Michał Wenderski - Cultural Mobility in The Interwar Avant-Garde Art Network - Poland, Belgium and The Netherlands

Cultural Mobility in the Interwar
Avant-Garde Art Network
This book explores the issue of cultural mobility within the interwar network of the
European avant-garde, focusing on selected writers, artists, architects, magazines
and groups from Poland, Belgium and the Netherlands. Regardless of their apparent
linguistic, cultural and geographical remoteness, their mutual exchange and relationships
were both deep and broad, and of great importance for the wider development of
interwar avant-garde literature, art and architecture. This analysis is based on a
vast research corpus encompassing original, often previously overlooked periodicals,
publications and correspondence gathered from archives around the world.
Michał Wenderski, PhD, is an architect, translator and scholar of modern Dutch

literature specialising in the history of European interwar avant-garde. He currently
works at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland.
Henryk Stażewski, cover design for Grafika 4 from 1931 (detail; Ryszard Cichy
Collection) and Theo van Doesburg, Compositie XX from 1920 (detail; © Museo
Nacional Thyssen-Bornemisza, Madrid)
Routledge Research in Art History
Routledge Research in Art History is our home for the latest scholarship in the field of
art history. The series publishes research monographs and edited collections, covering
areas including art history, theory, and visual culture. These high-level books focus on
art and artists from around the world and from a multitude of time periods. By mak-
ing these studies available to the worldwide academic community, the series aims to
promote quality art history research.
The Société des Trois in the Nineteenth Century

The Translocal Artistic Union of Whistler, Fantin-Latour, and Legros
Melissa Berry
Raymond Jonson and the Spiritual in Modernist and Abstract Painting

Herbert R. Hartel, Jr.
Radical Marble
Architecture and Innovation from Antiquity to the Present
Edited by J. Nicholas Napoli and William Tronzo
Pop Art and Popular Music

Jukebox Modernism
Melissa Mednicov
Globalizing East European Art Histories

Past and Present
Edited by Beáta Hock and Anu Allas
Visual Typologies from the Early Modern to the Contemporary

Local Contexts and Global Practices
Edited by Tara Zanardi and Lynda Klich
Cultural Mobility in the Interwar Avant-Garde Art Network

Poland, Belgium and the Netherlands
Michał Wenderski
For a full list of titles in this series, please visit https://www.routledge.com/Routledge-

Research-in-Art-History/book-series/RRAH
Cultural Mobility in the Interwar
Avant-Garde Art Network
Poland, Belgium and the Netherlands
Michał Wenderski
First published 2019
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2019 Taylor & Francis
The right of Michał Wenderski to be identified as author of this work has
been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered
trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent
to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Wenderski, Michał, author.
Title: Cultural mobility in the interwar avant-garde art network : Poland,
Belgium and the Netherlands/Michał Wenderski.
Description: New York : Routledge, 2018. | Series: Routledge research in art
history | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2018002567 | ISBN 9781138493544 (hardback) |
ISBN 9781351027908 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Arts, Polish—20th century. | Arts, Belgian—20th century. |
Arts, Dutch—20th century. | Artists—Social networks—Poland—History—
20th century. | Artists—Social networks—Belgium—History—20th century. |
Artists—Social networks—Netherlands—History—20th century.
Classification: LCC NX571.P6 W46 2018 | DDC 709.438/0904—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018002567
ISBN: 978-1-138-49354-4 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-351-02790-8 (ebk)
Typeset in Sabon
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
Contents
Figures vii
Plates ix
Tables x
Acknowledgements xi
Abbreviations of Consulted Institutions and Repositories xii
Introduction 1
1 Polish, Belgian and Dutch Avant-Garde Formations,

their Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility
within the International Network of Groups and Periodicals 12
1.1. Interwar Avant-Garde Formations of Dutch, Belgian and
Polish Provenance 12
1.2. Cultural Mobility between Polish and Belgian
Avant-Garde Formations 20
1.2.1. Traces of Polish–Belgian Cultural Mobility in Belgian
Avant-Garde Periodicals 20
1.2.2. Traces of Polish–Belgian Cultural Mobility in Polish
1.3. Cultural Mobility between Polish and Dutch
Avant-Garde Formations 28
1.3.1. Traces of Polish–Dutch Cultural Mobility in Dutch
1.3.2. Traces of Polish–Dutch Cultural Mobility in Polish
1.4. Traces of Polish–Dutch and Polish–Belgian Cultural Mobility
in Relevant International Avant-Garde Periodicals 39
1.5. Cross-Referencing 43
1.6. Preliminary Observations 46
vi Contents
2 Avant-Garde Manifestos and Programmatic Statements –
Inspirations, Parallels and Dissimilarities 51
2.1. Abstraction as the Idiom of Universal Art 52
2.2. L’art pour . . .? 62
2.3. Cooperation between Disciplines and across Borders 67
2.4. Preliminary Conclusions 78
3 “What we do is no imitation, but an effort parallel to . . .” –

Selected Works of Art and Architecture as Representation of Mutual
Influences and Similarities 80
3.1. Avant-garde Publications from Poland and the Low Countries
in Light of International Trends in Layout and Page Design 81
3.2. Piet Mondrian, Theo van Doesburg and Henryk Stażewski 87
3.3. Katarzyna Kobro and Georges Vantongerloo 88
3.4. Mieczysław Szczuka and Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman 90
3.5. Henryk Berlewi, Vilmos Huszár and Karel Maes 92
3.6. Poland, the Low Countries and Foreign Artists: The Examples
of El Lissitzky and Pietro (de) Saga 95
3.7. Interior Design 97
3.8. Architecture 100
3.9. Preliminary Conclusions 106
Plates (between 108 and 109)
Closing Remarks 109
References 113
Primary Sources 113
Secondary Sources 127
Appendix 144
Index 164
Figures
1 H.N. Werkman’s list of addresses to congenial formations and artists 14

2 Jan Brze˛kowski’s article on modern Polish art 22
3 Note criticising Brze˛kowski’s articles in foreign magazines 23
4 Cover of Anthologie du Groupe Moderne d’Art de Liège 3/4 from
1925 dedicated to Polish art 25
5 Berlewi’s card to Van Doesburg ordering the subscription of De Stijl 29
6 One of the covers of De Stijl with the mention of Warsaw 30
7 Blok’s manifesto “Co to jest konstruktywizm” 33
8 Photo album with Dutch-written birthday wishes dated 4 July 1937
and a postcard from 2 September 1937 from Tołwiński and the
Syrkuses to Cornelis van Eesteren 37
9 Photo from the Cercle et Carré exhibition in Paris (1930) with works
by Werkman, Mondrian and Stażewski 40
10 Photo of Mondrian, Rafałowski, Seuphor, Stażewski, Vantongerloo
and others at Paul Dermée’s in 1928 42
11 Photo of the Łódź collection taken in 1932 with works of among
others Van Doesburg and Werkman 43
12 List of congenial formations “Het netwerk” 44
13 Lists of like-minded magazines published in The Next Call and
in Blok in 1924 45
14 The first manifesto of De Stijl from 1918 54
15 Theo van Doesburg’s Composition XIV (1924) used by Kobro
and Strzemiński as an example of wrongly based composition in painting 61
16 The manifesto of Art Concret from 1930 62
17 Jalu Kurek’s Manifest poetycki o Rzeczypospolitej. Poeci na front.
Śpiewajcie o Rzeczypospolitej. Społeczeństwo czeka na wasze usta
from 1929 65
18 Cover of De Stijl 6, 6/7 featuring a photo of Theo van Doesburg
and Cornelis van Eesteren working on one of their
collective projects 68
19 Vers une construction collective (Manifeste V du Groupe ‘De Stijl’)
published by Theo van Doesburg, Cornelis van Eesteren and
Gerrit Rietveld in 1923 69
20 Blok’s editorial statement published in Polish and French in 1924 72
viii Figures
21 Manifesto of “Konstruktivistische Internationale Beeldende
Arbeidsgemeenschap” from 1922 76
22 Fragments of the front page of De Driehoek from 1925 and
of “Drukarstwo. O układzie graficznym” from 1924 82
23 “Bilanz des Staatlichen Bauhauses Weimar” and back cover
of Blok 2 from 1924 83
24 Guillaume Apollinaire, “Il pleut” from 1918 and Bruno Jasieński,
“Morze” from 1923 84
25 I.K. Bonset, “X-Beelden” from 1920 and Paul van Ostaijen,
Bezette Stad (fragment) from 1921 85
26 Paul van Ostaijen, Bezette Stad (fragment) from 1921 and Edmund
Miller, “Stara historia” from 1924 85
27 I.K. Bonset, “Letterklankbeelden” from 1921 and Edmund Miller,
concrete poem from 1924 86
28 Theo van Doesburg and Kurt Schwitters, “Die Scheuche Märchen”
(fragment) from 1924 and Tytus Czyżewski, “Hamlet w piwnicy”
from 1923 87
29 Georges Vantongerloo, Construction of Volumetric
Interrelationships Derived from the Inscribed Square
and the Square Circumscribed by a Circle from 1924
and Construction xy = k from 1929 89
30 Katarzyna Kobro, spatial composition 1 from 1925 90
31 Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman, Compositie met letters en haken
from 1932 and Mieczysław Szczuka, Montaż fotograficzny
from 1924 91
32 Karel Maes, linocut from 1921 and Henryk Berlewi, Siedza˛ca
kobieta from 1922 93
33 Karel Maes, linocut published in 1926 and Henryk Berlewi,
Kontrasty mechanofakturowe from 1923 94
34 Pietro de Saga, Typo-Plastique VII and Dactyloplastique from 1925 96
35 Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman, Tiksels 10 and 12 from ca. 1926 97
36 Gerrit Rietveld, interior design for Goud- en Zilversmidscompagnie
from 1921 and the Syrkuses in their study in 1927 98
37 Mieczysław Szczuka, interior design from 1924 and Bohdan
Lachert, interior design from 1926 99
38 J.J.P. Oud, design for a factory in Purmerend from 1919 and
Teresa Żarnower, composition from 1924 100
39 One of numerous reproductions of Rietveld’s house in Utrecht
in Polish magazines and the Brukalskis’ house in Warsaw 101
40 J.J.P. Oud, Hoek van Holland estate from 1924 and B. Pniewski,
PWK pavilion of Bogusław Herse Company from 1929 102
41 B. Lachert and J. Szanajca, Szyller’s villa in Warsaw from 1928 and
a row house in Warsaw from 1928 103
42 L.H. De Koninck, Dr. Ley’s House in Uccle from 1934 and
B. Lachert and J. Szanajca, villa in Gdynia from 1926 104
43 J.A. Brinkman and L.C. van der Vlugt: Van der Leeuw Huis
in Rotterdam from 1921–1928 and H. Syrkus and S. Syrkus, villa
in Skolimów from 1931 105
Plates
(between pages 108 and 109)
1 Selected avant-garde periodicals of Polish, Dutch and Belgian provenance

2 Piet Mondrian and Michel Seuphor’s Tableau-poème (Textuel) from 1928
3 Georges Vantongerloo, cover design for the Polish edition of L’art et
son avenir from 1927
4 The nexus of relationships between selected representatives of the avant-garde
in Poland and the Low Countries
5 Front cover of De Stijl from 1922 and back cover of Berlewi’s Prospekt biura
Reklama Mechano from 1924
6 Covers of Documents Internationaux de l’Esprit Nouveau 1 from 1927 and
of L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna 2 from 1930
7 Theo van Doesburg, Compositie XXII from 1922 and Henryk Stażewski,
Kompozycja from 1930
8 Henryk Stażewski, cover designs for Anielski Cham and Niedziela
9 Piet Mondrian, Compositie from 1929 and Tableau 2 from 1922
10 Theo van Doesburg, Compositie XX from 1920 and Henryk Stażewski, cover
design for Grafika 4 from 1931
11 Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman, typographical composition from 1926 and
Mieczysław Szczuka, Typografja from 1924
12 Vilmos Huszár, advertisement for Miss Blanche from 1926 and Henryk Berlewi,
Prospekt Czekolada Plutos from 1925
13 El Lissitzky, Pro dva kvadrata. Suprematicheskii skaz v 6-ti postroikakh
(fragment) from 1920/1922; El Lissitzky and Theo van Doesburg, Suprematisch
worden van twee kwadraten in 6 konstrukties (fragment) from 1922;
Władysław Strzemiński and Witold Kajruksztis, two pages from the catalogue
of the Vilnius exhibition from 1923
14 Samuel Szczekacz, Konstrukcja from ca. 1937
15 Theo van Doesburg, colour composition for a university hall in Amsterdam
from 1923
16 Sala Neoplastyczna, Muzeum Sztuki Łódź, designed by Władysław Strzemiński
Tables
1 Written contributions of Polish, Dutch and Belgian provenance in the

analysed books and periodicals 144
2 Reproductions of artworks of Polish, Dutch and Belgian provenance
in the analysed books and periodicals 149
3 Mentions of books of Polish, Dutch and Belgian provenance in the
analysed periodicals 157
4 Mutual references between the analysed periodicals 158
Acknowledgements
This book would not have come to fruition without the help and support of numerous
individuals and institutions. First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to various
organisations which awarded me scholarships and grants that enabled me to conduct
the necessary research related to this study: a research project of the Polish National
Science Centre (nr. 2014/13/N/HS2/02757), two grants from the Dutch Language
Union, a scholarship from the Adam Mickiewicz University Foundation in Poznań.
I would also like to thank the very helpful staff from numerous American, Belgian,
Dutch, French, German and Polish institutions, who enabled me to gather the necessary
archival material for this study.
The completion of this work would be impossible without the guidance and support
from my doctoral supervisors Paweł Zajas and Przemysław Strożek whose comments
and input were of great value to this work. I would also like to thank Hubert van den
Berg, Geert Buelens, Camiel Hamans and Jerzy Koch, who offered me their scientific
guidance and help at various stages of this process. Moreover, I am particularly grateful
to Cecilia Gallardo-Rioseco, Jan Willem Hoekstra, Krzysztof Koczorowski, Cyprian
Kościelniak, Robert de Louw, Dariusz Nowak, Celine Postma, Peter Schoenaerts, Wim
Troch, Peter Van Kemseke and Joanna Wnuk for all their support.
Abbreviations of Consulted Institutions
and Repositories
AA-SL – Architecture Archive – Sint-Lukasarchief in Brussels

AMA – Archieven voor Moderne Architectuur/Archives d’Architecture Moderne
in Brussels
AO-NI – Archief J.J.P. Oud, Nieuwe Instituut in Rotterdam
ARA – Antykwariat Rara Avis in Cracow
ATNvD – Archive of Theo and Nelly van Doesburg, RKD Nederlands Instituut
voor Kunstgeschiedenis in The Hague
AvE-NI – Archief Cornelis van Eesteren, Nieuwe Instituut in Rotterdam
AWM – Archief van de Werkgroep Mondriaan correspondentieproject, RKD
Nederlands Instituut voor Kunstgeschiedenis in The Hague
BCPW – Biblioteka Cyfrowa Politechniki Warszawskiej
BK – Bibliothèque Kandinsky, Centre de documentation et de recherche du Musée
national d’art moderne – Centre de création industrielle, Centre Pompidou in
Paris
BN – Biblioteka Narodowa, Polona collection
BPP – Bibliothèque Polonaise de Paris, archive of Jan Brze˛kowski
CMU – Centraal Museum in Utrecht, archive of Gerrit Rietveld
DBNL – Digitale Bibliotheek voor de Nederlandse Letteren
EHC – Erfgoedbibliotheek Hendrik Conscience in Antwerp
FC – Fondation Custodia in Paris
FVB – Fonds Victor Bourgeois, Archief voor Hedendaagse Kunst in België/Archives
d’Art Contemporian en Belgique in Brussels
GM – Groninger Museum in Groningen
GRI – Getty Research Institute in Los Angeles
IADDB – International Advertising & Design DataBase
IBL PAN – Instytut Badań Literackich Polskiej Akademii Nauk in Warsaw,
archive of Jalu Kurek
IDA – International Dada Archive, University of Iowa Libraries
IS PAN – Instytut Sztuki Polskiej Akademii Nauk in Warsaw, archive of Polish
Institute for Art Propaganda, Special Collections
JBC – Jagiellońska Biblioteka Cyfrowa
KB – Koninklijke Bibliotheek van België/Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique in
Brussels
KMSKA – Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten in Antwerp
Abbreviations xiii
KMSKB – Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van België/Musées Royaux
des Beaux-Arts de Belgique in Brussels
LH – Letterenhuis in Antwerp, archive of Michel Seuphor
MBC – Mazowiecka Biblioteka Cyfrowa
MLAA – Marquand Library of Art and Archaeology, Princeton University
MLAM – Muzeum Literatury im. Adama Mickiewicza in Warsaw, archives of
Jan Brze˛kowski and Julian Przyboś
MNW – Cyfrowe Zbiory Muzeum Narodowego w Warszawie
MoMA – Museum of Modern Art in New York
MSL – Muzeum Sztuki in Łódź
NAC – Narodowe Archiwum Cyfrowe
RCE – Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, Instituut Collectie Nederland
RCIN – Repozytorium Cyfrowe Instytutów Naukowych
RKD – Nederlands Instituut voor Kunstgeschiedenis in The Hague
RLK – Rotterdamsch Leeskabinet, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
SBC – Śla˛ska Biblioteka Cyfrowa
SGM – Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in New York
SMA – Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam
UCL – Ústav pro českou literature, Digitalizovaný archiv časopisuº
ULB – Archives & Bibliothèques de l’Université Libre de Bruxelles
VAM – Van Abbemuseum in Eindhoven
WA – Werkman Archief, Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam
Introduction
Over one century ago, the autumn of 1917 witnessed two events of immense impor-
tance for the history of the European avant-garde, in particular with regard to Poland
and the Low Countries. Namely, in October that year the first issue of the magazine
De Stijl was published in the Dutch city of Leiden, which later became one of the most
long-lasting and influential avant-garde periodicals. Only one month later, more than
a thousand kilometres away in Krakow, Poland, the First Exhibition of Polish Expres-
sionists was inaugurated, which is symbolically perceived as the beginning of the Polish
avant-garde movement. One hundred years later various events were organised both in
Poland and in the Netherlands to commemorate this anniversary, including art exhibi-
tions, scholarly conferences and numerous publications, which shed some new light
on this meaningful coincidence. These particular circumstances are, then, a backdrop
to this study devoted to the historical avant-garde of Polish, Belgian and Dutch prov-
enance which aims to explore, analyse and describe the issue of cultural mobility within
the interwar network of the European avant-garde.
For more than a decade, since the so-called “spatial turn”, the avant-garde net-
work has gradually come to be mapped by various scholars who have analysed and
described its nodes (artistic formations, galleries, magazines, exhibitions, etc.) and
the connecting lines between them. Among contributions to the long-lasting process
of revising and re-writing the history of the European avant-garde are exhibitions
such as Central European Avant-Gardes: Exchange and Transformation, 1910–1930
(Los Angeles 2002), or Inventing Abstraction, 1910–1925 (New York 2012), as well
as scholarly publications attempting to ‘decentralise’ the avant-garde historiography
(e.g. Veivo 2012; Bäckström and Hjartarson 2014b or Joyeux-Prunel 2015a, 2015b,
2016). Similarly, studies on selected particular transnational dimensions of the avant-
garde network facilitate its gradual mapping – so far described have been for instance
the influences and relationships between France and Germany, Germany and Italy or
Belgium, as well as between Belgium and the Netherlands.1 When it comes to Poland,
its artistic relationships to countries such as France, Germany and Russia have been
the main centres of scholarly attention, yet other countries such as Italy or Spain have
not remained unnoticed.2
Following the above-mentioned attempts to map the history and development of
modern art, this study aims to contribute to the historiography of the interwar avant-
garde as a multifaceted transnational network of artists, formations and periodicals
by exploring a case study of Poland and the Low Countries. The necessity of tackling
this particular area might be illustrated by the diagram made for the occasion of
a 2012/2013 exhibition held at the Museum of Modern Art in New York entitled
2 Introduction
Inventing Abstraction, 1910–1925.3 This diagram is a very interesting visualisation
of contemporary approaches to research on artistic networks which concentrate on
representatives, nodes, and the relationships between them. It also indicates a certain
research lacuna on the interwar avant-garde network, namely the Polish–Dutch and
Polish–Belgian dimension, which will be tackled in this study, Although those areas
may seem distant in terms of geography, language and history, the relationships and
cultural mobility between them were quite intense, which I aim to demonstrate here.
So far no thorough description of the mutual relationships between the avant-gardes
in Poland and the Low Countries has appeared, even though some studies offer scat-
tered but very valuable information on such contact. Andrzej Turowski (1979, 1981,
1990a, 2000) for instance pointed to the influence of De Stijl on the Polish Blok,
Praesens and a.r. groups, and Joanna Kleiverda-Kajetanowicz (1985, 1989) analysed
theoretical affinities between Piet Mondrian and Henryk Stażewski. Their findings
were often repeated in other works on De Stijl and its influences abroad, for instance
by Krisztina Passuth (1988, 2009) and Sjarel Ex (1996, 2000). A recent and very valu-
able initiative shedding fresh light on the Polish–Dutch avant-garde relationships was
the exhibition “Organizatorzy życia. De Stijl, polska awangarda i design” [Organizers
of Life. De Stijl, the Polish Avant-Garde, and Design] which took place in 2017/2018
in Muzeum Sztuki in Łódź (cf. Kurc-Maj and Saciuk-Ga˛sowska 2017).
Few and far between are also works devoted to Polish–Belgian avant-garde rela-
tionships. Scholars have indeed pointed to some parallels in the works of Georges
Vantongerloo and Katarzyna Kobro and to the exchange between Polish and Belgian
periodicals.4 The Polish–Belgian dimension, however, is sometimes missing even in the
most recent publications dealing with the international connections of the Polish avant-
garde (e.g. Rypson 2015). When it comes to the relationships and cooperation between
Polish, Dutch and Belgian architects, they have been mostly described in relation to the
CIAM organisation (Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne), which united
progressive architects from across the globe. In this context it has also been acknowl-
edged that Polish architects, especially Szymon and Helena Syrkus, were particularly
active in CIAM and played an important role in the architectural modernisation pro-
cesses (cf. Gold 1997; Platzer 1999; Mumford 2000, 2009 and others).
Some more traces of cultural mobility between Poland and the Low Countries are to
be found in works devoted to international artistic initiatives such as Cercle et Carré,
Abstraction-Création, Art Concret or the formation of the Łódź Collection of Modern
Art.5 Notably, the nature and intensity of such relationships are also well reflected in
the artists’ memoirs which – although subjective and to some extent exaggerated – serve
as an invaluable source of first-hand information on the cultural mobility within the
avant-garde network.
This study aims to present an exhaustive and detailed description of various rela-
tionships between the representatives of avant-garde circles from Poland and the Low
Countries, which gathers and substantially complements the findings and remarks
found in the above-mentioned works. More importantly, the analysis of mutual
exchange and influences between artists and formations of Polish, Belgian and Dutch
provenance forms a reflection on cultural mobility within the whole network of his-
torical avant-garde as such, and revises some historiographical assumptions related to
cultural transfer and mobility, such as the “centre–periphery” paradigm, the East–West
division or the nation-state-based approach to art history. Hereunder I briefly outline
several theoretical notions concerning the issue in question.
Introduction 3
First of all, what does the term “avant-garde” actually mean? Numerous theoreticians
have already attempted to define this term,6 by trying to establish where and when did
the avant-garde begin and end, what was its geographical spread, or – to quote Hubert
van den Berg (2006a: 331) – “which currents, schools, movements, isms, projects, which
artefacts, works of art, architecture, music, literary texts and other aesthetic and cultural
practices can be subsumed under the umbrella label ‘avant-garde’ in the early twentieth
century?”7 No definite and undisputed answers can be given to these questions, and no
one ultimate definition of the concept “avant-garde” can be provided. For the sake of
this study though, avant-garde might be understood as an international phenomenon
appearing in various places, violating the entrenched rules, pushing the existing bound-
aries, norms and the status quo of the art, artist, artwork and so forth.
Richard Kostelanetz (1993: xiii) determined three discriminatory criteria of the
avant-garde which will also be of use in this study, i.e. the (1) transcending of existing
aesthetic conventions, (2) lack of comprehension from the contemporary audience and
(3) pioneering nature functioning as source of inspiration for future generations. More
specifically, with relation to the aesthetic historical avant-garde, Van den Berg and Dor-
leijn (2002: 5–7) have described it as “a wide collection of literary and artistic currents
from the early twentieth century which strived for a radical renewing of the arts and
experimented with new material, forms, techniques and principles”. As key features,
the scholars also pointed to the rejection of popular artistic and literary conventions
in favour of New Art and to the semi-official organisations and their programmatic
manifestos based on military and revolutionary vocabulary. An interesting set of key
features of the avant-garde has also been outlined by the Icelandic scholar Astradur
Eysteinsson (2009: 32) – among them radicalism, the urge to shock, experimentations,
mobility, collectivism, the use of manifestos as a form of expression, revolt against art
and literary institutions, utopianism and others.
As already mentioned, my objective is to focus on a selected part of the interwar
European avant-garde, namely Poland and the Low Countries – a task which actually
is easier said than done. Since, as pointed out by Edouard Glissant (1981, quoted in
Lionnet and Shih 2005: 8–9), no culture is a monadic entity embedded in national
borders but a hybrid and relational product of ongoing processes, the delimitation of
the research corpus and main focus of this study were not self-evident. Given the fact
that stylistic heterogeneity and a trans- or even supra-national orientation were obvious
features of the historical avant-garde,8 its description in traditional style- and nation-
based frameworks would be futile.
Bearing in mind that any set of units to be compared remains artificial historiographi-
cal constructs which need to be distinguished from their contexts (Juneja and Pernau
2009: 109–110; Ther 2009: 208), how could one decide where Polish, Belgian and
Dutch avant-gardes began and ended, and which of their representatives were to be
taken into consideration and which ones not? How can the “Belgianness” or “Pol-
ishness” of the analysed material be defined in the times when the Walloon–Flemish
identity and linguistic conflicts escalated and the Polish State had just reappeared after
123 years of nonexistence?9 And what is more, what would limit the choice of styles
and currents to be incorporated in the analysis of the interwar avant-garde, when even
the artists’ self-nomination constantly fluctuated between Constructivists, Cubists,
Dadaists or Futurists? In all that, a style- and nation-based attempt to describe the
cross-border, stylistically eclectic network of the avant-garde – a phenomenon at the
core of which laid a sense of stylistic and national transgression – would inevitably fail.
4 Introduction
This notwithstanding, in order to shape the research corpus for this analysis of
cultural mobility within the interwar avant-garde network, some nation-related and
linguistic framework is necessary as the starting point. Hence, the initial choice of
Polish- and Dutch-speaking avant-garde formations included the most important and
influential titles, among others Zwrotnica, Blok, Praesens, De Stijl, Internationale
Revue i10, The Next Call, Het Woord, Het Overzicht and De Driehoek. In order
to properly analyse the cultural mobility between Poland and the Low Countries, it
was also necessary to include the French-language Belgian periodicals such as 7 Arts,
Anthologie du Groupe Moderne d’Art de Liège and L’Équerre, as well as other for-
mations and magazines which united numerous artists of various origins, including
the representatives of Polish, Belgian and Dutch avant-gardes, i.e. Cercle et Carré, Art
Concret, Abstraction-Création, L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna. Selected
relevant publications from other avant-garde magazines, literary and architectural
periodicals, as well as books and exhibition catalogues, form a valuable addition to
the research corpus.
Besides the selected publications, of key importance for the analysis and description
of the development of relationships and mobility between avant-garde artists from
Poland and the Low Countries is also the correspondence between avant-garde artists –
not only the representatives of the analysed formations but also other individuals influ-
encing the development of avant-garde art. A large number of letters and manuscripts
was gathered during archival research or obtained from various institutions in Europe
and the United States (for a full list of consulted archives, museums, libraries and digi-
tal repositories see the list of abbreviations). Last, but not least, selected works of art
and architectural projects reproduced in the above-mentioned periodicals, exhibition
catalogues and other sources have been used to reflect on the nature of cultural mobility
within the avant-garde network (cf. Chapter 3).
As the range of historical material grew, it became evident that it needed to exceed
the initial linguistic and nation-based limitations and stylistic denominations. Foreign
publications became an important addition to the corpus (e.g. Documents Internatio-
naux de l’Esprit Nouveau, Der Sturm, Merz, Pásmo, ReD), and the initial choice of art-
ists and formations belonging to International Constructivism evolved as well. Given
the multifaceted nature of the avant-garde network, the lack of strict limits of particular
style denominations and constant influences between what is nowadays perceived as
Abstraction(ism), Constructivism, Dadaism, Expressionism, Futurism, Functionalism,
International Style, Modernism, Suprematism or Unism, I have opted for – what I call –
a “post-ism-atic” approach for my analysis. Such an approach is based on particular
artists and the initiatives they launched or contributed to, rather than on the narrow
historiographical labels which I have often found inaccurate and proscriptive. Hence,
instead of denoting defined styles or currents, the broad term “avant-garde” is used
in this study, and artists and formations traditionally associated with particular styles
such as for instance Futurism or Dadaism have also been included in the analysis.
Significant differences in stylistic denotations in various regions were also noticed by
the artist Henryk Berlewi (1961: 21) who claimed that “at the time when the Caba-
ret Voltaire was being founded in Zurich, Dadaists and Surrealists already existed in
Poland even if they were not known by those names”.
Thus, already in the process of defining the research corpus for this study, a certain
deconstruction of its initial concept took place. The first delimitation made by selecting
Introduction 5
two geographically, linguistically and culturally distant areas which served as the
principal points of interest – Poland and the Low Countries – needed to be broadened.
Given the nature and the dynamics of avant-garde circles, the choice of artists and
formations relevant to this study could actually grow endlessly. In fact, their actual
mobility and intense exchange of works and ideas exclude any fixed framework for
such studies. It is therefore understandable that the research corpus could not follow
the nation-state-based boundaries and be limited only to works of Polish, Belgian and
Dutch avant-garde artists active in selected formations based exclusively in Poland and
the Low Countries. It had to include other individuals too, their formations and initia-
tives, who or which were, broadly speaking, related to the development of avant-garde
art in the analysed areas, regardless of national, topographical or ism-based labels.
Therefore individuals of Polish, Dutch or Belgian origin active both in their homelands
and abroad (for instance the activities of Jan Brze˛kowski, Piet Mondrian and Michel
Seuphor in Paris), as well as artists of other (or mixed) nationalities active in Poland
and in the Low Countries (for instance Katarzyna Kobro or Vilmos Huszár) were also
taken into consideration in this study.10
Such an approach seems to adopt Bruno Latour’s (2005: 12) postulate of “following
the actors themselves”, which has been incorporated in art history by among others
John Clark (1998), Piotr Piotrowski (2009) and Malte Hagener (2014) who postulated
a shift from “fields” to “actors” in the historiography of the avant-garde. In view of
the relational, fluctuating and changeable nature of society and culture, in his actor–
network–theory Latour (2005) stressed the need to primarily focus on the actors, their
activities, innovations and relations. Only when those factors are fully grasped, can one
begin to understand the macro-scale – the functioning of the group. The very concept
of groups (ontological entities, macro-relations) was actually undermined by Latour
who claimed that there are only group formations, relationships between actors who
create them themselves, with no above imposed patterns.
A similar model was presented by Lionnet and Shih (2005) in their introduction to
Minor transnationalism where they postulated a shift from a homogenous and domi-
nant set of criteria and nation-state-based model of understanding of cultures towards
transnational hybrid spaces and practices of exchange and participation acted upon by
border-crossing agents. More recently, DaCosta Kaufmann, Dossin and Joyeux-Prunel
(2015) as well as Zajas (2016) have questioned ontological, nation-state frameworks as
a basic research perspective for cultural transfer and artistic interchange. As suggested
by Hagener (2014: 162), it is the flow of “information, materials, ideas, persons and
discourses going back and forth” which should be the main focus of scholarly research
on the practices of production, exchange and transformation.
Nevertheless, focusing the attention on actors active in the trans-border, trans-
national space, the so-called “sensation of rootedness” (Greenblatt 2010b: 252) must
not be omitted in the analysis of cultural transfer between them. This was already
pointed out by Goethe who perceived nationality and personality (i.e. linguistic,
cultural and personal particularities) as the only medium through which universal
aspects and values could emerge and connect the world’s separate literary traditions
(cf. Meyer-Kalkus 2010: 110). Indeed, the artists’ relations and attitudes towards
their respective national artistic, political and local circles, as well as towards history
and tradition played a key role in their engagement within the network: they grew
up, evolved and initially created in their respective local contexts (as changeable as
6 Introduction
they were) before they could oppose or reject them in favour of a universal(istic) and
supranational approach. Hence, this study – a priori undertaken as a supranational
historiographical endeavour – takes into consideration (amongst others) the particular
linguistic, geographical, cultural and historical contexts of the analysed formations and
their representatives.11
By simultaneously questioning the agency of nation-state-based frameworks and
referring to the rootedness and contexts of particular individuals, cultural mobility
and transfer become embedded in the multidirectional network of actors, mediators
and their relationships. The notion of a network with relation to the avant-garde was
introduced by Hubert van den Berg (2006a: 332), who had based his model partially
on Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari’s concept of the “rhizome”. The properties of the
rhizome are characteristic for the multifaceted, heterogeneous and three-dimensional
network of the early avant-garde with its nodes, connection lines, splits and ruptures
which can constantly be formed or cease to exist, with no notion of hierarchy between
them. This understanding of the rhizome, complemented by Antonio Negri and
Michael Hardt’s reflections on “multitude”, provided a new framework for the under-
standing of the avant-garde as “a synchronically heterogeneous and diverse conglom-
erate, marked by many diachronic fluctuations, such as artists going from one group
or ism to another, or the rapid succession of isms” (Van den Berg 2006a: 344). This
flexible and malleable structure is, by its very definition, unstable; it can extend itself at
any moment and in any direction, without any clear-cut boundaries. It is also notable
that the interwar avant-gardists themselves perceived the cluster of their initiatives and
formations as a network, as indicated in a list of congenial periodicals published in
the twentieth issue of the Flemish journal Het Overzicht entitled “Het netwerk” [The
network], as well as in Henryk Berlewi’s (1922) report on the Düsseldorf exhibition
where he referred to a “worldwide network of periodicals” devoted to modern art.
One of the particularities of the avant-garde network was the fact that its function-
ing was strongly influenced by fluctuating and often volatile interpersonal relationships
between its members who alternately cooperated and competed with each other, which
was then directly reflected in the choice of texts and artworks published or discussed
in their periodicals. Some new light on the interpersonal aspect of cultural mobil-
ity within the avant-garde network can be shed by referring to Mark Granovetter’s
(1973, 1983) theory of “strong and weak ties”, one of the most influential theories
in social sciences (cf. Easley and Kleinberg 2010). Granovetter related the nature and
strength of interpersonal interactions to such phenomena as diffusion, social mobility
and cohesion – all crucial features of the avant-garde network. He argued that not
“strong”, but “weak” interpersonal ties (in other words acquaintances, not friends)
form the connections between various circles, as they link members of different small
groups, contrary to “strong ties”, which characterise the internal relationships within
the groups themselves.
In light of Granovetter’s theory, various nodes of the avant-garde network might be
regarded as groups of persons “strongly tied” to each other (at least at a given moment
in time) which are connected by “weak ties” between a given member of one node and
a given person from another node. Such “weak ties” would be the channels through
which ideas, influences and information from distant circles may be reached and,
consequently, by boosting the exchange between various avant-garde formations, they
form a fundamental element of the network. Gradually, particular circles will create
Introduction 7
more and more “weak ties” to other formations, in furtherance of new, indirect con-
nections to a larger scope of recipients in order to disseminate one’s ideas and works,
etc. (cf. Granovetter 1973: 1364–1366).
Another very interesting point – especially when considering the avant-garde network –
is the assumption that “marginal” individuals (Granovetter’s term for people whose
activities and viewpoints tend to be perceived as controversial or even deviant) would
have the urge to form a relatively large number of ties to other individuals and groups
in order to be able to diffuse their ostracised innovations. Indeed, all avant-garde for-
mations functioned aside contemporary mainstream cultural and artistic conventions,
and they constantly sought to broaden their international reception by spreading their
magazines and works among other parts of the avant-garde network, mostly through
the “weak ties” with other circles. Moreover, as pointed out by Turowski (1998: 185)
as well as Lionnet and Shih (2005: 2, 8–9), minority subjects (such as the avant-garde
per se) tend to identify themselves in opposition to the dominant discourse which
credited itself with authority and alleged authenticity that allowed its representatives
to assert order in their cultural field, marginalise the minorities and deny them access
to “full citizenship”.
Waiting to be recognised as “full citizens” though, the minorities remain invested in
their respective local spaces where they have to fall upon resources outside the domi-
nant forms – hence their eagerness to search for reception and recognition elsewhere,
in this case among other avant-garde circles. Notably, Lionnet and Shih (2005: 10) also
claimed that although each minority is by definition mixed and hybrid, “differences
within a given minority are suppressed in the interest of forming a culturally united
front against domination”. This observation is reflected among others in Tadeusz
Peiper’s (1923a: 90) statement in Zwrotnica: “ła˛czy nas ze soba˛ to co nas dzieli od
innych” [we are united by what distinguishes us from others]. This “unity in distinct-
ness” of the avant-garde was also clearly visible after De Stijl’s exclusion from the Pari-
sian Exhibition of Decorative Arts in 1925 when a plethora of European avant-garde
artists jointly opposed this deprivation of “full citizenship” of their Dutch colleagues
(cf. Section 1.3.1).
Hence, in the case of transnational minorities such as the avant-garde network, there
is no place for hierarchy. On the contrary, a non-hierarchical organisational structure
has been identified as one of its key features by numerous scholars, who have col-
lectively and individually called for rethinking and decentring the theory and history
of the avant-garde network. In doing so they have put the often placed concepts of
“centres” and “peripheries” – as well as “Central and Eastern-Europe(an)” – under
more and more critical scrutiny.12 By aiming to contribute to a proper topography of
the avant-garde, such concepts are also rejected in this study, which adopts a more
horizontal approach to the history of the interwar avant-garde.
As pointed out by the Polish avant-garde scholar Piotr Piotrowski (2009: 51), con-
temporary art history needs to deconstruct the relations between the so-called “cen-
tres” and “margins” where, as a result of various historiographical assumptions, the
“centres” are perceived as determiners of specific paradigms which are supposed to
be adopted by the “peripheries”. Claiming that “the artists of the international avant-
garde did not view the art scene from a vertical perspective” where some nodes were
more important than the others, and that “it was only art history which developed the
hierarchical, vertical discourse ordering the artistic geography in terms of centres and
8 Introduction
peripheries”,13 Piotrowski postulated a “horizontal history of the avant-garde” based
on new research perspectives of critical geography and geohistory of modern art (cf.
DaCosta Kaufmann 2004) which reject previous hierarchical and Western-oriented
approaches.
Nevertheless, many historiographers of the avant-garde tend to forget that in this
case the so-called “centres” were actually as marginal as the “peripheries”, and pro-
gressive artists in Paris had as little recognition in contemporary Parisian artistic and
literary life as avant-gardists did in Antwerp, Leiden or Łódź. It is, however, undeniable
that as a result of complex political, cultural and economic procedures, certain cities
(be it Paris or Berlin) have come to play a pivotal role in art history (Bäckström and
Hjartarson 2014a: 20), but I would rather define their main role as infrastructural –
i.e. being a melting pot and an exchange market where artists from various places
could present, confront and argue their ideas and innovations with each other, which
then circulated and reverberated throughout networks (see also Van den Berg and
Głuchowska 2013a: xii–xiii; Ther 2009: 213). These “infrastructural centres” enabled
the actual interactions and exchange between the representatives of various artistic
circles, but they themselves were not superior to other circles – just as the whole avant-
garde network itself was not a hierarchical structure, but a horizontal multifaceted and
multidimensional system of connections and influences.
The very source of artistic innovations, however, was not located in the “centres”
as such, but rather they came from all those particular artists, representing a plethora
of nations and cultures, who resided and worked in the “infrastructural centres”.
One look at the artists’ memoirs, for instance those of Jan Brze˛kowski, reveals that
a big share of artists from the Parisian avant-garde circles did not actually originate
from France, but migrated or resided there temporally (e.g. Apollinaire, Arp, Dermée,
Mondrian, Picasso, Seuphor and others – cf. Brze˛kowski 1968). What is more, as
observed by Andrzej Szczerski (2010: 262, 340; 2011: 5–9), the representatives of the
so-called “peripheries” were actually able to find unprecedented and unique artistic
and architectural solutions mainly due to the fact that they originated from smaller
circles. That made them travel to the “infrastructural centres” looking for new ideas
and inspirations, and subsequently re-create and re-define them in their local condi-
tions. Szczerski saw “peripherality” itself as a source of freedom and opportunity to
choose, synthesise, experiment and revise the “central” accomplishments, which let the
“minor avant-gardes” make top-class artistic and architectural achievements instead of
only being a recipient of ready-made “central” solutions. In view of all that, one could
actually conclude that to a similar extent did the “infrastructural centres” shape the
art of the “peripheries”, as the “peripheries” and their representatives played an active
role in the artistic development of the “centres”.
Tensions between individual agencies and (infra)structural constraints form quite
important factors in the processes of cultural mobility. In his manifesto of mobility
studies Stephen Greenblatt (2010b) revised the stability of cultures in their nation-
based frames and gave a wide panorama of particular cases, tracing cultural mobil-
ity in all parts of the globe and periods of history. The notion of cultural mobility is
directly related to other concepts such as cultural transfer, hybridity, appropriation
(re-employment of ideas), métissage (intermingling of cultures), histoire croisée (entan-
gled history), etc., which have recently gained much popularity among scholars.14 With
this study I actually aim to present another dimension of cultural mobility – namely
Introduction 9
that of the interwar avant-garde – adding another case to the collection of microhisto-
ries of cultural connections between unexpected times and places, and descriptions of
single, peculiar, particular and local objects.
As noticed by Zajas (2016: 21–24), however, similar theories had actually been
developed since the late nineteenth century by scholars such as Karl Gotthard Lamp-
recht, Aby Warburg or Eduard Winter. The postulates of Greenblatt and other theo-
reticians can therefore be perceived as a revision and recapitulation of the theories put
forward more than a century earlier. For instance Lamprecht (1905, as quoted in Zajas
2016: 22–23) postulated a transnational history based on comparative research of
national histories and the international transfer of people and ideas. A century before
Latour and Greenblatt, Lamprecht emphasised the necessity of empirical, individu-
ally focused research on particular cases of border-crossing transfer which, as it were,
came to be paraphrased in Greenblatt’s (2010a: 16) claim that writing about cultural
mobility means “patient charting of specific instances of cultural mobility, that is, not
in an attempt to construct new grand narratives (. . .) but in detailed, intellectually vital
engagements with specific cases”. Moreover, recalling the Latourian slogan of “follow-
ing the actors”, Greenblatt (2010b: 250) stressed the necessity of tracing the conditions
directly related to literal movement (main agents, translators, intermediaries, diffusion
channels, etc.) in order to fully understand the metaphorical transfer and shed light on
the actual circulation of texts, images and ideas.
The various theories devoted to cultural mobility and transfer reveal much affinity
with Goethe’s nineteenth-century concept of Weltliteratur [world literature], where the
notion of patriotic/national art was rejected in favour of constant process of exchange,
transformation and adaptation of texts, images, artefacts and ideas across borders
of nations and cultures.15 As pointed out by Reinhard Meyer-Kalkus (2010: 106),
Goethe did not understand Weltliteratur as “the archive of everything that had ever
been written [or] the canon of great works transcending their national cultures, but
rather a form of international literary communication” with writers, literary critics,
translators, booksellers, publishers as its principal players. What is more, according
to Zajas (2016: 384–386), rather than a canon of universal and globally recognised
texts, Weltliteratur was also a particular socio-political project of how literature was
to function in times of growing nationalisms. Therefore, in the case of this study, the
focus lies on Goethe’s concept of literary communication between various actors of the
literary field in different places, which is particularly valuable with regard to the avant-
garde network. Interestingly, Goethe’s (1828, as quoted in Meyer-Kalkus 2010: 106)
words regarding the need of world literature: “nations [were] growing closer together
through express mail and (. . .) daily, weekly and monthly periodicals” very accurately
embrace the main issue of this study.
As a result of this “amalgamation” of nations and cultures, particular groups and indi-
viduals became hybrid, nationally and culturally ambiguous and undefinable, as pointed
out for instance by Edouard Winter with relation to the inhabitants of Eastern Europe
(cf. Zajas 2016: 24). The representatives of the historical avant-garde were likewise
hybrid individuals themselves – they had mixed nationalities, were artistically active in
more than one country/cultural field or, to say the least, constantly oscillated between
the two artistic worlds – mainstream art and progressive, cross-boundary avant-garde.
Andrzej Turowski (2002b: 363) pointed for instance to the biographies of Kazimir
Malevich (born in Kiev to a Polish family living in Lithuania and in Polesie – a region
10 Introduction
belonging ethnically to Belarus, working in Russia and writing in Russian, although
his native tongue was Polish), Władysław Strzemiński (born in the multicultural city of
Minsk, working in Russia before finally settling in Poland), Katarzyna Kobro (daughter
of Russian–German parents; she lived and studied in Moscow before she moved to
Poland with Strzemiński) and many others.
To this list I would also add the Polish–Lithuanian artist Witold Kajruksztis/
Vytautas Kairiūkštis, Guillaume Apollinaire (actually Wilhelm Apolinary Kostrowicki,
son of a Polish mother and an Italian father, he grew up in Rome and Monaco and as
an adult moved to Paris), Louis Marcoussis (actually Ludwik Markus, a Polish painter
who lived and worked in France), Michel Seuphor (actually Fernand Berckelaers,
Flemish poet and painter working and living in Paris), Theo van Doesburg and Piet
Mondrian (Dutch artists living and working in, amongst other places, Paris), Vilmos
Huszár (a Hungarian artist residing and working in the Netherlands, and a member of
De Stijl), Georges Vantongerloo (a Belgian artist, active in both the Netherlands and
France) and many others whose biographies form living proof of the cultural hybridity
of the avant-garde.
As indicated above, several theoretical and methodological assumptions for this
study proved to be “easier said than done” – i.e. the definition of (among others) the
term avant-garde, the delimitation of research corpus in terms of nations and nationali-
ties, the choice of styles and currents to be included and so on. Although bearing the
above-discussed postulates and observations in mind, in my further analysis I deliber-
ately rarely refer to particular theoretical assumptions and models. On the contrary, in
order to analyse the historical material and describe the intertwined, complicated paths
and mutual relationships of the protagonists of this study, I have chosen to concentrate
on facts, people and their movements, instinctively “following my actors” – as if at the
suggestion of Bruno Latour’s (2005: 143–144) character of the Professor:
Student: But that’s not what my supervisor wants. He wants a frame in

