Szilágyi András (szerk.): Ars Decorativa 25. (Budapest, 2007)
Magda LICHNER: Early Works by Gyula Kaesz: His Designs for the Parish Church of St. Nicolas at Muraszombat /Murska Sobota
the Kaesz papers at the Hungarian Museum of Architecture we can find a similar design that is unsigned but probably from Kozma, although this sketch is for a light fitting of carved wood (illustration, HMA, Kaesz papers, no inventory number), while the artefact in Muraszombat is made from bronze. We can see a solution akin to that of the lamp brackets on a standard lamp in the January - February 1921 issue of the abovementioned periodical Inner-Dekora- tion, as part of another Kozma interior.21 Numerous sketches and draff sketches of the pieces survive, and the correspondence, too, attests to the careful manner of working and habits of thought of a specialist who was not above attending to details. On the basis of designs that had been accepted, Kaesz requested and received a detailed price offer from a studio working in bronze in Budapest’s Mester utca.22 In the end, because of urgency, price, delivery difficulties, and the state frontier, Károly Tratnik, a 5. Design of a chandelier. Archive of the Research Institute for Art History, Budapest 6. Scheme of a Holy Sepulchre. Archive of the Research Institute for Art History, Budapest local craftsman working in Maribor, executed the work, to detailed specifications naturally. The chandelier was made from gilded bronze. An explanation for the difference between the surviving design and the still- operational fitting can be found in the correspondence. In the sketch, the chandelier is envisaged as having sixteen arms, but in actuality it has twelve arms, in line with traditional iconography. The number of arms was probably changed because of a desire to simplify the wiring inside the chandelier. In the interest of equilibrium, a sphere was attached below the middle section of the artefact. Nevertheless, in spite of these alterations, the character of the chandelier as built is substantially the same as in the sketch.23 The exchange of letters three years later indicates that there were many problems. These sprang from the character of the building first and foremost. The presence of a font along with a large number of doors 127
