The Charity and the Poverty

At the end of the middle Ages, financial savings institutions developed, largely in response to the increasingly usurious money-lending practices of the Jews and to the adaptation of church authorities to the by then well developed commercial and financial operations. It was the Franciscan Order that took the initiative to develop such institutions, first in Italy and later in other western European Mediterranean towns. These were the so-called Monte di Pieta, which lent money at low rates of interest taking objects in pawn as security. However, as they had to operate with circulating capital and on the principles of savings banks, they may be considered to be the predecessors of modern banks. Although charity was declared in the very names of these institutions, this was no longer in the sense of the medieval mercy towards the virtuous poor, but more a support for impoverished members of higher social strata, as loan applicants had to place valuable movable property in pawn, meaning that they first had to possess such property. In spite of this, the institutions had the character of the primeval accumulation of capital, although not so much for individuals as for a community or, in the latter's name, for a commune, i.e. the local authority, which at least in the cases of Koper and Piran was also the founder. However, the stagnation of trade with the hinterland and the decline in the economic power of the Venetian Republic, particularly in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, pushed pawnshops into a more miserable existence, with ups and downs linked with the irregularities of profit-making on behalf of the institution, particularly by its clerks.

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.