which to put my data. (. . .) He always says: ‘Student, you need a
framework.’
Professor: Maybe your supervisor is in the business of selling pictures! It’s true that
frames are nice for showing: gilded, white, carved, baroque, aluminium,
etc. But have you ever met a painter who began his masterpiece by first
choosing the frame? That would be a bit odd, wouldn’t it?
(. . .)
A frame (. . .) doesn’t add anything to the picture.
(. . .)
If I were you, I would abstain from frameworks altogether. Just describe
the state of affairs at hand.
This study is divided into three chapters. First, tangible traces of cultural mobility
between artists and formations of Polish, Belgian and Dutch provenance in avant-garde
magazines, publications and correspondence will be identified, systematised, analysed
and discussed in order to reflect on the nature and extent of mutual exchange and
dissemination of works and ideas. Second, attention will be placed on the program-
matic dimension of the avant-garde. Selected manifestos and other theoretic statements
published in the analysed periodicals will be examined in light of their key similarities,
Introduction 11
influences and differences in chosen programmatic aspects. Last, but not least, an analy-
sis of selected works of avant-garde literature, art and architecture will further reflect
on the nature of cultural mobility between Poland and the Low Countries, namely the
transfer of artistic principles and practices between particular artists. This book also
contains an appendix with four tables presenting a detailed overview of various traces
of Polish–Dutch and Polish–Belgian mobility identified in the analysed periodicals.
Notes
1 French–German relationships have been analysed by Hulten (1978) and Müller (2016); for
works on links between Germany and Italy or Belgium see Orsini (1992, 2005) and Paenhuy-
sen (2011) respectively. Belgian–Dutch artistic affinities have been mapped by Lambrechts
(2002), Den Boef and Van Faassen (2008, 2013) and by Strauven and Dujardin (2016)
among others.
2 For works on the Polish–French relationships see e.g. Delaperrière (1991, 2003, 2010) and
Wierzbicka (2009, 2016), for Germany – Brandt (2006) and Głuchowska (2009, 2015),
and for accounts of Polish–Russian artistic mobility see Nakov (1981) and Poprze˛cka and
Jowlewa (2004). For works on links between Poland and Italy or Spain see Strożek (2012)
and Rypson (2015) respectively.
3 See: www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2012/inventingabstraction.
4 See for instance D’Haeseleer (1984), Mertens (1988), Ceuleers (1996), Ładnowska (1998),
Charlier (2012a) and Van de Geer et al. (2013).
5 See for instance Stanisławski et al. (1971), Seuphor (1971, 1990), Fabre et al. (1978), Prat
(1984), Fabre (1990), Czartoryska (1991), Ładnowska (1991, 2001), Jedliński (1992), Le-
moine (2000), Thomas (2009), Boland (2013), Kurc-Maj (2015) and others.
6 Various definitions of the term ‘avant-garde’ have been offered by among others Poggioli
(1962), Bürger (1974), Calinescu (1987), Gazda (1987), Eysteinsson (1990, 2009), Drieko-
ningen (1991), Kostelanetz (1993), Van den Berg and Dorleijn (2002), Orska (2004).
7 The original spelling, including any mistakes, is kept in all the quotations. Unless stated
otherwise, all the translations from foreign sources are mine, MW.
8 It is important to note here that the early twentieth century as such, and the interwar avant-
garde in particular, were characterised by a simultaneous growth of nationalistic and inter-
nationally oriented stances (cf. Van den Berg and Głuchowska 2013a: x; Zajas 2016: 376;
and Section 2.3).
9 Cf. Dyroff (2015) for a very interesting take on the construction of Polish identity in the
twentieth century.
10 Notably, except for single mentions, the accomplishments and contributions of Kazimir
Malevich were intentionally excluded from this analysis. Regardless of the fact that he was
often perceived as a Pole by his contemporaries (cf. the front cover of Zwrotnica 11; De Stijl
7, 75/76: 497 and Van Doesburg 1930/1931: 358), Malevich had little impact on cultural
mobility between Poland and the Low Countries. See Turowski (2002a) on Malevich’s links
to Poland.
11 For various reasons, though, the issue of religious identity – especially when it comes to art-
ists of Jewish descent – is intentionally omitted here. Polish–Jewish artistic interdependencies
have been analysed among others by Suchan (2010).
12 For an outline of such approaches see Bäckström and Hjartarson (2014a: 7–8).
13 In the words of Itamar Even-Zohar (1990: 17–18), “it is the group which governs the
polysystem that ultimately determines the canonicity of a certain repertoire” since “there is
nothing in the repertoire itself that is capable of determining which section of it can be (or
become) canonized or not”.
14 See Kaelble (2009) for an outline of these approaches.
15 It has been demonstrated that the term Weltliteratur was coined and introduced as early as
in 1774 by A.L. Schlözer (cf. Zajas 2016: 383).
1 Polish, Belgian and Dutch Avant-Garde
Formations, their Mutual Contacts and
Cultural Mobility within the International
Network of Groups and Periodicals
Avant-garde formations from Poland and the Low Countries were parts of an interna-
tional, cross-border network of groups and magazines. Within this network, magazines
and artists from Poland, Belgium and the Netherlands were related to each other, not
only via other formations (e.g. French or German), but also directly, based on personal
contacts between particular representatives of given groups. Such relationships enabled
numerous interactions and mutual, reciprocal exchanges of texts and reproductions
of works of art and architectural projects, which left numerous tangible traces in
the magazines, correspondence and other publications analysed in this study. Thus,
besides an overview of chosen magazines and formations from Poland and the Low
Countries, as well as international initiatives where Polish, Dutch and Belgian artists
played important roles (see Plate 1), this chapter also provides a thorough description
of the contact and relationships between those formations and their representatives.
Throughout the chapter, the nature and the extent of Polish–Dutch and Polish–Belgian
relationships and cultural mobility within the avant-garde network will be explored
and illustrated. Details of Polish, Belgian and Dutch contributions identified in the
analysed periodicals are also listed in four tables in the appendix.1
1.1. Interwar Avant-Garde Formations of Dutch,

Belgian and Polish Provenance
The Dutch avant-garde is often associated with De Stijl [The style] – a journal that
forwarded new ideas on the visual arts, architecture and literature published in Leiden,
Scheveningen and The Hague between 1917 and 1928, with its final issue in 1932 (in
commemoration of its late editor; a total of 76 issues). The founders of De Stijl, whose
articles and works were presented in the first issue from October 1917, were Theo
van Doesburg, Piet Mondrian, Bart van der Leck, Antony Kok, J.J.P. Oud and Vilmos
Huszár (the designer of De Stijl’s logo and cover). Although his artistic accomplish-
ments are often questioned, especially in comparison to other De Stijl artists such as
Mondrian, Oud or Kok (cf. Tuijn 2003: 21–24), Van Doesburg played a very impor-
tant role on the Dutch avant-garde scene. He was an active organiser, theoretician and
inspirer, and had a major impact on the Dutch-speaking avant-garde network. Van
Doesburg ran the magazine and his abilities allowed the publication to last so long.
Yet, at the same time, his difficult personality strongly marked his relationships with
the other founders and often led to antagonism and conflict.
De Stijl was far from being a coherent or homogenous artistic collective. Through-
out the years, the journal had a number of contributors (among others Cornelis van
Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility 13
Eesteren, Gerrit Rietveld and Georges Vantongerloo), but cooperation with most of
them did not last long, mainly due to interpersonal animosities with Van Doesburg.
This is explicitly reflected in Vantongerloo’s letter to Michel Seuphor from 1950:
. . . n’oubli jamais que; V;d.Leck, Mondrian et Vantongerloo sont trois individus

bien distinctes qui n’ont rien de commun avec le titre De Stijl ni avec De Stijl. Leurs
traveaux sont trop individuels. V.Doesburg c’est servit de ces trois individus pour
lancer et pour sa propagande personnelle. Cette vérité est telle que l’on a jamais
considéré V.D. comme artiste mais bien comme propagandiste.2
[. . . don’t ever forget that V[an] d[er] Leck, Mondrian and Vantongerloo are three
separate individuals who have nothing in common with the title De Stijl or with De
Stijl. Their works are too individual. V[an] Doesburg used these three individuals
to launch and for his personal propaganda. The truth is that we never considered
V[an] D[oesburg] as an artist but more as a propagandist.]
The disagreements began almost as soon as the launch issue. The first manifesto of
De Stijl, published a year later, was not signed by two of its six initiators, namely Oud
and Van der Leck. Two of those who were signatories of the manifesto, architects Jan
Wils and Robert van ’t Hoff, had already left the group by the following year, and J.J.P.
Oud’s friendship with Van Doesburg came to an end in the course of 1921 after the lat-
ter submitted colour solutions to Oud’s housing project Spangen in Rotterdam. Initially
the cooperation between Oud and Van Doesburg went smoothly but major differences
in the perception of architecture between these two artists soon surfaced (Esser 1990:
124) and following Oud’s departure in 1921 De Stijl no longer boasted any architects
among its members. In spring 1922 Van Doesburg met the young Cornelis van Eesteren
(Blotkamp 1990: 33–34) who replaced Oud and worked with Van Doesburg.
The relation between Theo van Doesburg and Piet Mondrian was also marked by
constant disputes and arguments. Their viewpoints and interests gradually grew apart
when Van Doesburg, in contrast to Mondrian, became fascinated with the fourth dimen-
sion. As a result Van Doesburg began to publish under his pseudonyms (I.K. Bonset
from May 1920 and Aldo Camini from July 1921) so that he could continue his polemic
with Mondrian who remained unaware of Van Doesburg’s alter egos. In 1922/23 fun-
damental differences appeared between Mondrian and Van Doesburg and in August
1924 they agreed to no longer meet and correspond only if necessary (Blotkamp 1990:
27–35; White 2009: 71). The maelstrom within the group was depicted in a table of
“Principieele medewerkers aan De Stijl” [Principal contributors to De Stijl] published
in a special issue commemorating the tenth anniversary of De Stijl in 1927. Alongside
factual contributors to De Stijl, it also names Van Doesburg’s two pseudonyms.
Besides De Stijl – which became the primary focus of the post-war avant-garde his-
toriography and became synonymous with Dutch (contributions to) modern art (cf. Jaffé
1956) – the Dutch avant-garde scene was influenced and reflected by other periodicals,
including, among others Mécano (1922–192[4]), The Next Call (1923–1926), Het
Woord (1925–1926) and Internationale Revue i10 (1927–1929).
The Next Call was published in Groningen by Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman. After
some turbulence in his personal and professional life, Werkman established his own
magazine which included audacious typographical and printmaking experiments as well
as poems and texts. The Next Call had nine issues which were printed in an innovative
14 Mutual Contacts and Cultural Mobility
technique based on Werkman’s experiments with a traditional manually operated print-
ing press. Partly due to financial and organizational obstacles, Werkman made use of a
wide range of materials which he came across in his workplace, and in doing so elevating
the printing itself to an artistic creative process (Martinet 1995: 7–9).
Even though the character, lifespan and scale of The Next Call differed greatly from
De Stijl (the former remained a small local magazine while the latter aimed to become
an international well-known platform of the avant-garde), they shared one key similar-
ity: a devoted editor whose persistency and personal energy enabled its creation and
functioning. Werkman ran The Next Call – one of the most creative, colourful and
cohesive avant-garde journals – practically alone, with only four Dutch artists contrib-
uting to it (Jan Wiegers, Job Hansen, Wobbe Alkema and Jan van der Zee, all related
to the Groningen-based De Ploeg group). However, he made several attempts to engage
more artists and to broaden the magazine’s international reception, which can be seen
in his correspondence, journals and a list of addresses to twenty-three magazines and
twenty-one artists, serving as the mailing list of The Next Call to a wide range of
magazines including Polish Blok and Zwrotnica.
Figure 1 H.N. Werkman’s list of addresses to congenial formations and artists (source: Collectie
SMA; WA, inv. nr. 110)
3
Het Woord [The word] was a short-lived magazine published in The Hague by Jan
Demets in cooperation with Jan de Vries, Lajos von Ebenteh, Herwarth Walden, Lju-
bomir Micić and Edgar du Perron. It was an anti-traditionalist, internationally oriented
magazine. Its four issues included contributions from several foreign artists – which,
besides Walden and Micić, also included Hannah Höch, Vilmos Huszár and Hendrik
Nicolaas Werkman (his earlier unpublished work appeared in the last issue). Initially
Het Woord was largely based on the German Metz and Van Doesburg’s publications,
but the following issues gained a more Constructivist-oriented character, in line with
De Driehoek’s profile. It was also the first Dutch magazine that cooperated with Du
Perron (Entrop and Verhoeff 1997: 3–6), and it was in Het Woord where Du Perron
decided to kill off his literary alter-ego Duco Perkens and to publish under his own
name – Het Woord 2 included Perkens’s fake obituary.
The Amsterdam-based Internationale Revue i10 was led by Arthur Müller-Lehning,
who established the journal in collaboration with Oud, Mondrian and Moholy-Nagy.
Twenty-two issues of i10 were published featuring a wide range of various articles and
works of some former contributors to De Stijl such as Oud, Vantongerloo, Rietveld
and Huszár, alongside Le Corbusier, Arp, Behne and Kandinsky. The international
orientation of this journal was visible in the scope of its texts written in Dutch, German
and French. Notably, none of Van Doesburg’s works or texts were published in i10,
due to his personal conflicts with other contributors to i10 (Müller-Lehning 1979: 3).
Van Doesburg did however contribute to other magazines, such as Het Getij [The
tide; Amsterdam, 1916–1924], De Bouwwereld [The building world; Amsterdam
1902–1924] and Het Bouwbedrijf [The building industry; The Hague, 1924–1947].
Under the pseudonym I.K. Bonset he also published the Dadaist magazine Mécano
(1922–192[4]).
Van Doesburg made use of Mécano both as a means to praise his own viewpoints
by creating a fake proponent, and as a platform allowing him to express his strong
opinions without much restraint and to criticise other artists or movements, as he
did for instance in his “. . . waar de maes K en Scheldwoorden vloeien . . .” (Mesens
1923).4 Later he planned – unsuccessfully – to launch a new journal Code with Seu-
phor (see below) and subsequently in 1930 he published the first and only issue of
Art Concret [Concrete art] in cooperation with Otto Carlsund, Jean Hélion, Marcel
Wantz and Léon Tutundjian. Shortly before his death in March 1931 Van Doesburg
got involved (together with Auguste Herbin, Jean Hélion, Georges Vantongerloo
and Étienne Béothy) in an international artistic group Abstraction-Création based in
Paris (between 1932 and 1936 five issues of Abstraction-Création. Art non-figuratif
were published).
The Belgian avant-garde produced a very wide spectrum of little magazines, among
others Het Overzicht (1921–1925), Anthologie du Groupe Moderne d’Art de Liège
(1921–1940), 7 Arts. Journal hebdomadaire d’information et de critique (1922–1928)
or De Driehoek. Maandschrift voor Konstruktivistische Kunst (1925–1926).
Het Overzicht [The overview] was established in Antwerp in June 1921 by Geert
Pijnenburg and Fernand Louis Berckelaers (who later adopted the pseudonym Michel
Seuphor, an anagram of Orpheus – used hereinafter). A Flemish nationalist approach
dominated in its first twelve issues, yet Seuphor “[est vite] devenu passionnément,
furieusement, rageusement antinationaliste” [soon became passionately, furiously, rav-
ingly antinationalist] and in November 1922 Jozef Peeters replaced Pijnenburg as the
co-editor of the magazine, and Het Overzicht became more devoted to international art
and avant-garde. This change took place as a consequence of Seuphor’s encounter with
Jozef Peeters and Theo van Doesburg in Antwerp in 1921 (Seuphor and Grenier 1996:
27–35). Peeters organised two Modern Art Congresses in Antwerp in October 1920
and January 1922, partly thanks to Van Doesburg who supplied him with a number of
addresses of various magazines and artists. As a result, Peeters invited Van Doesburg
to give a series of lectures in Belgium (Wintgens Hötte 2009: 17), which resulted in
their aforementioned meeting with Seuphor and consequently in Peeters’s collabora-
tion with Het Overzicht. Gradually Peeters and Seuphor created a wide network of
international contacts, mainly during their trips to Berlin and Paris, which was also
reflected in Het Overzicht.
While still co-editing Het Overzicht, Peeters established a publishing company De
Driehoek [The triangle]. Its first publication was Du Perron’s collection of poems
Kwartier per dag [A quarter per day] which appeared in November 1924 – it was actu-
ally Seuphor who had put Peeters in contact with Du Perron, despite not being entirely
keen on the latter, both as far as his works were concerned and due to personal love
matters (Den Boef and Van Faassen 2013: 133–134). Having published the final issue
of Het Overzicht in February 1925,5 Seuphor moved to Paris and Peeters decided to
issue a new journal bearing the same name as his publishing company. Peeters invited
the Dutch writer Edgar du Perron and the Flemish poet Paul van Ostaijen to co-edit
the magazine, but eventually the latter did not become a member of the editorial
board, although his works were not excluded from the magazine. Moreover, Peeters
unsuccessfully tried to encourage Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman, the editor of The Next
Call, to contribute to his new initiative.6 De Driehoek had ten issues consisting of a
double large sheet folded into four with no cover. Such a format resulted from financial
limitations – Du Perron’s financial contribution was incomparable with Seuphor’s (in
case of Het Overzicht). As such, the lifespan of this new magazine was quite short – it
lasted less than a year. Peeters did however manage to receive some original contribu-
tions to De Driehoek from Italy, Romania, Germany, France and the Netherlands,7 yet
the international outreach of De Driehoek remained rather limited.
As a form of counterpart to the Antwerp-based Dutch-written journals, the French-
written review 7 Arts. Journal hebdomadaire d’information et de critique [7 Arts.
Weekly journal for information and critique] was published by L’Équerre in Brussels.
It was edited by Victor and Pierre Bourgeois, Karel Maes, Pierre-Louis Flouquet and
Georges Monier. 7 Arts appeared weekly on cheap, thin paper (similarly to De Drie-
hoek) and it was sold for a minimum price without aspiring to be a refined journal
but – on the contrary – to be read in the tram on the way to/from work (Paenhuysen
2010: 143). Yet it was one of the most consistent Belgian avant-garde magazines – it
appeared regularly and ran to 156 issues (an unheard of number when compared to
the other avant-garde magazines in question) covering a wide range of information and
on poetry, visual arts, architecture and music. The magazine propagated the ideas of
plastique pure and pursued the integration of painting and architecture, with the latter
taking a prominent place in 7 Arts.
Other noteworthy French-written journals published in Belgium were Anthologie
du Groupe Moderne d’Art de Liège [Anthology of modern art group in Liege] edited
between 1921 and 1940 by Georges Linze and Constant de Horion, and L’Équerre
[The set square] launched in October 1928 in Liège. L’Équerre, which had over one
hundred issues until 1939, soon became an important platform for Belgian and inter-
national avant-garde architects, and the secretariat of the Belgian section of CIAM.
When it comes to the Parisian activities of Seuphor, having settled in Paris he con-
sidered establishing a new journal Code with Van Doesburg. The latter’s letter to
Seuphor from June 1925 states that the new journal should combat certain tendencies
and illustrate different new movements, which Den Boef and Van Faassen (2013: 136)
interpreted as a direct reaction to recent initiatives of Jozef Peeters. Not being able to
launch Code with Van Doesburg, Seuphor planned to re-establish l’Esprit Nouveau, a
magazine founded and edited by Le Corbusier, Amédée Ozenfant and the Belgian poet
Paul Dermée between 1920 and 1925. In 1927 Seuphor and Dermée published one
issue under a new title Documents Internationaux de l’Esprit Nouveau [International
documents of the new spirit] and despite Seuphor’s efforts – for instance he unsuccess-
fully tried to transform Müller-Lehning’s i10 into its Dutch edition (Prat 1984: 59) – it
did not appear again. Two years later Seuphor launched another initiative: together
with the Uruguayan artist Joaquín Torres-García he founded Cercle et Carré [Circle
and square], an international group of avant-garde artists based in Paris. Three issues
of a journal with the same name appeared in 1930.
Seuphor tried – in vain – to engage Werkman in both of his initiatives. In 1927
he contacted Werkman asking him to contribute to his and Dermée’s new journal
and suggesting that he would like to organise Werkman’s exhibition in Paris.8 When
launching Cercle et Carré Seuphor again invited Werkman, as well as Van Doesburg,
to join his formation: “J’espère que vous ne refuserez pas de figurer aux côtés de Mon-
drian, Vantongerloo, Stazewski, Léger, Ozenfant, Torrès-Garcia, Léonce Rosenberg
et bien d’autres (. . .)” [I hope that you will not refuse to figure alongside Mondrian,
Vantongerloo, Stażewski, Léger, Ozenfant, Torres-García, Léonce Rosenberg and oth-
ers (. . .)].9 One after the other Seuphor listed artists from Holland, Belgium, Poland,
France or Uruguay who were joined in their pursuit of modern avant-garde art and
who shared common artistic values, no matter which background or nationality they
represented, which is a meaningful indication of the non-hierarchical and egalitarian
nature of relationships between the avant-garde artists at the time.
Both Werkman and Van Doesburg rejected Seuphor’s invitation. In his response
Van Doesburg argued that “jamais un groupement sans base exclusive et strictement
définiée, composé par des élements opposés, pourra marcher unanimenment ‘vers un
ideal de construction’” [a group with no fixed basis or strict definition, consisting
of opposing elements will never be able to advance unanimously towards ‘the ideal
of construction’].10 Werkman did agree to have his works reproduced and exhibited
during the Cercle et Carré exhibition, and he praised the layout and contents of the
magazine.11 He did not, however, contribute further to the activities of the group.
When it comes to the Polish interwar avant-garde scene, one of its most important
figures was Tadeusz Peiper. Having spent the war and first post-war years abroad,
Peiper returned to Poland in 1921 as a great advocate of avant-garde art, but his
viewpoints – shaped by modern French and Spanish literary and artistic currents –
differed from poets debuting in Poland directly after the war. Hence, Peiper’s theoreti-
cal program, based on different personal experiences and shaped in a different envi-
ronment, found little recognition among his peers (Kowalczykowa 1981: 113–114).
Initially contributing to Nowa Sztuka [The new art], Peiper decided to launch a new
literary and artistic movement in Poland by establishing Zwrotnica. Kierunek: sztuka
teraźniejszości [The switch. Direction: the art of today] in 1922 – soon to become one
of the most important nodes of the Polish, if not European, avant-garde network.
Peiper’s activities were a milestone in the internationalisation of Polish avant-garde as
it was he who established the lion’s share of Polish connections and relationships to
foreign formations.
Zwrotnica was published in two series, each consisting of six issues: from May
1922 to October 1923 and from May 1926 to June 1927.12 It contained numerous
theoretical essays which later proved to have had a fundamental influence on the Polish
avant-garde movement, e.g. “Punkt wyjścia” [Point of departure] or “Miasto. Masa.
Maszyna.” [Metropolis. Mass. Machine.], also reprinted in La Vie des Lettres et des
Arts 13 (cf. Peiper 1922a, 1922b, 1922c). The ideological program of Zwrotnica was
similar to that of 7 Arts or l’Esprit Nouveau – its pages revealed a deep fascination with
the functionality of the machine and a high level of interest in the developments of mod-
ern architecture (Strożek 2013a: 1197). The twelve issues of Zwrotnica featured works
of various European avant-garde artists, architects and poets – among others Cendrars,
Léger, Le Corbusier, Malevich, Marinetti and Tzara. Peiper himself was regarded as
“the father” or “the pope of Polish avant-garde”13 by his contemporaries who in vain
tried to engage him in almost every artistic project which they were to establish after
Zwrotnica. For instance, while working on a new journal Linia in 1931, the poet Julian
Przyboś claimed: “Bez Peipera absolutnie nie możemy wysta˛pić, a czekaliśmy 4 lata,
możemy jeszcze 3 miesia˛ce do jesieni.” [Without Peiper we absolutely cannot begin,
we have waited 4 years, we might as well wait 3 more months into the autumn.].14
Two years after the creation of Zwrotnica, another major Polish avant-garde forma-
tion Blok [Block] was established in Warsaw. It followed the Exhibition of New Art in
Vilnius organised in May 1923 by Witold Kajruksztis and Władysław Strzemiński. The
exhibition catalogue contained, amongst other items, theoretical statements of artists
who were soon to launch Blok, namely Władysław Strzemiński, Henryk Stażewski,
Mieczysław Szczuka and Teresa Żarnower (joined by Edmund Miller). Even though
they were all based on common ground, their theories revealed considerable differences
in the artists’ standpoints (cf. Kajruksztis and Strzemiński 1923). Therefore only the
first four issues of Blok were published by the above-mentioned artists, and as a result
of programmatic differences and tensions between the editors (mainly due to the radi-
cal socio-political views of Szczuka), the other issues were edited solely by Szczuka and
Żarnower, while other artists left the group.
Blok featured numerous progressive works of its initiators as well as Kobro, Berlewi,
Van Doesburg, Oud, Van Eesteren, Werkman and many others. Of note here is that
one of the first theoretical texts of Kazimir Malevich (1924) to be published out of
Russia appeared in Blok.15 In March 1926 Blok organised an International Exhibition
of Architecture in Warsaw where a plethora of artists from various countries presented
their architectural innovations. The eleventh, and final, issue of Blok was entirely
devoted to the exhibition and served as its catalogue.16
Having left Blok, Stażewski and Strzemiński joined Szymon Syrkus and other
architects in their newly established formation Praesens. The first issue of the group’s
magazine appeared in June 1926, edited by Stażewski, Syrkus and his future wife
Helena Niemirowska. The second issue of Praesens appeared in May 1930 (with Andrzej
Pronaszko replacing Stażewski as co-editor) and, like the first one, it featured numer-
ous theoretical contributions, architectural projects and reproductions of artworks of
various European artists and architects. In 1927 the group co-organised Malevich’s
exhibition at the Hotel Polonia in Warsaw – Malevich’s first exhibition outside Russia17 –
and several members of Praesens participated in the Machine Age Exposition in New
York. Another exhibition, Powszechna Wystawa Krajowa [Polish National Exhibition;
PWK] held in 1929 in Poznań, the collective achievement of Praesens architects and
painters, led to conflict within the group and a split between them (Turowski 1981:
74–78, 274). As a consequence, Strzemiński and other painters left the group claim-
ing that Szczuka and other architects destroyed their designs for the PWK. Having
published the second issue of Praesens, the group became exclusively devoted to archi-
tecture, creating for example an urban development vision for Warsaw “Warszawa
Funkcjonalna” [Functional Warsaw] in 1931 (cf. Section 3.8).
Following the break-up of Praesens in 1929, Strzemiński, Kobro and Stażewski
established the a.r. group (revolutionary artists or real avant-garde) which was to unite
all artistic disciplines: visual arts, architecture, typography and poetry. Subsequently,
Strzemiński invited Julian Przyboś, a poet previously related to Zwrotnica, to join the
group.18 Another poet who collaborated with the group, and whose activities were of
the utmost importance for the undertakings of the a.r., was Jan Brze˛kowski. There
are, however, no traces of his official admission to the group, but according to Zofia
Baranowicz (1973: 286) it might have happened in person during Brze˛kowski’s visit to
Koluszki in 1930. Strzemiński also aimed to involve Peiper in his new initiative but the
latter refused and instead – against Strzemiński’s advice19 – cooperated with Praesens
where a fragment of Peiper’s poem “Raz” [Once] was published.20
The a.r. did not create its own magazine but instead issued short leaflet-like bulletins
and published avant-garde books as part of the “a.r. collection”. The first bulletin
presenting the group’s point of departure was published in March 1930 in Cieszyn
together with Przyboś’s book Z ponad [From above]; its text was also reprinted in the
ninth issue of Europa [Europe] in 1930 and added to the third issue of L’Art Con-
temporain – Sztuka Współczesna [Modern art]. The second bulletin was published
after a major delay in December 1932, and it did not gain much recognition. Among
theoretical deliberations on mass art, its social influence, the issue of standardisation of
painting and architecture, it also contained the “a.r. alphabet” designed by Strzemiński
and revised by Stażewski – a unique typographical experiment of the period. Moreover,
between 1930 and 1936 the a.r. group published eight books as part of “a.r. library”
(written by Przyboś, Kobro, Strzemiński and Brze˛kowski).
A significant fragmentation and weak organizational structure of the Polish avant-
garde milieu prevailed in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Running concurrently to the
activities of the a.r., two other magazines were published, but they were not organs of
particular groups. In Warsaw Stanisław Baczyński edited Europa (with thirteen issues)
and in Paris Jan Brze˛kowski and Wanda Chodasiewicz-Grabowska (a.k.a. Nadia
Léger) issued the bilingual L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna (only three
issues appeared). The latter aimed to become an important platform promoting the
Polish literary avant-garde abroad by publishing texts in Polish and in French. Europa
on the other hand was more socially and politically oriented, and artistic and literary
issues were not its focus of attention.
Internal animosities and a lack of common ground within the Polish artistic milieu
bothered both Brze˛kowski and Strzemiński who deplored that their colleagues were
not able to cooperate and find solidarity with one another. Thus, during the 1930s
Brze˛kowski and Strzemiński wanted to launch a new avant-garde journal which was
to unite the Polish scene under one name. Strzemiński suggested a monthly periodi-
cal Linia Awangardy [Line of the avant-garde] as an organ of the a.r. group which
was to replace the a.r. bulletins and L’Art Contemporain. The project did not go very
smoothly – the artists could not agree on the title or programmatic and theoretical
basis of the new periodical. Finally in May 1931 a journal named Linia [The line] was
launched in Krakow, edited solely by Jalu Kurek. Tadeusz Peiper again refused to co-
operate and Brze˛kowski and Przyboś became rather critical about the new journal, which
resulted in further interpersonal conflicts and animosities. Programmatic differences,
financial problems and interpersonal antagonisms proved to be insurmountable21 and,
with only five issues published, Linia did not manage to constitute a new organ of the
whole Polish avant-garde as initially planned.
Despite internal divisions and antagonisms during the 1930s, the Polish avant-garde
scene was able to establish an International Collection of Modern Art, initiated by
Władysław Strzemiński. Opened two years after the Museum of Modern Art in New
York, it was the first permanent collection of abstract art in a European museum.
Strzemiński had already envisaged establishing such a collection during his stay in
Moscow, where he witnessed a growing interest in modern art during the 1920s.
Between 1923 and 1929 Strzemiński repeatedly came forward with his project to other
members of Blok and Praesens, but before launching the a.r. group he was not able
to gain enough attention and support.22 Moreover, the formation of the a.r. collection
coincided with numerous unfavourable economic and socio-political conditions, which
considerably delayed its opening – the collection was to originally open in Łódź on
13 April 1930. Later, the date had to be postponed to 8 February 1931 and it eventu-
ally opened on 15 February 1931.
The collection grew fast, mainly thanks to wide international connections of avant-
garde artists related to the a.r. (e.g. Brze˛kowski or Stażewski), but also other artists,
for instance Peiper who donated one work from his private collection which he had
received from Schwitters. Starting with five paintings brought from Paris at the begin-
ning of 1930, by August there were already seventeen artworks in the collection, eight
of which were by foreign artists. On the opening day the collection included twenty-one
paintings (Turowski 1973b: 278–279), and a year later its official catalogue already
featured seventy-five works from thirteen countries (cf. Strzemiński 1932b). Despite
numerous organisational problems and lack of official support, Strzemiński saw the
newly established collection, and avant-garde art as such, as his mission: a mission to
educate people and promote modern artistic values. Interestingly, in 1932 Strzemiński’s
engagement and involvement in the cultural life gained some recognition: he received
the City of Łódź Art Award, which caused a heated discussion and protests in conser-
vative artistic circles (cf. Luba 2012, 2015b).
1.2. Cultural Mobility between Polish and

