Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T06:48:38.173Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Invented Traditions: Primitivist Narrative and Design in the Polish Fin de Siècle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Edward Manouelian
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Around 1900, Poland saw the outgrowth of a nativist primitivism, one that consciously redefined the periphery as a site of cultural resistance. Primitivism, as Colin Rhodes points out, “does not designate an organized group of artists, or even an identifiable style arising at a particular historical moment, but rather brings together artists’ various reactions to ideas of the primitive.” Within the subject ethnicities of central Europe at the turn of the century, “ideas of the primitive” that were taking shape in the then stillemerging discipline of anthropology were influencing various constructions of national and regional identity. The nationalist imperative of the new discipline was emphasized by Jan Karlowicz, who, writing in 1906, argued that “a people certain of its own existence may calmly study its own folklore from a purely scientific point of view. Tribes deprived of their independence and living in endless fear of suppression and decay, however, must, while reflecting upon the nature and conditions of folkloric tradition, consider practical questions as part of such inquiries. For whenever reference is made to national peculiarities and attributes, there constantly arises the question: to be or not to be.” Karlowicz's remarks point toward a deeply subjective primitivist discourse whose articulations, in critical writing about the applied arts as well as literary representations of rural popular culture, form part of what Eric Hobsbawm terms the “invention of tradition.”

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 59 , Issue 2 , Summer 2000 , pp. 391 - 405
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

I would like to thank the anonymous Slavic Review referees for their valuable comments on an earlier version of this article, as well as Jacqueline Glomski and Anna Barariczak for their patient help with various stages of research that inform it. Unless otherwise noted, all translations are my own.

1. Rhodes, Colin, Primitivism and Modern Art (London, 1994), 7.Google Scholar

2. Karlowicz as cited in Kapelus, Helena and Krzyzanowski, Julian, eds., Dzieje. folklorystykipolskiej 1864-1918 (Warsaw, 1982), 256.Google Scholar

3. See Hobsbawm, Eric, “Introduction,” in Hobsbawm, Eric and Ranger, Terence, eds., The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge, Eng., 1983), 1–14 Google Scholar.

4. See Knapp, James, “Irish Primitivism and Imperial Discourse: Lady Gregory's Peasantry,“ in Arac, Jonathan and Ritvo, Harriet, eds., Macropolitics of Nineteenth-Century Literature: Nationalism, Exoticism, Imperialism (Philadelphia, 1991)Google Scholar, and “Gaelic League,” in Robert Welch, ed., The Oxford Companion to Irish Literature (Oxford, 1996), 208-9.

5. Odarchenko, P., “Ethnography,” in Kubijovic, Volodymyr, ed., Encyclopedia of Ukraine (Toronto, 1984), 838-41.Google Scholar

6. Bhabha, Homi K., The Location of Culture (London, 1994), 145.Google Scholar

7. Stecki, Konstanty, “Poczatki kolekcjonerctwa na Podhalu,” Lud 53 (1969): 235-36Google Scholar.

8. Ibid.

9. As quoted in Zbigniew Mozdzierz, “Koncepcja stylu narodowego Slanislawa Witkiewicza i jej realizacja,” in Zbigniew Mozdzierz, ed., Stanislaw Witkiewicz: Czloiuiek—Artysla—Mysliciel (Zakopane, 1997), 310.

10. Milobdzki, Adam, “Architecture in Wood: Technology, Symbolic Content, Art,“ Artilms e.l Historiae 10, no. 19 (1989): 200–204 Google Scholar.

11. Mozdzierz, Zbigniew, “Styl zakopiariski w architekturze,” Roszkowski, injerzy, ed., Regionalizm—liegiony—Podhale (Zakopane, 1995), 31–33.Google Scholar

12. Stanislaw Eljasz-Radzikowski, “Styl zakopianski,” Lud 6, no. 6 (1900): 174.

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid., 175.

