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

After 1919, it was thanks to Gyöngyi that Kaesz could teach at the School of Applied Arts. (Because of his role during the communist Republic of Councils period, Kaesz secured a permanent post there only in 1932.) AMAA Kit.: 2459-2460 and 2860.

12 Cf. Magyar Iparművészet 1918, pp. 32-44. The original drawings, to be found in the Kaesz papers at the Hungarian Museum of Architecture, are published in Kiss: Kaesz Gyula..., p. 38. Letchworth Garden City, designed by Raymond Unwin and others, and the British architectural style represented by C. F. A. Voysey and Edwin Lutyens influenced the thinking of the Gödöllő Artists’ Colony in Hungary. They were models for young Hungarian architects even in the 1910s.

13 Kozma headed the Budapest Studio until 1919 (see his autobiography), but between 1914 and 1918 he was in the artillery and saw frontline service. See the document attesting to this. MDK-C-I-32/ Koz- ma’s Lapis Refugii plans are published in Magyar Iparművészet 1908, pp. 134-135. See Koós, Judith: Kozma Lajos munkássága [The Work of Lajos Kozma], Budapest, 1975, p. 189. Éva Kiss holds that parallels with the work of Dagobert Peche (1887-1923) can be detected in Kozma’s output (Kiss: Kaesz Gyula..., p. 10). For the latest on Peche’s work see Noever, Peter (ed.): Dagobert Peche and the Wiener Werkstatte. New York: Yale U. P., 2002.

14 ‘Neue Arbeiten der “Budapester Werkstatte” unter Leitung von Ludwig Kozma’. In: Innen-Deko- ration XXXII. 1921, Jan.-Feb. issue, pp. 43-57. In the same volume in order of the mention of names: Innen-Dekoration 1921. pp. 108, 119, 21, 66, 73, 75, 137-140, 143-148, 177, 200-202, 360-366.

15 In 1919, the Association of Hungarian Engineers and Architects elected Gyula Kaesz a full member. AMAA Kit.: 3015 and Kit.: 2284-85 (Gyula Kaesz’s letter of resignation to Tivadar Kocsis, 1920).

16 MHA Kaesz papers 70.022. 30-37 and 70.022. 1-29.

17 Design competition for the town of Gyöngyös, second prize and purchase documentation AMAA Kit: 2459.2 and 2460.1. MHA 70.022.244 and 70.022.343, Magyar Iparművészet 1918, pp. 1-2.

18 MHA 70.022.334, 70.022.338, 70.022.322-323

19 For Csányi’s teaching, see AMAA 77/1921and 117/1922. To begin with, Kaesz corresponded with Dr. Mihály Skrilecz, a physician and member of the

parish board; it was he, Skrilecz, who makes reference to Csányi’s recommendation. It was with Skrilecz that Kaesz agreed the fee for the design work: 800 pengős. MDK-C-I-32/1667-69, letters dated 16 July and 28 August 1927. Afterwards it was with the senior member of the parish laity that Kaesz maintained contact.

20 The correspondence and enclosures from 1927 to 1933 are kept in the Archive of the Research Institute for Art History of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences: MDK-C-I-32/1623-1678.

21 Republished: ‘Neoreneszánsz palota a Szabadság téren, Branczik Márta a Budapesti Műhelyről’ [Neo-Renaissance Palace on Szabadság tér. Márta Branczik on the Budapest Studio]. Budapest: Inter- Európa Bank, 2006, pp. 50-51. The standard lamp was published photographically as a supplement to an article by Géza Lengyel beginning on page 48 in the abovementioned number of Innen-Dekoration.

22 The price offer of the ‘Shaku-do’ studio covery all the artefacts made from bronze (chased, polished and gilded): 1 approximately 200-kg, 12-arm chandelier, 20 single-arm lamp-brackets and 2 twin-arm lamps brackets, a sanctuary lamp, 4 candelabras, and 12 candlesticks for 7840 pengős, 20 per cent of which was for the gilding. MDK-CT-32/1664.1-2 and 1672.1-2.

23 I am grateful to Janez Balazic for supplying the photographs.

24 MDK-C-I-32

25 MDK-CT-32/1625-1-2. According to the recorded delivery acceptance slip, it was posted on 7 January 1932.

26 CLAM Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne. Its executive committee was CIRPAC Comité International pour la Réalisation des Problèmes d’Architecture Contemporaine. On this topic, see Eszter Gábor: A CIAM magyar csoportja 1928- 1938 [The Hungarian group of CIAM, 1928-1938], Budapest, 1972.

27 Gyula Kaesz: Iparművészet és iparművészeti nevelés [Applied arts and applied arts education]. K. L. /Lajos Kozma/: Ipar és művészet [Industry and art]. Tér és Forma 1930.12. 541-556. Dénes Györgyi: Az O. M. K. Iparművészeti Iskola építészeti szakoktatása [ Architectural education at the Hungarian School of Applied Arts], Tér és Forma January 1931, 59 ff.

131