Belgian Avant-Garde Formations
1.2.1. Traces of Polish–Belgian Cultural Mobility

in Belgian Avant-Garde Periodicals
Cultural mobility between the Polish and Belgian avant-gardes dates back to the early
1920s when correspondence between their representatives and mutual exchange of
their periodicals began. According to Turowski (2000: 98), from 1922 Tadeusz Peiper
was in touch with Michel Seuphor – a link which later proved to be of crucial impor-
tance for the development of Polish–Belgian relationships. Although their preserved
correspondence begins in late 1923, Seuphor and Peiper must have indeed already
been in touch earlier, as both Zwrotnica and Het Overzicht referred to each other
in early 1923. Subsequently in October 1923 Het Overzicht, as one of few interna-
tional journals, published a note on the aforementioned Vilnius exhibition from May
1923 and six months later it featured an article on modern Polish art written by Jan
Brze˛kowski (1924a).
The existing correspondence indicates that in 1922/1923 Seuphor must have asked
Kajruksztis for some information on Polish modern art, who then turned to Peiper.23
Although Peiper offered to write two texts on Polish modern art and poetry, in Feb-
ruary 1924 he informed Seuphor that he had been too busy publishing a book and
therefore he had asked Brze˛kowski to write the article.24 Peiper enclosed Brze˛kowski’s
text written in French which was later translated into Dutch (by Jozef Peeters), despite
Peiper’s suggestion to publish it in French in order to allow more foreign readers to
become acquainted with Polish modern art. According to Peiper, Brze˛kowski’s text
was “peut-être même trop objectif” [perhaps even too objective] yet, it was “le premier
article qui mets au point, d’une façon à peu-pris exacte, la physionomie véritable de
nos groupements artistiques.” [the first article which describes, in a more or less precise
manner, the genuine physiognomy of our artistic formations].25
Finally, the Dutch translation of Brze˛kowski’s article was published, albeit with a
certain delay, in Het Overzicht 21 in April 1924. Several months later the French ver-
sion of the article also appeared in the third issue of the Czechoslovak revue Pásmo
(Brze˛kowski 1924b). It was, however, slightly altered: its last paragraph was devoted
to Blok which was not described in a particularly positive light. Both publications led
to some controversy among Blok artists and intensified the tensions between Krakow
and Warsaw. The text had been written a year before it was published in Het Over-
zicht in April 1924, and therefore it did not mention Blok – still inexistent at that
time. As a result, the sixth/seventh issue of Blok from September 1924 included a
warning, probably written by Szczuka (1924d), to all avant-garde journals. The note
criticised Brze˛kowski’s articles on Polish art in foreign journals, its sources and the fact
that a number of modernist writers had been ignored by Brze˛kowski. The last para-
graph of the French-written text from Pásmo (also from September 1924) might have
been added as a last minute reaction to the note from Blok, although in his memoirs
Brze˛kowski (1967: 8; 1968: 32–33) claimed that he had never seen the Czechoslovak
article and that he did not even know which particular title had printed it. Probably in
reaction to Brze˛kowski’s article, the fourth issue of Pásmo included a Polish-written
text on modern artistic movements in Poland, praising the achievements and activities
of Blok (Szczuka 1924c).
The case of Belgian and Czechoslovak publications of Brze˛kowski’s article is a
remarkable example of influences and dependencies of various nodes of the avant-
garde network. In this case, two foreign publications had a major impact on the
dynamics of Polish artistic circles, as they increased the interpersonal animosities
between various artists, which was then reflected in their publications. It shows that
what happened not only in “pivotal” nodes of the avant-garde network (e.g. Paris or
Berlin), but also in other places and formations, reverberated throughout the whole
network and considerably influenced its various parts.
Figure 2 Jan Brze˛kowski’s article on modern Polish art (source: Het Overzicht 21: 155; IADDB)
Figure 3 Note criticising Brze˛kowski’s articles in foreign magazines (source Blok 6/7; JBC)
It was not just the Flemish Het Overzicht, but also the French-written 7 Arts
published in Brussels that maintained close relationships with both Krakow- and
Warsaw-based avant-garde groups. Correspondence between the editors of 7 Arts and
Zwrotnica and Blok reveals their reciprocal interest in each other’s works and inno-
vative ideas. Letters between Victor Bourgeois and Tadeusz Peiper indicate that both
artists were to supply one another with texts on Belgian and Polish modern art, which
however never appeared either in 7 Arts or Zwrotnica.26 Earlier Peiper had also asked
Seuphor to write a text on the Belgian avant-garde, and Bourgeois wrote to the editors
of Blok informing them about the launch of the third volume of 7 Arts, requesting
articles and reproductions of Polish art and at the same time offering to supply Blok
with relevant reproductions.27
As a result of this intense communication one finds many traces of reciprocal
exchange between 7 Arts and Polish magazines. When 7 Arts launched a survey on the
international situation of modernism, the Polish reaction was the first to be published,
which indicates that the exchange and mobility between those Polish and Belgian
formations had a direct and intense character. “Notre Enquête Internationale sur le
Modernisme. Pologne. La Revue Blok (Varsovie) nous répond. Quelques principes.
Quelques exemples” [Our international survey on modernism. Poland. The magazine
Blok (Warsaw) responds. Some principles. Some examples] (Blok 1924), published in
the fifth issue of the third volume, presented an outline of Blok’s main programmatic
statements (mostly Szczuka’s theories; Strzemiński’s Unistic perspective was omitted)
accompanied by five reproductions of works by Polish avant-garde artists. Further
examples of Polish art were to be found for instance in no. 3, 10 which featured a
meaningful comparison between Poland and the Netherlands entitled “Documentation
internationale. Pologne Hollande” (1925). Moreover, Polish artists such as Szczuka,
Strzemiński, Stażewski, Żarnower and others were listed as 7 Arts’s collaborators to
the third and fourth volume (nos. 3, 25 and 4, 25).
A very interesting aspect of the interwar avant-garde network emerged in texts
devoted to literature and published in 7 Arts. As well as Benjamin Goriély’s (1925a
and 1925b) translation of a fragment of Anatol Stern’s poem Europa and a short
text on Stern, 7 Arts also referred to a French-written Polish journal Pologne lit-
téraire [Literary Poland] published in 1926–36 in Warsaw. The note on Pologne
littéraire included the following quotation: “Nous ne pouvons malheureusement
contrôler la justesse de cette affirmation, mais il nous parait utile de montrer par ce
cas étranger, combien la vie de l’Europe est liée à de communes préoccupations.”
[Unfortunately we cannot measure the accuracy of this statement, yet we found it
useful to demonstrate, based on this foreign example, how much the life of Europe
is related to common concerns] ([Bourgeois et al.] 1927a). This example explicitly
shows that artists from various artistic circles where interested in the developments
of avant-garde art and literature in all parts of Europe, regardless of linguistic barri-
ers or geographical location, not to mention the historiographical divisions between
the East and the West, “centres” and “peripheries” that were created and applied
post factum.
Similar points of view were echoed in letters sent to 7 Arts from Blok and Zwrot-
nica on the occasion of the 100th issue of the Belgian journal, alongside other letters
from like-minded Dutch, German and French formations. They emphasised the fact
that 7 Arts functioned as a platform for both eastern and western avant-gardes: Blok
appreciated it as “une revue qui lutte pour le modernisme à l’Est ainsi qu’à l’Ouest de
l’Europe” [a journal which fights for modernism in the East as well as in the West of
Europe] (Blok 1926), while Peiper emphasised that “l’avenir des idées nouvelles dans
chaque pays est déterminé par l’avenir de ces idées dans tous les autres pays. Peiper est
nécessaire à Braque aussi bien que Picasso” [the future of new ideas in every country
depends on the future of such ideas in all other countries. Braque needs Peiper as much
as he needs Picasso].28
The exchange between Polish and Belgian avant-garde publications was also visible
in the French-written magazine published in the Walloon part of Belgium Anthologie
du Groupe Moderne d’Art de Liège. Of particular note here is its third/fourth issue,
published in March/April 1925, which was dedicated to Polish art, as indicated on its
cover. This issue included, among other articles, French translations of two significant
programmatic statements from Blok: “Qu’est-ce que le ‘Constructivisme’” (Pologne
1925) which was based on “Co to jest konstruktywizm” [What is constructivism] from
Blok 6/7, although the texts were not identical, and Henryk Stażewski’s (1925) “L’Art
abstrait”, published originally as “O sztuce abstrakcyjnej” [On abstract art] in Blok
8/9. Besides reproductions of works of major Polish avant-garde artists, the issue also
featured Szczuka’s (1925) text on modern Polish art, De Horion’s (1925) article on
Władysław Reymont and Linze’s (1925) “Słowo o nowej sztuce” [A word on the new
art] which had previously appeared in Blok 6/7.
Figure 4 Cover of Anthologie du Groupe Moderne d’Art de Liège 3/4 from 1925 dedicated to
Polish art (source: KMSKB)
Anthologie published the French versions of such important texts as “Co to jest kon-
struktywizm” or “O sztuce abstrakcyjnej” only a matter of months after their original
publication in Blok. The French translations of Polish programmatic texts were par-
ticularly important as they allowed a broader scope of readers to become acquainted
with the Polish contributions to the development of the interwar avant-garde, and
their quick appearance in Anthologie is yet another indication of the remarkable
nature of multidimensional relationships between various nodes of the avant-garde
network from different parts of the continent. Moreover, the reproductions of avant-
garde artworks travelled with remarkable speed between avant-garde formations and
periodicals: the third/fourth issue of Anthologie featured works of Nicz-Borowiakowa,
Szczuka and Żarnower which had been published in Blok 8/9 only four months
earlier. The exchange between 7 Arts and Blok was similarly exceptionally rapid: for
instance, a painting of Rafałowski was reproduced in 7 Arts only three months later
than in Blok, and Servranckx’s sculpture figured on the pages of Blok just four months
later than it appeared in 7 Arts. Indeed, in some cases foreign journals featured repro-
ductions of artworks from different nodes of the avant-garde network even before they
were published in their respective local periodicals (which took place probably due to
delays in the printing process, financial or organisational obstacles). This was the case
for three reproductions of architectural projects of Szczuka, Koziński, Karczewski, and
Żarnower, which appeared in 7 Arts in February 1926, i.e. one month earlier than their
Polish appearance in Blok 11 (cf. Appendix).
Architecture was an important field for avant-garde artists, which also found reflec-
tion in Belgian periodicals such as for instance L’Équerre. Contact between this Liège-
based group and Polish architects was initiated during one of the CIAM meetings, and
as a result Polish architectural projects were presented on the pages of L’Équerre. It was
Victor Bourgeois who recommended Szymon Syrkus to Paul Fitschy, the representative
of L’Équerre, and the lively correspondence between the two architects reveals that
Syrkus was asked to write an article on Polish architecture29 which, richly illustrated,
appeared in two issues of L’Équerre in 1935 (Syrkus and Syrkus 1935). Excerpts
from this text were re-published in 1936 and 1937, and another article written by
the Syrkuses appeared in the journal in 1938. L’Équerre also published Tołwiński’s
(1937) report on CIAM activities, and in an article “Une introduction en forme de
panorama” [An introduction overview] Bourgeois (1935) listed Praesens among the
most prominent European journals, alongside Het Overzicht, De Stijl, i10 and others.
Moreover, modern Polish architects were also invited to participate in an exhibition of
modern architecture, urban planning and new materials held in Liège in May 1936,30
yet the journal reveals no traces of their actual participation.
1.2.2. Traces of Polish–Belgian Cultural Mobility

in Polish Avant-Garde Periodicals
Traces of cultural mobility between Poland and Belgium are also to be found in
Polish magazines. Although, as described above, both Seuphor and Bourgeois were
supposed to write a number of articles on the Belgian avant-garde for publication in
Peiper’s Zwrotnica, no such texts ever appeared. There are only two references to Het
Overzicht and 7 Arts in Zwrotnica, for instance an excerpt from an article “Notre
position: Confiance en l’art” which appeared in Zwrotnica in March 1927, i.e. only
three months later than in 7 Arts (cf. [Bourgeois et al.] 1926, 1927b; and Appendix).
More examples of mutual exchange can be found in Blok. Its sixth/seventh issue
informed readers that Blok had been invited to participate in an exhibition at the gal-
lery Le Cabinet Maldoror in Brussels in December 1924 ([Szczuka and ŻAROWER]
1924a), which eventually did not take place, as between 6 and 31 December 1924
the gallery held another exhibition, “Œuvres des peintres russes” (D’Haeseleer 1984:
117). Belgian architects and artists participated though in the exhibition of modern
architecture held in Warsaw between 27 February and 25 March 1926. In November
1925 Blok and Polski Klub Artystyczny [Polish Arts Club] sent an invitation to Victor
Bourgeois,31 but whether he participated in the exhibition is unknown as his name was
not included in the list of Belgian participants.
The exhibition catalogue (Blok 11) depicted two drawings of Bourgeois’s project
“La Cité Moderne” together with a short treatise on the correct orientation of houses
(Bourgeois 1926, based on Bourgeois 1924). The catalogue also included three Belgian
participants: Huib Hoste,32 Victor Servranckx and Henri van de Velde. Apparently
more works of Belgian provenance were scheduled to be exhibited and reproduced in
the catalogue – a note on its first page informed readers that: “[l]’arrivé des œuvres
(. . .) belges étant en retard, il fut impossible de les reproduire dans ce numero” [due to
the delay in transportation of (. . .) Belgian works, it had been impossible to reproduce
them in this issue] (Blok 11, 1926). Eventually, the catalogue featured texts written by
Van de Velde (1926) and Servranckx (1926), as well as reproductions of their works
and two linocuts by Peeters. Three other works by Servranckx had also been published
in April 1925 in Blok 10.
Belgian contributions to Polish magazines launched after Blok are mainly visible in
Praesens and L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna. From 1928 onwards Szymon
Syrkus – the editor of Praesens – actively participated in the CIAM organisation, which
boosted direct contact and exchange between Polish and Belgian architects. After the
second CIAM congress in Frankfurt, Syrkus wrote to Bourgeois asking for drawings
and pictures of Bourgeois’s project of workers’ housing, which had been discussed dur-
ing the conference. In the following letter Syrkus thanked Bourgeois for his materials
promising to send him the second issue of Praesens where one of Bourgeois’s drawings
accompanied Roman Piotrowski’s (1930: 81) article.33 Praesens 2 also included Pierre
Flouquet’s (1930) article on modern painting with reproductions of Belgian works by
Vantongerloo, Servranckx and Flouquet as well as a photo of Seuphor, Mondrian and
Prampolini. Praesens 2 featured some other references to Belgian art (see for instance
Syrkus and Syrkus 1930: 142) and reviews of several Belgian books, written by Seu-
phor, Vantongerloo, Paul Werrie and Camille Poupeye. Mention was also made of the
L’Art Polonais exhibition held between December 1928 and January 1929 at the Palais
des Beaux-Arts in Brussels, where a number of artists related to Blok and Praesens
participated.34
Praesens 2 published one further work originating from the Low Countries, namely
Michel Seuphor and Piet Mondrian’s Tableau-poème (Textuel) dated 16 May 1928,
which had also appeared in April 1929 in L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna
(see Plate 2). This artwork gained more attention after the war, which was reflected
in a postcard from the National Museum of Modern Art in Paris sent by Seuphor to
Brze˛kowski in May 1973. Seuphor wrote: “Mon cher ami, Petite image en souvenir
de ‘l’Art Contemporain’ où tu fus le premier à reproduire le tableau, maintenant si
connu.” [Dear friend, A small image in memory of ‘L’Art Contemporain’ where you
were the first one to have published the tableau, now so well known.].35 Later, in 1957
Seuphor donated it to the Łódź collection.
L’Art Contemporain was one of the first journals to publish Mondrian and Seu-
phor’s work. At the same time – in March 1929 – it appeared in the Czechoslovak
magazine ReD where it was somehow described as a repetition of Teige and Nezval’s
poems and “deformed illustrations” created in 1923/25 (Mondrian and Seuphor
1929a). Tableau-poème (Textuel) also appeared in Praesens 2 and in Cercle et Carré 2.
Yet, interestingly enough, Cercle et Carré only published Seuphor’s text, and Mon-
drian’s layout of this artwork was omitted (cf. Mondrian and Seuphor 1929b,
Seuphor 1930b and Seuphor [and Mondrian] 1930). Hence, this remarkable piece
of avant-garde work did not appear in its entirety in any of the analysed Belgian or
Dutch interwar avant-garde magazines, in contrast to two Polish and one Czecho-
slovak journal. As such, this provides a unique example of cultural mobility within
the avant-garde network where an exceptional artwork originating from one of its
nodes was introduced to the public in seemingly remote places as opposed to being
published locally.
Other works of Belgian provenance appearing in Polish periodicals included four
texts by Seuphor (1929a, 1929b, 1930d, 1930e) and two reproductions of Vantonger-
loo’s sculptures published in L’Art Contemporain, as well as several texts featuring in
Europa (e.g. Dermée 1929a, 1929b; and Otlet 1929). Interestingly, when Strzemiński
began to cooperate with Europa he asked key European artists to answer his short
survey on modern art. Several reactions to the survey were published in the magazine,
including a short passage written by Georges Vantongerloo (1929). The correspon-
dence between Brze˛kowski and Przyboś also indicates that the second a.r. bulletin was
supposed to include an article written by Vantongerloo which was eventually excluded
from the final version, possibly due to Brze˛kowski’s disapproval.36 Last but not least,
references to Belgian architectural projects were also to be found in Polish architectural
periodicals such as Architekt [Architect], Architektura i Budownictwo [Architecture
and construction] and Dom, Osiedle, Mieszkanie [House, estate, apartment] where
innovative projects for instance of L.H. de Koninck and E. Taelemans were depicted
and discussed (cf. Appendix).
1.3. Cultural Mobility between Polish and Dutch

Avant-Garde Formations
1.3.1. Traces of Polish–Dutch Cultural Mobility

in Dutch Avant-Garde Periodicals
According to preserved tangible evidence, the relationship between Dutch and Polish
avant-gardes dates back to 1922 when Berlewi ordered a subscription of De Stijl.37
At that time Berlewi lived in Berlin where he met Richter, Moholy-Nagy and Van der
Rohe, amongst others, and in May 1922 he participated in the Düsseldorf Congress
of Progressive Artists (Turowski 2000: 383). The Düsseldorf Congress was of utmost
importance for the shaping and expanding of the European network of avant-garde –
it gathered a plethora of artists from several countries and formed the starting point
of many long-lasting relationships and links between them. Berlewi’s (1922) report
on the congress was published in Nasz Kurjer [Our courier] and in it he referred to
numerous participating European artists as well as to a “worldwide network of peri-
odicals” which had appeared in various avant-garde circles at the time of the congress
(cf. Benson and Forgács 2002: 397–399). Van Doesburg (1922d) likewise mentioned
Berlewi, as well as Stanisław Kubicki, in his own report from the congress. Berlewi’s
contacts with Van Doesburg and other De Stijl artists were developed later by other
representatives of Polish avant-garde formations. For example, Van Doesburg received
the manuscript of Szczuka’s 1924 article “Le mouvement artistique en Pologne”,38
which did not however appear in De Stijl, but – as mentioned before – in Anthologie
du Groupe Moderne d’Art de Liège, as well as in the Romanian Contimporanul 48.
As a result of those early contacts, De Stijl published a note on the launching of Blok
in 1924. It acknowledged the resolute layout of the magazine and claimed – based
solely on the illustrations, as the texts in Polish could hardly be understood – Blok’s
affinity to “alle moderne richtingen van « Rousseau » tot « De Stijl »” [all modern
movements from ‘Rousseau’39 to ‘De Stijl’] ([Van Doesburg] 1924d: 109). Interestingly,
the note also criticised Blok’s reprints from the German magazine G: Material zur
elementaren Gestaltung [G: Material for elementary construction], which coincided
Figure 5 Berlewi’s card to Van Doesburg ordering the subscription of De Stijl (source: ATNvD)
with Van Doesburg’s current polemics with the representatives of the German avant-
garde (cf. Baljeu 1974: 55–58). The same issue of De Stijl listed Blok alongside other
avant-garde magazines such as Mécano and The Next Call as one of the journals,
which “verdienen bizonderen aandacht” [deserve particular attention] ([Van Does-
burg] 1924e: 113), and several Polish avant-garde periodicals and books were listed
together with other European publications in following issues. A number of books and
journals published by Polish avant-garde artists are still to be found in Van Doesburg’s
archive.40 Remarkably, since 1925 Warsaw was also listed as one of De Stijl’s cities
on the cover of this magazine alongside Leiden, Hannover, Paris, Brno and Vienna.
While serving first and foremost for the magazine’s propaganda – by emphasising
the grossly exaggerated outreach of De Stijl – it was also a confirmation of the status
of Warsaw as a fully fledged node of the avant-garde network. The fact that at the last
moment Blok decided to withdraw from the 1925 Paris Exhibition of Decorative Arts
and join Van Doesburg in his critique of the exhibition after De Stijl had been excluded
from it (cf. Blok 10 and Kiesler et al. 1925) must have also reinforced Van Doesburg’s
appreciation and interest in Blok. Moreover, in reaction to De Stijl’s exclusion from the
Figure 6 One of the covers of De Stijl with the mention of Warsaw (source: De Stijl 6, 12;
IADDB)
Paris exhibition,41 the journal’s international outreach came to be increasingly empha-

sised: its impact was supposedly observable “in almost all countries” including Poland
(P. van Doesburg 1925: 152), which is reflected in a chart illustrating “the impact of
De Stijl-movement abroad since 1917” ([Van Doesburg] 1927). The Warsaw-based
Librairie des Beaux-Arts was also listed as one of the distribution points of De Stijl,
but it is also worth noting that it received only four copies of the magazine, indicating
that in actual fact De Stijl had as marginal a status as other avant-garde publications
of that period. Preserved subscription lists indicate that amongst the recipients of
De Stijl were Berlewi, Brze˛kowski, Peiper and Syrkus.42
Important traces of Polish–Dutch cultural mobility are to be found in the Amsterdam-
based Internationale Revue i10. The architects J.J.P. Oud and Szymon Syrkus exchanged
letters from March 1925 onwards,43 and they soon became friends with a great deal
of respect and esteem for each other’s works and activities, boosted by their coopera-
tion with CIAM. Moreover, from 1927 Syrkus and his wife often visited the Nether-
lands, where they undoubtedly met with Oud and other prominent Dutch architects.44
In 1926 Oud invited Syrkus to collaborate with his newly established periodi-
cal, and since the beginning Syrkus was listed as one of the contributors to i10
alongside the most prominent modern architects and artists such as Rietveld, Van
Eesteren, Mondrian, Bourgeois, Vantongerloo, Le Corbusier, Gropius and many others
([Müller-Lehning] 1927 and 1929). This is a further clear indication that Polish, Bel-
gian and Dutch representatives of the avant-garde network, and their contemporaries
from other countries, perceived each other as partners and equal contributors to the
development of modern art and architecture.
The only tangible example of Syrkus’s contribution to i10, however, was his
French-written article “L’architecture ouvrant le volume” [Architecture opens its
volume]. Its publication had already been announced in the journal’s first issue in
January 1927. Oud’s correspondence to the editor Müller-Lehning reveals that in
November 1926 Syrkus had promised to send an article accompanied by reproduc-
tions of Polish artworks, the delivery of which he ultimately considerably delayed – at
the end of January 1927 Müller-Lehning reported to Oud that he had still not received
anything from Syrkus.45 Eventually, Syrkus’s (1927) theoretical article, accompanied
by two reproductions of Malevich’s and Stażewski’s works, was published in the fifth
issue of i10 in May 1927. According to Syrkus’s correspondence with Oud, they saw
each other in Rotterdam in January 1929 when Oud might have asked Syrkus for
further contributions to i10. Subsequently in September 1929 – again after a major
delay – Syrkus sent twenty-seven reproductions and architectural drawings, as well
as one issue of the magazine Dom i Osiedle [House and estate] asking Oud to choose
relevant material to be published in i10.46 In the meantime though i10 had already
closed: its final issue (no. 21/22) appeared in June 1929, of which Syrkus was appar-
ently unaware.
Polish architectural and artistic innovations were also discussed in the Dutch archi-
tectural magazine Het Bouwbedrijf. It featured a series of articles on new artistic
and architectural trends in Europe written by Theo van Doesburg, who reflected on,
amongst other topics, Polish architectural accomplishments. Van Doesburg’s articles
(1930–1931) discussed chosen theoretical aspects originated by Malevich, Strzemiński
and Szczuka and their practical implementation exemplified by the works of architects
linked to Praesens and Stowarzyszenie Architektów Polskich [SAP, Society of Polish
Architects]. As in the case of other countries (e.g. when describing the architectural
developments in France and the role of Le Corbusier), when it came to modern Polish
architecture, Van Doesburg’s texts were not entirely positive: he repeatedly emphasised
the pioneering nature of Dutch innovations (esp. with relation to De Stijl). Neverthe-
less, he remained quite enthusiastic about numerous Polish architects (cf. Section 3.8).
Van Doesburg (1930a) was also positive in his review of the second issue of Praesens,
in which he praised its distinctly modern approach as well as its excellent perception
and methods of construction.
In order to gather information for these articles, Van Doesburg repeatedly wrote
to Polish avant-garde artists and architects asking them for information and repro-
ductions of their works. Stażewski’s response to Van Doesburg’s request indicates
that the latter had sent him a letter on 10 October 1928 asking for information and
photographs of current Polish works, and requesting him to pass on the request to
other artists. Later Van Doesburg sent similar requests to Andrzej Pronaszko, Witold
Minkiewicz (believing that he was the editor of the architectural periodical Architek-
tura i Budownictwo) and to Roman Sigalin, one of the SAP members. As a result of this
correspondence, Van Doesburg received the yearbook of SAP as well as a number of
journals and reproductions of works by various Polish artists and architects, including
Kobro, Syrkus, Stażewski, Strzemiński, Szanajca and others, which he used for the
writing of his articles for Het Bouwbedrijf.47
Another important periodical reflecting on Polish architectural innovations was
de 8 en Opbouw [the 8 and Construction]. It featured a number of contributions of
Polish provenance, for instance Syrkus’s (1934) article “Het nieuwe bouwen in Polen.
De buitenmuur” [Modern building in Poland. The exterior wall], which had been pre-
sented during the fourth CIAM congress in Athens. Numerous illustrations depicting
architectural projects by key modern architects from Poland appeared on the pages of
de 8 en Opbouw, where key European architects such as Mart Stam (1937) and Gerrit
Rietveld reflected on them. In his report from the Parisian exhibition in 1937 Rietveld
(1937: 176) praised the Polish pavilion: “In Polen zag ik een erg mooi interieur van
Barbara Brukalska, (. . .) eigenlijk zeer geraffineerd, maar toch zo natuurlijk” [In Poland
I saw a very nice interior by Barbara Brukalska, (. . .) actually very sophisticated,
yet so natural]. Rietveld’s appreciation for the Polish project is quite understand-
able in light of the fact that in that period Dutch and Polish modern architects were
closely cooperating with each other (in CIAM), and their architectural approach and
endeavours were very much related.
1.3.2. Traces of Polish–Dutch Cultural Mobility

in Polish Avant-Garde Periodicals
Contacts with Dutch avant-garde artists were quite well reflected in Polish avant-garde
publications, which often featured their articles and artworks. The Dutch contributions
are visible in virtually all of the Polish periodicals analysed for this study: reproductions
of works by Van Doesburg, Van Eesteren, Huszár, Mondrian and Seuphor appeared
on the pages of Zwrotnica and L’Art Contemporain; Almanach. Katalog. Salon moder-
nistów [Almanac. Catalogue. The salon of modernists] published a fragment of Van
Doesburg’s (1928) Klassiek–Barok–Modern [Classic–Baroque–Modern] and Europa
included the responses of Mondrian (1929) and Van Doesburg (1929) to the aforemen-
tioned survey on modern art sent by Strzemiński to leading European avant-garde art-
ists. A Polish translation of the manifesto of concrete art “Base de la peinture concrète”
(signed by Van Doesburg, amongst others), was also published in Europa (Carlsund
et al. 1930c). What is more, the fourth issue of Linia planned to publish Brze˛kowski’s
notes on De Stijl and Abstraction-Création,48 but eventually they did not appear.
It is, though, in Blok and in Praesens where the most traces of Polish–Dutch
exchange can be found. Blok published reproductions of works by Van Doesburg, Van
Eesteren, Oud, Nieuwenhuis and Werkman, as well as Van Doesburg’s (1924c) article
“Odnowienie architektury” [The renewal of architecture] based on his texts published
in De Stijl and Bouwkundig Weekblad (1924a and 1924b). Excerpts from this article
were also incorporated in Blok’s manifesto “Co to jest konstruktywizm” (Red. 1924b).
Indeed, the Polish translation of Van Doesburg’s article appeared in July 1924, two
months after the publication in Bouwkundig Weekblad and probably even earlier than
in De Stijl – Marguerite Tuijn (2003: 321) established the publication date of De Stijl
6, 6/7 for late July/early August, which is another indication of the impressive pace of
direct exchange and mobility of texts between Polish and Dutch representatives of the
avant-garde network. Moreover, the fact that excerpts from this article were incorpo-
rated in Blok’s manifesto – one of the most important programmatic texts of the Polish
Figure 7 Blok’s manifesto “Co to jest konstruktywizm” (source: Blok 6/7; JBC)
interwar avant-garde – is in itself remarkable and it also indicates how important those
relationships were for the Polish avant-garde.
A very important event that would shape Dutch–Polish avant-garde relations was
the 1926 architectural exhibition in Warsaw, where works of key modern Dutch
architects were exhibited. The exhibition catalogue (Blok 11) listed more than twenty
architectural projects and furniture/interior designs by Oud, Van Ravesteyn, Rietveld
and Van der Vlugt. Some of these works were also reproduced, including Oud’s plans
of Hoek van Holland, Rietveld’s Schröder Huis and two of his famous chairs (total
of 16 illustrations). The engagement of Dutch architects was to a great extent made
possible thanks to Syrkus’s wide connections. During his stay in Berlin, Weimar and
Paris between 1922 and 1924 Syrkus became acquainted with key European architects,
among others Van Doesburg and other artists related to De Stijl (Turowski 2000: 40;
Choma˛towska 2015: 86–88). Hence, when preparing the exhibition Syrkus and other
Polish artists and architects had direct links to key figures on the Dutch avant-garde
scene such as Oud, Van Doesburg and Van Ravesteyn whom they approached and
invited to the exhibition.49 When preparing the exhibition catalogue, the Polish artist
and critic Szcze˛sny Rutkowski requested information on architectural innovations in
the Netherlands from Van Ravesteyn and Oud.50 Whether they supplied Rutkowski
with a text is unknown, but eventually Blok 11 published a short descriptive article
“Nowoczesna architektura holenderska” [Modern Dutch architecture] written by
P. Meller (1926), who discussed Dutch new architectural projects, referring particu-
larly enthusiastically to Berlage and Oud.
The architectural exhibition at the beginning of 1926 was the last initiative of Blok
before its closure, which was followed by the creation of Praesens. Having established
the new group and periodical, Polish artists quickly informed their Dutch colleagues
about this new initiative: in January 1926 Stażewski, Syrkus and Rafałowski wrote to
Van Doesburg asking him to send some material for the first issue of Praesens and in
response Van Doesburg sent an article along with reproductions of his and Rietveld’s
works. Moreover, not being able to attend the exhibition of Blok, he offered to visit
Warsaw to give a series of lectures, an idea which both he and the Polish artists were
very keen on. The artists exchanged several letters with regard to Van Doesburg’s
visit, yet it unfortunately did not come to fruition due to financial and organisational
reasons.51
Syrkus also wrote to J.J.P. Oud in order to inform him about the newly established
Praesens and to express his positive reaction to Oud’s works exhibited in Warsaw.
Sharing his plans concerning the first issue of Praesens – for instance to reprint Oud’s
article from Soziale Bauwirtschaft [Social building industry] together with photos and
plans of his project for Oud-Mathenesse – Syrkus mentioned the contributions he had
already received from Van Doesburg and Rietveld.52 Oud’s reaction regarding the dis-
semination of Van Doesburg’s works is particularly interesting:
Pour ce qui concerne la collaboration de M. Van Doesburg, permettez-moi de vous

avertir que c’est bien nécessaire de contrôler bien ce qu’on publie de lui. M. Van
Doesburg est un peintre avec beaucoup d’esprit, qui a écrit d’articles excellents sur
la peinture moderne, mais qui – voyant finir la peinture en sa forme présente s’est
sauvé dans l’architecture sans aussi le moindre idée de bâtir. N’ayant jamais bâti
il proclame une architecture spéculative qui fait beaucoup de mal à l’œuvre des
architectes modernes sérieux. (. . .) pour ça c’est absolument nécessaire de savoir
précisément ce qu’on publiera de lui et ce qu’on ne publiera pas.53
[With regard to the cooperation with M. Van Doesburg, let me warn you that it
is indeed necessary to strictly control which works of his get published. M. Van
Doesburg is a painter with much spirit, who has written excellent articles on
modern painting, but who – seeing the painting end in its present form, has fled
to architecture without the slightest idea how to build. Having never built he pro-
claims a speculative architecture which badly hurts the works of serious architects.
(. . .) therefore it is absolutely necessary to know precisely which works of his will
be published and what will not be published.]
Eventually, the first issue of Praesens published works by both Oud and Van Does-
burg. As envisaged by Syrkus, it featured Oud’s article (1926) based on “Erziehung
zur Architektur” from Sociale Bauwirtschaft 5, 4 as well as an article by Theo van
Doesburg which had earlier appeared as “Vers un art élémentaire” in the French
magazine Vouloir (Van Doesburg 1926a, 1926b). Both texts were illustrated by vari-
ous architectural works of Dutch provenance.
Oud’s letter to Syrkus constitutes an example of how internal conflicts within par-
ticular circles influenced other nodes of the avant-garde network – the changing nature
of interpersonal relationships between its members (both affinities and animosities) did
not remain without influence elsewhere. Due to the growing friendship between Syrkus
and Oud, the latter’s accomplishments were considerably better represented in Praesens
than in Blok, where Van Doesburg’s contributions dominated. Nevertheless, despite
Oud’s disapproval of Van Doesburg’s theories, the first issue of Praesens did publish
Van Doesburg’s works and its editors maintained good relations with him: their cor-
respondence actually indicates that besides the aforementioned series of lectures which
Van Doesburg was to give in Warsaw, the magazine also planned to organise a
De Stijl exhibition in Warsaw and to publish a book on Van Doesburg’s theories. What is
more, having published the first issue of Praesens, Syrkus and Stażewski sent a copy to
Van Doesburg and asked him for contributions to the second issue which was meant
to appear in September 1926. In his response Van Doesburg wrote: “I have indeed
received the first issue of your beautiful journal and I am grateful for the beautiful
page which you have devoted to me. Enclosed you find a short article for the following
issue, with photos.” Although Syrkus assured him that the received material would be
published in Praesens 2,54 none of Van Doesburg’s works appeared in this issue.
Writing to Oud on the other hand, Syrkus attempted to somehow justify the inclu-
sion of Van Doesburg’s works in the first issue of Praesens: he more or less agreed with
Oud’s opinion on Van Doesburg’s role in architecture and asked Oud not to judge his
approach based on the contents of Praesens 1 which he saw as rather preliminary.55
While several works of Van Doesburg were to be found in the first issue of Praesens,
with time Syrkus’s esteem for the editor of De Stijl deteriorated. This is evident in a
letter from Szymon and Helena Syrkus to Oud from December 1929, where they wrote:
“Un de ces jours nous étions dans la bibliothèque et nous avons feuilleté DE STIJL.
C’est devenu terriblement présomptueux et faux. Mais tout d’un coup nous y avons
trouvé votre photo. C’était une belle surprise – rencontre inattendue.” [A few days
ago, we were in the library and we thumbed through DE STIJL. It has become awfully
presumptuous and false. But suddenly we found your photo. It was a lovely surprise –
an unexpected encounter.].56 Not surprisingly, hardly any mention of Van Doesburg
or his works was to be found in the second issue of Praesens.
The second issue of Praesens was eventually published in May 1930, four years after
the first. In his letters to Oud Syrkus mentioned financial and organisational problems
which delayed the publication of this issue; originally expected in September 1926 it
was gradually postponed, only to be finalised in May 1930, partly due to Praesens’s
involvement in the PWK exhibition. Deploring the lack of money and support for the
avant-garde in Poland, Syrkus anyhow intended to publish a good-quality journal,
bereft of the mistakes made in the previous issue. Hence, he asked Oud for a hitherto
unpublished text with illustrations.57 Finally, Praesens 2 featured three articles of
Dutch provenance: by Oud (1930), Van Eesteren (1930) and Mondrian (1930a), as
well as references to architectural and constructional solutions of other Dutch archi-
tects in Syrkus’s (1930) article. Moreover, the list of foreign publications included four
Dutch books and a short enthusiastic review of the already mothballed magazine i10
(Syrkus et al. 1930a, 1930b).
The appearance of works by the Dutch architect Cornelis van Eesteren in the sec-
ond issue of Praesens is also noteworthy; it was related to his involvement in CIAM,
over which he presided between 1930 and 1947. As in the case of Oud, engagement
in the works of this organisation resulted in a very close relationship and friendship
between Van Eesteren and the Polish architects. The archive of Van Eesteren in Rot-
terdam houses an impressive collection of letters, photos and other material exchanged
between them in the period 1933–1983. It includes two particular documents sent to
Van Eesteren by the Syrkuses and Tołwiński: a photo album offered to Van Eesteren
on the occasion of his birthday on 4 July 1937 and a postcard from 2 September 1937.
The cover of the photo album features birthday wishes written in Dutch, a unique
example of the affinity between Dutch and Polish modern architects. The photo on the
postcard (taken by Tołwiński) is signed “Joinville s/Marne 3/7/1937” and it pictures
Van Eesteren and Helena Syrkus in cordial conversation in the garden.
Translations of books with programmatic and theoretical deliberations are another
noteworthy example of cultural mobility between the Polish and Dutch avant-gardes.
The first issue of Praesens (1926: 44) announced the Polish translation of Oud’s book
Die Holländische Architektur [The Dutch architecture], originally published as part
of the Bauhaus series from 1926, of which Syrkus informed Oud in his letter from 16
June 1926, asking for the reproductions necessary to publish the book.58 Later that
same year Syrkus wrote to Van Doesburg:
Nous avons commencé l’édition polonaise des livres sur l’art nouveau. Nous
commençons par le NEOPLASTICISME de Mondrian, et nous publierons après
L’art et don avenir de M.Vantongerloo, La Peinture et ses Lois de Gleizes, puis
les œuvres de Malewicz, J.J.P. Oud, Strzemiński et d’autres. Nous serions bien
contents de publier aussi quelque chose de vous . . .59
[We have begun the Polish edition of books on the new art. We begin with Le Néo-
plasticisme by Mondrian, after which we will publish Vantongerloo’s L’art et son
avenir, La peinture et ses lois by Gleizes followed by the works of Malevich, J.J.P.
Oud, Strzemiński and others. We would also like to publish something of yours . . .]
Figure 8 Photo album with Dutch-written birthday wishes dated 4 July 1937 and a postcard
from 2 September 1937 from Tołwiński and the Syrkuses to Cornelis van Eesteren
(source: Collectie Het Nieuwe Instituut in bruikleen van collectie Van Eesteren-Fluck &
Van Lohuizenstichting, Amsterdam; inv. nrs. EEST. 4.447 and 10.1343B)
None of the Dutch or Belgian books mentioned in the letter actually ever came
to be published. According to the correspondence, the process of translating and
editing Oud’s book went rather quickly, but some problems must have arisen (most
probably financial, as the group struggled for four years to even publish the second
issue of Praesens) and the last mention of Oud’s book is to be found in a letter from
January 1929, shortly before the architects saw each other in Rotterdam.60 This was
also the case of Mondrian’s book Le Néoplasticisme. In his correspondence with
various artists from late 1926 and early 1927 Mondrian mentioned several times that
he had been busy working on the layout of the Polish translation which he prepared
in cooperation with the artists related to Praesens and a.r.61 Stażewski designed the
cover for the book, but since its publication was cancelled, the cover design was
later used for another publication (cf. Section 3.2). Work on the translation of Van-
tongerloo’s L’art et son avenir [Art and its future] from 1924 also started, with Van-
tongerloo himself designing the cover for its Polish edition in 1927 (Wieczorek 2002:
149; see Plate 3).
The examples described above indicate that Dutch and Belgian artists and architects
actively participated in the publication process of the Polish versions of their books,
as it was a form of distinction for them in the period when they still remained rather
marginal and unappreciated in mainstream literary and artistic fields. Despite their
eagerness to cooperate and realise ambitious publication plans, in most cases however
the financial and organisational obstacles proved to be insurmountable and none of the
anticipated Polish translations of Dutch and Belgian books appeared. However in the
1930s two books by artists related to Polish avant-garde circles were translated from
Polish into Dutch and published in the Netherlands. In 1933 Bruno Jasieński’s book
Pale˛ Paryż was translated by S. van Praag and published in Amsterdam as Ik verbrand
Parijs [I burn Paris], and in 1937 Jalu Kurek’s Grypa szaleje w Naprawie appeared as
Griep woedt in Naprawa [The influenza rages in Naprawa], translated by H. Katzee,62
both of which provide evidence of how intertwined and broad-ranging the relation-
ships between Polish and Dutch avant-gardes were.
The Polish–Dutch relationships were also well-reflected in Polish architectural
periodicals such as Architektura i Budownictwo, Architekt and Dom, Osiedle, Miesz-
kanie. They featured a number of articles and illustrations of Dutch avant-garde art
and modern architecture. Architektura i Budownictwo published articles written
by Van Doesburg (1931), Oud (1933) and a five-part series of articles devoted to
modern Dutch architecture, with numerous reproductions of works by Oud, Van
der Vlugt, Wils, Berlage and others (cf. Lubiński 1930). Moreover, a number of
other texts and photos related to Dutch architecture, as well as references to leading
periodicals from the Netherlands are to be found in those magazines. For instance,
Van Doesburg, Van Eesteren and Rietveld’s model of Hôtel Particulier (1923) was
reproduced on the cover of Architekt 1 from 1926, and the cover of Dom, Osiedle,
Mieszkanie 6 from 1931 featured Mondrian’s Composition No. II with Red, Blue,
Black and Yellow (1929). Exchange with architectural periodicals was largely
made possible thanks to contacts with architects related to avant-garde formations
(e.g. Syrkus) who were also contributing to “regular” magazines, which paved the
way for Dutch modern and avant-garde architects to subsequently appear in their
pages.
1.4. Traces of Polish–Dutch and Polish–Belgian Cultural
Mobility in Relevant International Avant-Garde Periodicals
Polish avant-garde artists maintained close ties with international formations such
as Cercle et Carré or Abstraction-Création, in which Dutch and Belgian artists also
played prominent roles. Jan Brze˛kowski’s text on Polish art published in Het Over-
zicht in 1924 began his long-lasting friendship with Seuphor,63 which later allowed
Brze˛kowski to become an active member of Cercle et Carré, a group and magazine
co-founded by Michel Seuphor in 1930 in Paris. Since 1924 Brze˛kowski had gradually
broadened his contacts with European avant-gardes, and when he moved to Paris in
1928 he was already in touch with artists such as Mondrian and Vantongerloo. The
artists regularly met in places such as Brasserie Lipp, Café Voltaire and Café du Dôme.
Another important meeting place for Polish, Belgian, Dutch and other progressive art-
ists residing in Paris was the influential Galerie “Au Sacre du Printemps” which was
owned by the Polish writer and musician Jan Śliwiński (a.k.a. Hans Effenberger). The
gallery organised for instance the meetings of Documents Internationaux de l’Esprit
Nouveau which gathered among others Seuphor, Dermée, Mondrian and Stażewski
(Kleiverda-Kajetanowicz 1985: 34).
These international ties had a direct influence on avant-garde journals such as L’Art
Contemporain or Cercle et Carré – Seuphor for example revised French translations for
L’Art Contemporain, and when still planning to publish its fourth issue, Brze˛kowski
decided not to include any French translations of Polish poems, due to the fact that
Seuphor – at that time away from Paris – would not be able to revise them.64 On
the other hand, it was also Brze˛kowski who had initially put Seuphor in touch with
Léon Mickum, the head of the Polish–French printing house Imprimerie Polonaise/
Ognisko, where Seuphor was able publish Cercle et Carré (Seuphor 1971: 25). This
acquaintance later proved to be of crucial importance to Seuphor, who – as can be read
in his memoirs – received substantial help from the family Mickum in times of need.
Referring to them Seuphor claimed:
Me voyant dans le plus grand besoin, ils m’ont aussi offert un emploi comme cor-
recteur (. . .). Ils m’ont traité comme si j’étais leur enfant. (. . .) Chaque jour, j’allais
chez eux, à Courbevoie, où m’attendait une Polonaise cordon-bleu qui préparait
non pas un repas, mais un festin, et ils m’obligeait à manger. C’était vraiment
exquis. Ils m’ont sauvé la vie.
(Seuphor and Grenier 1996: 173–174)
[Seeing me in the greatest of needs, they also offered me a job as editor (. . .). They
treated me as their own son. (. . .) Every day I visited them in Courbevoie where a
Polish Cordon Bleu chef prepared more than a dish for me – a real feast which they
obliged me to eat. It was truly exquisite. They literally saved my life.]
Seuphor’s own words confirm the fact that the Polish–Belgian and Polish–Dutch
relations were often more than pure collaboration – they often became very close
friendships and established artistic cooperation in the times when the avant-garde had
very few supporters and was perceived as a strange peculiarity.
Brze˛kowski not only participated in almost all meetings of Cercle et Carré,65 but he
also tried to link other Polish artists such as Przyboś and Kurek with Seuphor’s new
initiative. He informed Przyboś that Seuphor had reacted positively to the former’s
poem “Krajobraz/Le paysage” [The landscape] printed in L’Art Contemporain 2, and
that he wanted to incorporate some of Przyboś’s works in Cercle et Carré. However,
even though Seuphor repeated his offer after the publication of the first issue of Cercle
et Carré, none of Przyboś’s texts ever appeared there.66 Brze˛kowski’s further attempts
to promote Polish artists in Cercle et Carré were reflected in his letter to Kurek, where
he claimed: “I suppose that I will be able to force you all into the next issues, yet Seu-
phor is highly unpredictable and today he says ‘yes’, and tomorrow ‘no’”.67 He gave
Przyboś and Strzemiński’s book Z ponad to Mondrian and Seuphor, but their reactions
to its layout differed considerably – Mondrian liked it very much, but Seuphor did not.
They also received the first a.r. bulletin and its French translation was scheduled to
appear in Cercle et Carré, yet ultimately Seuphor decided not to include it due to the
negative attitude towards Le Corbusier’s works expressed in the bulletin.68
The three issues of Cercle et Carré featured several texts of Polish provenance, or
in reference to the Polish avant-garde (Brze˛kowski 1930a, 1930b; Stażewski 1930;
[Seuphor and Torres-García] 1930b). The third issue also included a note on Praesens
2 which acknowledged its “magnificent illustrations” and “international cooperation”
([Seuphor and Torres-García] 1930a). The editors of Cercle et Carré saw some resem-
blances between those two periodicals, as reflected in a letter sent by Torres-García
to Seuphor: “Stażewski m’a envoyé la revue ‘Praesens’. Même esprit que la nôtre.”
[Stażewski sent me the magazine ‘Praesens’. The same spirit as our one.].69 Moreover,
the second issue featured a catalogue of the Cercle et Carré exhibition organised in Paris
Figure 9 Photo from the Cercle et Carré exhibition in Paris (1930) with works by Werkman,
Mondrian and Stażewski (source: LH; inv. nr. TG:LHPH:47468)
in April 1930 where a plethora of European avant-garde artists exhibited their works,
among others Chodasiewicz-Grabowska, Hoste, Mondrian, Stażewski, Vantongerloo
and Werkman ([Seuphor and Torres-García] 1930c). A photo from this exhibition
features works of Mondrian, Stażewski and Werkman hanging side-by-side, showing
not only a certain kinship in their artistic endeavours, but also the lack of any notion
of hierarchy, centre–periphery or East–West divisions, which have been attributed to
the historical avant-garde by post-war historiography.
When Van Doesburg learned about Seuphor’s newly established group he planned to
create his own group uniting modern artists. He invited several representatives of the
avant-garde, among others Henryk Stażewski who, however, chose to cooperate with
Cercle et Carré, similarly to several other artists (Fabre 1990: 383–385). In 1930 Van
Doesburg co-published one issue of Art Concret and at the beginning of 1931 another
group Abstraction-Création was formed by Herbin, Hélion and Vantongerloo. To a
certain extent it continued the activities of the previous formations. Its statutory declara-
tion, with Herbin as president, Van Doesburg as vice-president and Hélion as secretary,
was issued on 15 February 1931 (cf. Fabre 1990: 193). The foundation of Abstraction-
Création was partly ascribed to Van Doesburg, which noticeably outraged Vantongerloo,
again showing that the avant-garde network was not free of interpersonal animosities:
. . . Herbin a été désigné comme Président et moi comme Vice-Président. (. . .)

