Bakos Katalin - Manicka Anna szerk.: Párbeszéd fekete-fehérben, Lengyel és magyar grafika 1918–1939 (MNG, Warszawa–Budapest, 2009)
II. HÁROM SZÓLAMBAN A LENGYEL ÉS MAGYAR MŰVÉSZETRŐL, MŰVÉSZETTÖRTÉNETRŐL ÉS TÖRTÉNELEMRŐL - Tokai Gábor: Lengyelország és Magyarország művészeti kapcsolatai a két világháború között
Treter, 16 with a brief review of post-war art as well. Though omitted from the exhibition, the Blok and Praesens groups rallying abstract artists were mentioned in the essay while about the later-day representatives of naturalism and realism Treter remarked that they had no considerable role in contemporary art life. Since the target audience of this exhibition was specifically Hungarian, these notes of the catalogue - and the selection on display itself - can be conceived as covert criticism of previous year's Hungarian exhibition. Apropos of the exhibition, Magyar Művészet devoted a separate issue to Polish art written by Polish authors. 17 19-20th-century painting was also surveyed by Mieczysław Treter in a far broader perspective. The exhibition was reviewed in the conservative periodical Képzőművészet by Miklós Kallay. 18 In his view, the new Polish exhibition was a logical step after the representative showing of graphic art. He laid stress on the national character of Polish art and praised the artists for not having severed contact with nature. He mentioned the artists of the Rytm group by name from among the basically modern exhibitors. The exhibitions of the 1920s were staged in a political-cultural void, and although the organizers aimed to rekindle the traditional friendship between the two nations, the relations were interrupted until the mid-'30s when events provided grounds again to stage mutual showings. The overture was a retrospective exhibition as a result of the cooperation of the leading museums of the two countries. In December 1936 a Polish exhibition opened in the Museum of Fine Arts in Budapest built on drawings by two leading 19th-century artists as the backbone: works by Jan Matejko from the National Museum of Cracow and a chalk drawing series by Artur Grottger from the collection of the Museum of Fine Arts. 19 The introduction of the catalogue was written about Matejko by Feliks Kopera. 20 A brief review appeared in Művészet by Árpád Erdélyi. 21 The reviewer saw as the main asset of the exhibition that it complemented the showing of 1928 but expressed regret that our foreign artistic contacts "are not governed by artistic but mainly by political viewpoints" - a remark that is appropriate for the latter exhibition, because it was the outcome of the visit of Polish premier Kościałkowski, similarly to the earlier representative album. A decade after the former representative Polish exhibition, Warsaw-based TOSSPO brought a new show to Budapest in April 1938, housed by the Kunsthalle. 22 The preface was again written by Mieczysław Treter. 23 This time, too, Magyar Művészet devoted a separate section to Polish art, now written by Hungarians. 24 Tibor Gerevich's introduction to Polish sculpture is exemplary: well informed, thorough and essentialist. István Genthon's brief writing described contemporary Polish graphic art - more precisely, folklore-inspired woodcuts-appropriately, though only summarily and in general, without touching on particular artists. The express aim of Imre Oltványi-Artinger's essay - also without names - was to enlighten the character of Polish art, but instead, it rested content with platitudes, as the following quotation reveals: "Polish and Hungarian arts display a wonderful kinship. This kinship is not only embedded in several identical traits of the two peoples' mental frame - aristocratic dignity, chivalry, patriotism, national pride [...], but Polish history, and even the history of Polish art, show startling resemblances to ours." Perhaps the intention of Béla Kende's review for Művészet 2 ^ was also to satisfy the official expectations by stringing up the individual Polish artists on a comparison with Hungarian artists. Naturally enough, such comparisons may have their justification, but frequently cited analogies from universal art only helped the author avoid the tougher job of in-depth analysis. The representative Hungarian exhibitions in Poland were also closely related to the Polish presentations in Hungary. At the vernissage of the Polish graphic exhibition in 1926 I. S. Michałowski, Polish ambassador to Budapest and minister plenipotentiary conveyed to governor Miklós Horthy the invitation of the Polish government. 26 As a result of the invitation, the Art Council organized a representative exhibition for three successive venues in 1927: Warsaw from April 2 (four weeks), Poznań from May 21 (2 weeks) and Cracow from June 9 (also for 2 weeks). 27 In the bilingual Polish and French catalogue of the exhibition Ervin Ybl wrote about the development of Hungarian art. 28 About the exhibition and its press coverage, Béla Déry, government commissioner of the exhibition
