Gosztonyi Ferenc szerk.: Munkácsy a nagyvilágban (A Magyar Nemzeti Galéria kiadványai 2005/1)

I. TANULMÁNYOK - FEJEZETEK A MUNKÁCSY-RECEPCIÓBÓL - GOSZTONYI Ferenc: A magyar modernizmus Munkácsy-monográfiája. Feleky Géza: Munkácsy (1913)

Feleky törekvése hatástörténetilcg „sikertelennek" bizonyult, javaslatai ellenére a Munkácsy-recepció hazai története az akadémizmus—impresszionizmus ellentéte mentén bonyolódott tovább. (72. kép) Kiállításunk témája: Munkácsy a nagyvilágban; annyi biztos, hogy Munkácsy a Felekynél javasoltnál távolabbra Magyarországtól — Gauguin mellé Tahitira —, sohasem került. De nem akarok ironizálni. Feleky 1913-as kis könyve időrendben az első, komoly kísérlet Munkácsy művészetének újraértékelésére: legalább annyira ön-, mint korjellemző nyitánya a Munkácsy-kérdés 1900 uráni magyarországi történetének; továbbá — véleményem szerint — az interpretációs ötletekkel, újragondolásokkal igen takarékosan és módjával élő magyar művészet(történet)i irodalom egyik legeredetibb, legszellemesebb teljesítménye: radikálisan korszerű mű. of Munkácsy's art. He was bitterly disappointed to discover that Munkácsy, who had been buried as an adversary of Impressionism, was resurrected as "one of the forerunners of Impressionism" after the great Munkácsy exhibition held in 1914 in the Ernsr Museum.'

2 In actual fact, Munkácsy's reassessment went exactly the other way than Feleky had hoped for. After the first "retrial", this necessitated a second (successful) one, "which, after the rehabilitation of Munkácsy the landscapist and the sketchcr, would also rehabilitate Munkácsy the painter of great compositions."

1

'

2 Feleky believed that not only the interpretation of the great compositions, but also the interpretation of the sketches demanded this latest reassessment, since as long as there had been two Munkácsys ar loggerheads: one represenred by rhe sketches (i.e. the alleged préimpression ist painter) and one represented by the compositions (i.e. the so-called Academic painter), the very essence remains unsolved: the Munkácsy problem itself. We must bear in mind thai "it was Munkácsy's grearness that separated him from the Impressionists, and not that, which connected them," he repeated one of the fundamental tenets of his 1913 monograph in 1

921.

94 Feleky "failed" m his ultimate endeavour: against the course he had recommended, the Hungarian reception history of Munkácsy's art continued to evolve along the lines of Academism versus Impressionism. (Ill 72) The central theme of our exhibition is "Munkácsy in the world". One thing is certain: Munkácsy has never ventured as far beyond Hungary's borders as Feleky would have liked it — to be with Gauguin on Tahiti. But I do not want to be ironic. Feleky's book in 1

913 was chronologically the first serious attempt to reassess Munkácsy's art: it was an overture m the post-1900 history of the Munkácsy problem in Hungary, which provided a reflecrion both on the author himself and on the age; it was also one of the most original and most ingenious accomplishments m Hungarian art (historical) writing, a field that has, m my opinion, always been slow in disseminating fresh interpretations and radical rerhinking. Feleky's book is a radically up to date work. Translated by Ervin Dunay and Zsuzsa Gábor