition such that, besides the art historical and collection presentation aspects, it would be spectacular and attractive for visitors. One of the most important features of the Contemporary Art Collection is its archival character. We are talking about nearly 15,000 works from the past 70 years. Besides high-quality works of art there are many items in the collection which are interesting precisely because they reflect the scale of values of a certain period. The collection has units which not only reflect the character of the arts, but also the cultural policy of each decade. In this sense it provides unique opportunities, because it enables us not only to research what is outstanding or has defined a style, but also to examine how a work of art has become significant. Thus the possibilities of staging a permanent exhibition can point in a large number of directions. The difficulty was caused by how to narrow down the approaches, how to relate the presentation to the previous one and how to provide a way of restaging this present exhibition in the future. During the preparation I considered the nature of the collection and the facilities of the gallery. In addition to the aforementioned archival character, the museum’s marked interior design features and spaces – those of the 70s – became important for me, and so did the history of the Hungarian National Gallery and its Contemporary Arts Collection. I could not and did not want to disregard the fact that the Department for the Collection was formed and its first exhibition was held after the National Gallery moved to the former Royal Palace in 1974. Therefore, I also included the atmosphere of the 70s among the starting points. The architectural elements, such as the red marble which has become almost a brand, represent a feature of the renovation of that time and I had to think about what to do with it. The interior design can be criticised from many aspects. These reveal the dilemma that must have faced the designers, how to convert a building with an entirely different function to a museum in such a way that it would recall its original style in its exterior, yet inside it would be manifest that it was a completely different representation of a different system at an absolutely different period. Finally, I decided to handle these elements as a museum archaeological fact and construct the exhibition while accepting this environment. I was also interested in the genre of the exhibition as an art historical manifestation, therefore I wanted to find examples from the period which I could treat as inspiring points during the staging. I regarded the first exhibition presenting contemporary arts in the history of the National Gallery as a manifestation because it reflected the then present in relation to the representation of Hungarian art. The works exhibited then basically showed which art was tolerated and supported, thus this exhibition is also a restaging of that 40 years later, with the historical addition of what has taken place in the Hungarian arts and in the Hungarian National Gallery’s history of collecting since then. After the deparment had been founded the collection expanded in several directions as cultural policy eased. In time avant-garde works and those of the European School could also be acquired in addition to contemporary works of art. Because of the character of the institution, the National Gallery’s approach was to try to have a broader circle of works presented and not to react only to currect trends. Of course, purchasing limits have set boundaries in every period.

How much time was at your disposal?

Overall, from the launch of the project to the opening took fourteen months.

Which exhibitions did you choose to be reference points and why?

The Iparterv exhibitions are most emphatic, since in my opinion the neo-avant-garde generation, which emerged in the 60s and manifested itself at the Iparterv exhibitions among others, strongly defined the way of thinking of those coming after them. In addition, their participants are the most distinct from among the post-war generations who were able to narrow the time-gap between European art tendencies and Hungarian developments. They could reflect their own era in the most active and modern way.

Chronologically, the post-1945 story could as well begin with the European School.

This exhibition does not present the history of post-1945 art, rather the contemporary collection of the Hungarian National Gallery. The European School satisfies the notion of European artistic quality being the most important principle to follow, which was significant for the Iparterv generation, too. Yet the 1949 change bisected the former’s path and the idea it represents goes back to the pre-war period. That is exactly why the narrative of the exhibition does not begin with them, although it is an important fact with the exhibition that surrealism as an idea and a school goes in parallel with neo-avant-garde tendencies as far as the 70s and reappears in Hungarian art in the circle of the Lajos Vajda Studio and the Szentendre artists. Returning to the important exhibitions: besides Iparterv, there was the Budapest Kunsthalle’s Spring Show in 1957, the Stúdió exhibition in 1966, the New Sensibility exhibitions, the chapel shows in Balatonboglár and the Óbuda exhibition where the statue Man by Jovánovits featured together with Gyula Pauer’s Maya. All these can be read about in the texts on the walls or the labels by the works. The research I conducted with four art history students was also part of the preparatory work. We attempted to indentify the exhibitions that could be regarded as manifestations and I originally wanted to highlight them in an almost 8-metre-long chronological outline. In that way we would have made a mention of exhibitions which have not been discussed in detail. In the end this failed to materialize. We could not resolve the apperently insurmountable problem that what can be stated as an art historical fact in the history of the Hungarian arts is not informative enough for a visitor who wants information. The contradiction comes from the fact that ordinary visitors are not interested in how long an exhibition was on or from when to when an organisation operated. Data about how long Hungarian pop art, for example, lasted and what characterised it in outlines would mean much more. But styles are far more difficult to define in time periods and with justice the novelty of such a chart could be questionable.

How far in advance did you determine who the exhibition will speak to?

I tried to determine it precisely. I relied on two categories, well defined groups. One was the present generation between 16 and 35. They are interested and open, yet have received little visual information at school as a result of the increasing specialisation of the education system. The other type of visitors targeted includes foreign cultural tourists who would like to learn as much as possible about what had happened in Hungary in those years. I presumed that they already know about the artistic processes in western Europe and interpret Hungarian fine arts in relation to that. Neither of the groups mentioned know much about the facts in Hungarian art, but I wanted to kindle their interest. The desire to provide knowledge, however, determined that I could not deviate from following the chronology. Although there are units which are thematic, they are subordinated to the structure which means that when you go through the exhibition you face the issues of post-1945 arts, phasing the exhibition roughly by decades.

When selecting the works which mattered more, originality or being characteristic?