15. Tylor, Edward, Primitive Culture (London, 1920), 21.Google Scholar

16. Eljasz-Radzikowski, “Styl zakopianski,” 186-87.

17. Goldwater, Robert, Primitivism in Modern Art (Cambridge, Mass., 1986), 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18. Matlakowski, Wladyslaw, Zdobienie i sprzet ludu polskiego na Podhalu (Warsaw, 1901), 32.Google Scholar

19. Ibid., 40.

20. Witort, Jan, “Filozofia pierwotna. (Animizm.),” Lud 6, no. 1 (1900): 17–18.Google Scholar

21. Kolbuszewski, Seejacek, “ Na Skalnym Podhalu Kazimierza Tetmajera: Proba nowego odczytania,“in Kolbuszewski, Jacek,ed., Gory—literatura—kultura (Wroclaw, 1996), 105-6.Google Scholar

22. Tetmajer, Kazimierz, Na Skalnym Podhalu (Krakow, 1914), vi.Google Scholar

23. Lorentowicz, Jan, “Kaziemierz Tetmajer (W dwudziestopieciolecie tworczosci poetyckiej),“ Sfinks 5, no. 17(1912): 12–13 Google Scholar. Emphasis in the original.

24. Tatarowski, Leslaw, Ludoxvosc w literaturze Mlodej Polski (Wroclaw, 1991), 211.Google Scholar

25. Tetmajer, Na Skalnym Podhalu, 245.

26. Rybakov, B. A., Iazychestva drevnikh slavian (Moscow, 1994), 108.Google Scholar

27. See, for example.James Frazer's discussion of bear sacrifice among the Ainu of Sakhalin and the Gilyak of the Amur River valley: The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion (New York, 1922), 585-600. E. A. Alekseenko cites prerevoliitionary Russian accounts of the bear cult among the Ket (vicinity of the Enisei River): “Kul't medvedia u Ketov,” in Baiburin, A. K., Girenko, N. M., and Chistov, K. V., eds., Kunstkarnera (Muzei antropologii i elnografii im. Petra Velikogo): Izbrannyestat'i (St. Petersburg, 1995), 60–62.Google Scholar

28. Ludwik Krzywicki, “Rola zwierza.t w pojeciu pierwotnej umyslosci,” Wisla, 1893, no. 7:246.

29. Tetmajer, Na Skalnym Podhalu, 245.

30. Ibid., 246.

31. Ibid., 247.

32. Ibid., 123.

33. Benjamin, Walter, “The Storyteller: Reflections on the Works of Nikolai Leskov,“ Illuminations (New York, 1968), 91.Google Scholar

34. Tetmajer, Na Skalnym Podhalu, 121.

35. Teresa Karwicka, “The Possibilities of Reconstruction of the Beliefs of Ancient Slavs on the Basis of Ethnographic Data,” Etlmologia Polonn 12 (1986): 146. See also K. Dobrowolski, “Studia nad teoria. kultury ludowej,“Ethnografia Polska 4 (1961): 15-92.

36. Tetmajer, Na Skalnym Podhalu, 122.

37. Karwicka, “The Possibilities of Reconstruction,” 146.

38. Tetmajer, Na Skalnym Podhalu, 120.

39. Ibid., 121.

40. Ibid., 117.

41. Pan first appeared in Polish on the pages of the journal Czas (Time) in 1900. It was published in book form in 1902 and republished frequently thereafter (in 1903, 1911, and 1912 in the prewar period alone). See Marian Lewko, “Zgruchotana wielkosc: Wokol teatru Knuta Hamsuna,” Roczniki Humanistycine 29, no. 5 (1981): 5-9.

42. Hamsun, Knut, Pan: From Lieutenant Thomas Glahn's papers, trans. McFarlane, James W. (London, 1955), 121.Google Scholar

43. Ibid., 123. And slightly further on, the following passage: “Again some minutes pass. I turn my head, the strangely heavy air ebbs away and I see something like the back of a spirit who wanders soundlessly through the forest” (128).

44. Tetmajer, Na Skalnym Podhalu, 441.

45. Benjamin, “The Storyteller,” 87.