<論説>二〇世紀転換期プラハにおける芸術界とナショナリズム --マーネス造形芸術家協会を中心に--

Abstract

近年、単線的な発展プロセスの中でナショナリズムを捉える構築主義的な歴史認識に限界が指摘されつつある。こうした動向のもと、本稿では、一九世紀末以降プラハを拠点に活動したマーネス造形芸術家協会について、彼らの活動がいかにネイション形成に寄与したかという角度からではなく、彼らがネイションやナショナリズムをどのように捉え、それらとどう向き合ったのかという視角から分析する。協会のネイション／ナショナリズムに対する諸言説は、自身の芸術上の利害との摩擦の中で生じていった。協会はネイションの価値を否定しないが、ネイションを限定的に解釈することには反対であり、自由な創作活動の行き着く先にチェコ性が宿ると捉えていた。また芸術活動にナショナルな帰属の問題を持ち込むことには反対であった。こうした事例を見ることで、均質なネイションへの一元化という従来のネイション形成史像に対する修正を試みる。

This paper aims to rethink the history of Czech nationalism from the perspective of modernist artists. Focusing on the Mánes Artists' Society (Spolek výtvarných umělců Mánes), it analyzes the society's discourse on national terms, such as “Czech art, ” “national art, ” and “nationalism.” The first section deals with a methodological problem of nationalism studies. In the past several decades, the constructivist paradigm has played an important role in nationalism studies. Recent studies, however, have criticized the limited view of the constructivist approach, which tends to describe the process of constructing the nation as developmental and linear. In contrast, recent scholars have focused on fluidity and failures of nationalism. The thesis of Tara Zahra proposing a theory of “national indifference” was produced in this context. She focused on how nationalist activists had tried to eliminate “indifference” to nationalism and explained one aspect of the history of nationalism as the conflict between the mobilization to nationalism and people's reaction to it. The critical point here is that she defined “national indifference” as phenomena or attitudes imagined by nationalists. In contrast, recent research concerning ambiguity toward the nation and its character tends to regard nationally ambiguous people themselves as comprising “national indifference.” In order to distinguish these two viewpoints, in this paper I define national indifference as the phenomenon regarded as “indifference” by nationalist activists and see actual attitudes that seem ambiguous or indifferent to the nation as “distance” from the nation. Based on this distinction, this paper shows why and how such distance from the nation was generated by the tension between the principle of the nation and artistic motivation by focusing on the case of the Mánes Society. The second section offers an overview of the Mánes Society and the art world in Prague at the turn of the century. The society partially carried on the heritage of the former generation which has been seen as representative of “national art.” This is obvious when looking at how the society had admired the painters Josef Mánes and Mikoláš Aleš, who inspired the society's name and served as its first president respectively. Therefore, the Mánes Society did not emerge as a counter-movement to the prior generation and its national orientation. At the same time, however, the society was eager to foster an international network. As is explained below, while learning from foreign artists was sometimes criticized from a national perspective, from the beginning, the character of the society could never be reduced to the dualism of national versus foreign.

Using the bulletin of the society, Free Directions (Volné směry), the third and the fourth sections clarify the perspective the society had on the issue of the nation and nationalism and how the concepts were produced. In the third section, the main topic is the conflict between the tendency to prioritize the nation in the contemporary art world in Prague and the modernist orientation. This was triggered by an article in the bulletin that criticized works by Prague architects for a lack of “their own character” while praising the method of the Viennese architect Otto Wagner. The circles of professional Prague architects countered with the argument that “national conditions” had imposed a duty on architects to maintain their own character, but they had to go beyond the national tendency to pursue modernity. This indicates that the architects understood “their own character” as Czech character. The editors of the bulletin adopted the stance of the architects. However, this does not mean they gave up pursuit of the Czech national character. They ended up conceiving the idea that truly original work would surely partake of the new national character. This means that while they never denied the value of the nation, they dismissed the presumption of what the national character was. They consciously distanced themselves from the principle of the nation. The fourth section focuses on opinions about how artistic institutions should be managed in Prague where Czech-speaking and German-speaking artists coexisted. When the project to establish a new public gallery in Prague was begun, the bulletin published some articles claiming that the gallery should not be divided ethnically. In addition, the society criticized the German artists who wanted the division and blamed the German attitude as expressing “nationalism.” It is not appropriate to consider the society's posture as ethical because the most important principle for the society was an artistic rather than ethical point of view. In fact, the reason for the society's criticism of German “nationalism” was their own prioritizing the ethnic viewpoint over the artistic. The case of the Mánes Society shows that an individual's motivation or interest sometimes consciously produces a distance from the nation that cannot be reduced to the dualist understanding of national and foreign. Focusing on how this distance can be created, we will be able to shed new light on a failure of nationalism and history of hidden agency of the people behind such a failure.