They are two important viewpoints, I cannot rank them, therefore I must say both. A third element is not negligible either: the space, which cannot be changed. However, there have been alterations: most importantly perhaps, something that a visitor to the new exhibition may not notice. Metal-framed glass doors separating sections of the space have been removed and the inside section of the corridor where a couple of works created in the 50s were displayed at the earlier exhibition has been closed. By installing a few temporary walls the direction of progression has become more obvious. As we developed the project it soon turned out that there would not be enough space for everything I had selected from storage. However, a curator, like it or not, has to make choices. Considering the omissions and emphases, I think that the Hungarian National Gallery should follow the practice of large western museums and restage its permanent exhibition from time to time. Ideally this should be every two-three years, always with a different curator and on the basis of changing viewpoints. Let’s not forget the volume of artworks ‘behind’ the exhibition: although it differs regarding the decades – from the 90s the collection at our disposal is narrower. To give an idea of the proportion, 150 works feature at this exhibition out of about 15,000. More were displayed at the previous exhibition. The present one displays roughly 70 works that could be seen before. I had a particular goal, namely to show as many works as possible which will be new for the returning visitor.

You have based the exhibtion on simultaneously parallel tendencies, which constitute the leading threads. What is critised the most is that these parallels are not pursued to the end consistently. What is your view?

I’ve noticed that in the middle of the second decade of the 21st century the question how the modernism of the 20th century can be summarised in an international art context is becoming increasingly important. Last year at the Venice Biennale it was clear how significantly contemporary art – painting and sculpture – was avoiding the related questions today. Beyond the trends and isms the artists are looking for a fundamental summarizing language in the entire history of 20th-century art. Returning to the exhibition: several threads start off presenting how the different styles existed alongside each other in various decades and the nature of the endeavour that can be discovered in all of them. Such are the surrealism of the European School and the avant-garde, as well as the supported art in the 60s. But in the 80s the different mediums and contextual difference between the then starting underground artistic trends are interesting, besides the new sensibility visible in the international trends. I also regard the 90s as a research field of parallels when a new generation thought in terms of far more positions and statements due to the easier opportunities for gaining information and travelling. Thus it is rather difficult to identify a marked characteristic feature or a main current by which the art of the 90s could be described and presented. Therefore, in the case of the 90s I decided to open up the focus of presentation, that is to mention several options as compared to the earlier decades. But I was able to do that only in the framework of our collection’s artworks.

So there is no main thread. Let us consider several complementary threads. Did any one of them turn out to have been the significant one?

Yes, that is relevant for the 90s while the end of the exhibition again examines an aspect. Specifically on the basis of reference, I have presented side by side a few installations and works which used different art historical renderings and different code systems. The title of the exhibition Shifts also involves many references. The first meaning is about a rhythm shift, which could as well mean the periodic nature of the permanent exhibition. The basic idea of the title-bearing work suggests the paradigm change around the time of the 1989-90 changes, but indicates that the same persons contineed to proceed. Regarding the whole exhibition I think it is a significant and valid metaphor. Going back to the issue of parallelism, the identification of official and unofficial art changes periodically. It often depends on the political standpoint of the artists, since that also results in the language used by the arts.

What about categories such as banned/tolerated/supported?

The exhibition raises the issue that another, dominant idea of the tolerated and supported arts existed besides the avant-garde of the 60s. It is not only interesting how loyal Jenő Kerényi or József Somogyi – who were commissioned the most to sculpt public works of art – were to the party leadership, but how they tried to resolve the task of representing subject matters that were acceptable from an ideological aspect in the modernist manner of the second half of the 20th century, and in such a way as not to clearly take a stand in favour of any one ism. It is frustrating, but with the exhibition I would have liked to present many characteristic stylistic and historical features – represented in a wide selection of different artworks – concerning what characterised art history in Hungary, but I was restricted due to the size and the groundplan of the space. The parallels – as the tolerated and supported arts – can be shown together up to the 90s, but the issue is at the expense of what.

You have visibly wanted to show a plethora of genres.

My aim was to present the collection’s diversity of mediums. I did not want to think only in terms of painting and sculpture. At the same time it cast a light on deficiencies, that’s a fact. For example, it showed that the collection was somewhat weak in motion pictures, cross-media and media works in general, although in recent decades valuable experimental works have been made which should be here and without them the persentation of the period is incomplete. I started off from the character of our collection, even though in some periods, for example in the 90s, it presented a problem.

What would you do differently if you were to stage a new exhibition?

I can interpret this question in two ways: if it is related to this very exhibition or when we are over this and the next restaging is on the agenda. In the first case I would make the periods thematic. I wouldn’t say sur-naturalism but examine concrete groups of questions, and besides I would illustrate the artistic context of the period with films and photographic documents, for which I would also use materials unrelated to the arts. There are several examples of this concept in European museums. I have recently seen it at the restaged permanent exhibition of Madrid’s Reina Sophia and the National Museum in Warsaw. These shows regard the recent past as a period which is not in everyone’s memory, but is such that the visual culture of the period requires recollection or explanation. If we highlight the young and the foreigners, as has been mentioned, from the changing circle of visitors this conception is correct, but it is sure that such an exhibition steps out from the framework of the collection. The second possibility would be if I restaged this exhibition after the present version. I would go in the direction of a more significantly curator’s exhibition and present the works according to themes, stepping away from a strict chronology. This offers the possibility of comparing the historical transformation of a motif and its interpretation. You can see this in other museums, such as with the collection exhibition of the Tate Modern or the Centre Pompidou. This version provides the visitor with the experience that the interest of the arts is universal and consistent although the means or approaches have changed in different eras and with different isms, and that was how the works have reflected the critical or analytic relation of culture to history, technical development, society and other fields of the arts.