Après, bien longtemps après, on m’a dit qu’Helion voulait faire une société avec
V.D. ce qui n’a rien de commun avec Abs.Créa. Ce sont donc des interprétations
mais ni le titre ni la société a été fondé par V.D . . .70
[. . . Herbin was designated President and me Vice-President. (. . .) Later, much

later, I was told that Hélion wanted to form the association with V[an] D[oesburg],
which has nothing to do with Abs[traction] Créa[tion]. These are thus just
interpretations but neither the title, nor the association were founded by V[an]
D[oesburg] . . .]
Between 1932 and 1936 five issues of Abstraction-Création. Art non-figuratif

appeared, featuring a number of theoretical texts written, for instance by Van Does-
burg (1932), Mondrian (1932, 1933, 1934), Seuphor (1932), Vantongerloo (1932,
1933, 1935, 1936), Kobro (1933), Stażewski (1932, 1933a), Strzemiński (1932a,
1933)71 and numerous reproductions of their works.
Moreover, an exhibition of the Abstraction-Création group (ca. 35 members) was
planned to take place in Warsaw and in Łódź in February/March 1936 with the
fifth issue of Abstraction-Création doubling as its exhibition catalogue. Both parties
involved (Vantongerloo as representative of the group, and the Polish Institute for Art
Propaganda) were very keen on the idea, yet – just as in the case of Van Doesburg’s
visit to Warsaw or the publication of Polish translations of Dutch and Belgian books –
the project failed due to financial obstacles.72 This was indeed a shame, since such an
exhibition would have constituted a remarkable summary of the long-lasting relation-
ships, exchange and mobility between the interwar avant-gardes from Poland and the
Low Countries.
Brze˛kowski, Stażewski and other Polish artists had direct and broad connections
to numerous European artists, as depicted in some photographs featuring them in the
company of Dermée, Mondrian, Seuphor, Vantongerloo and other key figures on the
avant-garde scene (see Figure 10 and Plate 4). These contacts were of crucial impor-
tance in the process of establishing and gathering the Łódź Collection of Modern Art.
Thanks to various international contacts with Dutch, Belgian and other foreign artists,
especially those of Brze˛kowski and Stażewski, works of the most prominent foreign
avant-garde artists were donated to Łódź free of charge, which substantially contrib-
uted to cultural life of the interwar Poland, at times when very little money was spent
on art (cf. Luba 2015a: 30). As emphasised by Brze˛kowski, without his wide connec-
tions with the Parisian artistic scene and Stażewski’s fine reputation among foreign art-
ists, Strzemiński’s idea of such a collection would probably never have come to fruition.
Close ties to Cercle et Carré, especially to Seuphor, made it possible to reach various
painters: Seuphor donated works, including Werkman’s Schoorstenen 2 [Chimneys 2]
from 1923 – the very first artwork of Werkman to be exhibited in a museum – which
he had received in August 1925 while editing Het Overzicht.73
Certain issues, on the other hand, did not facilitate the exchange. For example, due
to personal attacks on Picasso published in L’Art Contemporain, Brze˛kowski could not
ask him to donate any of his works. Moreover, he did not dare ask Mondrian for one
of his paintings, bearing in mind how much time the latter needed to produce anything
(Brze˛kowski 1968: 99–100). In 1932 however one work of Picasso was donated to the
collection, and in 1957 Seuphor donated the aforementioned Tableau-poème (Textuel)
co-created by Mondrian (Ładnowska 1991: 78).
Figure 10 Photo of Mondrian, Rafałowski, Seuphor, Stażewski, Vantongerloo and others at Paul
Dermée’s in 1928 (source: RKD Collectie Kunstenaarsportretten)
Figure 11 Photo of the Łódź collection taken in 1932 with works of among others Van Doesburg
and Werkman (source: MSL)
1.5. Cross-Referencing
Besides the reciprocal exchange and mobility described above, the avant-garde journals
often cross-referred each other, enumerating the names of like-minded groups and
titles of their magazines. Publications such as Zenit, Noi, Merz, Ma, l’Esprit Nou-
veau, La Vie des Lettres et des Arts, Der Sturm or Ça Ira! were regularly mentioned
in almost all the periodicals analysed here. The choice of titles to be mentioned by a
given magazine was, however, directly influenced by the changing nature of mutual
relations and circulation patterns between various nodes of the avant-garde network
(for a complete overview of mutual references between the analysed periodicals see
Table 4 in the Appendix).
Direct contacts between Polish and Belgian avant-gardes were reflected in Zwrotnica
and Het Overzicht and 7 Arts: Zwrotnica wrote about these journals in its sixth and
eleventh issues respectively. Likewise, both Het Overzicht and 7 Arts – as well as regu-
larly referring to one another – each mentioned Zwrotnica twice. This included the list
of magazines published in the twentieth issue of Het Overzicht (January 1924) entitled
“Het netwerk”. It listed formations and publications from France, Germany, Brazil,
the US, Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands and others, constituting a tangible indica-
tion that avant-garde formations perceived themselves as parts of a wider worldwide
network.
Figure 12 List of congenial formations “Het netwerk” (source: Het Overzicht 20: 136; IADDB)
Later, established Polish formations maintained contacts with Belgian journals

developed earlier by Zwrotnica. From the beginning Blok was in touch with the
Belgian magazines, probably via Strzemiński, who had collaborated with Peiper
before he co-organised the Vilnius exhibition and joined the new group. Initially
Blok listed Anthologie, 7 Arts and Het Overzicht, as well as Zwrotnica. However,
from the fifth issue onwards Het Overzicht was no longer mentioned in Blok, which
coincided with two incidents. First, following internal disagreements among its
artists, the editorial board was reduced to Szczuka and Żarnower, and second
(and more importantly), the 21st issue of Het Overzicht published Brze˛kowski’s
aforementioned article on modern Polish art with no mention of Blok, which was
probably the reason why Het Overzicht no longer came to be listed there. Antholo-
gie and 7 Arts were nevertheless still mentioned (e.g. Blok 11 announced the 100th
issue of 7 Arts). In return, Het Overzicht, 7 Arts and Anthologie referred to Blok
several times, for instance in the table “Tijdschriften – Revues modernes” from the
last issue of Het Overzicht.
Blok not only continued the relationships with the Low Countries established by
Zwrotnica, but it also broadened them, especially with regard to the Netherlands.
Due to Blok’s connections to Van Doesburg, De Stijl and Mécano were repeatedly
mentioned in the magazine. On the other hand, De Stijl also referred to Blok, Prae-
sens, Zwrotnica and it included Warsaw among De Stijl’s cities. In return, Praesens
included De Stijl, 7 Arts and i10 in its listings. When it comes to the Groningen-based
The Next Call, a number of magazines – including Blok and Mécano – were listed
only once, but in Polish journals one finds no mention of The Next Call and only one
reproduction of Werkman’s work.
With regard to Dutch and Belgian periodicals, the dynamics between particular
groups varied substantially, which was reflected in the choice of titles mentioned in
a given journal. For instance, 7 Arts regularly referred to De Stijl and, vice versa,
De Stijl also repeatedly mentioned 7 Arts. It was not, however, the case of Het Over-
zicht and De Stijl: the latter stopped referring to Het Overzicht when Peeters became its
co-editor, and Het Overzicht mentioned De Stijl only once – probably due to personal
animosities between Peeters and Van Doesburg. Notably, the Dutch journal was not to
be found either in “Het netwerk” or in “Tijdschriften – Revues modernes” published
in Het Overzicht. Interesting is also the fact that no works of Piet Mondrian were
published in Het Overzicht, due to the fact that Peeters was not particularly fond of
Mondrian’s work (cf. Seuphor and Grenier 1996: 114). The Next Call did include
Het Overzicht, De Stijl and Mécano among congenial European journals, but it omitted
7 Arts, De Driehoek and Zwrotnica even though they were included on Werkman’s
list of addresses to other magazines and artists (see Figure 1). References to The Next
Call were to be found in Het Overzicht, 7 Arts and De Stijl.
The listings of congenial formations played an important role in avant-garde peri-
odicals, as they indicated their international outreach, status and involvement in the
Figure 13 Lists of like-minded magazines published in The Next Call and in Blok in 1924
(sources: The Next Call 6; Collectie GM, photo Marten de Leeuw and Blok 8/9; JBC)
network, comparable to modern-day lists of friends, colleagues and acquaintances on
personal and professional social media profiles. Due to the fact that the avant-garde
network was based on interpersonal relations – which were anything but stable and
constantly fluctuated from friendship to enmity – the lists of magazines and formations
changed from one issue to another. Hence, whether a particular title was mentioned
somewhere or not (anymore) was a direct indication of the current nature of the rela-
tionships between their representatives. The cases of Blok or De Stijl ceasing to men-
tion Het Overzicht, or Het Overzicht intentionally omitting De Stijl from its two most
important lists, clearly exemplify the personal conflicts being mirrored on the pages of
avant-garde periodicals.
1.6. Preliminary Observations

As shown above, the cultural mobility between Poland and the Low Countries was
quite intense and had a direct and mutual character. The relationships between avant-
garde formations from Poland and the Low Countries date back to the early 1920s
when the first encounters occurred. Many Polish–Dutch and Polish–Belgian contacts
started as correspondence, which in time took on a more intense character and often
blossomed into personal acquaintances, some of which evolved into long-lasting and
close friendships much outliving the artistic initiatives that had triggered the initial
contact itself. A large share of the connections between avant-garde circles from
Poland and the Low Countries was established and shaped by architects. Architecture
itself was perceived as the ultimate unification of all avant-garde arts, hence the wide
network of contacts between modern architects was also very important for the rep-
resentatives of other fields, and it was often the architects who created the main links
between various avant-garde formations. Plate 4 illustrates those connections and rela-
tionships, somewhat supplementing the aforementioned nexus of artistic relationships
created for the MoMA exhibition in 2012/2013.74
To a great extent, the dynamics of the avant-garde network was influenced by the
changing nature of interpersonal relationships between its representatives. These often
fluctuated from friendship to hostility, and the volatility then found reflection in the
choice of materials to be published in given periodicals or in the correspondence. As
shown by the Polish–Dutch and Polish–Belgian examples discussed above, the impact
of interpersonal relationships between particular avant-garde artists did not remain
local, but instead reverberated throughout the wider network and also came to influ-
ence foreign circles and magazines, which was one of the main features of the avant-
garde network.
Numerous tangible traces evident in the analysed correspondence, as well as in
avant-garde periodicals, exhibition catalogues and photographs clearly indicate that
mutual relationships between various nodes of the avant-garde network were bereft
of any signs of hierarchy or divisions between the “centres” and its “peripheries”,
or between the East and the West. In contrast, the status of avant-garde artists from
Poland, the Low Countries, France and Germany, etc. was comparable – most of them
were marginal figures in their respective local cultural and artistic fields, which boosted
the exchange with the representatives of other formations (no matter their language
or location) in order to broaden the reception of their ideas and innovations. Thus,
the diffusion and exchange of material had a reciprocal character and by sharing one
another’s ideas and works, the avant-garde formations jointly pursued their shared
objective – enhancing the outreach of the new art and the new spirit. As such, it can be
seen that avant-garde artists and architects from Poland, Belgium and the Netherlands
were very eager about all forms of diffusion of their accomplishments abroad – they
were willing to travel, become acquainted with each other, and cooperate on the trans-
lation and publication of their works abroad and so forth. Notably, translations of
major programmatic texts, as well as reproductions of artworks, appeared at a remark-
able pace in foreign periodicals. As exemplified by several Polish, Dutch and Belgian
cases, it was even not uncommon for a foreign magazine to be the first one to publish
a given text or reproduction, i.e. before they appeared locally. Particularly remarkable
in this instance is the case of Seuphor and Mondrian’s work Tableau-poème (Textuel)
discussed above.
Last, but not least, modern Polish, Dutch and Belgian artists and architects were
not only involved in their local formations, but they were also active members and
contributors to numerous international initiatives, such as Cercle et Carré, Abstraction-
Création or CIAM. These initiatives and their activities played a very important role
in the processes of diffusion and mobility between Poland and the Low Countries.
They launched their periodicals and organised group exhibitions featuring the works
of numerous European artists and showing their modern artistic endeavours. A unique
example of such international contacts and exchange was the Łódź Collection of
Modern Art, which gathered the works of the most prominent European artists of the
interwar period under one roof.
Notes
1 This chapter is derived in part from an article published in Dutch Crossing: Journal of
Low Countries Studies in March 2016 (© Taylor & Francis) available at www.tandfon
line/10.1080/03096564.2016.1139785 as well as from an article published in Tijdschrift
voor Tijdschriftstudies in June 2015.
2 Letter from Vantongerloo to Seuphor from 3 November 1950 (LH, inv. nr. 186967/11).
3 Not to be confused with another literary magazine Het woord, maandblad voor de nieuwe
Nederlandse letterkunde published between 1945 and 1949 by Koos Schuur, Ferdinand
Langen and others.
4 The title of this text refers to the Flemish Lied der Vlamingen created by Hiel and Benoit,
and to two Belgian rivers, Maas and Schelde (the latter flows through Antwerp where Het
Overzicht was published), as well as to Karel Maes, one of the editors of 7 Arts. The text
ridicules the Belgian avant-garde, in particular the journal Het Overzicht, its co-editor Jozef
Peeters and his wife Pelagia Pruym, as well as J.J.P. Oud (for more on the conflicts between
the Dutch and Belgian avant-gardes see: Den Boef and Van Faassen 2013; Wenderski 2015a;
Strauven and Dujardin 2016).
5 Noteworthy is the fact that the last issue of Het Overzicht featured a very critical note on
Georges Vantongerloo and his book L’art et son avenir (cf. Peeters 1925c), which illustrates
the tensions among the Belgian avant-gardists.
6 Peeters’s letter to Werkman from 10 February 1925 (WA, inv. nr. 1).
7 De Driehoek published among others works by Prampolini, Fornari, Caden, Iancu or
Kandinsky.
8 Seuphor’s letters to Werkman from 24 November 1926, 30 May 1927 and 10 June 1927
(WA, inv. nr. 1).
9 Seuphor’s letters to Van Doesburg from 8 January 1930 (ATNvD, inv. nr. 189) and to Werk-
man from 13 January 1930 (WA, inv. nr. 1).
10 Van Doesburg’s letter to Seuphor from 13 January 1930 (LH, inv. nr. 186554).
11 Werkman’s letter to Seuphor from 31 March 1930 (WA, inv. nr. 1).
12 The two series of Zwrotnica differed substantially. As noticed by Kłak (1978: 33), besides
the fact that both series aimed to promote the New Art under the auspices of the magazine’s
founder Tadeusz Peiper, they were actually two different magazines. Moreover, the second
series became the organ of the so-called Krakow Avant-Garde uniting Peiper, Brze˛kowski,
Kurek and Przyboś.
13 On the position and perception of Tadeusz Peiper among his contemporaries see Olczyk
2015. Worth mentioning here is certain linguistic affinity between the surname “Peiper” and
the word “papież” (Polish for “pope”).
14 Przyboś’s letter to Jalu Kurek from 10 April 1931 (Kłak 1975: 105–106).
15 Baudin and Jedryka (1977: 33) claimed the article in Blok to be the first one, however in Sep-
tember 1922, the Hungarian-written journal Ma [Today] published a Hungarian translation
of the introduction to Malevich’s book Suprematism, 34 Drawings (cf. Turowski 2015: 356).
16 It is worth mentioning that there were two versions of the eleventh issue of Blok. One of
them lacks the list of exhibited works (first six pages) and features three poems by Anatol
Stern instead of Henry van de Velde’s article “Le style moderne” [The modern style], which
appeared in the other version (cf. the copies made available by MSL and JBC).
17 In fact, in 1930 Malevich wrote to Strzemiński asking the a.r. group, not Praesens, to organ-
ise his second exhibition in Warsaw. According to Strzemiński, Malevich wanted to dissoci-
ate himself from Praesens due to its fascination with Le Corbusier; see Strzemiński’s letter to
Przyboś from 21 September 1930 (Turowski 1973a: 248).
18 Strzemiński’s letter to Przyboś from 1 December 1929 (Turowski 1973a: 228–229).
19 Despite his initial esteem and appreciation for the theories of Praesens, in 1929 Strzemiński
became very critical of the group’s activities and members – see Strzemiński’s letters to Przy-
boś from June 1929–June 1930 (Turowski 1973a: 223–244); Kobro et al. 1930a, 1930b;
Strzemiński 1929b, 1931, 1934; Turowski 1973b.
20 Strzemiński’s letters to Przyboś from 21 February and 9 June 1930 (Turowski 1973a:
235–236, 242).
21 See Brze˛kowski’s letters to Przyboś from 2 June 1929, 14 March 1930 (Kłak 1981: 37–38,
59–60) and to Kurek from 27 April and 4 December 1931 (Kłak 1975: 62–63, 70–71) as well
as Przyboś’s letters to Kurek from 17, 20 February, 11 May 1931 (Kłak 1975: 99, 107–108)
and Strzemiński’s letter to Przyboś from 8 September 1930 (Turowski 1973a: 247).
22 For Strzemiński’s description of the history of the Łódź Collection and Szczuka’s opposi-
tion to the idea see Strzemiński’s letter to Przyboś from 8 February 1931 (Turowski 1973a:
252–253).
23 Peiper’s letter to Seuphor from 15 December 1923 (LH, inv. nr. 186877/1).
24 The 21st and 22/23/24th issue of Het Overzicht mentioned two books by Peiper: A and
żywe linje [Living lines], both from 1924. One of them would be the book Peiper mentioned
in his letter.
25 Peiper’s letter to Seuphor from 12 February 1924 (LH, inv. nr. 186877/2).
26 Peiper’s letter to Bourgeois from 13 October 1924 (FVB, inv. nr. 12887/2) and Bourgeois’s
response from 20 October 1924 (FVB, inv. nr. 12887/3).
27 Bourgeois’s letter to the editors of Blok from 5 October 1924 (FVB, inv. nr. 12887/1).
28 Peiper’s letter to the editors of 7 Arts from 19 March 1926 (FVB, inv. nr. 12887/12) pub-
lished in 7 Arts 4, 24. When 7 Arts announced its plans to publish “a brief table of inter-
national modernism” on the occasion of its 130th issue, Peiper wrote to its editors (letter
from 21 May 1927; FVB, inv. nr. 12887/21) expressing his hopes that the artistic efforts of
Zwrotnica would find their place in the “catalogue” in question as well as offering to write
a suitable article, which however did not appear in 7 Arts.
29 See Fitschy’s letter to Syrkus from 23 November 1934 (GRI, inv. nr. 850865). Of note is
the postscript of this letter written in Polish: “Nie wa˛tpimy, iż WPan włada je˛zykiem fran-
cuskim, lecz jeśliby Mu to sprawiało trudność, może nam odpowiedzieć po polsku. Mie˛dzy
naszymi współpracownikami znajduje sie˛ architekt Polak, który zechce artykuł WPana
przetłumaczyć.” [We have no doubts in your command of French, nevertheless should it
be any trouble to you, you may answer us in Polish. There is a Polish architect among our
colleagues who would be eager to translate your article.] – a note showing that for interwar
avant-gardists linguistic barriers were actually not that big an issue.
30 See Fitschy’s letter to the Syrkuses from 24 October 1935 (GRI, inv. nr. 850865).
31 Letter from Polski Klub Artystyczny to Bourgeois from 19 November 1925 (FVB, inv. nr.
12887/6).
32 Szymon Syrkus and Huib Hoste were also personally acquainted, as is evident in Syrkus’s
undated letter to Hoste housed in AA-SL.
33 Syrkus’s letters to Bourgeois from 16 November and 31 December 1929 (FVB, inv. nrs.
12887/23 and 12887/29).
34 Polish artists also participated in L’Art Vivant en Europe: Exposition Internationale held
in May 1931 in Brussels.
35 Seuphor’s postcard to Brze˛kowski from 6 May 1973 (MLAM, inv. nr. 2192).
36 See Brze˛kowski’s letter to Przyboś from 19 February 1931 (Kłak 1981: 82–83).
37 See Berlewi’s card to Van Doesburg from 12 June 1922 (ATNvD, inv. nr. 801).
38 See Szczuka’s manuscript housed in ATNvD (inv. nr. 202).
39 Henri Rousseau, a.k.a. “Le Douanier” (1844–1910), the French post-impressionist painter,
whose works had a major influence on avant-garde artists.
40 The following titles are housed in The Hague: Zwrotnica, Blok, Praesens and books by
Peiper (1924b – with a personal inscription), Berlewi (1924c), Gleizes (1927), Brze˛kowski
and Grenkamp-Kornfeld (1933), Brze˛kowski (1936) as well as the catalogue of the Łódź
collection (Strzemiński 1932b). Strzemiński’s letter from 10 August 1930 (ATNvD, inv. nr.
198) reveals that Van Doesburg had also received the first bulletin of the a.r. and Przboś and
Strzemiński’s book Z ponad (1930).
41 As pointed out by Gast (1996: 176), the exclusion of various progressive artists from the
Parisian exhibition had also been one of the reasons why at the end of 1925 the Polish artist
Victor Poznański organised the exhibition of abstract art L’Art d’Aujourd’hui in Paris which
featured a plethora of modern European artists, including those related to De Stijl.
42 See Van Doesburg’s lists of subscribers to De Stijl: “Abonnees boekhandel buitenland”,
“Ruilabonnementen – Abonnements d’échange”, “Abonnees buitenland” and “Buitenland”
(ATNvD, inv. nr. 826).
43 See Syrkus’s letter to Oud from 22 March 1925 (AO-NI, inv. nr. 22:25:65).
44 The manuscript of Helena Syrkus’s article “Contribution à l’histoire de la Charte de
l’Urbanisme des CIAM” (AvE-NI, inv. nr. EEST10.1048).
45 Müller-Lehning’s letters to Oud from 17 November 1926 and 19 January 1927 (AO-NI,
inv. nrs. 34:26:240 and 36:27:28) and Syrkus’s letter to Oud from 12 June 1927 (AO-NI,
inv. nr. 41:27:154).
46 See Syrkus’s letters to Oud from 14 January and 29 September 1929 (AO-NI, inv. nrs.
56:29:9 and 59:29:131).
47 See letters sent to Van Doesburg by Stażewski (3 November 1928), Nicz-Borowiakowa
(3 November 1928), Sigalin (18 November 1929), Strzemiński (28 November 1929),
Stefanowicz (30 November 19[29]), and Minkiewicz (30 September 1930) as well as Van
Doesburg’s letter to Andrzej Pronaszko from 21 July 1930 (ATNvD, inv. nrs. 130, 142, 160,
191, 198, 265, 308).
48 See Brze˛kowski’s letter to Przyboś from 26 January 1932 (Kłak 1981: 95–97).
49 See Syrkus’s letter to Oud from 5 October 1925 and Rutkowski’s card from December 1925
(AO-NI, inv. nrs. 26:25:209 and 25:26:269) as well as Van Doesburg’s letter to the editors
of Praesens from early 1926 (ATNvD, inv. nr. 308).
50 Rutkowski’s letter to Oud from 21 January 1926 (AO-NI, inv. nr. 28:26:14).
51 See the correspondence between Van Doesburg and the editors of Praesens from 23 January–
13 November 1926 (ATNvD, inv. nrs. 308 and 201).
52 Syrkus’s letter to Oud from 1 April 1926 (AO-NI, inv. nr. 29:26:35).
53 Manuscript of Oud’s letter to Syrkus from 12 April 1926 (AO-NI, inv. nr. 29:26:46).
54 See the correspondence between Van Doesburg and the editors of Praesens from 23 January–
13 November 1926 (ATNvD, inv. nrs. 308 and 201).
55 Syrkus’s letter to Oud from 16 June 1926 (AO-NI, inv. nr. 31:26:108).
56 Syrkus’s letter to Oud from 14 December 1929 (AO-NI, inv. nr. 60:29:151).
57 Syrkus’s letters to Oud from 16 June 1926, 12 June 1927 and 29 September 1929 (AO-NI,
inv. nrs. 31:26:108, 41:27:154 and 59:29:131).
58 Syrkus’s letter to Oud from 16 June 1926 (AO-NI, inv. nr. 31:26:108).
59 Syrkus’s letter to Van Doesburg from 13 November 1926 (ATNvD, inv. nr. 201).
60 Syrkus’s letters to Oud from 12 June 1927 and 5 January 1929 (AO-NI, inv. nrs. 41:27:154,
56:29:5).
61 See Mondrian’s letters to Seuphor from 8 December 1926, to Oud from 20 December 1926,
to Félix del Marle from 30 December 1926 and to Albert van den Briel, n.d. (AWM, inv.
nrs. 20, 23, 63, 75). See also Veen 2011: 220.
62 Both books are housed in Rotterdamsch Leeskabinet, Erasmus University in Rotterdam
(inv. nrs. RLK B IV 18 and RLK S 0 X 89).
63 The archives of Jan Brze˛kowski and Michel Seuphor house an impressive amount of letters
and other documents exchanged between the friends and artists in the period 1937–1980
(cf. BPP, MLAM, LH).
64 See Brze˛kowski’s letters to Przyboś from 3 June 1929 and 9 January 1930 (Kłak 1981:
38–41, 52), and to Kurek from 14 February 1931 (Kłak 1975: 58–59).
65 Brze˛kowski’s undated text written for Ryszard Stanisławski (BPP, inv. nr. 1237, p. 14).
66 Brze˛kowski’s letters to Przyboś from 9 January and 2 April 1930 (Kłak 1981: 52, 60–61),
and to Kurek from 9 January 1930 (Kłak 1975: 45–47).
67 Brze˛kowski probably meant Peiper, Przyboś, Kurek and Ważyk, see his letter to Kurek from
9 January 1930 (Kłak 1975: 45–47).
68 Brze˛kowski’s letters to Przyboś from 2 April and 20 June 1930 (Kłak 1981: 60–61, 65–66).
69 Letter from Torres-García to Seuphor from 25 June 1930 (LH, inv. nr. 186534/17).
70 Vantongerloo’s letter to Seuphor from 21 July 1956 (LH, inv. nr. 186967/15).
71 Some of the Polish statements published in Abstraction-Création might have been written
earlier and intended for Cercle et Carré, which Seuphor had not used – see Brze˛kowski’s
letter to Przyboś from 13 May 1930 (Kłak 1981: 62–64) and Strzemiński’s letter to Przyboś
from 3 February 1930 (Turowski 1973a: 233–234).
72 Correspondence between the Polish Institute for Art Propaganda and Vantongerloo took
place between 15 October 1934 and 25 February 1936 (cf. IS PAN, inv. nr. 70).
73 Seuphor’s letter to Werkman from 25 August 1924 (WA, inv. nr. 1).
74 See: www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2012/inventingabstraction.
2 Avant-Garde Manifestos and
Programmatic Statements –
Inspirations, Parallels and Dissimilarities
The shared spirit of modernisation and renewal of art and society was expressed in
a plethora of programmatic writings of avant-garde theoreticians, artists and archi-
tects. One of the most characteristic forms of expression of avant-garde artists were
manifestos – “strictly speaking (. . .) texts published in a brochure, in a journal or
a review, in the name of a political, philosophical, literary or artistic movement”
(Abastado 1980, as quoted in Yanoshevsky 2009a). Manifestos have been studied and
analysed by various literary scholars and art historians since the 1980s, which has given
them the status of a fully fledged literary genre (for an in-depth analysis of the historiog-
raphy of manifestos see Yanoshevsky 2009a, 2009b). Manifestos appeared in a variety
of shapes and forms, and they make up part of a larger family of polemical genres, such
as proclamations, declarations, political decrees, pamphlets, brochures, etc., from which
they are often difficult to define or distinguish (Van den Berg 1998).
Interwar manifestos and other programmatic statements were written in various
languages in all parts of Europe (and beyond), and they circulated between various
nodes of the avant-garde network, hence they often reveal substantial resemblances
and similarities (cf. Turowski 1986: 27). This chapter explores selected theoretical
notions discussed in various publications from the analysed avant-garde magazines
and other publications of Polish, Dutch and Belgian provenance regarding visual arts,
architecture and literature. The selection of texts analysed in this chapter includes not
only statements explicitly designated as manifestos by their authors, but also other
programmatic writings which share the key features of manifestos, i.e. a revolutionary
and polemical tone, calls for aesthetic, social and political transformations, rejection of
tradition and current principles, dogmatic discourse and its typical vocabulary (words
such as to plead, oppose, protest, announce, denounce, declare, contrast, clarify, con-
test, reject, etc.) – as outlined by Galia Yanoshevsky (2009a).
In order to draw a picture of Polish–Dutch and Polish–Belgian cultural mobility in
the field of theoretical writing on avant-garde art, literature and architecture, selected
texts have been analysed in view of some key recurring aspects. First, the universal
dimension of modern art is discussed along with its abstract, non-figurative idiom
which appeared in numerous programmatic statements. Second is the issue of the social
engagement of avant-garde art, which polarised many artists whose socio-political
views often differed and influenced their writings (e.g. nationalistic approaches or com-
munist and socialist inclinations). Finally, the artists’ will and need to cooperate, both
between various disciplines under the umbrella of the nineteenth-century principle of
Gesamtkunstwerk and internationally within the cross-border network of formations
and their magazines, are analysed.
52 Avant-Garde Manifestos
2.1. Abstraction as the Idiom of Universal Art
When Władysław Strzemiński and Szymon Syrkus (1928: 5) wrote that abstraction
was “the first principle of modern art”, the contemporary discussion on the nature of
art had already been ongoing for years. Since the early 1910s various artists created
works of art and put forward theories which categorically rejected figurativeness in
art and postulated abstract, non-figurative art and architecture, free from any natural,
historical elements.1 As outlined in the famous essay by Clement Greenberg (1939:
36–37), regardless of the fact of whether avant-garde works were conceived for their
own sake or as socially engaged phenomena, the quest for the absolute in these works
unavoidably led to abstraction and non-figurativeness in art and poetry. Content had
to dissolve completely into form in order to create something aesthetically valid solely
on its own terms. Hence, although the artists’ theories on art did differ (and sometimes
substantially), when it came to the rejection of figurative art, their approaches shared
considerable similarities, as will be exemplified hereunder by selected programmatic
statements of Polish, Belgian and Dutch provenance.
In the first volume of De Stijl Piet Mondrian (1917/1918) published one of his most
influential theoretical works “De nieuwe beelding in de schilderkunst” [Neoplasti-
cism in painting], where he discussed the bases for new art. Seeing contemporary life
becoming more and more abstract, Mondrian claimed that in order to express the
universal, abstract aspect of the modern human soul, art too was to reject figurative-
ness. To Mondrian, the conscious feeling of beauty (schoonheidsontroering) had a
cosmic and universal character, and could not be realised through natural (figurative)
representation or decorative painting, but only in a pure, abstract way, i.e. using
straight lines and primary colours. His theory was developed under much influence
of theosophy and it corresponded to the writings of the Dutch philosopher M.H.J.
Schoenmaekers, although some scholars disagree whether Schoenmaekers’s influ-
ence on Mondrian was indeed that great (see for instance Welsh 1971; Overy 1979;
Blotkamp 1994). One of the elements of Mondrian’s theory that was repeatedly used
in programmatic writings of various European avant-garde artists were the so-called
evenwichtige verhoudingen or rapports équilibrés [balanced relationships], which
conditioned the composition and layout of modern paintings as well as sculptures
and architecture too.
The equilibrium of relationships between pure elements (straight lines and colour
planes) provided harmony in an artwork, but according to Mondrian (1917/1918)
it did not entirely exclude the natural, which came to the foreground as a reduced,
compact manifestation of cosmic unity in an artwork. Mondrian’s dualist theory
gave the artist some space for subjective, individual expression of the universal which
(s)he could realise in the composition of an artwork through the rhythm of colours
and proportions. Although the physicality of things was reduced to a set of planes and
lines, he argued that, based on their size, value (colour) and mutual relationships, the
essence of spaces could still be expressed and represented. Mondrian saw the will to
express the universal as a common feature for all the styles in history which, never-
theless, had continuously expressed the timeless universal aspects in ephemeral ways.
Hence, Mondrian focused on defining the purest style (de zuiverste stijl) which would
express the universal in the best possible manner, i.e. by excluding the individual. He
perceived mathematically based Neoplasticism (nieuwe beelding) as the best form of
expressing the universe:
Avant-Garde Manifestos 53
Door de schilderkunst zelve kwam de kunstenaar tot de bewustheid (. . .) dat de
verschijning van het universeele-als-het-mathematische het essentieele van alle
zuiver aesthetische beeldende schoonheidsontroering is. (. . .) De nieuwe beelding
is abstract-reëel, omdat zij staat tusschen het absoluut-abstractie en het natuurlijk,
concreet-reëele.
(Mondrian 1917/1918: 29)
[Through art itself the artist realised (. . .) that the appearance of the universal-as-
mathematical is the essence of all pure aesthetical visual feeling of beauty. (. . .)
Neoplasticism is abstract-real as it stays between the absolute-abstract and the
natural concrete-real.]
Such an abstract reworking of visual reality was forced by the evolution of life and
lifestyle of modern man towards abstraction, and Mondrian (1917/1918: 15) claimed
that only abstract and balanced structure could provoke the viewer’s deepest feeling
of harmony. Only once the viewer had realised the existence of cosmic harmony – at
least to some extent – would such pure, abstract expression of harmony and balanced
structure become their desire (see Blotkamp 1994 for a detailed analysis of Mondrian’s
theoretical works). In 1921 the French version of Mondrian’s theory titled Le Néo-
plasticisme was published, which enabled a wider dissemination and recognition of
Neoplastic principles among avant-garde artists, among others from Poland.
Mondrian developed and applied his theories not only to painting, but also to
music (1921c, 1922a) and architecture (1922b, 1923). According to Blotkamp (1994:
128–129), Mondrian was indeed interested in the issue of integration of various arts,
although with more restraints than Van Doesburg. While visual arts and architecture
were prominent in Mondrian’s theories, up until the early 1920s he was also interested
in literature. He co-created the literary manifesto of De Stijl, postulated a new idiom
based on balance and unity “l’Art nouveau-du-verbe” (Mondrian 1921a: 7–10) and
even wrote two literary pieces in 1920 (reprinted in Den Boef 1987). Nevertheless,
since for Mondrian literature was too restrained by individualistic and utilitarian
approaches, his interest in it soon faded away.
Similarly to Mondrian, Theo van Doesburg also pointed to the universal character
of modern art and pleaded for total rejection of nature-like (figurative) painting and
replacing it with a pure approach (abstraction) based on lines, planes and colour. Van
Doesburg (1917: 26) claimed that “a pure aesthetic impression could only be made by
removing Nature from art”. He emphasised the importance of composition based on
equilibrium, mathematical order and mutual relationships between forms and colour
so that an artwork could express the new universal qualities of life. Defining the main
task of a modern artist Van Doesburg (1916, 1918a) pointed to the necessity of pur-
suing the absolute (het volstrekte) and expressing its universal, monumental beauty
through modern artistic means.
Already in his first theoretical writings, Van Doesburg (1917: 40) explicitly referred
to recent works of Mondrian, where any figurativeness was avoided in favour of
abstract compositions of perpendicular lines, which seem to have had considerable
impact on Van Doesburg and his later works. His later writings (e.g. 1920, 1921b,
1922b, 1922c, 1924a, 1924b) reveal numerous similarities to the theories of Piet
Mondrian. They both formed the programmatic direction of the first volumes of
De Stijl, centred around the issue of expressing the universal through modern abstract
art based on a well-balanced composition of straight lines and planes of primary
colours. Similar viewpoints were also expressed in Van Doesburg’s (1926b) article
published in Polish in the first issue of Praesens.
The non-figurative approach to various arts was visible in numerous programmatic
statements published in De Stijl. Its first manifesto was published in four languages and
signed by artists, architects and writers belonging to the group. It explicitly stressed the
universal nature of new art, in opposition to the individual character of past decades, as
well as to tradition and beliefs (Van Doesburg et al. 1918). The second manifesto from
April 1920, signed by Van Doesburg, Mondrian and Kok, expressed similar standpoints
with relation to literature. It described the word as being dead, powerless and meaning-
less, and literature as too individualistic, subjective and based on the sentimental feelings
of the old generation – and hence unable to represent the modern era. As in the case of
painting, the manifesto called for a renewal of words as far as content and sound were
concerned, providing poetry with more depth and intensity, instead of the thickness or
length of its volumes. Thus, as expressed in the manifesto, a modern writer “will not
at all DEscribe, but instead he will WRITE” (Van Doesburg, Mondrian and Kok 1920:
50), a credo which could in fact be broadly applied to various arts where any mimetic
description, imitation or figuration were rejected.
Other contributors to De Stijl also expressed their programmatic standpoints, for
instance Oud (1919b) deplored the fact that individual forms of architectural expres-
sion were still more common than one united direction which would reflect a universal
life attitude, and Kok (1919) underlined the dualistic nature of modern art where the
Figure 14 The first manifesto of De Stijl from 1918 (source: De Stijl 2, 1: 4; IADDB)
universal was represented by the individual, two opposite elements which needed
to be in balance. Also the writings of the Belgian artist and contributor to De Stijl
Georges Vantongerloo show significant similarities to other theories put forward in
the magazine. In a series of articles published in De Stijl and in his book L’Art et son
avenir Vantongerloo (1918/1920, 1924) emphasised the necessity to reflect universal
values in sculpture through abstract means of expression and balanced relationships
or particular elements. Nevertheless, as outlined by Blotkamp and Hilhorst (1996:
351–353), considerable differences appeared between the theories of Vantongerloo,
Mondrian and Van Doesburg, in particular with regard to colour, and from March
1920 Vantongerloo ceased to publish in De Stijl.
The idea of abstraction as the proper means of artistic expression of the modern era
was also present in various Belgian periodicals, both Dutch- and French-written. For
Jozef Peeters, as for many other contributors to Het Overzicht, modern constructive
art was a result of the pace of everyday life of the period, therefore it was not to imitate
or depict nature – or contain any content whatsoever. In order to reflect the dynam-
ics of contemporary life and the world, art was not only to eliminate figurativeness,
but also any unnecessary adornment (cf. Peeters 1923a, 1923b, 1923c). To this end,
Michel Seuphor stated explicitly: “In de natuur voorbeelden zoeken is gevaarlijk voor
de mens die zo hevig met haar kontrasteert.” [It is dangerous for man, who substan-
tially differs from nature, to search for references in it.] (Berckelaers 1924: 122–123).
For him the highest aesthetic values of an artwork were geometry-based harmony as
well as architectural simplification into pure function. The issues of geometry, order,
balance were also tackled by foreign contributors to Het Overzicht, such as Behne,
Léger and Walden.
The role of abstraction as the idiom of the avant-garde was also emphasised in the
two manifestos of De Driehoek, devoted to painting and architecture respectively. In
his manifesto Peeters (1925b) saw any illusion of reality or its depiction as unacceptable
in modern painting, where only geometrical forms, straight lines and primary colours
should be applied for the sake of processing and interpreting the object. He condemned
all forms of figurativeness, realism and decorativeness, such as ornaments, depth and per-
spective or nature-inspired colours. Instead, the manifesto described mathematical laws
as the only solution for truly modern painting, while any “means other than geometric
planes of colour (. . .) were vicious”. The ideas expressed in the Driehoek’s manifesto
were actually very much in line with the principles put forward by the Dutch artists in
De Stijl, and similarly Huib Hoste’s architectural manifesto was in keeping with the
programmatic statements of J.J.P. Oud, Mondrian and Van Doesburg. Employing the
symbolism of a machine and its pure construction, Hoste (1925) claimed that technology
and functionality should also prevail in the field of architecture as well, which should be
free of any ornament, decoration or purely aesthetic elements.
Numerous issues of 7 Arts contained many theoretical statements where similar
viewpoints were expressed. Much more attention than in the above-mentioned Dutch-
written periodicals, however, was put to order and construction in art. The opening
statement of 7 Arts, divided into sections dedicated to painting, architecture, music and
literature, underlined the necessity to stay up to date, i.e. be precise, disciplined and will-
ing to construct. Besides the need of order and stability in painting and architecture, the
text also condemned any imitative approaches, for instance in literature. It quoted Oscar
Wilde’s bold statement “art only begins where imitation ends” which was extended
to “art only begins where the useless ends” ([Bourgeois et al.] 1922: n.p.). In another
programmatic statement published in the magazine we read:
Le chaos esthétique est dû à la prédominance du passé sur le présent: le jour où

