[spectre] REV-CONF: V. International forum for PhD research on Eastern Europe

[Andreas Broeckmann]

From: Basan Kuberlinov <bkuberlinov at gmail.com>
Date: Nov 22, 2018
Subject: REV-CONF: V. Internationales Doktorandenforum Kunstgeschichte 
des oestlichen Europas

Berlin, Humboldt University, May 04, 2018

Report by Basan Kuberlinov, Department of Art And Visual History at 
Humboldt University in Berlin

Review by Basan Kuberlinov (on behalf of the organizers)

V. Internationales Doktorandenforum Kunstgeschichte des östlichen 
Europas / V International Forum for Doctoral Candidates in East European 
Art History, 4 May 2018, Chair of Art History of Eastern and East 
Central Europe, Humboldt University, Berlin.

In May 2018, the Chair of Art History of Eastern Europe at Humboldt 
University in Berlin organized the Fifth International Forum for 
Doctoral Candidates in East European Art History. Around sixty young 
scholars from all over the world participated in vigorous discussions on 
subjects related to the Art History of Eastern Europe. As in previous 
years, the forum was composed of four sections with two twenty-minute 
presentations each and one section of short three-minute presentations. 
Thus, in addition to the eight main speakers, all participants were 
given an opportunity to present their subject, research question and 
methodological approach.

The talks delivered, as well as the papers submitted, which were 
published on the forum’s website,[1] demonstrated a wide spectrum of 
topics ranging from art-patronage and the migration of images between 
different media to the relationship between nationalism and art and 
architecture. Thus, as in the last year, predominant interest still lay 
on the social and political role of art and architecture. In considering 
this role, detailed investigations into the conditions of creation and 
perception of art and architecture in the given region stood in the 
foreground. This was reflected in the prevailing methodology, which 
focused on archival research and the social agency of art.

The studies presented dealt for the most part with artistic and 
architectural objects located at the geographical peripheries as well as 
at the medial margins of the common research area. Among them were 
border markers and welcome signs built at the entrances to counties and 
cities of Soviet Romania, textiles of Soviet Kazakhstan, contemporary 
art from the post-Soviet republics of Central Asia as well as 
18th-century portraits and churches of the Serbian minority, which had 
an aristocratic status in the Habsburg Empire.

In regard to historical periods, the studies spanned the 18th to 20th 
centuries. The 18th century functioned as the framework of the first 
section, which began with a lecture given by Zalina Tetermazova 
(Moscow). Tetermazova presented a study on the relationship between 
Russian portrait paintings and their reproductions titled “Image 
‘Reflections’: the Question of Relationship between Russian Portrait 
Painting and Engraving in the Second Half of the 18th Century.” In her 
consideration of this relationship, Tetermazova showed how E.P. 
Chemesov, D.G. Gerasimov, G.I. Skorodumov and other Russian printmakers 
applied different printing techniques and framing elements to modify 
their reproductions. In contrast to their painted originals, these 
images were framed with architectural and ornamental motifs, 
inscriptions, signatures, emblems and symbols. In conclusion, 
Tetermazova argued that the analysis of these engraved frames allows us 
to better understand the way contemporaries perceived Russian portrait 
paintings of the 18th century.

The following presentation, “Politics of visual Representation and 
Habsburg noblemen of Serbian ethnic origin in the 18th Century,” was 
delivered by Aleksandra Čelovski (Belgrade). Based on archival research, 
Čelovski’s study focused on the art and architecture produced by the 
Serbian minority in the Habsburg Empire, which had received aristocratic 
status. After describing the social structure of this minority and their 
place at the bottom of the hierarchical pyramid of Habsburg nobility, 
Čelovski considered the portraits of these noblemen, which applied 
aristocratic iconography, as well as palaces and churches commissioned 
by them. With these portraits, palaces and churches, the Serbian 
minority aimed to affirm their nobility by adopting the baroque cultural 
model of Habsburg Monarchy.

The two lectures of the next section, “The national imagination of 
post-Soviet countries at the Venice Biennale. The (re)construction of 
national identity” by Ekaterina Vingradova and “Photogrammetry in the 
network of politics and entrepreneurship.  Albrecht Meydenbauer in the 
Province of Posen in 1885 and 1887” by Ewelina Wojdak (Poznań), focused 
on the question of national identity and the institutionalisation of art 
and architecture. The latter presented her research on the relationship 
between the preservation of monuments and the identity politics of 
nationalism in Prussian Poland in the late 19th century. In her study, 
Wojdak proposed to deconstruct this relationship by investigating the 
negotiation between Prussian politicians and the construction engineer 
and founder of photogrammetry, Albrecht Meydenbaur. Meydenbauer asked 
politicians for financial support to use photogrammetry to document the 
chapel of St. Prokop in Strzelno and the church of Blessed Virgin Mary 
in Inowrocław. In his argumentation, Albrecht Meydenbaur referred to the 
importance of protecting national heritage in order to convince the 
politicians. Thereby Wojdak showed how the idea of the “national” was 
instrumentalized to propagate photogrammetry, revealing the complexity 
of the relationship between the preservation of monuments and the 
identity politics of nationalism.

The presentation given by Ekaterina Vinogradova (Grenoble/St. 
Petersburg) dealt with the works of contemporary artists from the 
post-Soviet republics including Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, 
Uzbekistan, Tadzhikistan and others exhibited at the Venice Biennale. 
Interestingly, many of these artists were “non-official” during Soviet 
times. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, these “non-official” 
artists were chosen to represent their countries at the Biennale. The 
subject of their work was usually taken from the traditional culture of 
their countries, suggesting the desire of the young independent states 
to strengthen their national identity. Thus, these artists became in a 
sense “official.”

