The Work and Workshop of the Master of the Rajhrad Altarpiece

The main aim of this project was to verify the possibility raised in the publication of new archival data in 1980 that the group of panel paintings attributed to the Master of the Rajhrad Altarpiece and his workshop were not created before 1420, as earlier academic opinion held, but in fact only around 1450. It included a detailed analysis of the 21 panels forming the group, including infrared reflectography research. This helped identify the highly personal underdrawing style of the "Rajhrad Master" as common to all the panels in the group, proving that they really form a coherent whole. Questions of the painter's education and the nature of Bohemian society around 1450 were also considered, as. Bartlova felt these had been neglected in earlier studies. She concludes that the Master studied in Prague in the late 1430s and then continued studying in Vienna and Munich from 1440. The new dating of the group of panels connected with this anonymous master and his workshop throws new light on Bohemian artistic production during the late Hussite period (c.1430-c.1470). It was generally thought that artistic activity moved out of Prague after the outbreak of the Hussite wars in the 1420s, but this research revealed considerable activity there throughout the period. Numerous painters listed in the Book of the Prague Painters' Guild for this period can now be linked with extant panels, although most of these have survived outside Prague, principally in South Bohemia. These findings have broad implications for studies of Bohemian art in this period.

The Institutional Framework around Successful Art Forms in Communist Czechoslovakia

Mr. Michl posed the question of how the institutional framework that the former communist regime set up around art production contributed to the success of Czech applied arts. In his theoretical review of the question he discussed the reasons for the lack of success of socialist industrial design as opposed to what he terms pre-industrial arts (such as art glass), and also for the current lack of interest into art institutions of the past regime. His findings in the second, historical section of his work were based largely on interviews with artists and other insiders, as an initial attempt to use questionnaires was unsuccessful. His original assumption that the institutional framework was imposed on artists against their will in fact proved mistaken, as it turned out to have been proposed by the artists themselves. The basic blueprint for communist art institutions was the Memorandum document published on behalf of Czechoslovak visual artists in March 1947, i.e. before the communist coup of February 1948. Thus, while the communist state provided a beneficial institutional framework for artists' work, it was the artists themselves who designed this framework. Mr. Michl concludes that the text of the memorandum appealed to the general left-wing and anti-market sentiments of the immediate post-war period and by this and by later working through the administrative channels of the new state, the artists succeeded in gaining all of their demands over the next 15 years. The one exception was artistic freedom, although this they came to enjoy, if only by default and for a short time, during the ideological thaw of the 1960s. Mr. Michl also examined the art-related legislative framework in detail and looked at the main features of key art institutions in the field, such as the Czech Fund for Visual Arts and the 1960s art export enterprise Art Centrum, which opened the doors into foreign markets for artists.