nos créateurs, nos professeurs et le public accepteront de demander au monde
vivant la règle suprême de l’art, la civilisation moderne aura trouvé une expression
esthétique pure infiniment. (. . .) La vie actuelle est européenne et mécanique.
La pureté ne peut exister qu’en une compréhension fervente de cet esprit moderne.
([Bourgeois et al.] 1923a: n.p.)
[The aesthetic chaos stems from the predominance of the past over the present:
only when our creators, our professors and the audience agree to demand the
supreme rule of art from the living world, will the modern civilisation find an
infinitely pure aesthetic expression. (. . .) Today’s life is European and mechanic.
The purity can only exist in a fervent understanding of this modern spirit.]
Similar standpoints were expressed by various contributors to 7 Arts. Van Ostaijen

(1925) emphasised the necessity of the precise and well-ordered placement of words,
which in turn would reveal the transcendent and metaphysical, and Pierre Bourgeois
(1925) went even further, claiming that traditional verse and poetic language should
be rejected and replaced with abstraction and movement, for instance in the form of
calligrams. Other programmatic statements published in 7 Arts repeated the need for
ordered creation, rationalism and calculation in art ([Bourgeois et al.] 1923a, 1923b,
1923c), poetry (Chenoy 1925b; Werrie 1927), as well as in architecture and town plan-
ning (Bourgeois 1923; H[envaux] 1924, 1925; Van der Swaelmen 1926).
Just like their Dutch and Belgian counterparts, Polish avant-gardists propagated
abstract, non-figurative art, and wrote extensively on the subject. The new art had
to break from tradition and past forms, as exemplified by Henryk Berlewi’s mani-
festo “In kampf far der najer forem” [The struggle for a new form]: “Our times are
devoid of style (. . .); tradition has disappeared” (Berlewi 1921, quoted in Benson
and Forgács 2002: 182–183). In line with international voices of the period, Berlewi
pointed out that although new ideas had emerged from the old ground, modern art-
ists had to contest and overcome it entirely, and break off from any foreign, unrelated
elements in order to be able to create original and pure forms. In his most renowned
programmatic statement Mechano-faktura, Berlewi (1924a: n.p.) repeated his view
on modern art:
Dzisiejsza sztuka jest wytworem dzisiejszego dnia. Musi ona zerwać z tymi
wszystkimi nawykami sztuki wczorajszej, uperfumowanej, perwersyjnej, prze-
czulonej, histerycznej, romantycznej, buduarowej, indywidualistycznej. Powinna
ona stworzyć nowy je˛zyk form, który, doste˛pny dla wszystkich, nie kolidowałby
z rytmem dzisiejszego dnia.
[Today’s art is a product of today. Art must break all the habits of yesterday’s
perfumed, perverse, hypersensitive, hysterical, romantic, boudoir-bound, individu-
alistic art. It must create a new idiom of form that is accessible to all and in unison
with the rhythm of life.
(Benson and Forgács 2002: 489–491)]
The need of a new artistic idiom was also voiced in Peiper’s article on Ozenfant
and Jeanneret, where he used the term “sztuka przenośna” [transmissible art] which
would transmit the author’s feelings to the viewer.2 Such art was based on the univer-
sal principles and language of art, which would enable communication between the
artist and the recipient, relying only on the most common and universal elements such
as geometric figures and colours (Bielski 1922).3 When it came to literature, Polish
avant-garde poets such as Peiper (e.g. 1922a, 1923a), Przyboś (1926, 1927) and Kurek
(1930a, 1930b) rejected tradition and – similarly to the postulates put forward in
7 Arts – claimed that literature and art should be based on logical construction, discipline
and restraint. Works of literature were to be constructed from harmonious and well-
balanced relationships of words and sentences – a viewpoint shared by many artists and
writers from Poland and the Low Countries who rejected the Dadaist/Futurist-oriented
approaches where syntax and logic were consciously rejected (represented for instance
by Van Doesburg’s alter ego I.K. Bonset or Tytus Czyżewski).
Notably, in the writings of Polish artists one perceives considerable similarities to
the Dutch theories, especially those put forward by Piet Mondrian (cf. Turowski 1979,
1990a). His Neoplastic principle of equilibrium of relationships between particular ele-
ments of an artwork (lines, colour planes, volumes) was a much-used and re-worked
idea among avant-garde artists in Poland, particularly by Henryk Stażewski. Given
the resemblances between the theories of those artists, Stażewski had very likely been
acquainted with Mondrian’s theory of Neoplasticism before he wrote his theoretical
statements for Blok and Praesens. Similarly to Mondrian, Stażewski (1924, 1929) like-
wise rejected individualism as not capable of reflecting the core aspects of the universe
and reaching the theosophical equilibrium between men and the universe, between the
internal and the external (cf. Kleiverda-Kajetanowicz 1985: 27–33). For both artists
the expression of the universal principles was the sole aim of modern art. As such, in
order for art to reflect the equilibrium, it had to be abstract, as reflected in the title of
Stażewski’s statement.
Stażewski further developed his theory on abstract art in the first issue of Praesens,
where significant similarities with the writings of Piet Mondrian became even more
visible. To a reasonable extent Stażewski’s “Styl Współczesności” [The contemporary
style] could be perceived as a repetition of some of Mondrian’s Neoplastic principles,
and as noticed by Kleiverda-Kajetanowicz (1985: 30), the Dutch theory had been the
most important – if not the only – source of inspiration for Stażewski. Indeed, the lat-
ter’s definition of modern art:
Nowa plastyka, abstrakcyjna, wyzwala sie˛ od ‘opisowości’ i ma na celu jedynie

wyrażanie równowagi stosunków elementów plastycznych. (. . .) dociera [ona]
jedynie do wartości najbardziej uniwersalnych, wspólnych wszystkim ludziom,
oczyszczaja˛c plastyke˛ od wszelkich elementów nie-plastycznych, przez wyrażanie
tylko równowagi stosunków i proporcyj.
(Stażewski 1926a: 2)
[This new, abstract art rejects ‘descriptiveness’. Its sole aim being to present bal-
anced relations between visual elements. [I]t strives to bring out the most universal
values common to all men, and, by rejecting all non-visual elements, to achieve
well-balanced relations and proportions.
(Benson and Forgács 2002: 645)]
is without a doubt based on Mondrian’s statement:
L’esprit nouveau supprime la description dans l’art (. . .) tout art (. . .) s’efforce

vers l’expression plastique en fonction des rapports équilibrés, car c’est l’équilibre
des rapports qui exprime le plus purement l’harmonie et l’unité, propres à l’esprit.
(Mondrian 1921a: 4, 7)
[The new spirit eliminates description from art (. . .) all art (. . .) strives for plastic
expression through equilibrated relations, since the equilibrium of relations forms
the purest expression of harmony and unity, suitable for spirit.]
The major similarities in the terminology used by both theoreticians are also wor-
thy of note: e.g. Stażewski’s terms nowa plastyka [modern art] and nowy duch [new
spirit] were direct translations of Mondrian’s néo-plasticisme/nieuwe beelding and
l’esprit nouveau/de nieuwe geest (cf. Kleiverda-Kajetanowicz 1985: 28). Nevertheless,
as noticed by Turowski (1979: 144–145), despite many similarities between the artistic
programmes of those artists, some aspects of Stażewski’s theories differed from Mon-
drian’s metaphysical principles. As Stażewski himself emphasised, “the Polish abstract
painters [were] no imitators of Van Doesburg and Mondrian but their successors, and
they were somehow oppose[d] to their predecessors” (Stażewski 1933b: 4). Looking
however at Stażewski’s programmatic statements, their close affinity to the Dutch
theoreticians is undeniable.
Resemblances of the Dutch theories are also visible in the writings of other Polish art-
ists. In L’Art Contemporain Brze˛kowski (1929/1930) made an attempt to outline the
development of modern art in the course of the preceding two decades. Like Stażewski
and Mondrian, he claimed that art had always been a fight between the external reality
and the inner abstract world of the artist. According to Brze˛kowski, abstraction had
overcome realism and figurativeness to achieve the purest form of art. Brze˛kowski also
reflected on the use of the term “abstract painting”:
La forme géométrique concrète, exprimée dans les plus concrètes proportions,

devient l’élément plastique. La dénomination: peinture abstraite n’est pas juste,
parce que en indiquant le détachement de cette peinture de la réalité objective, cette
dénomination peut porter à croire que la composition n’est pas chose concrète.
Il n’existe rien de plus concret, que l’art dit «abstrait».
(Brze˛kowski 1929/1930: 91–92)
[Concrete geometrical form, expressed in the most concrete proportions, becomes

a plastic element. The term: abstract painting is unfitting, as by indicating a lack
of connection between this painting and objective reality, it may suggest that
composition is not a concrete thing. For there is nothing more concrete that
‘abstract’ art.]
Interestingly, Brze˛kowski’s viewpoint corresponds closely with Mondrian’s observa-

tions presented as a response to the aforementioned survey of the magazine Europa:
W porównaniu z konkretami przyrody, rzeczywistość ta [= nowa rzeczywistość –

MW] jest bardziej abstrakcyjna. W sztuce przecież mówi sie˛ o ‘sztuce abstrakcyjnej’.
Lecz ze wzgle˛du na konkretne środki ekspresji, sztuka abstrakcyjna jest przecież
KONKRETNA.
(Mondrian 1929: 90)
[Compared to the concrete aspects of nature, this [new – MW] reality is more
abstract. When it comes to art we do talk about ‘abstract art’. Nevertheless, given
the concrete means of expression, abstract art is indeed CONCRETE],
as well as with the programmatic statement of Art Concret published only two
months earlier:
Peinture concrète, et non abstraite parce que rien n’est plus concret, plus réel
qu’une ligne, qu’une couleur, qu’une surface.
([Carlsund et al.] 1930b: 2)
[Concrete and not abstract painting because there nothing is concrete, more real
than a line, a colour, a surface.
(Baljeu 1974: 181).]
Living and working in Paris, Brze˛kowski participated and contributed to the artistic
discussions with Mondrian and other artists who lived there at that time, hence those
significant similarities.
An important notion tackled in many programmatic writings with relation to for-
mal aspects of abstract art, is the so-called organicity. The term is related to the Pla-
tonic “principle of organicity” in rhetoric where “each speech should be an organic
whole in which all its parts, although different from one another and each special-
ized to its task, nonetheless function together in interdependent harmony” (Welton
2014). Originally used in art with reference to nature, the term was reinterpreted by
the modernists for whom autonomy, integrity and coherence of an artwork were of
crucial importance. A modernist artwork was to be a stand-alone organism where all
elements stayed in strict functional relations to each other creating one organic entity.
Dutch and Belgian theoreticians did not often refer to artistic organicity: the term
appeared for instance in Het Overzicht and 7 Arts (Kallai 1923; H[envaux] 1925;
Van Ostaijen 1925) as well as in the writings of Dutch artists. Van Doesburg (1917:
35) described “organic independence” as the ultimate aim of an artwork, whilst for
Oud (1921: 156) a modern building was to become a “complete spatial-visual organ-
ism” solely based on mutual relationships of its construction elements, not decoration
or ornaments.
In Polish texts, however, the term organicity appeared quite often, in particular in
the writings of Strzemiński who, similarly to the Dutch artists, rejected any decorative,
foreign elements in an artwork and agitated for a proper system of construction in art.
As observed by Paulina Kurc-Maj (2012), the notion of organicity played an important
role in Strzemiński’s theory where much emphasis was put on the non-representative
and non-figurative nature of modern art which was to be governed by its own rules,
independent from the laws of nature, as exemplified by Strzemiński’s (1923a) program-
matic statement from the Vilnius exhibition catalogue. For Strzemiński, in order to
achieve the organicity of an artwork – i.e. its integrity and harmony – past forms of
artistic expression were to be rejected and replaced by new forms, topics and abstract
laws based on discipline and constructive methods, and he even proposed that abstrac-
tion in art based on a simple economic system should be mandatory (Strzemiński
1924b). Both in Poland and in the Low Countries, the economic use of artistic means –
restraint, logic and discipline instead of decoration, afflatus and expressiveness – was
seen as necessary for modern art, architecture and literature (see e.g. Peiper 1922b;
Bourgeois 1923; Van Doesburg 1924a; Van Doesburg and Van Eesteren 1924a; Miller
1924b; Red. 1924b as well as Kłosiński 2015 for an analysis of the notion of economy
in the Polish avant-garde).
There are many similarities between the theoretical writings and artistic prac-
tices of Strzemiński, Kobro and the Dutch artists who shared much interest in
each other’s artistic theories (cf. Brze˛kowski 1966: 164). Strzemiński (1929a: 24)
claimed, for instance, that the theory of Neoplasticism had formed the background
of Kobro’s sculptures where mutual relations were of utmost importance. Nev-
ertheless, Strzemiński and Kobro did not agree with the activities of their Dutch
and Belgian colleagues on all aspects, especially Van Doesburg and Vantongerloo
(cf. Turowski 1990a). They criticised the dynamic aspect of Van Doesburg’s counter-
compositions from his Elementarist period, where clashes of two lines disturbed the
harmony and organicity in painting. Notably, one of the latter’s counter-compositions
was used by Kobro and Strzemiński (1931: 67–68) as an example of wrongly based
composition in painting. In contrast to Van Doesburg, Strzemiński rejected the ele-
ment of time in painting, as well as rhythm and contrasts of lines, colours or planes
characteristic also for Mondrian. In the case of sculpture and architecture, though,
rhythm, space and time were of crucial importance for the Polish artists and they
criticised the early works of Vantongerloo as being based solely on volumes/masses,
and not on space (Strzemiński 1929a: 24; Kobro and Strzemiński 1931: 68–78) –
an approach which was to evolve in time, partly under the influence of Kobro (cf.
Section 3.3).
The principles of abstract art, e.g. the Neoplastic equilibrium of relationships and the
balance between straight lines, colours, planes and volumes, were also applied to archi-
tecture, both in Poland and in the Low Countries. Architects such as Oud, Wils, Hoste
and Syrkus as well as Mondrian, Van Doesburg and Strzemiński rejected traditional
layouts, composition and symmetry in favour of functional and pragmatic solutions
based on well-balanced proportions as opposed to outmoded aesthetical a priori. Build-
ings were to have open plans with mobile walls, and the interior was to merge with
the exterior (cf. Syrkus 1926a, 1927 and Van Doesburg 1924a, 1924c). Architecture,
like painting, had to operate with fundamental elements such as pillars, planes and
volumes in order to create a pure and abstract expression of the universal. Any relation
between architecture and nature was also categorically rejected: Mondrian perceived
it as impure, and elsewhere Syrkus (1926a: 13) claimed that “architecture never took
its forms from nature, it was never art of imitation, as its aim [was] not imitation but
organisation and creation”. Turowski (1990a) pointed to various influences of the
Dutch theoreticians on Syrkus, which are indeed visible both explicitly – by referring to
contemporary works of Mondrian, Van Doesburg and Oud (Syrkus 1926a: 11; 1930:
29, 31) – and implicitly – for instance Mondrian’s and Van Doesburg’s influences are
undeniable in the following excerpt: “A work of modern art expresses itself through
a simultaneous composition of standardised elements in an individual equilibrium of
contrasting relations” (Syrkus 1930: 33).
Figure 15 Theo van Doesburg’s Composition XIV (1924) used by Kobro and Strzemiński as
an example of wrongly based composition in painting (source: MSL; © Ewa-Sapka
Pawliczak – copyright owner to works of Władysław Strzemiński and Katarzyna Kobro)
Seuphor’s perception of “architecture” as a total unification of constructive princi-

ples in an artwork (not per se a building) is also interesting, as expressed in the opening
manifesto of Cercle et Carré. Seuphor (1930a) emphasised that although people were
indeed linked to nature, their actual greatness was based on rational comprehension
and creation, and their ultimate goal was to reach the superior order, a supernatural
constructive concept of life. Hence, he defined one of the modern artists’ tasks as the
necessity to examine the reciprocal relationships between various elements of the
world in order to discover its universal principles and to reflect these in their works.
For Seuphor an artist should:
[é]tablir sur les bases d’une structure sévère, simple et nue dans toutes ses parties,
et dans un principe d’unité étroite avec cette structure non cachée, une architecture
[my italics – MW] qui, par les moyens techniques et physiques spéciaux à l’époque,
exprime in langage clair le vrai immanent et immuable, reflète dans son organisa-
tion particulière l’ordre magnifique de l’univers.
(Seuphor 1930a: n.p.)
[on the basis of a rigorous, simple and entirely bare structure, and under the rule
of strict unity with this uncovered structure, create architecture which – through
proper technical and physical means of the period – clearly expresses the imma-
nent and persistent truth, and reflects the mathematical order of the universe in its
specific organisation.]
International initiatives and magazines launched in late 1920s and early 1930s,
such as Cercle et Carré, Abstraction-Création or Art Concret united artists of vari-
ous nationalities who jointly rejected figurative and nature-related elements from art
in favour of abstraction and non-figurativeness as the proper means to obtain pure
construction and a well-balanced structure of mutual relations between particular
elements of the artwork. After years of theoretical discussions regarding the nature
of modern art, the status of abstraction as the only idiom capable of expressing the
universal principles of the world in art was established. As repeated in the manifesto
of Art Concret, universality and objectivity of art were crucial. Artworks were to
be based on geometry and logic, and free from any individual and local constraints
(Carlsund et al. 1930a).4
2.2. L’art pour . . .?

Although abstraction and non-figurativeness became the official idiom of the avant-
garde, contrary to the above-mentioned claim of Greenberg (1939), not all avant-garde
works were conceived as independent from social issues. As pointed out by Hubert
Figure 16 The manifesto of Art Concret from 1930 (source: RCE)

van den Berg (2015), Greenberg’s theory that art could be divided into non-figurative
autonomous avant-garde or politically and socially engaged kitsch needs revision.
Indeed, drawing on various statements and theories of avant-garde artists, it becomes
evident that they constantly oscillated between two poles: art for art’s sake (l’art pour
l’art) and socially engaged art (l’art social or Tendenzkunst). This division dates back
to the nineteenth century artistic debates in France, as exemplified by Gustave Kahn’s
(1896) article “L’Art social et l’art pour l’art” [Social art and art for art’s sake]. The
representatives of European historical avant-garde functioned within this binary opposi-
tion, and they vividly discussed the political and social engagement of their art (cf. Van
den Berg 2015). Avant-gardists from Poland and the Low Countries where also actively
participating in this discussion, and their programmatic statements, with many similari-
ties and differences, indicate the complex nature of the avant-garde in this aspect.
On the one hand, the theory of Neoplasticism rejected any social factors in art. For
Mondrian and Van Doesburg, as well as for other artists, art was to be governed by its
own laws independent of any external factors. Related to the elimination of mimetic
depiction and figurativeness, they saw art itself as its own aim which could as much
as only express the artist’s emotions in a personal, independent way. In the process
of making and judging art, it was exclusively the artist, their will and eventually the
artwork that counted (Van Doesburg 1917: 20; Mondrian 1917/1918: 3, 52). For
Van Doesburg (1920: 20), the modern spirit had been gradually evolving towards l’art
pour l’art in order to eventually reach the ultimate form of l’art pour le vrai [art for the
truth], and according to Mondrian (1919/1920: 137), pure plastic approach should not
only create new art, but also build a new abstract society – a society of well-balanced
relations and harmony between the material and the spiritual. Disappointed with the
fact that the contemporary society was not yet ready to evolve and understand modern
art, Mondrian (1922b: 46) stated that art had to limit itself to art only, and refrain
from any social engagement.
This autonomous view was shared by several Belgian artists, who saw social demands
as an obstacle for the new art. Artists were to create works of art which did not speak
or were not to be understood, but instead expressed universal and immanent truths
(cf. Peeters 1923d; Eemans 1925a; Seuphor 1930a). Particularly with regard to literature,
all political connotations were excluded; it was to be created upon its own laws and
remain autonomous and politically unengaged (Bourgeois 1923; Werrie 1927). More-
over, as reflected in Het Overzicht by the Hungarian artist Lajos Kassák (1923: 70),
“an artwork is to be compared only with itself” and “the artist does not address any
issues, and artworks never solve any problems”. Years later in his statement on concrete
art, Van Doesburg (1930b: 11) would paraphrase it as “Il n’y a rien à lire dans la peinture.
Il y a à voir.” [There is nothing to read in a painting. There is only to watch].
Also Polish artists expressed similar viewpoints in their programmatic writings.
Peiper for instance argued that each painting constituted its own reality and had its
own internal logic, entirely autonomous from tangible elements, and that artists –
although directly related to the rest of society and influenced by its evolution –
were not at its disposal and nor did they preach any slogans (Peiper 1922b, 1926a;
Bielski 1922). Similarly to the Belgian writers, Peiper and other avant-garde poets
also postulated total autonomy for literature. The l’art pour l’art approach also
found its advocates among Polish painters, especially Stażewski and Strzemiński.
For instance, the second issue of Blok featured an unsigned text which opened with
a statement: “Artysta tworza˛c działa bezinteresownie – bez celu pedagogicznego”
[An artist remains neutral while creating – with no pedagogical principle] ([Stażewski
et al.] 1924f: n.p.). It was probably written by Stażewski or Strzemiński, whose other
writings reveal very similar viewpoints. The latter for instance saw total integration
of art and society as devastating. Instead, artworks were to be independent, unrelated
entities created upon their own laws and no other principles were to serve for the sake
of constructing an artwork (Strzemiński 1922/1923, 1923a, 1924a, 1924b, 1927a;
Kobro and Strzemiński 1931).
A very interesting viewpoint on the art–society relation was expressed by Georges
Vantongerloo in his texts published in the 1930s in Abstraction-Création. For Van-
tongerloo (1933: 43) art encouraged social development, but the artistic passion had
always been retained by the inferior stage of social evolution. He dismissed the belief
that art reflected society since it had always been more advanced and should finally
be able to free itself from social servitude. In a similar vein to Mondrian, Vantonger-
loo also postulated that society – not art – should be changed, as it slowed down the
development of art and architecture: “C’est donc notre base sociale qu’il faut réviser,
ce qui amènera automatiquement une demeure en rapport direct avec notre évolution
sociale. On ne peut plus construire sur les bases de notre société actuelle” (Vantonger-
loo 1935: 31) [Thus it is our society that needs revision, which will automatically result
in dwellings directly related to our social evolution. We can no longer construct upon
our current society.].
The concept of avant-garde art as a changing factor for society was a shared
approach of many artists who rejected the social or political engagement of art out
of principle, but yet they did not exclude its influence on society. For instance, in
his statement “Anti-Tendenzkunst” [Against social art] Van Doesburg (1923: 18)
categorically rejected any political influences on art and confirmed its autonomy,
claiming nevertheless that art “developed powers strong enough to influence the entire
culture as such, instead of being influenced by the society”. Like Van Doesburg, also
other avant-garde artists saw abstract avant-garde art as a source of renewal and
modernisation of society, e.g. Chenoy (1924b), Peiper (1923b) and Bourgeois (1925).
Modern art, architecture and literature were for them not only supposed to keep up
with the growing pace of life and rapid evolution of the world, but also to influence
the society by creating new thinking patterns. In his manifesto under an evocative title
Manifest poetycki o Rzeczypospolitej. Poeci na front. Śpiewajcie o Rzeczypospolitej.
Społeczeństwo czeka na wasze usta [Poetic manifesto on the Polish Republic. Poets to
the front. Sing about the Polish Republic. The society awaits your words] the Polish
poet Jalu Kurek (1929) stated explicitly: “Poetry is a social function. Its task is to echo
the happenings that happen”.
On the other hand, many programmatic writings of Polish, Belgian and Dutch
provenance revealed an entirely different approach, namely art being directly and
inseparably linked to social issues. In particular, socially engaged art was postulated
with relation to architecture, which by definition has a practical, functional aspect. This
issue was actually one of the reasons why avant-garde painters and architects did not
succeed in collaborating in the long term, as their theories and viewpoints on art and
architecture differed substantially (so was for instance the case of Van Doesburg and
Oud or of Strzemiński/Stażewski and Syrkus).
Contradictory opinions on this matter were already visible in the first series of
De Stijl where J.J.P. Oud (1917, 1918) related art with social aspects of the period. In his
Figure 17 Jalu Kurek’s Manifest poetycki o Rzeczypospolitej. Poeci na front. Śpiewajcie o Rze-
czypospolitej. Społeczeństwo czeka na wasze usta from 1929 (source: ARA)
following articles Oud (1919a, 1919b, 1921, [1926] 1929) repeatedly referred to the
social entanglement of architecture, including his article published in Praesens. Oud
(1926) argued there that architecture had a major impact on social life and that well-
designed buildings could have an impact on proper education or even teach the correct
life values. The Belgian 7 Arts often pointed to architecture as directly participating in
social life, being its mirror (cf. Goyens de Heusch 1976). Its opening manifesto claimed
that the architects’ mission was to introduce artistic peace into all social activities
([Bourgeois et al.] 1922) while Eemans (1925a and 1925b) claimed that “beauty laid in
utility” pointing to the futility of the l’art pour l’art approach vis-à-vis the synthesis of
aesthetical and social elements in modern art. Interestingly, in Het Woord Jan Demets
(1926a) also argued for the social implication of art, albeit in a reverse form – i.e.
because the economy was not of any importance for art, it was society that should take
care of artists by supplying them with proper work space and utilities, allowing them
to produce art for society.
Modern Polish architects also gave much attention to the social aspects of architec-
ture, for instance Syrkus, whose goal was socially oriented architecture showing its
users how to live in a comfortable, economic and hygienic way. For Syrkus (1926a: 12),
well-designed architecture was both the cause and the effect of social life: “architecture
changed society just as society changed architecture”, hence well-organised social life
could also give birth to great architecture. According to Syrkus and other modern
architects, e.g. the Brukalskis, Szanajca or Lachert, since architecture regulated and
organised lives of millions of people, the architects had to take modern social expecta-
tions, new lifestyles, etc., into consideration in order to condition social development
through architecture.5 Such an approach was especially visible in CIAM, where the
architects strongly advocated for socially oriented architecture to be implemented –
e.g. during the third CIAM congress in Brussels devoted to the minimum dwelling
(cf. Praesens 2: 180–190 and Mumford 2000).
It was not only architects who reflected on the social aspect of art and architec-
ture in Poland, but also visual artists Strzemiński and Kobro stressed the social and
functional aspects of interior architecture which they saw as “the regulator of social
and individual life” (Strzemiński 1931: 68; see also 1928c and Kobro 1935). It was
however Mieczysław Szczuka who was the biggest advocate of socially engaged art in
Poland. His leftist political views considerably influenced his view on art, which he saw
as inextricably connected with social issues. First of all, Szczuka (1923, 1924a) per-
ceived art as meant for people to fill their surroundings and free time with. He claimed
that the hectic pace of contemporary human life and lack of proper education had made
people overlook art and as a consequence they were no longer able to understand it.
Hence, because art was to be created for people, it had to be directly linked to technol-
ogy and industry, which would make it reachable for the masses and as a consequence
exert considerable impact on their lives and tastes. Once Szczuka and Żarnower became
the sole editors of Blok, it became visibly oriented towards social art. For instance
Blok’s manifesto “Co to jest konstruktywizm” repeated Szczuka’s viewpoints on art
as a factor in general societal development.
Although non-figurative abstraction was a commonly acknowledged form of expres-
sion among avant-garde artists, it did not mean that avant-garde art was to be
apolitical and socially unengaged for all of its representatives. On the contrary, as
noticed by Theo van Doesburg (1921/1922: 110) two poles of avant-garde art existed:
l’avant-garde d’art pur (art for art’s sake) and l’avant-garde d’idées (socially engaged
art), and avant-garde artists placed their artistic endeavours at one of them or in
between. Those who propagated art which was heavily engaged in social and politi-
cal issues were contradicted by artists advocating autonomous art, independent from
social factors. Nevertheless, for both groups avant-garde art had a shared revolutionary
objective: to unite art and life, improve and modernise the society to keep it up to date
with the modern world and times – a purely utopian objective, regardless of whether
it fell under a particular socio-political umbrella.
2.3. Cooperation between Disciplines and across Borders

