Gustav Klimt by Werner Hofmann (review)

Books 183 accompanyingeach piece points to the vast amount of effortthat went into the Catalogue’spreparation. Monochrome and colour reproductions of the majority of entries help one to form an impression of Pougny’s evolution from representationalismto abstractivism and back to representationalism. As one peruses this meticulous collection of facts one is struck by several circumstances: the very first monochrome in the list (No. 3), entitled ‘Interior at Kuokalla’ (19lo), associates itself immediately in techniques and composition with the kind of intgrieurs which Pougny would be painting during hisParisperiod; oneisstruckinturn by theemphasis on primitive colours and hieratic perspective in such works as ‘Walk in the Sun’ (1912, No. lo), which indicatethe artist’s affinitieswith the ‘Knave of Diamonds’ painters, especially with Konchalovsky ;again,somecanvasesof 1914remind one of Malevich‘sCubistendeavoursof the sameperiod and clear analogies can be seen between the Suprematist compositions of Pougny (such as Nos. 35 and 36)and those of Malevichor Klyunproduced at approximatelythe sametime. Thislast observation, in particular, increases Pougny’s stature, since according to reliable evidence Malevich began to paint Suprematistworksnot in 1913,aswasthought, but in 1915 and, therefore, Pougny emerges as a co-founder of the Suprematist school and not as a mere disciple of Malevich. The fact that Pougnywas ableto work in somany disciplinesand to serveeven as a directlink between the abstract painting of Malevich and the sculpture of Tatlin did not mean necessarily that he was imitative or derivative;on the contrary, this broad horizon demonstrated the energy that Pougny expendedin his search for an individualcredo. It is logical, therefore, that some of his most original pieces should have been produced just after his abstractivist compositions that, one can assume, were occasioned by the same set of criteria and circumstances that affected Malevich, Rozanova, Tatlin et al. Such works as ‘Baths’ (1915, No. 38), ‘Plate with Eggs’ (1917-1918, No. 46), ‘Relief with Plate’ (1919, No. 114) and ‘Red Violin’ (1919, No. 60), with their arresting combination of the rational and irrational, one might even say, the Occidental and the Oriental, are unmistakenly ‘Pougny’. In this respect, it is refreshingto discover that the more synthetic,although no less satisfying, Cubist works for which Pougny is known, such as the ‘Hairdresser’(1915, No. 33) and the ‘Musician’ (1921, No. 68),representonlyone minor part of his output. Pougny was also a decorative artist and, while Berningerand Cartier do present some details on his theatre and book designs, there are significant gaps. It is understandable, of course, that the authors would have chosen to regard such work as ‘bread-and-butter art’ (to paraphrase Malevich) but Pougny’s decorative and illustrative achievements , however casual, should have received a little more emphasis. The biographical section of the book is of secondary importance but it fulfills its function as a general background quite adequately. Much of it relies heavily on the recollections of the late Xana Boguslavskaya(Pougny’swidowandfellowmember oftheavant-garde)and,therefore,thereareoccasional lapses of memory and factual inaccuracies. A more general criticism in this context would be of the absence of detail concerningPougny’s administrative and pedagogical activities in Petrograd just after the Revolution but perhaps they will be touched on in a concluding chapter of the second volume. The perfectionist attitude that underlies the careful organization and tasteful design of this de Zuxe limited edition of 1200 copies is one that would have appealed to Pougny’s own aesthetic sense. Inthiswaythebook actsnot onlyasamethod of communication between artist and historian but also as a pertinent tribute to Pougny’s creative achievement. Gustav Klimt. Werner Hofmann. Inge Goodwin, tr. Studio Vista, London, 1971. 120 pp., illus. g10.50. Reviewed by: Ethel Schwabacher” In the opening section of this handsomely produced book Hofmann states that he did not intend to write of Klimt purely in an art critic’s sense but that his primary concern was with the problem of the artist in society. He intended, as he says, to show that Klimt was the most notable exponent of an elitist bourgeois art culture in his time. Fortunately, he also gives one an understanding of Klimt as an artist. His insights are presented chiefly through the somewhat cantankerous commentsof twoViennesewriters:AdolphLoos,inwhose Ornament and Crime (Vienna, 1908)the...