After the presentation of Ekaterina Vinogradova, the forum took a turn 
towards the Soviet past. Roberta Curcă (Bucharest) gave a lecture on the 
monumental welcome signs and border markers built at the entrances to 
different counties and cities in Romania in the 1970s. Curcă considered 
their construction history and functionality and showed how these 
welcome signs and border markers were built during the administrative 
restructuring of the country to represent the local culture of the 
cities and counties, enforcing the separation and differentiation 
between them. Furthermore, Roberta Curcă compared the border markers and 
welcome signs constructed in Romania to those built in other countries 
of the Soviet Union, revealing their formal homogeneity determined by a 
common Communist aesthetics. Finally, she presented the manual for the 
design of welcome signs and border markers developed in South Africa, 
which treats them as art. Curcă used this manual to analyze the design 
of the Romanian border markers and welcome signs, raising questions 
about their cultural significance.

The next talk broadened the perspective on Soviet arts. Christinna 
Bonnin (MIT Boston) discussed the history of craft in the Soviet Union 
between 1917 and 1975 focusing on three decisive shifts: 1.) the debate 
about the creation of socialist modes of production in the 1920s; 2.) 
industrialization in the 1930s, including the elimination of certain 
types of handwork; and 3.) the revival of handcraft following the 
development of a tourist industry in Soviet Central Asia in the 1950s to 
1960s. The speaker analyzed these shifts using examples from the work of 
the Former Imperial Porcelain Manufactory, which turned into an artistic 
laboratory in the 1920s, as well as the mass production of textiles at 
the Trekhgornaya and Krasnaya Rosa textile factories in the 1930s, and 
the handmade textiles of a modernist group of young Kazakh artists in 
the 1960s. Following this storyline, Bonnin traced the change of ideas 
about handcraft and its binary relationship to industrial mass 
production in the Soviet Union, revealing Soviet craft as a result of 
the synthesis between traditional forms of Russian and Kazakh 
craftsmanship and capitalist socioeconomic models.

The next lecture, “How German was the Polish ‘French Century’? Artistic 
Transfers between Paris and Warsaw 1730–1810,” delivered by Konrad 
Niemira (Warsaw/Paris), offered an interdisciplinary approach to the 
investigation of artistic transfers between France and Poland in the age 
of Enlightenment at the intersection of art history, social history and 
sociology of art. In his investigation, Niemira focused not only on the 
transfer of art objects and the migration of artists, but also on the 
role of the different mediators including agents, amateurs and bankers 
involved in the art market. As a result, he reconstructed the exchange 
network between France and Poland, elucidating the great influence of 
the German art market on these artistic transfers. This influence framed 
the Polish reception of French art and culture in the 18th century.

The forum ended with Liisa Kaljula’s (Tallinn) presentation on “Estonian 
Sots Art! Reflection of the Soviet Modernity in Estonian Art under Late 
Socialism.” Sots Art was an artistic practice based on the 
re-appropriation of images from Socialist Realism and Soviet visual 
culture, which thrived in the Soviet Union in the 1960s to 1980s. 
Although Sots Art is commonly associated with the Moscow art scene, its 
different forms were also developed in other Soviet republics and 
Socialist countries of Eastern Europe. Following this line of argument, 
Liisa Kaljula presented the works of an Estonian art group called 
“SOUP’69,” which was active in the 1970s to 1980s. The members of the 
group adopted the principles of Pop Art using images from Soviet visual 
culture to create collages, prints, paintings and readymade objects. 
Thus, they founded a unique example of Estonian Soviet Pop or Union Pop. 
Considering their art works, Kaljula explained that although Estonian 
Soviet Pop shared the aspiration of Sots Art to analyze the 
aesthetically expressed political will to power embedded in the images 
of Soviet visual culture, its approach was nevertheless different. 
Whereas Sots Art was mainly deconstructive towards Soviet visual 
culture, the members of “Soup’ 69” treated it in an unbiased way. Thus, 
Liisa Kaljula proposed revisiting Estonian Soviet Pop and scrutinizing 
its relationship to Western Pop Art and Soviet Sots Art.

After the conference, the discussions continued in the informal setting 
of the reception at the DAAD Gallery in Berlin, where the participants 
also enjoyed the exhibition “a straight line through the carcass of 
history. 1918-1945. 2015-2018” of the Ghanaian visual artist Ibrahim Mahama.

To conclude, this year, the Doctoral Forum demonstrated, once again, a 
broad assortment of subjects related to the Art History of Eastern 
Europe. It offered a unique platform for discussions and promoted 
connections among young scholars.

Notes:
[1] 
http://www.kunstgeschichte.hu-berlin.de/institut/lehrstuehle/lehrstuhl-fuer-kunstgeschichte-osteuropas/internationales-doktorandenforum/2018-internationales-doktorandenforum/

Editor: Lee Chichester

Recommended Citation / Empfohlene Zitation:
Basan Kuberlinov: [Conference Report of:] V. Internationales 
Doktorandenforum Kunstgeschichte des östlichen Europas (Berlin, Humboldt 
University, May 04, 2018). In: ArtHist.net, Nov 22, 2018. 
<https://arthist.net/reviews/19388>.
____________________________________________________________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons 
Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 International License. 
For the conditions under which you may distribute, copy and transmit the 
work, please go to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
In review matters please contact: editors at arthist.net
Falls Sie Ausstellungen, Bücher oder Tagungen für ArtHist.net besprechen 
oder hierfür Vorschläge unterbreiten möchten, schreiben Sie bitte an: 
editors at arthist.net