The aforementioned issues of the autonomy of avant-garde art, its socio-political
engagement and impact were all related to the notion of Gesamtkunstwerk (also
referred to as social art, collective art, gemeenschapskunst or art communautaire). It
was coined in the nineteenth century and in the course of the 1920s often applied and
redefined by various avant-garde artists (Vandevoorde 2013: 224). They perceived the
synthesis of various arts as the correct way of developing modern literature, art and
architecture, with the latter gaining a prominent status as a domain linking other forms
of art. Since the beginning of the twentieth century the term Gesamtkunstwerk began to
encompass the idea of architecture as the base to which other arts were linked, which
was propagated for instance by the Bauhaus (cf. Świtek 2013: 173–198). The need for
cooperation between various professions was repeatedly voiced by various avant-garde
artists throughout the analysed period, as succinctly recapitulated by Jean Gorin (1930)
in Cercle et Carré:
Ingénieurs, architectes, peintres et sculpteurs travailleront en étroite collaboration,

s’exprimant néanmoins chacun dans son propre domaine. L’architecte réalisera
ainsi l’union intime de tous les arts plastiques (. . .). A ce moment, toute expres-
sion, toute création en forme d’objet d’art particulier basé presque toujours sur la
propriété individuelle n’aura plus aucune raison d’être. L’architecture néoplastique
réalisant (. . .) l’art collectif le plus pur.
[Engineers, architects, painters and sculptors will work in close collaboration, yet
expressing themselves in their proper domain. Hence architecture will form an inti-
mate union of all visual arts (. . .). At that moment all forms of expression, all the
creation in the form of a work of particular art, almost always based on individual
property, will have no more raison d’être. Neoplastic architecture producing (. . .)
the purest collective art.]
The idea of a collective monumental art resulting from the synthesis between visual
arts and architecture was particularly important to Theo van Doesburg, as outlined
by Carel Blotkamp (1990: 18–20, 1994: 128–129). Already in his early writings Van
Doesburg (1916, 1918b, 1920) envisaged a collective monumental style based on unity
and harmony between various means of expression: architecture, sculpture, painting,
music and literature. He undertook numerous collaborative projects trying his best
to cooperate with architects in order to create a harmonious synthesised art. Despite
numerous obstacles in his cooperation with architects, De Stijl repeatedly referred to
the idea of Gesamtkunstwerk, for instance by publishing Werner Gräff’s manifesto
where he (1922: 74) postulated: “Wir schaffen das Gesamtkunstwerk. Die Zusam-
menarbeit von Architektur und Plastik und Malerei (Gemeinsam) mit Industrie und
Technik, Leben.” [We create Gesamtkunstwerk. A cooperation of architecture, art and
painting (together) with industry and technology, life.].
Van Doesburg could eventually bring his plans of collective work of architects and
painters to fruition when he met the young Cornelis van Eesteren in May 1922, who
shared Van Doesburg’s ideal of the synthesis of arts. Van Eesteren later became a
member of De Stijl and created several architectural projects together with Van Does-
burg, for instance Maison d’artiste (1923), which Blotkamp (1990: 34) described as a
“paradigm of collaboration between painter and architect as equal partners”. Although
the actual cooperation did not last long, it did bring some major theoretical fruits with
regard to collective art (cf. Van Straaten 1996).
At the occasion of De Stijl’s exhibition in the Gallery L’Effort Moderne held in
October–November 1923, the group’s fifth manifesto titled Vers une construction
collective (Manifeste V du Groupe ‘De Stijl’) [Towards collective construction (The
5th Manifesto of ‘De Stijl’ Group)] was issued by Van Doesburg, Van Eesteren and
Rietveld.6 It was also published a year later in De Stijl under the title “– □ + = R4” but
with no mention of Rietveld.
Figure 18 Cover of De Stijl 6, 6/7 featuring a photo of Theo van Doesburg and Cornelis van
Eesteren working on one of their collective projects (source: De Stijl 6, 6/7: 73;
IADDB)
Figure 19 Vers une construction collective (Manifeste V du Groupe ‘De Stijl’) published by
Theo van Doesburg, Cornelis van Eesteren and Gerrit Rietveld in 1923 (source: FC,
Collection Frits Lugt)
The text was preceded by another theoretical statement from 1923 also titled “Vers
une construction collective” which called for the laws of construction to be established
in light of the rules of economics, mathematics, technology, hygiene, etc. According
to Van Doesburg and Van Eesteren (1924a: 89), the laws of construction “could not
be imagined” and that “one discovered them only through collective effort and from
experience”. Somehow as a response to it, the actual manifesto appeared under the
changed name directly afterwards. Its authors claimed to have collectively examined
the laws and established the nature of modern architecture as a plastic unity of all the
arts (Van Doesburg and Van Eesteren 1924b; cf. Van Doesburg, Van Eesteren and
Rietveld 1923).
The same issue of De Stijl featured one of Theo van Doesburg’s most important
theoretical statements “Tot een beeldende architectuur” [Towards plastic architec-
ture], also printed in Bouwkundig Weekblad as well as in Blok (Van Doesburg 1924a,
1924b, 1924c). The manifesto was a summary of Van Doesburg’s previous theoretical
and practical endeavours, and it presented architecture as an organic synthesis and a
monumental union of all modern plastic arts. As pointed out by Van Straaten (1996:
30–32), the fact that the text was signed solely by Van Doesburg caused some animos-
ity between him and Van Eesteren, which eventually led to the end of their collabora-
tion. It is also worth noting that at the end of the Polish translation of this statement
in Blok, Van Doesburg added a short comment where he emphasised that the new
collective style could be born only when artists and architects work side by side and
exchange views with each other – a postscript postulating collective efforts added to
the very text which led to their failure.
The concepts of art synthesis and collective artistic efforts were also major issues
for the Belgian avant-garde, in particular for 7 Arts. The journal itself – just like most
avant-garde periodicals – may be regarded as a product of the collective work of art-
ists, architects and writers. Of particular interest is the fact that its editors did not
sign their critiques, as they were jointly and collectively responsible for all the articles,
a status they repeatedly informed the reader throughout the first series of the maga-
zine. Theories put forward in 7 Arts were closely related to contemporary viewpoints
regarding the union of various disciplines expressed by the artists related to De Stijl
or the Bauhaus (cf. Goyens de Heusch 1976; Vandevoorde 2013). Contemporary
fascinations with the city, masses and machines symbolised the collective spirit of
modern times and formed a source of inspiration for modern, social and collective art.
This collective ideal could – according to Pierre Bourgeois (1923) – be best reflected
both by architecture and poetry, but cinema was also perceived as a perfect example
of collective art (Chenoy 1925a; Dekeukelerie 1927). Individual approaches were
repeatedly condemned in 7 Arts, while collective efforts were praised: in one of the
unsigned statements it was proclaimed: “Héroïque qui travaille en la collectivité, ayant
su éteindre (. . .) la tare individualiste” [Heroic is the one who works collectively, and
has been able to remove (. . .) the ballast of individualism] ([Bourgeois et al.] 1923b:
n.p.; see also Werrie 1926).
When it comes to Het Overzicht and other Belgian artists, however, their stand-
points on the synthesis of arts differed substantially. As outlined by Hans Vande-
voorde (2013), Jozef Peeters was a strong proponent of autonomous artworks, which
might have some impact on the viewers, but they were principally to stay independent
from each other. Rejecting the postulate of collective unification of art, literature and
architecture, Peeters claimed for instance that no literary or architectural content
should influence painting (cf. Peeters 1921, 1922). Similarly, for Victor Servranckx
sculpture and architecture were two distinct domains (Vandevoorde 2013: 232).
Contrary opinions were voiced by Vantongerloo and even Seuphor, who co-edited
Het Overzicht with Peeters. In L’Art et son avenir Vantongerloo (1924: 56) postulated
a total synthesis of modern arts and Seuphor’s views were also similar, which resur-
faced later in Cercle et Carré. Although a significant shift in the theories put forward in
Het Overzicht did take place when Peeters became its co-editor – namely an evolution
from a Flemish-nationalist approach towards an international-oriented Constructivist
stance (cf. Paenhuysen 2010: 79) – when it comes to the issue of Gesamtkunstwerk,
Seuphor’s and Peeters’s viewpoints were not unanimous (cf. Seuphor 1976).
As with the Low Countries, in Poland the collective approach to art found fertile
ground, as reflected especially in Praesens. Like his Dutch and Belgian colleagues,
Szymon Syrkus emphasised the links between architecture and visual arts in his pro-
grammatic statement. He (1926a: 10) referred for instance to bold compositions and
colour arrangements “à la Mondrian or Van Doesburg” serving as inspiration for
interior design. Like most avant-garde architects of the period, Syrkus saw architecture
not only as the art of arranging façades or simply constructing buildings, but also as
the outcome of both engineering and aesthetic principles. For Syrkus (1926a), archi-
tecture also functioned as the “bearings” of modern life and society, which should be
perfectly adjusted to its changing dynamics and character. The so-called łożyskowość
[bearingness] or architektonizacja [architectonisation] formed the essence of modern
architecture, but it relied on other factors, including among others sculpture, painting
or economy. Although for Syrkus the societal impact of architecture was of utmost
importance, it was also inseparably linked to the idea of architecture as the result of
joint efforts of various crafts, as earlier claimed by the Dutch and Belgian avant-garde
artists and architects.
The theory of Syrkus was actually an amalgam of two of the above-discussed
approaches: the collective work of artists and architects whose main goal was to create
something which, on the one hand united all the arts in one coherent piece, and on the
other hand fulfilled social needs. Henryk Stażewski was similar in that – as discussed
above – he shared Mondrian’s views on abstract art reflecting the universal aspects
of the world. At the same time – contrary to Mondrian – he also applied a collective
approach to modern art, seeing architecture as the main domain shaping the new
style. Perceiving space, colour and texture as interdependent and symbiotic, Stażewski
(1926a: 2) claimed that “malarstwo i rzeźba bez zwia˛zku z architektura˛ sa˛ dziś nie
do pomyślenia i nie maja˛ najmniejszej racji bytu” [painting or sculpture separated
from architecture is now quite inconceivable and unwarranted (Benson and Forgács
2002: 645–646)]. The new abstract and universal style was, according to Stażewski,
profoundly collective and based on the rules of collective construction. Nevertheless, it
did not exclude the artist’s personality or individual expression, a duality characteristic
also for Mondrian.
Fascination with the synthesis of various artistic disciplines was visible in Blok from
its first issue, which featured an editorial statement published in Polish and French.
It criticised individualism in art and emphasised that “art should not be a manifesta-
tion of the artist’s individualism, but the result of collective efforts” ([Stażewski et al.]
1924a: n.p.; Benson and Forgács 2002: 491–492). Of interest was a new dimension
with regard to collective art, which appeared in Polish theoretical statements, namely
the claim that the development of art should be based on innovations and new insights
constructed upon the collective efforts of one’s predecessors, which was also voiced
in this statement. Thus, in their deliberations on collective art, the editors of Blok not
only saw it as the union of various disciplines, but also as a non-individualistic manner
of creating art based on past collective achievements.
This viewpoint was further developed by Strzemiński in his text “B = 2” where
he compared the process of art creation to mechanised and standardised forms of
industrial production. Strzemiński (1924b) postulated a “micrometric process of
productive organisation of work”, in other words collective efforts which were sup-
posed to improve and objectify the process of art production. He saw it as much more
effective in comparison to previous epochs when artists worked individually, starting
from scratch every time. Strzemiński’s ideal was based on consistency, efficiency and
objectivism, and his starting point were the achievements of the past – i.e. tradition –
which should be turned into something entirely new. Paradoxically, according to
Strzemiński (1924b: n.p.), “the further [from the starting point] we go, the more
faithful we are to tradition” (Benson and Forgács 2002: 498) since, by relying on
tradition and re-defining it into new forms, an artist ensured the endurance of artistic
thought throughout history.
The importance of collective efforts for Polish artists was also reflected in Blok’s
manifesto “Co to jest konstruktywizm”. Its fourth point referred to a “system of
methodological collective work regulated by a conscious will and aiming at perfecting
Figure 20 Blok’s editorial statement published in Polish and French in 1924 (source:
Blok 1; MNW)
the results of collective achievements and at inventiveness” (Red. 1924b; Benson and
Forgács 2002: 496). It was to be based on a practical approach, discipline, mechanisa-
tion and the economic use of materials (see Figure 7). Almost a year later, in the tenth
issue of Blok, those standpoints were repeated in a bold statement: “Linja nowego
stylu jest już wytknie˛ta. Obecny okres jest odkrywczem i stopniowem udoskonalaniem
osia˛gnie˛tych poprzednio zdobyczy na drodze systematycznej, planowej kolektywnej
pracy.” [The line of the new style has been already drawn. The current period is a cre-
ative and gradual perfectioning of prior achievements through systematic and planned
collective work.] ([Szczuka and Żarnower] 1925b: n.p.). It is important to emphasise
the fact that the authors of those statements, Szczuka and Żarnower, were related to
the Polish Communist Party and their works revealed a strong leftist character, which
is also visible in subsequent statements. After the closure of Blok, Szczuka established a
communist magazine Dźwignia [Lever]. Its opening statement reflected the communist-
oriented approach to collective art: “The task of ‘Dźwignia’ is to gather cultural work-
ers (writers, artists, etc.) who share the objectives of contemporary proletariat (. . .) in
line with Marxist principles” (Redakcja 1927: 1).
Although most avant-garde artists propagated collective art, there were substan-
tial differences in their particular approaches to the concept, which ultimately led
to its failure. Besides some examples of successful implementation of the idea of the
synthesis of arts (for instance Mondrian and Seuphor’s Tableau-poème (Textuel),
Strzemiński and Przyboś’s book Z ponad or the Neoplastic Room in Łódź), writers,
artist and architects – even though all eager to work together – differed too much for
their cooperation to last long. Notwithstanding Van Doesburg’s fascination with the
idea of Gesamtkunstwerk, artists such as Mondrian or Van der Leck did not quite
share his enthusiasm. Despite some interest in the idea, Mondrian remained scepti-
cal and did not want to compromise his theoretical standpoints with the practical
demands of architecture (Hoek 1990: 69–70; Blotkamp 1994: 128–129; cf. Mondrian
1923). Van der Leck (1917, 1918) also disapproved of architecture dominating the
work of the artists, and he claimed that it should remain a colourless and neutral
background for paintings.7
Van Doesburg made numerous attempts to collaborate with architects such as Wils,
Oud or Van Eesteren, but they did not manage to maintain any meaningful coopera-
tion, despite mutual enthusiasm in working together. Oud’s cooperation with Van
Doesburg came to an end during the course of 1921 after the latter submitted colour
solutions to Oud’s housing project Spangen in Rotterdam, which was later reflected
in their writings: Van Doesburg (1921a, 1922a) criticised Oud, trying to prove that
he had actually never been a De Stijl architect, and Oud, on the other hand, saw Van
Doesburg as a danger to architecture because of him being an idealistic artist and not
an architect (see Oud 1922 as well as his letter to Syrkus from 12 April 1926 – cf.
Section 1.3.2). Later, Van Doesburg tried to implement his theory of monumental
art together with Van Eesteren. Nevertheless, the publication of the manifesto “Tot
een beeldende architectuur” led to a serious conflict with Van Eesteren, who claimed
that the principal conclusions listed in the article had been reached together with Van
Doesburg who then presented them under his own name only (Van Straaten 1996:
30–32). Hence, the three important theoretical texts on the synthesis of arts published
in De Stijl in 1924 actually marked the end of collaboration between artists and archi-
tects. Another major attempt to create a work of collective art was undertaken by
Van Doesburg, Hans Arp and Sophie Taeuber-Arp who jointly designed the Aubette
café in Strasbourg.
Just as in the case of the Dutch De Stijl and Van Doesburg’s attempts to cooperate
with various architects, similar issues also appeared in the case of the Polish Praesens
which united architects, painters and sculptors. Their first and only joint project, the
PWK exhibition in Poznań, led to serious hostilities within the group, its split, and
the subsequent creation of the a.r. group around Strzemiński, Kobro and Stażewski.
As with the conflicts on the Dutch avant-garde scene, Strzemiński saw architects as
too “down to earth” and too preoccupied with the practical, prosaic aspects of their
designs, whilst for Syrkus the social and functional aspects of architecture prevailed.
Strzemiński expressed his disappointment with modern architects in his writings
(cf. Strzemiński 1929a, 1931 and 1934; [Kobro et al.] 1930a and 1932), as did Syrkus
(1930: 31) in opposition, who even when claiming that “modern technique (. . .) co-
creates the frameworks where the courageous abstract creation could materialise in
the art of construction” did not really demand for artists to be involved in the process.
Quite the opposite, according to Syrkus, architecture and architects held the prevail-
ing position and the artistic component should stay limited and depend on social and
technical matters.
I share Andrzej Turowski’s (1973b: 271–272; 2002a: 132–134) view that
Strzemiński’s vison of architecture was actually utopian and scarcely possible to put
into practice, somewhat in contrary to his functionalistic postulates. For Strzemiński,
practical architectural solutions to everyday issues did not quite lead to the perfect
“ultimate form” of his former master Kazimir Malevich. Interestingly, Malevich’s
utopian quasi-architectural projects, the so-called architectons – which actually had
more to do with sculpture than with constructible architecture – were much appreci-
ated by Katarzyna Kobro (1929) who perceived them as a preview of the new era of
architecture. So too did Van Doesburg (1930/1931: 358) in his text on modern Polish
architecture from Het Bouwbedrijf, where he criticised rationalistic and functionalis-
tic architecture, stipulating its rapid separation from the purest “architecture on the
highest level” envisaged by Malevich and exemplified by his semi-architectural works.
On the other hand, when discussing the activities of Van Doesburg, Katarzyna Kobro
(1929) claimed that in his few artistic/architectural experiments he had indeed tried to
come up with solutions to unify the arts, but these attempts were neither painting, nor
sculpture, nor architecture. It shows how distant and varied the artists’ and architects’
theories regarding the synthesis of various artistic domains were, which in turn indi-
cates that their long-lasting and stable cooperation was scarcely possible.
The notion of collective art not only encompassed the concept of Gesamtkunstwerk
and the synthesis of various domains of art, but also cross-border cooperation between
artists and formations belonging to the European avant-garde network. In the words
of Van den Berg and Głuchowska (2013a: ix), “inter- and transnationality were obvi-
ous features of the historical avant-garde, acknowledged in the common labelling of
the avant-garde as ‘international’ or ‘European’”. Cooperating together within this
network (in the form of periodicals, formations, exhibitions, congresses or artworks
themselves, etc.), its representatives consciously crossed national, ethnic and linguistic
borders, explicitly voicing their programmatic inter-, trans-, supra-, or post-national
approach.8 Such viewpoints were much stressed during the Congress of International
Progressive Artists held in Düsseldorf in 1922, which marked an important step in the
development of the avant-garde network and boosted the transnational cooperation
between the artists.
The events of the congress – amongst others the split between the so-called Union-
ists and Constructivists – were reflected in avant-garde periodicals, including De Stijl.
A short review of the proceedings of the congress indicates that although the artists
gathered in Düsseldorf lacked a common vision of modern art, most participants
urged the need for an international collective approach. The review quoted amongst
others Stanisław Kubicki, a Polish Expressionist painter, who called for friendly and
brotherly cooperation ([Van Doesburg] 1922d). In their various programmatic state-
ments artists such as Van Doesburg, Richter and El Lissitzky also emphasised the
necessity of international, group efforts in order to achieve the intentions and pos-
tulates put forward during the congress (cf. Lissitzky and Ehrenburg 1922; Richter
1922; Van Doesburg, Lissitzky and Richter 1922). Such an international approach,
free from any national or political bias, was even perceived as the only solution for
art to endure, as expressed in the founding proclamation of the Union of Progressive
International Artists:
Die traurige Abgeschlossenheit der Geister muß endlich nun zu Ende gehen. Die
Kunst braucht die Verbindung der Menschen, denen sie innewohnt. Jenseits von allen
Staatsfragen und ohne den leisesten politischen Hintergedanken und eigensüchtigen
Nebenzweck muß es auch für uns heute heißen: ‘Künstler aller Länder vereinigt
Euch!’ Die Kunst muß international werden, oder sie wird aufhören zu sein.
(Das Junge Rheinland et al. 1922: 50)
[The long dreary spiritual isolation must now end. Art needs the unification of
those who create. Forgetting questions of nationality, without political bias or
self-seeking intention, our slogan must now be: ‘Artists of all nationalities unite.’
Art must become international or it will perish.
(Benson and Forgács 2002: 389)]
As a reaction to the events of the Düsseldorf congress, in Weimar in September 1922

Van Doesburg organised the so-called “Konstruktivistische Internationale Beeldende
Arbeidsgemeenschap” (International Constructivist Creative Union).9 The following
issue of De Stijl published its trilingual manifesto where collective work and interna-
tional cooperation were again described as “practically necessary” and presented as
the solution to modern problems – contrary to individual initiatives (Van Doesburg
et al. 1922: 113–115; Benson and Forgács 2002: 401–402).
Several programmatic texts published earlier in De Stijl also voiced the necessity of
cross-border artistic cooperation: the first manifesto of the group already called for an
international unification of Life, Art and Culture, which would ensure the development
of modern art regardless of any obstacles (Van Doesburg et al. 1918). Also, in Klassiek–
Barok–Modern Van Doesburg (1920) emphasised that the new style represented the
aesthetical needs of all the nations, unlike the previous styles which had represented
the features of particular nations, instead of universal values. He also returned to the
subject in the third manifesto of De Stijl from 1921, which had a visibly political touch,
Figure 21 Manifesto of “Konstruktivistische Internationale Beeldende Arbeidsgemeenschap”

from 1922 (source: De Stijl 5, 8: 113–115; IADDB)
since Van Doesburg – like other avant-gardists at that time – was greatly influenced
by the contemporary socio-political discussions, namely the development of leftist and
communist theories. It declared that both spiritual and material individualism formed
the bases of the old Europe, whereas the new Europe would be spiritually international,
based only on internal power and artistic undertakings ([Van Doesburg] 1921c).
At the end of 1922 De Stijl published a special issue celebrating its fifth anniversary.
It featured a bold statement which aimed to somehow summarise the developments of
the new international artistic spirit: “Zoo werd De Stijl (. . .) de gemeenschappelijke
bekentenis eener a-nationale en a-individualistische (en in de verstrekkende consequen-
tie: collectieve) uitdrukkingskracht.” [Thus De Stijl became (. . .) a shared confession
of an anti-national and anti-individualistic (and somehow as a consequence: collective)
power of expression.] ([Van Doesburg] 1922e: 178).
Inter-, trans-, supra- or even anti-national art and architecture were also postulated
in the Belgian periodicals, especially in 7 Arts. Pierre Bourgeois, one of its editors,
particularly emphasised it with relation to modern architecture and town planning
and the problems related to them. He saw architectural modernism as a supranational
endeavour and defined the cross-border research of a universal direction in architecture
as the best solution for problems of the modern society. In Bourgeois’s (1923: n.p.)
words: “II suffît de chercher le point exaltant où toutes les nationalités se fondent en
la conscience émue de l’humain. L’architecture moderne existe parce qu’internationale:
l’art moderne existera dans la même mesure où il sera universel.” [It is enough to
search for a rousing point where all the nationalities merge in the emotional human
conscience. Modern architecture exists because of being international: modern art
will exist in the same manner and it will be universal.]. Likewise, Maurice Casteels
(1922/1924) condemned any individualistic and national-oriented approach in art.
For instance, when describing the 14th Salon de la Société des artistes décorateurs
à Paris, Casteels claimed that a purely and exclusively French decorative art could not
exist in the twentieth century which gave priority to universal principles of life and art,
thus to the European and not national art.
Interestingly, the Flemish avant-garde formations constituted a paradoxical amal-
gam of nationalistic approaches and international intertwinement.10 A visible and
radical shift from nationalistic towards internationally oriented approaches is visible
in the case of Het Overzicht, which took place after Peeters had replaced Pijnenburg as
the magazine’s co-editor. The opening article of the second series indicates the twofold
orientation of Het Overzicht:
Het postulaat der Westerse Beschaving ligt in haar rijpheid tot internationalisering
der volken en tot individualistiese opvoeding van de mens. (. . .) De eerste omgeving
(het volk, de taal, enz.) behoudt hare rechten op het individu, maar herwordt tot
’n situëring van dat individu (. . .) in de geografiese kader van de wereld. De Europese
Bonds-Republiek, die de staatsgrenzen wegvaagt ten voordele van vrijhandel, inter-
nationaal gerecht en vrije evoluëring van de geestelijke en ekonomiese krachten der
volken, moet de eerste stap zijn in de richting van dit verschiet.
(Berckelaers 1922a: 2–3)
[The postulate of the Western Civilisation is based on its maturity to the interna-
tionalisation of nations and to an individualistic upbringing of man. (. . .) The first
dimension (the people, the language, etc.) reserves the right of an individual and it
re-becomes the placing of this individual (. . .) in a global geographical framework.
The European Federal Republic, which sweeps away national borders in favour
of free trade, internationally oriented and free evolution of spiritual and economic
forces of its nations, is to form the first step in this direction.]
Both the second series of Het Overzicht and De Driehoek featured many articles
and reproductions of European artists, including Adolf Behne’s (1922) “De Europee-
sche kunstbeweging” [The European artistic movement] or Van Hardeveld’s (1925)
“Is Bouwkunst Internationaal?” [Is architecture international?], which reflects their
international approach.
In a similar vein to the above-described formations from the Low Countries, Polish
avant-garde periodicals also represented a strikingly international approach, discern-
ible from their vast choice of internationally oriented texts and the topics therein:
Blok for instance published a plethora of articles on Czechoslovak, Dutch, French,
German, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Romanian, Russian and Serbian art, in addition
to the many texts published in Polish magazines in French and in German. The affinity
of Polish art movements with contemporary European initiatives was emphasised in
numerous publications which stressed the will to cooperate with contemporary Euro-
pean avant-garde formations. This is also visible in the numerous foreign contributions
to the Polish periodicals. For instance Peiper (1923a) condemned national-oriented
art and emphasised the significance of supranational efforts to redefine art based on
common features shared by all the nations. Moreover, he described the activities of
Zwrotnica as comparable to other international initiatives, but certainly not imitative.
The issue of staying in line with contemporary European currents without imitat-
ing or mimicking their activities and accomplishments was a much stressed topic.
Peiper’s (1923a: 91) viewpoint on the mutual influences between various nodes of
the avant-garde network is striking in this regard:
Że przytem widocznemi stana˛ sie˛ pokrewieństwo lub nawet wpływy mie˛dzy nasza˛
sztuka˛ a sztuka˛ innych krajów, to nic. Bo jeśli nawet okaże sie˛, że u nas czerpano
np. z Rosji, to również okaże sie˛, że Rosja czerpała z Francji, Włoch i Niemiec,
że Włochy czerpały z Francji, że Niemcy czerpały z Francji, a tylko Francja (. . .)
czerpała z samej siebie.
[Should that make visible the affinity or even influences between our art and the
art of other countries, it will not matter. Because even if it turns out that we have
derived from for instance Russia, it will also mean that Russia has derived from
France, Italy and Germany, that Italy has derived from France, that Germany from
France, and only France (. . .) has derived from itself.]
Even though Peiper’s belief in French artistic autarky is questionable, his observa-
tion regarding the multidimensional nature of reciprocal influences and diffusion of
ideas between avant-garde formations is very accurate. Somehow as a reaction to
this statement, the editors of Blok also stated: “What we do is no imitation, but an
effort parallel to the most recent artistic activities in France, Germany, Russia, Hol-
land, Hungary, etc.” ([Stażewski et al.] 1924g: n.p.; see also Syrkus 1926a: 6). Some
even claimed that Polish initiatives not only equalled, but actually surpassed, similar
foreign publications (see for instance Mahler 1924 and Strzemiński 1929a). Chapter 3
explores this multifaceted issue exemplified by selected works of the European inter-
war avant-garde.
2.4. Preliminary Conclusions

The purpose of this chapter was to explore selected features of interwar manifestos and
programmatic writings of Polish, Dutch and Belgian provenance, as an example of a
wider European phenomenon of the historical avant-garde. The texts have been ana-
lysed with regard to selected notions, such as the universal dimension of abstract art,
its autonomy with relation to social issues, and artistic cooperation on various levels.
It demonstrated that artists and theoreticians from Poland and the Low Countries were
united in their pursuit of modern art and shared many programmatic views. Regard-
less of their programmatic differences, all artists belonging to the analysed forma-
tions searched for the universal principles of the world and life, which they expressed
through a universal idiom of abstraction that categorically rejected figurativeness,
traditional and historical forms.
When put side by side, striking resemblances and traces of direct influences between
some of the statements come to the fore. It indicates the pace and scale of cultural
mobility within the avant-garde network – possible in a large part due to direct
contact between various representatives and the exchange of their publications and
their translations. This diffusion of ideas was the core of the avant-garde network
and its representatives rejected the claims of imitation or copying, underlining the
necessity of supranational cooperation across borders and languages for the sake of
modern art development, as was, for instance, the influence of Mondrian’s theory of
Neoplasticism on Polish artists such as Stażewski and Brze˛kowski, who incorporated
his views, terminology and principles into their programmatic statements. Program-
matic approaches of Polish and Belgian formations also had much in common, for
example, when it came to the notion of construction, discipline and economy in art
and literature postulated in 7 Arts, Zwrotnica or Blok. On the other hand, there were
also theoretical disagreements between artists from Poland and the Low Countries, for
instance Kobro and Strzemiński criticised the activities and theories of Van Doesburg
and Vantongerloo.
Another dimension which polarised the avant-garde scene, not only in Poland and
the Low Countries but across Europe, were the two approaches to art: art for art’s
sake or socially engaged art. For some artists (e.g. Mondrian, Strzemiński, Stażewski)
the independence and autonomy of art were of crucial importance, while for others
(e.g. Szczuka, Bourgeois, Eemans), art was to be directly related to social issues and
circumstances, which was also often directly influenced by the artists’ political views
and inclinations. Social needs were also especially important for modernist architects
such as Syrkus, Oud and other members of CIAM. What united most avant-garde
artists, however, was their shared belief that modern art could have a major impact
on society and transmit the modern spirit it encapsulated. In order to do so, and to
ensure proper development of modern art and architecture, the representatives of
various disciplines were to join forces in creating works of total art implementing the
nineteenth-century ideal of Gesamtkunstwerk. Although a sizeable number of artists
made attempts to apply this principle in their artistic endeavours, many of them failed
to put it into practice due to the fact that their theories and approaches actually dif-
fered too much.
Notes
1 See Dickerman (2012: 12–37) for a detailed overview of the beginnings of abstraction in art.
2 The term was introduced by Ozenfant and Jeanneret themselves who aimed to create a
transmissible language of art which would produce transmissible and universal images – cf.
Ozenfant and Jeanneret (1921).
3 Interesting is also Peiper’s critique regarding the concept of universalism in art and lit-
erature put forward by Jan Nepomucen Miller (see for instance Peiper 1926b as well as
Gabara 2008).
4 For the analysis of the role of mathematics in the works of Van Doesburg, Vantongerloo,
Strzemiński and Kobro see for instance Bois (1998b); Turowski (1998, 1999); Kemperink
(2002); Grislain (2007); Brockhaus and Janssen (2009); Fabre (2009); Stronias (2012).
5 Interestingly, Leśnikowski (1996: 215–216) has linked the dedication to social needs among
Polish architects to the fact that a considerable number of female architects were actively
involved in the process of architectural modernisation in Poland, a phenomenon unseen in
other countries.
6 Of note is the fact that at that time Szymon Syrkus was in Paris, thus he could have
visited the exhibition and have taken the fifth manifesto of De Stijl to Poland (cf. Kleiverda-
Kajetanowicz 1985: 72).
7 Van der Leck’s scepticism was probably related to his bad experience in collaborating with
the architect H.P. Berlage in 1916 (cf. Blotkamp and Hilhorst 1996: 314–315).
8 Paradoxically, aside from the international praxis, some avant-garde formations had an out-
spoken nationalistic dimension, for instance the Italian or Flemish movements. Cf. Versari
(2006); Antliff (2007); Paenhuysen (2010); Van den Berg and Głuchowska (2013b).
9 For more information on the K.I. see for instance Finkeldey 1992.
10 Cf. Paenhuysen (2010: 68–81), as well as Van den Berg and Głuchowska (2013a: x).
3 “What we do is no imitation,
but an effort parallel to . . .” –
Selected Works of Art and
Architecture as Representation of
Mutual Influences and Similarities
In 1930 Theo van Doesburg (1930/1931: 359–360) wrote that “the Polish mental-
ity lacks autonomous creative stamina and depends on imitation, in art as well as in
architecture” claiming the “superiority of the Netherlands”.1 In this chapter I intend
to demonstrate, however, that contrary to Van Doesburg’s claim, cultural mobility and
exchange between Poland and the Low Countries had a reciprocal, two-way character,
and it took place in a broader context of the supranational network of the avant-garde
movement. As shown in the previous chapter, the programmatic and theoretical state-
ments of Polish, Dutch and Belgian artists were alike in many aspects, and in some
cases apparent influences were exerted (as for instance in the Blok manifesto “Co to jest
konstruktywizm” or in the theories of Henryk Stażewski). Here I present and analyse
selected avant-garde artworks of Polish, Belgian and Dutch provenance (in the fields
of literature, typography, painting, sculpture and architecture) in order to determine
the character of cultural mobility between those circles.
Movement of creative influence from the Low Countries to Poland has indeed been
mostly recognised as a one-sided transfer.2 Nevertheless, as many Polish avant-garde
artists themselves claimed, “Polish abstract painters [were] no imitators of Van Does-
burg and Mondrian – they [were] their successors and in some ways they oppose[d]
their predecessors.” (Stażewski 1933b: 4).3 Foreign artists such as Mondrian, Tschi-
chold, Ozenfant and other representatives of Bauhaus or Cercle et Carré also acknowl-
edged Polish accomplishments in avant-garde art and literature.4 For instance Jan
Tschichold wrote to Strzemiński that “from a painterly point of view, [Strzemiński’s]
works are truly wonderful and possibly the best that has so far been created in this
direction. They are practically the best kind of painting”.5 Also Hannes Meyer and
Karel Teige perceived Blok as one of the most progressive European periodicals of the
time, alongside Ma, Merz and l’Esprit Nouveau (cf. Szczerski 2010: 103).
Thus in this chapter I aim to show that, functioning as part of a European supra-
national network of avant-garde artists, Polish writers, artists and architects not only
received impulses from foreign nodes, but they were also the source of inspiration.
Because of the fact that avant-garde circles functioned outside the mainstream artis-
tic life of their respective cultures and had very little recognition among other artists
and the public, they sought more links to members of foreign nodes of the network
(what Mark Granovetter would describe as characteristic for “marginal individuals”).
Hence, in many cases art and architecture developed simultaneously in several places,
and impulses from one node of the network reached others at a very quick pace. This
study concentrates on avant-garde mobility between Poland and the Low Countries,
but it goes without saying that those areas were also constantly influenced by other
Selected Works: Influences and Similarities 81
nodes and artists, which resulted in the continuous evolution of avant-garde art. The
role of foreign actors was manifold; they were the source of inspiration, intermediar-
ies, or they worked under the auspices of a foreign group contributing de facto to its
development.
3.1. Avant-garde Publications from Poland and the Low Countries

in Light of International Trends in Layout and Page Design
The visual aspect of avant-garde publications was of utmost importance as it mirrored
the artistic and societal renewal postulated on their pages. As pointed out by Piotr
Rypson (2000: 10), since the purpose of avant-garde texts was to communicate new
ideas, they also had to gain a new form, as revolutionary as the content. The experi-
ments of visual and concrete poetry of Futurist or Dadaist provenance led to a new
approach to typography and page design, which eventually became more functional,
logical and cost-effective. Such a new approach was clearly visible in the works of
many European avant-garde artists: for instance Tschichold, El Lissitzky, Schwitters,
Moholy-Nagy, Kassák, Micić, Rodchenko and others. Their magazines and publi-
cations were characterised by comparable colour choices, abstract compositions of
geometrical forms, lettering, etc. In the course of the 1920s, avant-garde page design
evolved from traditional approaches, via Futurism- and Dada-inspired forms, towards
very functional and simple layouts. This evolution was also visible in avant-garde
magazines from Poland and the Low Countries which stayed in line with key European
movements, hence they reveal a high level of affinity with one another as well as to
other avant-garde circles.
The similarities in page layout and the choice of colours were visible on the covers
of many Polish, Dutch and Belgian magazines. As shown by the examples in the plate
section, red was frequently used, and various parts of text in different sizes and fonts
were asymmetrically distributed on the page, often in various directions. However,
looking at the interior page design of the publications of Polish, Belgian and Dutch
avant-garde, it is possible to conclude that many Polish magazines and catalogues
had a more experimental and progressive character than most publications originat-
ing from the Low Countries. The catalogue of the Vilnius exhibition (1923), all the
issues of Blok (1924–1926), the second series of Zwrotnica (1926–1927) and various
publications of Praesens (1926–1930) – they all featured extraordinary page design
and a modern approach to printing and typography, which was not limited only
to the front and back cover but was instead applied throughout all the pages. Blok
for instance, as pointed out by Bonet and Poliwka (2014: 178, 193), “was given a
masterful page design”, and when it comes to the lists of congenial magazines often
published in avant-garde periodicals, “among all the avant-garde magazine direc-
tories, the one in Blok is the most beautiful from a typographic point of view”.6
Indeed, Blok and other Polish magazines represented a new modern approach to
text layout with its varied use of fonts, sizes and directions, or to the manner in
which it was connected to pictures by bold black lines, as illustrated in a program-
matic statement “Drukarstwo. O układzie graficznym” [Printing. On graphic layout]
published in Blok 5, much in line with the postulates of, for instance, Moholy-Nagy
or Tschichold. Of similar importance are the advertisements that appeared in Polish
magazines at the time (e.g. Praesens or the second series of Zwrotnica), which also
had a unique modern design.
82 Selected Works: Influences and Similarities
Figure 22 Fragments of the front page of De Driehoek from 1925 (source: IADDB) and of
“Drukarstwo. O układzie graficznym” from 1924 (source: Blok 5: 11; JBC)
In the Low Countries, however, until the mid-1920s it was usually only the front
and back cover that had a modern page design, while the other pages remained rather
traditional in form, contrary to their revolutionary content. This is clearly visible
in De Stijl, whose page design did not really evolve much until 1926,7 even though
other publications of Van Doesburg (especially those of Dadaist provenance, such as
Mécano) were much more daring as far as their layout was concerned. On the other
hand, the Dutch artists Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman, Piet Zwart and Paul Schuitema
undoubtedly belonged to the pioneers of page design and typography, and Werk-
man’s The Next Call) was from the beginning an exceptional example. In case of
the Brussels- and Antwerp-based magazines 7 Arts, Het Overzicht and De Driehoek,
a major evolution in layout and page design is also visible in 1925 and 1926 when
the design of 7 Arts became gradually modernised, and the last triple issue of
Het Overzicht was published, to be followed by De Driehoek (its front page is especially
interesting with its multidirectional use of text, which formed the magazine’s logo).
It is indeed surprising that the most progressive Dutch and Belgian titles remained
relatively outdated in comparison to the ground-breaking theories which they pro-
pounded, and despite the fact that at the same time their editors and contributors
were experimenting with typography and page design with impressive results. There
is no clear explanation for that, but limited time and/or budget might have been of
some importance, although most certainly, the Polish formations were not privileged
in this regard.
There are several interesting typographical motifs which recurred in various publi-
cations within the avant-garde network. One such element was the alternating letter
size used, for instance, by Tristan Tzara for the letterhead on Dada stationery in 1920.
Interestingly, Van Doesburg repeated the same effect in Mécano 4/5, and in Poland
Strzemiński used it in his advertisement for Chlorodont toothpaste published in Zwrot-
nica 9 in 1926. Another example was the use of the square in text composition. The
square itself was widely used among the avant-gardists as their common symbol (be it
Malevich or many others, cf. Ex 1996: 93–94). It was sometimes integrated with text
placed around it, which created an interesting amalgam of typography and drawing. It
can be found, for instance in Van Doesburg’s “Bilanz des Staatlichen Bauhauses Wei-
mar” printed in January 1924 in Mécano 4/5, and on the back cover of Blok 2 from
April the same year. Elsewhere, the logotype of Mécano – with its six letters rotated
clockwise in the form of a rectangle and linked by thick lines – exemplifies a complete
integration of text and geometry that was also characteristic of avant-garde poetry and
its layout. A similar solution was also applied on the cover of Bruno Jasieński’s poetry
volume But w butonierce [Shoe in a buttonhole] from 1921.8
Indeed, the visual aspect of avant-garde poetry was often its crucial element –
poets experimented with layout and typefaces, as well as various types and sizes of
lettering, which created an additional dimension of their poems (see for instance the
audacious typographical/literary works of Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman published
in The Next Call). Poets often collaborated with artists (e.g. painters) in order to
Figure 23 “Bilanz des Staatlichen Bauhauses Weimar” (source: RCE) and back cover of Blok 2
from 1924 (source: JBC)
achieve a perfect unity of text and vision, as was the case for instance of Paul van
Ostaijen, Oscar Jespers and René Victor’s Bezette Stad [Occupied city] from 1921,
Mieczysław Szczuka and Anatol Stern’s Europa [Europe] from 1929 or Julian
Przyboś and Władysław Strzemiński’s book Z ponad from 1930.9 Avant-garde visual
poetry and poetic typographical design date back to the beginning of the twentieth
century (cf. Rypson 1989: 251–256) and one of the artists who masterfully incor-
porated the visual aspect into poetry was Guillaume Apollinaire. His “calligrams”
inspired numerous poets and artists, among others Tytus Czyżewski, Bruno Jasieński,
Paul van Ostaijen and Theo van Doesburg (a.k.a. I.K. Bonset). In a 1921 edition of
the magazine Formiści Czyżewski published a poem “Mechaniczny ogród” [Mechan-
ical garden] where words and lines were meant to imitate plants, which in some way
referred to Apollinaire’s “calligrams” (cf. Carpenter 1983: 26–29). Another, more
apparent, example is Jasieński’s poem “Morze” [Sea] published in Zwrotnica in
February 1923 where all the stanzas were given an undulating form symbolising the
movement of waves, very much in line with Apollinaire’s works such as “Il pleut”
[It rains] from 1918.
Other examples from the Low Countries include the graphical rendering of words,
for instance in I.K. Bonset’s “X-Beelden” (1920) or Van Ostaijen’s Bezette Stad (1921)
where some parts of the text are visually presented to imitate their meaning (e.g. the
words “zig-zag”, “dwars” or “draaiend nihil”).
Paul van Ostaijen’s Bezette Stad is a perfect example of unification of various artistic
conventions. On the one hand it contains pages inspired by the works of Marinetti,
and on the other it reveals much affinity with the Dadaist-like page design and free
approach to text layout. Similar influences are also to be found in Poland: be it in
the Dada-inspired cover of Anatol Stern and Aleksander Wat’s Nieśmiertelny Tom
Futuryz [The immortal volume of futurisias], the layout of Henryk Berlewi’s booklet
Prospekt biura Reklama Mechano [Brochure for Reclama Mechano company] or
Strzemiński’s design of the cover of Przyboś’s volume Śruby [Screws]. When placed
Figure 24 Guillaume Apollinaire, “Il pleut” from 1918 and Bruno Jasieński, “Morze” from 1923
(source: Zwrotnica 4: 114; BN)
side by side with other examples of avant-garde page design (e.g. by Van Doesburg,
Demets, Marinetti, Zdanyevich, etc.), it becomes apparent how much these works
resemble each other when it comes to the playful use of various directions, fonts and
sizes of lettering combined with geometrical shapes and other elements. Similar ele-
ments and solutions are also present in the works of Edmund Miller “Stara historia”
[Old story] and “Zielony koncert” [Green concert] published in Blok in 1924. As well
Figure 25 I.K. Bonset, “X-Beelden” from 1920 (source: De Stijl 4, 11: 161; IADDB) and Paul
van Ostaijen, Bezette Stad (fragment) from 1921 (source: DBNL)
Figure 26 Paul van Ostaijen, Bezette Stad (fragment) from 1921 (source: DBNL) and Edmund
Miller, “Stara historia” from 1924 (source: Blok 3/4; JBC)
as its general layout, particular elements such as the frame put in the middle of “Stara
historia” link it to other works such as Van Ostaijen’s Bezette Stad – in both cases
they have the form of a classified advertisement from a newspaper.
In early 1924 Blok also published Edmund Miller’s concrete poem constructed from
various letters put in one vertical line which might have been inspired by I.K. Bonset’s
“Letterklankbeelden” published in 1921 in De Stijl 4, 7. Worth mentioning, however,
is the fact that in 1921 and 1922, in the magazine Ponowa, another Polish writer
Jan Nepomucen Miller published two articles on experimental and concrete poetry,
together with his poems where he used punctuation marks as their key elements (Miller
1921 and 1922; cf. Rypson 1989: 287–291), which shows that such tendencies were
not unknown in Poland at around the same time.
Last, but not least, graphic elements from the printer’s typesetting resources were
often used by poets to illustrate their avant-garde works, as did Czyżewski in his
Wa˛ż, Orfeusz i Euridika [Snake, Orpheus and Eurydice] from 1922 or in “Hamlet w
piwnicy” [Hamlet in the basement] published in 1923 in Zwrotnica. Using lines, circles
and letters Czyżewski constructed abstract human-inspired figures to accompany the
poem’s text. A very similar treatment was used later by Theo van Doesburg and Kurt
Schwitters in their “Die Scheuche Märchen” [The scarecrow fairytale] published in
Figure 27 I.K. Bonset, “Letterklankbeelden” from 1921 (source: De Stijl 4, 7: 78; IADDB) and
Edmund Miller, concrete poem from 1924 (source: Blok 2; JBC)
Figure 28 Theo van Doesburg and Kurt Schwitters, “Die Scheuche Märchen” (fragment) from
1924 (source: Merz 14/15; IADDB) and Tytus Czyżewski, “Hamlet w piwnicy” from
1923 (source: Zwrotnica 4; BN)
Merz 14/15 in 1924 as well as by Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman in his typographical

compositions – yet another example of the striking simultaneity of typographical and
poetic endeavours in Poland and the Low Countries.
3.2. Piet Mondrian, Theo van Doesburg and Henryk Stażewski

As described in the previous chapter, the theories of Piet Mondrian, Theo van Does-
burg and other members of De Stijl found much recognition among Polish artists,
especially Henryk Stażewski. His close relations to those artists developed from 1924,
first through the exchange of letters and later in person after Stażewski moved to Paris.
The influences of Mondrian’s and Van Doesburg’s works on Stażewski have been ana-
lysed by Kleiverda-Kajetanowicz (1985, 1989) who has pointed to various similarities
and differences in their artworks – concerning the choice of colours, use of (grid)lines
or curved shapes – as exemplified by Van Doesburg’s Compositie XXII (1922) and
Stażewski’s Kompozycja (1930; see Plate 7).
At this point it is important to focus on Stażewski’s typographical projects dur-
ing 1926–1931 which show another dimension of cultural mobility between De Stijl
artists and Stażewski, although they differ slightly from his paintings from the same
period. For example, Stażewski designed the cover of the Polish edition of Mondrian’s
Le Néo-plasticisme which was to be published by Praesens, and Mondrian himself
worked on the layout of the Polish text (cf. Section 1.3.2). The book did not, however,
get published, and instead Stażewski’s project was used as a cover of Anatol Stern’s
Anielski cham [Angelic boor] from 1928. Stażewski’s design actually looks like a
fragment of one of Mondrian’s paintings, with its asymmetric grid of lines partly
filled with colour (in this instance red) and unified with simple lettering – in line with
contemporary trends in typography. In this case, Mondrian’s work serving as a source
of inspiration for the cover of the Polish translation of his book is fully understand-
able, but Stażewski used very similar solutions for other book designs, e.g. for Albert
Gleizes’s Posłannictwo twórcze człowieka w dziedzinie plastyki [Man’s mission in
the field of visual arts] (1927) or Stanisław Młodożeniec’s Niedziela. Poezje [Sunday.
Poetries] (1930), which featured a horizontal line between the author’s name and the
title that ends right before the edge – a characteristic feature of Mondrian’s paintings
(see Plates 8 and 9).
Another interesting example is Stażewski’s design for the cover of the fourth issue of
the magazine Grafika from 1931. It differs from the above-mentioned designs in that
Stażewski did not use any lines but instead created an abstract asymmetric composi-
tion of rectangular planes of primary colours and text. This work might have been
inspired by another Dutch avant-garde artist, namely Theo van Doesburg. Stażewski’s
composition seems to zoom into one of his paintings, Compositie XX from 1920:
aside from the evident colour scheme, the proportions of rectangles on Stażewski’s
cover and their mutual relations are also strikingly similar to Van Doesburg’s painting
from almost a decade earlier (see Plate 10). The fact that Van Doesburg’s work was
widely reproduced in the course of the 1920s – among others in De Stijl 6, 1; Ma 4, 4;
Merz 2 and so forth – supports this hypothesis. Hence, as with the case of theoretical
writings, the influence of Dutch avant-garde artists is also undeniable in the works of
Henryk Stażewski and forms an example of direct cultural mobility between Poland
and the Low Countries.
3.3. Katarzyna Kobro and Georges Vantongerloo

In 1929 Katarzyna Kobro and Władysław Strzemiński finished their major theoretical
work Kompozycja przestrzeni [The composition of space],10 which did not get pub-
lished due to financial problems until 1931. In Kompozycja przestrzeni Kobro and
Strzemiński presented the theory of Unism and they did so referring to key European
artists of the time (among others Theo van Doesburg, Georges Vantongerloo and
Le Corbusier) whose works were also reproduced in the book. From Strzemiński’s
letter to Vantongerloo from 193011 it is possible to ascertain that Vantongerloo sent
several photos of his works via Stażewski, from which Strzemiński chose four to be
published in the book, namely sculptures from 1921, 1924, 1926 and 1929 (illus-
trations 25–28 in Kobro and Strzemiński 1931). Interestingly, having received the
photos of Vantongerloo’s works, Strzemiński wrote about them to Przyboś claiming
that “what he [Vantongerloo] did in 1929, his wife [Kobro] had already done in
1926”12 He also expressed similar thoughts in two articles on modern European art
where he compared Kobro’s and Vantongerloo’s works. In “Bilans modernizmu”
[An account of modernism], published in Europa, Strzemiński (1929a: 24) pointed
to one major difference between them: according to him Kobro developed the gen-
eral principles of Neoplasticism in sculpture by basing her work on the concept of
unity between space and sculpture, whilst Vantongerloo created sculptures-masses
that remained unrelated to the space around them. In another article Strzemiński
(1934) noticed, however, that the publication of Kompozycja przestrzeni in 1930
(wrongly dated, actually 1931) had had a major influence on Western European
art as it enhanced the evolution of Neoplastic sculpture. Strzemiński referred to the
works of Vantongerloo as one of the examples of this postulated influence, which
evolved from volumes-masses to more open sculptures that stayed in direct relation
to space around them.
An analysis of Vantongerloo’s works supports this daring claim, which has also
been indirectly confirmed by various scholars who pointed to the development of
Vantongerloo’s sculptures from compact masses with various parts subtracted from
an initial volume into simpler volumes with more projecting parts and more empty
space in between, which related the whole sculpture with the surrounding space
(Janssen 2009: 108; Grislain 2007: 107; Ceuleers 1996: 132). This is clearly vis-
ible when comparing Vantongerloo’s sculptures created during 1924–1935 such as
Construction of Volumetric Interrelationships Derived from the Inscribed Square
and the Square Circumscribed by a Circle (1924), Construction xy = k (1929), Con-
struction y = –ax2 + bx + 18 (1930) and Construction y = x2 – 11x2 + 10 (1935). On
the contrary, in the case of Kobro, since the beginning her sculptures were charac-
terised by their direct relationship with space, and very few of them were based on
solids themselves.
Importantly, there is no doubt that Vantongerloo was indeed aware of and knowl-
edgeable about modern Polish art of the period. The first traces of his contacts with
the Polish avant-garde date back to 1926 when Praesens received photos of his works
and decided to publish the Polish translation of Vantongerloo’s book L’Art et son
avenir, which never actually made it to publication (cf. Section 1.3.2). The main link
between Vantongerloo and the Polish avant-garde was formed by Henryk Stażewski
who from 1924 frequently stayed in Paris and became friends with Michel Seuphor
and Piet Mondrian. They can all be seen together in a photo taken in 1928 at Paul
Dermeé’s house (see Figure 10). Jan Brze˛kowski also first met Vantongerloo in 1928
and in his memoires he claimed that they saw each other regularly and that Van-
tongerloo was particularly interested in the works and theories of Polish avant-garde
artists (Brze˛kowski 1966: 163–164). That Vantongerloo was acquainted with Kobro’s
Figure 29 Georges Vantongerloo, Construction of Volumetric Interrelationships Derived from

the Inscribed Square and the Square Circumscribed by a Circle from 1924 (source:
The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, Peggy Guggenheim Collection, Venice,
1976; © 2018, ProLitteris Zurich) and Construction xy = k from 1929 (source:
Abstraction-Création 2: 46; IADDB; © 2018, ProLitteris Zurich)
Figure 30 Katarzyna Kobro, spatial composition 1 from 1925 (source: MSL; © Ewa-Sapka
Pawliczak – copyright owner to works of Władysław Strzemiński and Katarzyna
Kobro)
sculptural accomplishments also becomes apparent in his unpublished text “Plastique

scupturale” [The art of sculpture] from 193013 (thus even before the publication of
Kompozycja przestrzeni), where Vantongerloo explicitly praised Kobro’s works for
their direct relationship with space, and complimented the artist herself (cf. Ceuleers
1996: 130–132).
Vantongerloo’s remark from his manuscript makes Strzemiński’s claim that Kobro
did exert considerable influence on the artistic development of Vantongerloo
rather convincing. Moreover, scholar Jan Ceuleers has pointed to another aspect
of cultural mobility between Polish artists and Vantongerloo: the introduction of
curved lines into Vantongerloo’s works in the course of the 1930s. According to
Ceuleers (1996: 142), Vantongerloo gradually began to appreciate the dynamic
character of curved lines, most probably under the influence of certain members
of Abstraction-Création such as Kobro, Strzemiński, Stażewski or Kandinsky, who
for some time had already combined straight and curved lines in their works. Addi-
tionally, Marek Wieczorek (2009: 33) described the introduction of curved lines
in 1937 as “the most important change in Vantongerloo’s abstract art”. Even in
the post-war (post-Neoplastic) works of Vantongerloo some resemblances to the
early (pre-Neoplastic) works of Katarzyna Kobro are noticeable,14 which creates
an unexpected frame of artistic research and development of those two prominent
modern sculptors.
3.4. Mieczysław Szczuka and Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman

One can also point to the direct influences between Blok artists and Hendrik Nicolaas
Werkman, the editor of The Next Call. As already mentioned, Blok was one of The
Next Call’s subscribed magazines listed on the cover of the sixth issue, which sug-
gests that Werkman received Blok, maybe in exchange for his magazine (see Figure 13).
Blok’s address in Warsaw was also to be found on Werkman’s list of addresses of
foreign journals and artists, which has been preserved at Werkman’s Archive in
Amsterdam (see Figure 1), which also holds a copy of the fifth issue of Dźwignia from
November 1927 – published after the death of Mieczysław Szczuka.
As a result of this direct exchange of periodicals, some works of Szczuka and
Werkman bear considerable similarities. For instance, I would argue that Werkman’s
typographical composition from the ninth issue of The Next Call (issued in November
1926) was inspired and/or influenced by one of Szczuka’s works, namely Typografja
[Typography] published in June 1924 in the third/fourth issue of Blok.15 The layout
of both works is based on a diagonal line from the upper left to bottom right corner
and formed by a composition of letters and perpendicular lines (see Plate 11). Such
solutions are not to be found in either Werkman’s earlier works or in the previous
issues of The Next Call.16 Hence the conclusion that Szczuka’s work – which Werk-
man most probably saw in Blok 3/4 – might have served as inspiration for Werkman’s
composition.
A further example that Werkman’s works were arguably influenced by the Polish
avant-garde is his Compositie met letters en haken [Composition with letters and
hooks] from 1932, which bears a notable resemblance to one of Szczuka’s photomon-
tages entitled Montaż fotograficzny [Photomontage] published in Blok 2 from April
1924 and in the fifth issue of Dz´wignia – a copy of which Werkman undoubtedly saw.
Werkman’s composition reflects the part of Szczuka’s work where the crane motif was
pictured – the layout of particular elements and the way they are related to each other
are strikingly similar. Next to the crane motif itself, its base is formed by a double
Figure 31 Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman, Compositie met letters en haken from 1932 (source:
Collectie SMA) and Mieczysław Szczuka, Montaż fotograficzny from 1924 (source:
Blok 2; JBC)
line and two rectangular forms at its side, which likewise echoes Szczuka’s layout. It
is also worth mentioning the fact that the letter “M” used in Werkman’s composition
is an exact mirror reflection of the letter “W” from the word “DŹWIGNIA” from the
magazine’s cover.17
3.5. Henryk Berlewi, Vilmos Huszár and Karel Maes

The Budapest-born artist Vilmos Huszár was one of the founders of De Stijl, the
author of its logo and until 1923 one of its key members and contributors.18 In 1909
Huszár settled in the Netherlands where he lived and worked until his death in 1960
(Ex and Hoek 1985: 9). Particularly interesting are Huszár’s typographical designs
for commercial purposes. He received his first commercial assignment in 1917 – an
advertisement for the Bruynzeel company which was often published in De Stijl (Blot-
kamp and Hilhorst 1996: 337). Almost a decade later, in 1925, he was commissioned
to design an advertisement campaign for the well-known tobacco brand Miss Blanche
produced by The Vittoria Egyptian Cigarette Company. Huszár not only designed
new packages, labels and posters for Miss Blanche, but also large-scale banners which
were placed in various Dutch cities. Huszár intentionally designed each banner for
the specific place it was to be hung. In an article published in 1928 in De Reclame
7, 12, he claimed that advertisements could improve and enrich the urban fabric on
the condition that they were properly designed and in relation to the surrounding
architecture (Ex and Hoek 1985: 113). One such example of this activity are the large
posters placed on the pier in Scheveningen, harmoniously merged with the walls of
the round building on which they were hung.19
Moreover, as noticed by Blotkamp and Hilhorst (1996: 345), the Scheveningen
banners represented a new approach to typographical composition, unseen before
in Huszár’s works – namely circular forms and diagonally placed text. The scholars
linked those elements to International Constructivist trends in typography, which were
indeed used by more and more designers from the mid-1920s. One of the artists whose
works reveal visibly close similarities to Huszár’s 1926 design for the Scheveningen pier
was Henryk Berlewi. In his advertisement booklet Prospekt Czekolada Plutos [Plutos
chocolate brochure] from 1925 Berlewi likewise used circular and diagonal elements
which he mixed with rectangular shapes and various fonts in black, red, grey and yel-
low (see Plate 12). Although the only available reproduction of Huszár’s banner is in
black and white, other preserved materials make it probable that the entire campaign
for Miss Blanche – hence also the Scheveningen banner – was executed in black, white
and the three primary colours.20
If this is indeed the case, those two works are thus quite alike with regard to the
choice of shapes and the way they are placed, in particular the left part of Huszár’s
banner and the front cover of Berlewi’s book. Of additional note are the circular
shapes placed in the right corner with adjacent words (“cigarettes” and “prospekt”
respectively), as well as the composition of the squares above them in relation to
the product names placed in long rectangles (in Huszár’s case horizontally, and
in Berlewi’s design vertically) which immediately draw the viewer’s attention. The
relationship between a dark square and the word “Virginia” on Huszár’s banner
(bottom left) is also somehow similar to the upper left corner of Berlewi’s cover
(a small black square and the word “czekolada”). The characteristic diagonal elements
of Huszár’s project do not appear on Berlewi’s cover, yet they were used on several
pages inside the same booklet.
This similarity notwithstanding, there is no sufficient evidence that Berlewi’s booklet
did in fact inspire Huszár’s design for the Scheveningen pier advertising campaign.
What is undeniable is the fact that both artists had a wide network of international
contacts and via this network of artists and publishers they disseminated and likely
became acquainted with each other’s works. Both Berlewi and Huszár had close links
to German, Belgian and French avant-garde circles: in the course of the 1920s Huszár
participated in various avant-garde initiatives in Antwerp and Paris where Berlewi
had previously studied. Between 1922 and 1923 Berlewi lived in Berlin, where in
July 1924 his works were exhibited in the Der Sturm gallery. Two months earlier
he also participated in the Düsseldorf congress. Huszár’s connections to Berlin- and
Paris-based artists were understandably broad: For example, in 1925/1926 he stayed
in Paris at the time of L’Art d’aujourd’hui exhibition organised by the Polish artist
Victor Poznański.21 Notably, Van Doesburg received Berlewi’s booklet Prospekt biura
Reklama Mechano from 1924,22 and hence the brochure Prospekt Czekolada Plutos
might possibly have also circulated among the Dutch avant-garde artists. Their active-
ness in the avant-garde network and the wide connections they had to various artists
could have somehow linked them to each other, but whether Huszár had indeed seen
Berlewi’s project before he designed the Scheveningen banner is, however, impossible
to establish.
Another interesting comparison showing the simultaneity of artistic endeavours in
Poland and the Low Countries are the works of Berlewi and Karel Maes, one of the
editors of the Belgian magazine 7 Arts. Although they reveal considerable similarities,
Figure 32 Karel Maes, linocut from 1921 (source: Vrienden van Felix De Boeck vzw) and
Henryk Berlewi, Siedza˛ca kobieta from 1922 (source: MNW)
Figure 33 Karel Maes, linocut published in 1926 (source: 7 Arts 4, 20; KMSKB) and Henryk Ber-
lewi, Kontrasty mechanofakturowe from 1923 (source: Der Sturm 15, 3: 157; MLAA)
it is again impossible to establish whether it is correct to speak of direct influence

and cultural mobility between the artists, or rather coincidental resemblances result-
ing from the general artistic development of the period. For instance Berlewi’s work
Siedza˛ca kobieta [Sitting woman] from 1922, published in the magazine Albatros, is
an abstract representation of a sitting woman, constructed from geometrical inter-
secting shapes of black and white. At the same time Maes also created very similar
works where figurative motifs were transformed into abstract black and white com-
positions, and Berlewi’s Siedza˛ca kobieta bears particular resemblances to Maes’s
linocut from 1921.
Another interesting example of Berlewi’s works can be seen in his Mechano-Faktura
series, created from 1923 and published, amongst other places, in Der Sturm in Sep-
tember 1924. They are based on a juxtaposition of various forms of grids, lines and
planes, and also they show some affinity with Maes’s works. Is it possible that Berlewi
was familiar with Maes’s works published in Het Overzicht while working on his own
Kontrasty mechanofakturowe (given their resemblance in the diagonal composition
or the use of rectangular shapes, lines and circles), and in return Maes based his later
experiments with various grids and textures on Berlewi’s famous manifesto (see the
works of Maes published in 1925/1926 in 7 Arts). Although almost impossible to prove
or disprove Berlewi’s and Maes’s mutual influences, it is worth emphasising that both
artists were active in similar avant-garde circles (e.g. they were both linked to Dutch
and German artists such as Van Doesburg and El Lissitzky), and most probably they
met during the 1922 Düsseldorf congress which they both attended and actively con-
tributed to its proceedings.
3.6. Poland, the Low Countries and Foreign Artists:
The Examples of El Lissitzky and Pietro (de) Saga
As indicated above, the mutual relations between Poland and the Low Countries are
just a small case study of a much wider European (or even global) phenomenon of
cultural mobility of the interwar avant-garde network. Artists from Poland, Belgium
and the Netherlands belonged to this supranational network and participated in the
constant exchange of texts and works which served as a source of inspiration and
gave new impulses for artistic development. In this part I will discuss two examples of
foreign artists whose influences – although exerted in different manners – were visible
in the magazines and works of their Polish and Dutch colleagues, namely the works
of Russian artist El Lissitzky and Austrian artist Steffi Kiesler a.k.a. Pietro (de) Saga.
The former example shows the importance of Russian influences in the development of
European avant-gardes, and the latter shows the impact of artworks being reproduced
in avant-garde magazines.
One of the works which illustrate the multidirectional mobility within the avant-
garde network is El Lissitzky’s short picture book for children Pro dva kvadrata.
Suprematicheskii skaz v 6-ti postroikakh [Of two squares: A Suprematist tale in 6 con-
structions] created in 1920 in Vitebsk and published in 1922 in Berlin. This extraordi-
nary example of integration of experimental typography, design and literature became
a landmark in the history of avant-garde page design, and it also had a visible impact
on both Polish and Dutch avant-gardes, which shows how different nodes of this
network influenced each other. At the end of 1922 the Dutch edition of El Lissitzky’s
work appeared in De Stijl. It was edited by Van Doesburg who reworked the original
version, i.e. he changed its format to horizontal and created a new page based on two
words “voor” and “allen”, which replaced El Lissitzky’s composition with a large letter
“P” on a black page (Brentjens 2008: 106; Broos 1994: 27–28).
In Poland the impact of El Lissitzky’s work was to be seen for instance in the cata-
logue of the Vilnius exhibition in 1923. Its editors Strzemiński and Kajruksztis were
well aware of the accomplishments of the Russian avant-garde (until 1922 Strzemiński
lived in Russia where he worked with El Lissitzky, Malevich and others), which was
reflected in the design of the catalogue. As in the case of El Lissitzky’s book, the Vil-
nius catalogue is also a noteworthy example of experiments in typography and a new
approach to page layout based on unity of text and geometrical shapes (see Plate 13).
The Vilnius exhibition and its catalogue marked a milestone in the history of Polish
avant-garde, and its unique layout and typographical solutions defined the character
and quality of subsequent publications.
The second example concerns Pietro (de) Saga, which was the pseudonym of Aus-
trian artist Steffi Kiesler. She was born in 1987 in Skotschau (today Skoczów in Poland)
and in 1920 she married the architect Frederick Kiesler. Together they became active
figures in European avant-garde movements until they emigrated to New York in
1926. The Kieslers were in touch with Theo van Doesburg from 1923 onwards, which
evolved into a close friendship after they moved to Paris at the beginning of 1925.
There Steffi Kiesler became acquainted with a number of European avant-garde artists
and their works, especially with the theories of De Stijl. Inspired by the works of the
Dutch Neoplasticists, in 1925/26 Kiesler created a series of so-called “typo-plastics” –
abstract compositions produced solely on a typewriter which went beyond the borders
between drawings and experimental poetry. Three of these were published in De Stijl
in 1926–1927 (under her male pseudonym, Saga), including two on the magazine’s
cover. The correspondence between Van Doesburg and Steffi Kiesler actually suggests
that in the course of 1925/26 their relationship might have become more intimate than
friendship, yet it came to an end in 1926 when the Kieslers moved out to New York.
Only in 1930 did they meet again during the Kieslers’ trip to Europe, as evidenced in
several photographs from that year (Meissner 2013: 10–14).
The works of Saga/Kiesler (the pseudonym will be used hereinafter) served as
inspiration for other artists, among others Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman and Samuel
Szczekacz. In his magazine The Next Call Werkman created unique typographical
compositions which – as in the case of Saga’s works – may not be easily classified
as drawings, painting or poetry. In the course of the 1920s (probably around 1926)
Werkman created a series of “tiksels” which some scholars have linked to the works
of Saga published in De Stijl.23 Werkman’s “tiksels” are indeed similar to Saga’s
“typo-plastics” – they are monochromatic semi-typographical compositions based
solely on typewriting signs such as letters and punctuation marks which were put
together in a unique and extraordinary manner (i.e. multiplied, juxtaposed, etc.) to
produce abstract compositions.
Resemblances to Saga’s “typo-plastics” are also visible in the works of the Polish
artist Samuel Szczekacz. He had connection to the Łódź avant-garde circles, especially
Strzemiński, whose art course Szczekacz attended. Through Strzemiński Szczekacz
became acquainted with the theories and works of key European avant-garde artists,
including the Dutch Neoplasticists. In his own works Szczekacz combined Western
trends with Strzemiński’s theory of Unism and, of particular interest here, several of
his works are based on typographical elements, for instance Kompozycja unistyczna
IV z Teki graficznej (1938), Studium typograficzne (ca. 1937) or Konstrukcja (ca.
1937). The latter reveals major similarities with Saga’s 1925 Typo-Plastique VII
from De Stijl 6, 12 – Szczekacz also used a variety of typewriting signs in his works
to create different rectangular shapes which he contrasted with planes of primary
colours. This links his work to the Dutch Neoplasticists as well – comparing for
instance another of Szczekacz’s works, Konstrukcja, with the works of Mondrian
Figure 34 Pietro de Saga, Typo-Plastique VII and Dactyloplastique from 1925 (source: De Stijl
6, 12: 137 and 7, 77: 65; IADDB)
Figure 35 Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman, Tiksels 10 and 12 from ca. 1926 (source: Collectie GM,
photo Marten de Leeuw)
or Van Doesburg, it is easy to see that De Stijl was one of the sources of inspiration
for Szczekacz (see Plate 14).
3.7. Interior Design

The principles of Neoplasticism postulated in the analysed programmatic writings,
such as a purely abstract composition of planes of primary colours, were implemented
in architecture by many artists, both from the Low Countries and from Poland. In the
Netherlands the theoretical assumptions were put into practice by Doesburg, Huszár
and Rietveld, amongst others. Although Van Doesburg’s first comprehensive Neoplas-
tic interior design, the Amsterdam University hall, dates back from 1923, he had intro-
duced similar elements in his earlier projects. Of note is his 1919 interior design for the
house of Bart de Ligt in Katwijk aan Zee. The original design was based on orange,
green and blue colour planes painted on the walls and ceilings – not yet entirely in line
with the Neoplastic theories. In 1925, however, Van Doesburg used a black and white
photo of this interior to paint some of the surfaces in primary colours, which created an
abstract composition and supposedly an image of an exemplary avant-garde interior:
Van Doesburg had this collage published in colour in L’Architecture Vivante 3, 9, as
an actual project from 1919 (cf. Hoek 2000: 261–262). A quite different approach was
used for the colour decoration of Van Eesteren’s university hall in Amsterdam: Van
Doesburg applied an abstract diagonal composition on the ceiling based on a black grid
filled randomly with red, blue and yellow and contrasted by contourless rectangular
planes of the same colours in other elements of the interior (see Plate 15).
Vilmos Huszár also designed various interiors from 1919 onwards, some in coopera-
tion with the Dutch architects Rietveld and Wils. One of his projects from 1920 – a
dining room with geometrical forms painted on the walls and ceiling – was reproduced
in black and white in De Stijl 5, 1, and two years later together with Rietveld he created
a spatial model with intersecting planes of primary colours on the walls and ceiling.
Rietveld himself also implemented Neoplastic principles in his projects, for example
in the 1921 project for Goud- en Zilversmidscompagnie in Amsterdam (cf. De Stijl
5, 2 from 1922) as well as at the Schröder House in Utrecht where primary colours
were applied to various elements of the interior. Moreover, artists such as Mondrian or
Peeters turned their studios into experimental Neoplastic spatial compositions. These
have been captured in various photos based on which the interiors could be recon-
structed to give an idea of how the artists implemented their artistic theories into their
own living spaces, and how they evolved over time. This is also the case of the architects
Helena and Szymon Syrkus whose Warsaw studio bore numerous resemblances with
the canvases of Dutch and Belgian avant-garde artists.
Polish artists also made several attempts to put their theoretical principles into
architectural practice. The first preserved examples of avant-garde interiors from
Poland date from the mid-1920s: there are black and white reproductions of proj-
ects in Blok and Praesens created by Szczuka (1924), Stażewski (1925) and Lachert
(1926), to name only a few. Based on these, as well as on colour photos from 1930
and 1931, considerable similarities to the Dutch and Belgian projects mentioned
above come to the fore. For instance, the theory of Neoplasticism found very fertile
ground in the works of Henryk Stażewski. By 1932 he had designed approximately
fifty interiors, where he implemented Mondrian’s principles of a balanced rela-
tion of vertical and horizontal lines, planes of primary colours and the so-called
non-colours (Ładnowska 1991: 72). Neoplastic principles and colour scheme were
also used by Bohdan Lachert in his furniture designs whilst Mieczysław Szczuka’s
Figure 36 Gerrit Rietveld, interior design for Goud- en Zilversmidscompagnie from 1921
(source: De Stijl 5, 2: 178; IADDB) and the Syrkuses in their study in 1927 (source:
IS PAN, inv. nr. 192)
Figure 37 Mieczysław Szczuka, interior design from 1924 (source: Blok 8/9; JBC) and Bohdan
Lachert, interior design from 1926 (source: Praesens 1: 53; MBC)
interior design depicted in Blok 8/9 from 1924, especially the abstract composition
on the ceiling, recalls Van Doesburg’s project for the university hall from 1923.
Szczuka’s composition is not diagonal, and based on the reproduction the actual
colours remain unknown, yet the perpendicular grid of various colour planes seems
to have been inspired by Van Doesburg’s project or alternatively by one of Mon-
drian’s paintings.
Of crucial importance in the analysis of Polish–Dutch mobility in the field of
avant-garde interiors is the Neoplastic Room (Sala Neoplastyczna) at the Łódź
Museum. Although created after the Second World War, it constitutes a unique
example of artistic and architectural influences of the interwar period. The Interna-
tional Collection of Modern Art gathered by artists from the a.r. group was housed
in various locations until 1946, when it found a permanent exhibition home at the
current premises of the museum. There, in 1948, Władysław Strzemiński designed
the Neoplastic Room where works of Van Doesburg, Huszár, Kobro, Stażewski and
many others were exhibited.24 Strzemiński’s design presents a continuation of his
pre-war projects, which materialised in this fifty-square-metre room. Its walls and
ceiling were adorned with an abstract composition of blue, red, yellow, white and
black, which corresponds to Strzemiński’s unimplemented projects from the 1930s
and stays in line with the theoretical statements on architecture analysed in the pre-
vious chapter (see Plate 16). The Neoplastic Room directly recalls various examples
of the Dutch avant-garde: Mondrian’s paintings or Rietveld’s interiors, and – even
more interestingly – when it comes to the choice of particular colour planes and their
size, Strzemiński based them on the works which were to be exhibited in a given
place, creating a unique example of avant-garde Gesamtkunstwerk (cf. Ładnowska
1991: 73–75).
3.8. Architecture
The issue of cultural mobility in the field of modernist architecture is a broad and
multifaceted matter which would require a study of its own. Its development and
dissemination took place simultaneously in various places where architects from
Europe and beyond realised their bold projects and influenced one another – among
them were the most recognisable figures such as Le Corbusier, Frank Lloyd Wright,
Mies van der Rohe and many others. Architecture often stood at the centre of atten-
tion of avant-garde circles, and I will point here to several examples of interwar archi-
tectural projects from Poland and the Low Countries representing the simultaneity and
parallels of architectural endeavours of the period – be it in the straight-forwardness
of their general assumptions, or in the originality of their details.
One such innovatory aspect is the plasticity of modernist buildings, which were not
created as symmetric monoliths, but instead their form was based on a juxtaposition
of intersecting volumes, which created a cohesive, sculptural effect, somewhat recall-
ing Malevich’s architectons. Such sculptural, abstract forms can be seen in Oud’s
1919 project for a factory in Purmerend, reproduced in 1920 in De Stijl 3, 5. Oud’s
project – if realised – could have actually become an exemplary attempt to implement
the principles of Neoplasticism in architecture: H.R. Hitchcock (1929, as quoted in
Oud 1984: 48) claimed that “the factory design, although not without heaviness, illus-
trated a determined effort to achieve in architecture the effects of Neoplasticism (. . .).
In the intricate play of rather meaningless horizontal and vertical masses one part of
this design might well be abstract construction of a sculptor”. Indeed, as pointed out
by the architect’s son Hans Oud (1984: 49), the Purmerend project was still missing the
Figure 38 J.J.P. Oud, design for a factory in Purmerend from 1919 (source: De Stijl 3, 5; IADDB)
and Teresa Żarnower, composition from 1924 (source: Blok 8/9; JBC)
widely postulated integration of exterior with the interior, yet the beautiful sculptural
effect of the entrance zone served as inspiration for Van Doesburg’s and Van Eesteren’s
experimental models from 1923/24. The same plastic and spatial thought is recognisable
in Żarnower’s project published in 1924 in Blok 8/9, which is very similar to Oud’s
1919 design.25
Another recurring feature of modernist architecture are plain white façades with
windows and steel railings as their sole “decoration”. Windows were placed horizon-
tally in long bands or in the corners, for example in Oud’s project for the Kiefhoek
estate (1925–30) or in Lachert and Szanajca’s competition entry for Szkoła Nauk
Politycznych [School of Political Sciences] from 1926 (cf. Praesens 1: 26). Thin steel
rails were frequently used for balconies and roof terraces, which created an intricate
lace-like finishing of the unadorned volumes. In some cases, however, the balconies
were given very original forms, as for instance in Rietveld’s famous Schröder House in
Utrecht (1924). Rietveld designed a particularly original balustrade made of steel rails
and one plastered rectangular plane which seems to float above the main entrance.
This dramatic and plastic effect was repeated in the Brukalskis’ house in Warsaw from
1928, where the entrance has also been covered with a balcony with a very similar
balustrade. In general, although more compact and less detailed, the Brukalskis’ house
seems to share the same artistic and architectural sensibility and refinement as Riet-
veld’s masterpiece, be it in its airy volumes, large windows (especially the extraordinary
high triple hung window) or other well-designed elements.
Besides the features described above, naval elements and streamline forms such as
rounded balconies and façades, ribbon windows and so forth were often used by mod-
ernist architects. Although the term Streamline architecture (or Streamline Moderne)
is usually used with reference to American architecture from the 1930s, a number of
streamline elements is also to be found in European architecture from the period, as
noted by both Olszewski (2009: 35) and Sołtysik (2009: 70–79). Despite the fact that
straight lines and right angles dominated in Polish, Dutch and Belgian avant-garde
architecture, there are also many examples of nautical elements, for instance in the
Figure 39 One of numerous reproductions of Rietveld’s house in Utrecht in Polish magazines

(source: Architekt 21, 1: 3; BCPW) and the Brukalskis’ house in Warsaw (source
Praesens 2: 60; MBC)
projects of Duiker (Openlucht-school in Amsterdam, 1929–30), Dudok (Collège Néer-
landais in Paris, 1929–38), Stynen (Elsdonck residence in Wilrijk, 1931–34), Żarnower/
Szczuka/Syrkus (residential building, 1926), Plater-Zyberk (Służewiec, 1931–39) and
Piotrowski (ZUS offices in Gdynia, 1935–36) amongst others. In some cases they were
so distinctive that they became the building’s main feature. In J.J.P. Oud’s project for
Hoek van Holland from 1924 the curved corners of long terraced houses are entirely
transparent at the ground level and roofed with a wide band of balconies, which
became one of the most recognisable elements of this project. The Polish architect
Bohdan Pniewski implemented a very similar solution in his project for the PWK exhi-
bition in Poznań in 1929. A characteristic glassed curved corner with a deep overhang-
ing roof of Pniewski’s pavilion of the Bogusław Herse Company seems to mimic Oud’s
feature window from Hoek van Holland.26
Another distinctive element inspired by naval architecture was the incorporation of
light exterior steel staircases. Similar to ladders between two decks on a ship, as well
as to the exterior iron fire escapes characteristic of American urban architecture, intro-
duced at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, such staircases were often
used by modernist architects in order to give access to balconies and roof terraces.27
Of particular note are the outdoor spiral staircases linking upper terraces with gardens
used, for instance, by Mart Stam for his Stuttgart houses, or by Van der Vlugt and
Brinkman for the Sonneveld House in Rotterdam.28 In Poland exterior staircases were
also popular and were used in Hryniewicz-Piotrowska’s PWK pavilion from 1929 and
in Korngold’s villa from 1935.
An exceptional use of outdoor staircases may be found in the works of two Polish
architects Bohdan Lachert and Józef Szanajca. In 1926 they designed a villa in Gdynia
with a highly original exterior rectangular staircase, and in their later projects they
experimented with a spiral staircase. They incorporated it into the building’s volume
at its top level, linking it with the roof terrace, which resulted in a very sculptural
Figure 40 J.J.P. Oud, Hoek van Holland estate from 1924 (source: i10 8/9: 284; IADDB) and
B. Pniewski, PWK pavilion of Bogusław Herse Company from 1929 (source: Archi-
tektura i Budownictwo 5, 11/12: 34; BCPW)
Figure 41 B. Lachert and J. Szanajca, Szyller’s villa in Warsaw from 1928 (source: Praesens 2:
51; MBC) and a row house in Warsaw from 1928 (source: Architektura i Budow-
nictwo 11, 5: 70; BCPW)
effect: a steel helix of stairs emerging from the white mass of the building to continue
as the hand rail of the terrace. In the case of the Szyller’s Villa in Warsaw (1928), the
spiral stairs create a playful composition with the balustrades of various levels of the
house, and they correspond to the asymmetrical layout of the windows on one of
the building’s façades. The other residential building for three families is more modest,
yet the well-balanced layout of ribbon windows on the façade, together with the steel
staircase materialising from a bare windowless corner, creates a very visually pleasing
abstract composition.
These original projects gained recognition from Van Doesburg (1930/1931: 90)
who wrote about Lachert and Szanajca in his article on modern Polish architecture
in Het Bouwbedrijf where both projects were reproduced. Although voicing some
criticism, he appreciated the extraordinary effect achieved by placing the staircase
in such a manner:
The Polish architects Lachert and Szanajca built some modern freestanding houses
in Warsaw, for single as well as for multiple families. As the reproduction shows,
these villas, in particular the Warsaw one for three families, strongly remind us of
those by Le Corbusier. (. . .) The outside spiral staircase leading to the roof terrace
(a deliberate aesthetic device, coincidentally occurring in both projects!) does lend
a witty flourish to the upper contour, but the whole rests heavily and clumsily on
its basement. By this I do not mean to say that this is bad architecture, or only a
modern imitation. The architects Lachert and Szanajca, whom I already mentioned
in my previous article, are among the most serious and progressive architects in
the Praesens group.
(Van Doesburg 1990: 309)
Such use of spiral outdoor staircases was exceptional and likely pioneering. In 1928
the French architect Mallet-Stevens also used exterior staircases to give access to the
balcony on the second floor at the Martel house in Paris, yet they had a rectangular –
not spiral – form, which did not produce the same plastic effect as was the case of
Lachert and Szanajca. The Belgian architect De Koninck also used exterior staircases
in his projects, for instance in Dr. Ley’s House in Uccle (1934) and in Villa Canneel in
Brussels (1931). In the former building, the staircase linked the first floor with the roof
but still – as by Mallet-Stevens or in the Lachert/Szanajca 1926 design from Gdynia –
it remained rectangular. Nevertheless, the staircase added a nice, sculptural detail to
the building.
It would be possible to continue to enumerate architectural elements recurring in
various projects, including those of Polish, Belgian and Dutch provenance – be it the
integration of typography with the building (e.g. Café de Unie by Oud, Rietveld’s Vree-
burg Bioscoop, Van Nelle Leiden offices by Brinkman and Van der Vlugt, Hryniewicz-
Piotrowska’s PWK pavilion or housing block by Żarnower, Szczuka, Koziński and
Karczewski), the use of pilotis (as in Van Doesburg’s house in Méudon and in Lachert/
Szanajca’s row house in Warsaw) or the 45-degree footprint of residential designs cre-
ated for the sake of their proper orientation (e.g. Bourgeois’s Cité Moderne, Szanajca’s
apartment blocks or Lachert/Niemojewski/Szanajca’s row houses).
There are many parallels and similarities in Dutch, Belgian and Polish architectural
projects, which result from numerous and at times intense international relations
between interwar architects – not only via architectural periodicals circulating through-
out the whole network, but also through the CIAM organisation which gathered the
most progressive and talented modern architects of the period.
One of many examples of these contacts and influences has been observed by Iza-
bela Wisłocka (1968: 125) who pointed to architectural solutions implemented by
Stanisław Brukalski and Barbara Brukalska in their WSM-estate in Warsaw as being
directly influenced by J.J.P. Oud’s residential projects. Another interesting parallel
was pointed out by Zdzisława and Tomasz Tołłoczko (1999), namely the steel con-
struction of the balconies recurring in residential projects of Brinkman and Van der
Vlugt’s (Van der Leeuw Huis in Rotterdam) and the Syrkuses (villa in Skolimów).
Moreover, the influences of De Stijl and its ideas were also visible in the works of
Figure 42 L.H. De Koninck, Dr. Ley’s House in Uccle from 1934 (source: De 8 and Opbouw
7, 15: 175; IADDB) and B. Lachert and J. Szanajca, villa in Gdynia from 1926 (source:
Architektura i Budownictwo 2, 6: 34; BCPW)
Figure 43 J.A. Brinkman and L.C. van der Vlugt: Van der Leeuw Huis in Rotterdam from
1921–1928 (source: RCE, photo Gerard Dukker) and H. Syrkus and S. Syrkus, villa
in Skolimów from 1931 (source: NAC)
other Polish interwar architects, e.g. Maksymilian Goldberg and Hipolit Rutkowski
(cf. Kubiak 2017).
It should also be noted here that from its very beginning the Polish architects were
very active members of the CIAM organisation. One of their major achievements
in this context was the urban project Warszawa funkcjonalna from 1934, created
by Szymon Syrkus and Jan Chmielewski in cooperation with other specialists from
various domains. Warszawa funkcjonalna was a pioneering utopian project created
on an unprecedented pan-European scale.29 It received much praise and apprecia-
tion after its presentation during a CIRPAC (working group of CIAM) meeting in
London. It was translated into English, French and German, and on 21 May 1934
the Polish project was officially accepted as an exemplary synthetic study and as a
model for preparatory works for all other national groups of CIAM. The importance
of this fact was emphasised in an official letter to the President of Warsaw dated 21
May 1934 and signed by key European architects Victor Bourgeois (Belgium), Ben
Merkelbach (the Netherlands), Le Corbusier, Walter Gropius and others. These
prominent architects wrote:
Le C.I.R.P.A.C. (. . .), organe exécutif des C.I.A.M. (. . .), a été appelé à prendre
connaissance du projet de l’urbanisation de la région de Varsovie, présenté par
MM. Chmielewski Jan et Syrkus Szymon.
Le rapport établi par ces auteurs ainsi que les plans qui l’accompagnent a forte-
ment impressionné les membres du C.I.R.P.A.C.
Ceux-ci ont exprimé à MM. Chmielewski et Syrkus leur satisfaction et après
une délibération ont admis de considérer ce projet comme pouvant servir de
modèle aux études similaires, imposés aux divers groupes nationaux des C.I.A.M.
à l’occasion du V-ème Congrès.
C.I.R.P.A.C. se permet de vous communiquer cette décision, estimant que
vous auriez quelque satisfaction de voir reconnaître ainsi le travail fourni par vos
compatriotes.
[CIRPAC (. . .), the executive organ of CIAM (. . .), was invited to get acquainted
with a project of urban development of the Warsaw-region, presented by Mr. Jan
Chmielewski and Mr. Szymon Syrkus.
The rapport created by these authors, as well as accompanying plans, has really
impressed the members of CIRPAC.
They expressed their approval to Mr. Chmielewski and Mr. Syrkus, and having
discussed it they agreed to consider this project as possible to serve as a model for
similar studies commanded from various national groups of CIAM at the occasion
of its fifth Congress.
CIRPAC has taken the liberty of sharing this decision with you reckoning that
you be pleased to see the work of your compatriots being recognised.
(cf. Czeredys et al. 2013: 34)]
Polish architects remained active members of CIAM – Helena Syrkus was its secretary
(1933–1939) and vice-president (1948–1955, together with Le Corbusier and Gro-
pius). As expressed by Josep Lluís Sert, the President of CIAM in 1949–1952, “the
Polish group was always one of the best, most active and most dynamic in CIAM”.30
3.9. Preliminary Conclusions

This chapter aimed to demonstrate that avant-garde publications, artworks and
architectural projects of Polish, Belgian and Dutch provenance had very much in
common and that in many cases one can speak of mutual influences and inspirations
drawn from one another. Artists from Poland, the Low Countries and all other parts
of the avant-garde network stayed in touch with each other, exchanged texts, art-
works and ideas, hence it is not surprising that they bear numerous similarities. These
are visible in their magazines, typographical compositions experimental poetry, art-
works and architectural projects. Covers of most avant-garde publications have an
innovative page design, often based on similar elements which somehow became the
feature of the interwar avant-garde. In some cases also inside those magazines very
original typographical solutions were applied, as exemplified for instance by Blok
or The Next Call.
When it comes to visual arts such as painting or sculpture, direct influences of the
Dutch avant-gardists are visible in the works of Henryk Stażewski, whose paintings
and cover designs recall some of Piet Mondrian’s or Theo van Doesburg’s canvases.
A closer look at the works of other artists, however, demonstrates that such inspira-
tions and influences had also the opposite direction. The works of Katarzyna Kobro
for instance were almost certainly a source of inspiration for the Belgian artist Georges
Vantongerloo, one of the contributors to De Stijl. Influence of Kobro’s spatial composi-
tions is visible in Vantongerloo’s sculptures from the late 1920s when he began, as it
were, to ‘open’ them and relate them with the surrounding space. Another example of
such influences is the case of two works of Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman which most
probably were inspired by Mieczysław Szczuka’s earlier compositions.
The above-mentioned examples of influences and inspirations between artists form
Poland and the Low Countries are obviously only a small sample of contact which
took place within the multidimensional rhizomatic network of the avant-garde. That
foreign innovations served as a source of inspiration for various artists belonging to this
network is visible for instance in the works of the Russian artist El Lissitzky or Pietro
(de) Saga from Austria which exerted noticeable influences on both Polish and Dutch
avant-garde artists. Similar examples could be multiplied almost endlessly.
Interior design and architecture too reveal many similarities when it comes to works
of artists from Poland and the Low Countries. Polish architects found much inspiration
in the works of their Dutch and Belgian colleagues (as exemplified by Strzemiński’s
Neoplastic Room in Łódź or the Brukalskis’ house in Warsaw), but they as well cre-
ated unique architectural solutions, be it in the works of Lachert and Szanajca, or in
the Warszawa Funkcjonalna project.
Those several examples discussed in this chapter, as well as the own words of some
artists themselves quoted here, seem to very much contradict Theo van Doesburg’s
claim mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, and to show that cultural mobility
of artistic practices between Poland, Belgium and the Netherlands – and beyond – had
indeed a mutual and reciprocal character.
Notes
1 English translation in: Van Doesburg 1990: 299, 302.
2 See for instance: Turowski (1979, 1990a); Kleiverda-Kajetanowicz (1985); Passuth (1988);
Ex (1996, 2000); Rypson (2000); Van de Geer et al. (2013).
3 See also Czyżewski 1933 as well as Strzemiński’s letters to Przyboś from 31 August 1930
and 26 May 1932 (Turowski 1973a: 245–257, 258–259).
4 See among others Brze˛kowski’s letters to Przyboś from 13 May 1929 and 2 April 1930 (Kłak
1981: 33–34, 60–61), Przyboś’s letter to Kurek from 15 May 1930 (Kłak 1975: 90) and
Strzemiński’s letters to Przyboś from 9 March 1930 and 26 April 1930 (Turowski 1973a:
237–241).
5 Tschichold’s letter to Strzemiński from 3 May 1934 (Kurc-Maj 2014: 88–89).
6 Of note is the fact the cover of the eighth/ninth issue of Blok was used as the cover of Steven
Heller’s (2003) book Merz to Emigre and Beyond: Avant-Garde Magazine Design of the
Twentieth Century, which confirms the unique quality of Polish avant-garde page design.
7 It was also pointed out by Krisztina Passuth (2009: 21) who claimed that “De Stijl (. . .) never
really experimented with absolutely new forms”.
8 See: Carpenter (1983: 44) for reproduction.
9 Interestingly, Strzemiński’s design for Z ponad reveals much affinity to Van Doesburg’s
renowned painting Ritme van een Russische dans [Rhythm of a Russian Dance] from 1918
as well as to Mies van der Rohe’s design for the Brick Country Club House from 1923/24.
However, given Strzemiński’s other works and their evolution in time, it does not seem to
be intentional.
10 Strzemiński’s letter to Przyboś from 13 November 1929 (Turowski 1973a: 227).
11 Strzemiński’s letter to Vantongerloo from 18 February 1930 (private collection).
12 Strzemiński’s letter to Przyboś from early 1930 (Turowski 1973a: 231–232).
13 The manuscript is housed in Max Bill Georges Vantongerloo Stiftung in Zumikon,
Switzerland.
14 Compare for instance Vantongerloo’s Masses in the Universe (1946) with Kobro’s Suspended
construction (2) from 1921/22.
15 I would like to thank Hubert van den Berg who drew my attention to this fact.
16 I base my statement on two catalogues of Werkman’s oeuvre: Dekkers et al. (2008) and De
Vries et al. (2015).
17 Interestingly, Peter Jordens (2017) too has pointed out that Werkman had indeed searched
for inspiration in the works of several Central and Eastern European avant-garde artists.
18 As in the case of other artists, also Huszár’s relation with Van Doesburg was rather troubled;
in December 1920 he abruptly ended his subscription of De Stijl to renew it later on (Blot-
kamp and Hilhorst 1996: 330–333). See also the table of De Stijl’s members published in
the special issue in 1927.
19 See: Blotkamp and Hilhorst (1996: 345) or Janssen and White (2011: 205) for reproduction.
20 For colourful reproductions of Huszár’s designs for Miss Blanche see for instance Van Dam
(1998: 18–21) or the collection of SMA.
21 Cf. Frankowska and Frankowski 2009: 19–48; Ex and Hoek 1985: 96–100.
22 See ATNvD, inv. nr. ARC/Does/doos XXXI [982343].
23 See for instance Dekkers et al. (2008: 431–437).
24 The exhibition was closed down in 1950 and Strzemiński’s composition was painted over.
Its reconstruction was undertaken a decade later – cf. Ładnowska (1991: 78).
25 Maria Sołtysik (2009: 73–74) has also pointed to other interesting examples of Dutch–Polish
architectural mobility where plastic, sculptural forms designed by the Dutch architects (e.g.
Jan Wils) served as inspiration for Polish architects.
26 See Kubiak (2014: 146–185) for an architectural overview and analysis of the PWK exhibition.
27 This purely functional novelty also served as inspiration for avant-garde artists – for instance
in 1917 the American artist Man Ray portrayed them in his Fire Escape and Umbrellas
(see the online archive of GRI: www.getty.edu/art/collections/objects/o53284.html).
28 Other examples include Van der Vlugt’s Van Nelle factory from 1925–31, Arp and Van
Doesburg’s project for their shared house in Clamart (the April 1924 version; see Van
Straaten 1988: 229–231), Oud’s project for Bijdorp from 1931, Gropius House in Lincoln
(MA) from 1937 and many others. A different, yet very original, form of spiral staircase
appeared in the Zonnestraal Sanatorium in Hilversum designed by Jan Duiker in cooperation
with Bernard Bijvoet in 1926–1928.
29 Although quite utopian, the Warszawa funkcjonalna project found some practical applica-
tion after the Second World War, serving as an inspiration for urban planners dealing with
the reconstruction of the city.
30 Quoted in Czerner et al. (1981: 63).
Plate 1 Selected avant-garde periodicals of Polish, Dutch and Belgian provenance
Plate 2 Piet Mondrian and Michel Seuphor’s Tableau-poème (Textuel) from 1928 (source: MSL)
Plate 3 Georges Vantongerloo, cover design for the Polish edition of L’art et son avenir from
1927 (© 2018, ProLitteris Zurich)
Plate 4 The nexus of relationships between selected representatives of the avant-garde in Poland and the Low Countries
Plate 5 Front cover of De Stijl from 1922 (source: IADDB) and back cover of Berlewi’s Prospekt
biura Reklama Mechano from 1924 (source: ATNvD)
Plate 6 Covers of Documents Internationaux de l’Esprit Nouveau 1 from 1927 (source: BK) and
of L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna 2 from 1930 (source: MNW)
Plate 7 Theo van Doesburg, Compositie XXII from 1922 (source: VAM; photo Peter Cox) and
Henryk Stażewski, Kompozycja from 1930 (source: MSL)
Plate 8 Henryk Stażewski, cover designs for Anielski Cham and Niedziela (source: Ryszard
Cichy Collection)
Plate 9 Piet Mondrian, Compositie from 1929 (source: SGM; gift, Estate of Katherine S. Dreier,
1953) and Tableau 2 from 1922 (source: SGM)
Plate 10 Theo van Doesburg, Compositie XX from 1920 (© Museo Nacional Thyssen-
Bornemisza, Madrid) and Henryk Stażewski, cover design for Grafika 4 from 1931
(source: Ryszard Cichy Collection)
Plate 11 Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman, typographical composition from 1926 (source: The Next
Call 9; Collectie GM, photo Marten de Leeuw) and Mieczysław Szczuka, Typografja
from 1924 (source: Blok 3/4; JBC)
Plate 12 Vilmos Huszár, advertisement for Miss Blanche from 1926 (source: i10 2: 70; IADDB)
and Henryk Berlewi, Prospekt Czekolada Plutos from 1925 (source: MNW)
Plate 13 El Lissitzky, Pro dva kvadrata. Suprematicheskii skaz v 6-ti postroikakh (fragment)
from 1920/1922 (source: RKD); El Lissitzky and Theo van Doesburg, Suprematisch
worden van twee kwadraten in 6 konstrukties (fragment) from 1922 (source De Stijl
5, 10/11; IADDB); Władysław Strzemiński and Witold Kajruksztis, two pages from the
catalogue of the Vilnius exhibition from 1923 (source: MSL; © Ewa-Sapka Pawliczak –
copyright owner to works of Władysław Strzemiński and Katarzyna Kobro)
Plate 14 Samuel Szczekacz, Konstrukcja from ca. 1937 (source: The Merrill C. Berman Collec-
tion, courtesy Galerie Berinson, Berlin)
Plate 15 Theo van Doesburg, colour composition for a university hall in Amsterdam from 1923 (source: Collectie Het Nieuwe Instituut in bruikleen
van collectie Van Eesteren-Fluck & Van Lohuizenstichting, Amsterdam; inv. nr. EEST. 3.168)
Plate 16 Sala Neoplastyczna, Muzeum Sztuki Łódź, designed by Władysław Strzemiński (source: MSL)
Closing Remarks
In this study I aimed to give a thorough description of mutual relationships, exchange

and mobility between interwar avant-garde formations from Poland, Belgium and
the Netherlands, as well as to reflect on their reciprocal nature – revising the histo-
riographical assumptions of one-sided transfer from pivotal nodes of the avant-garde
network to their so-called “peripheries”.
The network of historical avant-garde was, as such, a multifaceted, fluctuating and
rhizomatic structure where no strict stylistic or nation-based delimitations are applica-
ble. Hence, the initial concept and research corpus have been gradually deconstructed,
showing that what was the focus of this study had no definable limits and could expand
endlessly in any direction – this study forms, as it were, a “zoom-in” into the polymor-
phic phenomenon of the avant-garde network. No strict and undisputable boundaries
of this lenticular “zoom-in” could be drawn – whilst its main focus (initial choice of
formations such as De Stijl, Het Overzicht or Blok) remains solid, what is placed in
the more “blurred” external sphere of the lens seemed to escape the initial research
assumption and constantly move its “centre of gravity”. No doubt, every individual
researcher would focus their attention on different elements from this “blurred” area
which they would incorporate into their study. I do however believe that the examples
which I have chosen allowed me to properly reflect on cultural mobility between
Poland and the Low Countries.
In order to limit the theoretical and methodological limitations to a minimum,
a “post-ism-atic” approach was applied in this work, which I find particularly appro-
priate for studies on art, especially in the case of the historical avant-garde. It has
eliminated the issue of stylistic belonging to a particular artistic “ism”, opening and
freeing the field of research, which could then focus on particular elements, artists
and ideas, and not on their stylistic denominations that in fact overlapped, coincided
and evolved in a non-discrete, non-linear manner. Apart from rejecting the stylistic
delimitations of particular “isms”, nation-state-based concepts have also been brought
in question by this study. Although they were somewhat necessary as a starting point
for the analysis, their actual meaning as such was undermined throughout the research
process. Instead of nationalities, I would therefore rather speak of linguistic, cultural
or artistic identities, which in the case of avant-garde artists remain non-definable, as
they constantly transcended all national, cultural and linguistic borders, as reflected in
their biographies.
This study implements Latour’s postulates of “following the actors” and merely
“describing the state of affairs at hand”, and it is my belief that this approach proved
110 Closing Remarks
particularly accurate and allowed for a fresh, free look at the issue of cultural mobility
within the interwar network of the avant-garde. It showed that neither stylistic, nor
national labels constituted key factors for mutual relationships and exchange between
various nodes of this network. In fact, the core and the reason of this exchange lay
elsewhere.
The cultural mobility between Poland and the Low Countries is just a small case
study which aims to contribute to the mapping of the avant-garde network. It has
nevertheless shown that various nodes of this network created numerous links to
each other (as illustrated by Plate 4), and they did so without any notion of hierarchy
between them, since they all remained marginal per se. Those connections and rela-
tionships enabled the direct, intense and quick exchange of works, texts and ideas
which took place within the whole network, with works sometimes appearing first in
foreign magazines, and only then in their local counterparts. Such intense exchange and
international publications often had a direct impact on other nodes of the avant-garde
network, showing how internationally intertwined and interdependent these artistic
circles were. Moreover, this exchange not only occurred in one direction, from the so-
called “centres” to their “peripheries”, but was two-sided. Preserved correspondence
and publications clearly indicate that the representatives of various artistic circles
shared mutual interest in each other’s activities and accomplishments, without any
notion of hierarchy or superiority.
There were in fact nodes of bigger importance, such as Paris or Berlin, but they
constituted what I call “infrastructural centres”, i.e. places of exchange and interac-
tion, as it were; melting pots where avant-garde artists from all parts of the continent
contributed, worked, inspired and influenced one another. Nevertheless, those “infra-
structural centres” too remained marginal, as did all the nodes of the avant-garde
network at that time – with little or no recognition from their respective dominant
cultural fields. This denial of “full artistic/cultural citizenship” for avant-garde artists
was actually the reason and motivating factor behind them creating so many links to
one another, which in turn boosted the exchange and circulation of their progressive
ideas. As exemplified through this book, Polish, Dutch and Belgian artists were very
eager to disseminate their work, travel, participate at exhibitions and contribute to
translations of their publications.
The links and contacts were usually at first established on paper, which left tangible
traces in the artists’ letters and magazines. Quite often, however, they later evolved into
personal relationships, and not infrequently long-lasting friendships which outlived
the avant-garde initiatives themselves, as was for instance the case of the Syrkuses and
.
Oud and Van Eesteren, or Seuphor and Brze˛kowski and Stazewski. These relationships
often coincided with the artists’ engagement in various international initiatives, such as
Cercle et Carré, Abstraction-Création or CIAM, which gathered progressive writers,
artists and architects of all nationalities and linguistic backgrounds who contributed
to the development of supranational modern art. A unique example of such collabora-
tion is the International Collection of Modern Art in Łódź established solely thanks to
the numerous contacts and friendships with modern artists from the whole continent.
Wide connections and influences between avant-garde artists and their formations
were also visible in their manifestos and other programmatic statements which bear
many significant resemblances to each other. As shown above, the theories of Polish,
Belgian and Dutch writers, artists and architect had much in common. There are even
Closing Remarks 111
traces of direct influences, as for instance in case of Mondrian’s, Brze˛kowski’s and
.
Stazewski’s theories, or the manifesto of Blok quoting Van Doesburg. On the other
hand, there were also differences and disagreements regarding, for instance, the issue
of artistic autonomy versus social engagement, which was well reflected in various pro-
grammatic statements, both explicitly and implicitly. One of the goals all avant-garde
artists had in common, though, was the fact that they jointly (across artistic domains
and nations) tried to boost the development of modern literature, art and architecture
in a way that would influence society and create not only New Art but also the New
Man. As shown in this study, however, due to various interpersonal issues and differ-
ences in the artists’ approaches, this utopian vision of modern art shaping the society
was set to fail – at least at that time – the success of avant-garde agitation for new art
and society was only to be witnessed later. As noted by Marcin Wicha (2015: 194),
only decades after its birth did avant-garde begin to be widely perceived as pleasant
and elegant, forming the basis of middle-class good taste.
Last, but not least, the analysed historical material allows for reflection on cultural
mobility between Poland and the Low Countries as an example of reciprocal exchange
and impact between avant-garde nodes and artists. As discussed in Chapter 3, Polish,
Belgian and Dutch artists were, at the same time, the recipients of various artistic
stimuli and their sources. The simultaneity of artistic development of the whole avant-
garde is directly visible in the typography, page design, painting, sculpture, interior
design and architecture. When it comes to magazine and page design, Polish periodi-
cals, with their experimental layout, were one of the most progressive examples of the
period, even though later magazines such as De Stijl took a prominent position in the
historiography of the avant-garde.
The direct influences of Dutch and Belgian artists and architects are visible in the
works of Polish avant-garde, but also vice versa, artists such as Vantongerloo and
Werkman most probably found inspiration in the works of Polish artists such as
Kobro and Szczuka. Moreover, the above-described works of Berlewi, the Brukalskis,
Huszár, Lachert/Szanajca, Lissitzky, Maes, Oud, Rietveld, Saga and others show that
pioneering and influential works of avant-garde art were actually created in parallel in
various nodes of the network, not only in the historiographical “centres”. These new
solutions exerted considerable impact on other artists and contributed to the develop-
ment of modern European art that surpassed national, stylistic and linguistic borders
of any kind, as has been demonstrated by “the material at hand” – publications, cor-
respondence, manifestos and artworks bearing traces of two-sided reciprocal exchange,
mobility and influences.
References
The following bibliographical principles are applied in this study:
a) surnames with particles such as “de” or “van” are handled according to Dutch
spelling rules, i.e. the particles are capitalised only when not preceded by a first
name or initial(s), e.g. “Van Doesburg” but “Theo van Doesburg”, and they do
not influence the alphabetical ordering of the bibliography list, i.e. “Van der Leck”
is listed under “L”. In order to ensure consistency with citations in the text, though,
surnames in the bibliography are preceded by the particles (lowercased);
b) in the case of surnames with varied spelling, one version is applied in the whole
text – e.g. Teresa Żarnower (not Żarnowerówna), Piet Mondrian (not Mondri-
aan), etc.;
c) for artists who are known under one or more pseudonyms, the prevalent one is
used unless stated otherwise (e.g. Theo van Doesburg, Michel Seuphor);
d) in the case of texts signed with another pseudonym, the prevalent one is also given;
e) names of the periodical’s editors are given for texts signed as “Blok”, “Pologne”,
etc.;
f) if possible, the authors of untitled texts have been identified and their names are
put in square brackets. For unidentified, untitled texts published in periodicals,
names of their editor(s) are given in square brackets;
g) all missing bibliographical data identified or stipulated by the author are given in
square brackets. In case of wrongly dated texts, the correct date is annotated;
h) the list of periodicals includes their subheadings and editors (if the editorial board
changed over the years, numbers of the edited issues or volumes are given in
brackets in superscript). Subheadings are omitted in further listings;
i) in the case of periodicals with varying titles (e.g. Dom, Osiedle, Mieszkanie),
one prevailing version is used throughout the text.
Primary Sources
Periodicals
Architectengroep ‘de 8’ en ‘Opbouw’. 1932–1943. de 8 en Opbouw [the 8 and construction].
Amsterdam.
Baczyński, Stanisław (ed.). 1929–1930. Europa [Europe]. Warsaw.
Béothy, Étienne, Jean Hélion, Auguste Herbin and Georges Vantongerloo (eds.). 1932–1936.
Abstraction-Création. Art non-figuratif. Paris.
114 References
Berckelaers, Fernand, Geert Pijnenburg(1–12) and Jozef Peeters(13–25) (eds.). 1921–1925. Het Over-
zicht [The overview]. Antwerp.
Bonset, I.K. [= van Doesburg, Theo] (ed.). 1922–1924. Mécano. Leiden and The Hague.
Bourgeois, Pierre, Victor Bourgeois, Karel Maes and Georges Monier (eds.). 1922–1928.
7 Arts. Journal hebdomadaire d’information et de critique. Brussels.
Brze˛kowski, Jan and Wanda Chodasiewicz-Grabowska (eds.). 1929–1930. L’Art Contemporain –
Sztuka Współczesna [Modern art]. Paris.
Carlsund, Otto, Theo van Doesburg, Jean Hélion, Marcel Wantz and Léon Tutundjian. 1930.
Art Concret. Paris.
Demets, Jan (ed.). 1925–1926. Het Woord [The word]. The Hague.
Dermée, Paul and Michel Seuphor (eds.). 1927. Documents Internationaux de l’Esprit Nouveau.
Paris.
van Doesburg, Theo (ed.). 1917–1928 and 1932. De Stijl. Maandblad voor de (moderne) beel-
dende vakken [The style. Magazine for (modern) visual arts].1 Leiden, Scheveningen and The
Hague.
Het Nederlandsch Instituut van Architecten. 1924–1947. Het Bouwbedrijf [The building indus-
try]. The Hague.
Jankowski, Józef, Szcze˛sny Rutkowski and Teodor Toeplitz (eds.). 1929–1948. Dom, Osiedle,
Mieszkanie [House, estate, apartment]. Warsaw.
Krakowskie Towarzystwo Techniczne. 1900–1929. Architekt. Pismo o architekturze, budow-
nictwie i przemyśle artystycznym [Architect. Magazine on architecture, construction and artistic
industry]. Krakow.
Kurek, Jalu (ed.). 1931–1933. Linia. Czasopismo awangardy literackiej [The line. The periodical
of literary avant-garde]. Krakow.
Linze, Georges (ed.). 1921–1940. Anthologie du Groupe Moderne d’Art de Liège. Liège.
Müller-Lehning, Artur (ed.). 1927–1929. Internationale Revue i10 [International magazine i10].
Amsterdam.
Peeters, Jozef (ed.). 1925–1926. De Driehoek. Maandschrift voor Konstruktivistische Kunst
[The triangle. Monthly perodical for Constructivist art]. Antwerp.
Peiper, Tadeusz (ed.). 1922–1923 and 1926–1927. Zwrotnica. Kierunek: sztuka teraźniejszości
[The switch. Direction: the art of today]. Krakow.
Rogister, Victor(Vol. 1–3), Yvon Falise(Vol. 4–5), Jean Moutschen(Vol. 4–7), Egard Klutz(Vol. 4–8), Emile
Parent(Vol. 4–8), Albert Tibaux(Vol. 7–8), Paul Fitschy(Vol. 5–8), Georges Linze(Vol. 9–11) (eds.). 1928–1939.
L’Équerre. Liège.
Seuphor, Michel and Joaquín Torres-García (eds). 1930. Cercle et Carré. Paris.
Spółdzielnia Wydawnicza Architektów Polskich. 1925–1939. Architektura i Budownictwo
[Architecture and construction]. Warsaw.
Stażewski, Henryk(1–4), Edmund Miller(1–4), Mieczysław Szczuka and Teresa Żarnower (eds.).
1924–1926. Blok. Czasopismo awangardy artystycznej [Block. The periodical of artistic
avant-garde].2 Warsaw.
Syrkus, Szymon, Helena Syrkus, Henryk Stażewski(1) and Andrzej Pronaszko(2) (eds.). 1926 and
1930. Praesens. Kwartalnik modernistów [Praesens. Modernist quarterly].3 Warsaw.
Szczuka, Mieczysław (ed.). 1927–1928. Dźwignia [Lever]. Warsaw.
Werkman, Hendrik Nicolaas (ed.). 1923–1926. The Next Call. Groningen.
1 Other subheadings of De Stijl were: Maandblad gewijd aan de moderne beeldende vakken en kultuur
(vol. II and III), (Internationaal) Maandblad voor nieuwe kunst, wetenschap en kultuur (vol. IV onwards).
2 Other subheadings of Blok were: Revue d’Art (nr. 5), Revue internationale d’avant-garde (nrs. 6/7
and 11), Kurjer Bloku (nrs. 6/7 and 8/9).
3 The subheading appeared only on the first issue.
References 115
Articles and Books
Almanach. Katalog. Salon modernistów [Almanac. Catalogue. The salon of modernists]. 1928.
Warszawa: Drukarnia Robotnik.
Aronson, Chil. 1929. Art polonais moderne. Paris: Éditions Bonaparte.
Baczyński, Stanisław. 1930. “Literatura i poezja” [Literature and poetry], Europa 4: 118–123.
Behne, Adolf. 1922. “De Europeesche kunstbeweging” [The European artistic movement],
Het Overzicht 14: 21–22.
Berckelaers, Fernand. 1922a. “Postulaat” [Postulate], Het Overzicht 13: 1–3.
Berckelaers, Fernand. 1922b. “De natuur, zij; de mens, hij” [Nature, she; man, he], Het Over-
zicht 14: 30.
Berckelaers, Fernand. 1922c. “La nature, elle; l’homme, lui”, 7 Arts 2, 8: n.p.
Berckelaers, Fernand. 1924. “Over kunst in 12 punt” [On art in 12 points], Het Overzicht 20:
121–124.
Bereta, Jan [= Brze˛kowski, Jan]. 1929. “La poésie polonaise d’aujourd’hui”, L’Art Contemporain –
Sztuka Współczesna 1: 22–23.
Berlewi, Henryk. 1921. “In kampf far der najer forem” [The struggle for a new form], Ringen
1/4: 31–33.
Berlewi, Henryk. 1922. “Mie˛dzynarodowa wystawa w Düsseldorfie” [International Exhibition
in Düsseldorf], Nasz Kurjer 4, 209: 2.
Berlewi, Henryk. 1924a. Mechano-faktura [Mechano-facture]. Warszawa: Jazz.
Berlewi, Henryk. 1924b. “Mechano-Faktur”, Der Sturm 15, 3: 155–159.
Berlewi, Henryk. 1924c. Prospekt biura Reklama Mechano [Brochure for Reclama Mechano
company]. Warszawa: Zakład Graficzny Koziańskich.
Berlewi, Henryk. 1925. Prospekt Czekolada Plutos [Plutos chocolate brochure]. Warszawa:
Technograf.
Berlewi, Henryk. 1937. Portretten en maskers. Inleiding van F.V. Toussaint van Boelaere
[Portraits and masks. Introduction by F.V. Toussaint van Boelaere]. Antwerpen: De Sikkel.
Bielski, Marjan [= Peiper, Tadeusz]. 1922. “Ozenfant i Jeanneret” [Ozenfant and Jeanneret],
Zwrotnica 2: 39–43.
Blok [= Szczuka, Mieczysław and Teresa Żarnower (eds.)]. 1924. “Notre enquête internatio-
nale sur le modernisme. Pologne. La revue Blok (Varsovie) nous répond. Quelques principes.
Quelques exemples”, 7 Arts 3, 5: n.p.
Blok [= Szczuka, Mieczysław and Teresa Żarnower (eds.)]. 1926. “Pologne: ‘Blok’”, 7 Arts
4, 20: n.p.
Bonset, I.K. [= van Doesburg, Theo]. 1921. “Inleiding tot de nieuwe verskunst” [Introduction
to modern poetry], De Stijl 4, 1/2: 1–5, 24–26.
Bonset, I.K. [= van Doesburg, Theo]. 1922. “Beeldende verskunst en hare verhouding tot de
andere kunsten” [Visual poetry and its relationship to other arts], De Stijl 5, 6: 88–91.
Bonset, I.K. [= van Doesburg, Theo]. 1923a [=1924]. “Tot een constructieve dichtkunst”
[Towards Constructive poetry], Mécano 4/5: n.p.
Bonset, I.K. [= van Doesburg, Theo]. 1926a. “Van de beeldende letteren” [On visual poetry],
De Stijl 7, 73/74: 2–3.
Bonset, I.K. [= van Doesburg, Theo]. 1926b [= 1927]. “Over den zin der letterkunde” [On the
sense of literature], De Stijl 7, 77: 78.
Bonset, I.K. [= van Doesburg, Theo]. 1927. “Van het woord en de letterkunde 1917–1927”
[On word and literature 1917–1927], De Stijl 7, 79/84: 10–13.
Bourgeois, Pierre. 1923. “Architecture moderne”, 7 Arts 1, 19–24: n.p.
Bourgeois, Pierre. 1925. “Bavardage autour de la poésie”, 7 Arts 4, 4: n.p.
[Bourgeois, Pierre et al. (eds.)]. 1922. “Objet, principes, tactique. Peinture. Architecture.
Musique. Littérature”, 7 Arts 1, 1: n.p.
[Bourgeois, Pierre et al. (eds.)]. 1923a. “Propos puristes”, 7 Arts 1, 15: n.p.
116 References
[Bourgeois, Pierre et al. (eds.)]. 1923b. “Propositions modernes”, 7 Arts 1, 22: n.p.
[Bourgeois, Pierre et al. (eds.)]. 1923c. “Esthétique”, 7 Arts 1, 25: n.p.
[Bourgeois, Pierre et al. (eds.)]. 1926. “Notre position: Confiance en l’art”, 7 Arts 5, 15: n.p.
[Bourgeois, Pierre et al. (eds.)]. 1927a. “Revue de la presse. Pologne littéraire. Zlota 8. Varso-
vie”, 7 Arts 5, 17: n.p.
[Bourgeois, Pierre et al. (eds.)]. 1927b. “Artysta a rewolucja” [Artist and revolution], Zwrotnica
11: 246.
Bourgeois, Victor. 1924. “L’art du groupement”, 7 Arts 2, 30: n.p.
Bourgeois, Victor. 1926. “Sztuka grupowania” [The art of grouping], Blok 11: n.p.
Bourgeois, Victor. 1927. “L’effort moderne en Belgique”, Internationale Revue i10 1, 4:
121–125.
Bourgeois, Victor. 1935. “Une introduction en forme de panorama”, L’Équerre 7, 12: 2.
Brukalska, Barbara et al. 1930. “Zespół architektów ‘Praesensu’ podejmuje próbe˛ kolektywizacji
pracy architekta” [The architects of ‘Praesens’ jointly attempt to collectivise the work of an
architect], Praesens 2: 190.
Brze˛kowski, Jan. 1924a. “De nieuwe kunst in Polen” [Modern art in Poland], Het Overzicht
21: 155.
Brze˛kowski, Jan. 1924b. “L’art polonais de tout à l’heure et d’aujord’hui [sic]”, Pásmo 3: 4.
Brze˛kowski, Jan. 1929/1930. “Kilometraż/Kilometrage”, L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współ-
czesna 1–3: 2–6, 50–53, 82–93.
Brze˛kowski, Jan. 1930a. “Après une vingtaine d’années de recherche . . .”, Cercle et Carré 1: n.p.
Brze˛kowski, Jan. 1930b. “Pour le film abstrait”, Cercle et Carré 3: n.p.
Brze˛kowski, Jan. 1936. Hans Arp. Łódź: Drukarnia Polska.
Brze˛kowski, Jan. 1972. Lettres en souffrance. Paris: Chambelland.
Brze˛kowski, Jan. 1973. Déplacement du Paysage. Paris: Chambelland.
Brze˛kowski, Jan and Salomon Grenkamp-Kornfeld. 1933. Pri l’moderna arto [On modern art].
Budapest: Literatura Mondo.
Brze˛kowski, Jan et al. 1934. O sztuce nowoczesnej [On modern art]. Łódź: Wydawnictwo
Towarzystwa Bibliofilów w Łodzi.
Carlsund, Otto et al. 1930a. “Base de la peinture concrète”, Art Concret: 1.
[Carlsund, Otto et al.]. 1930b. “Commentaires sur la base de la peinture concrète”, Art Concret:
2–4.
Carlsund, Otto et al. 1930c. “Deklaracja sztuki konkretnej” [Manifesto of concrete art], Europa
11: 341.
Casteels, Maurice. 1922/1924. “Les arts industriels”, 7 Arts 1, 3–23 & 2, 2–15: n.p.
Casteels, Maurice. 1925. “Eenige aanteekeningen over bouwkunst en toegepaste kunst op de
tentoonstelling van decoratieve kunst te Parijs” [Some notes on architecture and applied arts
during the exhibition of decorative arts in Paris], De Driehoek 5: n.p.
Catalogue de l’Exposition d’Art Polonais au Salon de la Société Nationale des Beaux-Arts. 1921.
Paris: Société Générale d’Imprimerie et d’Edition.
Chenoy, Léon. 1924a. “Le roman”, 7 Arts 2, 24: n.p.
Chenoy, Léon. 1924b. “Mécanisme et littérature”, 7 Arts 2, 26: n.p.
Chenoy, Léon. 1925a. “Polémique autour d’un film discuté. Le cinéma. Art indépendant ou
synthèse d’art?”, 7 Arts 4, 3: n.p.
Chenoy, Léon. 1925b. “Controverses. De la poésie”, 7 Arts 4, 6: n.p.
Czyżewski, Tytus. 1930. “Koń w chmurach (O odlogicznieniu poezji)” [A horse in the clouds
(On the illogicalisation of poetry)], Praesens 2: 166–167.
Czyżewski, Tytus. 1933. “Modernizm i krytyka” [Modernism and critique], Wiadomości lite-
rackie 10, 32: 4.
Das Junge Rheinland et al. 1922. “Gründungsaufruf der Union internationaler fortschrittlicher
Künstler”, De Stijl 5, 4: 49–50.
Dekeukelerie, Charles. 1927. “Ce que nous disent les spécialistes”, 7 Arts 6, 8: n.p.
References 117
Demets, Jean. 1926a. “Kunstenaar en maatschappij” [Artist and society], Het Woord 3: n.p.
Demets, Jean. 1926b. “Wegen der litteratuur” [Paths of literature], Het Woord 4: n.p.
Dermée, Paul, 1929a. “O literaturze proletarjackiej” [On proletarian literature], Europa 1:
11–14.
Dermée, Paul, 1929b. “Literatura proletarjacka” [Proletarian literature], Europa 1bis: 19–22.
“Documentation internationale. Pologne Hollande”. 1925. 7 Arts 3, 10: n.p.
van Doesburg, Pétro. 1925. “Open brief aan den heer JHR. W.F.A. Roëll” [Open letter to the
honourable W.F.A. Roëll], De Stijl 6, 10/11: 151–152.
van Doesburg, Theo. 1916. “De nieuwe beweging in de schilderkunst” [The new movement in
painting], De Beweging 12, 2–3: 124–131, 219–226, 57–66, 148–156, 226–235.
van Doesburg, Theo. 1917. De nieuwe beweging in de schilderkunst [The new movement in
painting]. Delft: Technische Boekhandel en Drukkerij J. Waltman.
van Doesburg, Theo. 1918a. “Fragmenten 1” [Fragments 1], De Stijl 1, 4: 47–48.
van Doesburg, Theo. 1918b. “Aantekeningen over monumentale kunst. Naar aanleiding van
twee bouwfragmenten (hall in vakantiehuis te Noordwijkerhout. Bijlage I)” [Notes on monu-
mental art. On account on two building elements (hall in a holiday house in Noordwijkerhout.
Appendix 1)], De Stijl 2, 1: 10–12.
van Doesburg, Theo. 1919. Drie voordrachten over de nieuwe beeldende kunst. [Three lectures
on modern visual art] Amsterdam: Maatschappij voor Goede en Goedkoope Lectuur.
van Doesburg, Theo. 1920. Klassiek–Barok–Modern [Classic–Baroque–Modern]. Brugge: Druk-
kerij Sinte Katharina.
van Doesburg, Theo. 1921a. “De betekenis der mechanische esthetiek voor de architectuur en
andere vakken” [The meaning of mechanical aesthetics for architecture and other domains],
Bouwkundig Weekblad 42, 25: 164–166, 28: 179–183, 33: 219–221.
van Doesburg, Theo. 1921b. “Over het moderne schilderen” [On modern painting], De Stijl
4, 3: 33–36.
[van Doesburg, Theo (ed.)]. 1921c. “Manifest III tot een nieuwe wereldbeelding” [Manifesto III
for a new world plasticism], De Stijl 4, 8: 125–126.
van Doesburg, Theo. 1921/1922. “Revue der avant-garde” [Review of the avant-garde],
Het Getij 6(1), 1–2: 109–112, 193–200; 6(2), 2 & 6: 25–29; 138–141; 7, 1: 13–15.
van Doesburg, Theo. 1922a. “De architect J.J.P. Oud ‘voorganger’ der ‘kubisten’ in de bouw-
kunst?” [The architect J.J.P. Oud as ‘forerunner’ of ‘Cubists’ in architecture?], De Bouw-
wereld 21, 30: 229.
van Doesburg, Theo. 1922b. “Der Wille zum Stil (Neugestaltung von Leben, Kunst und Tech-
nik)”, De Stijl 5, 2–3: 23–41.
van Doesburg, Theo. 1922c. “Contre les artistes imitateurs”, De Stijl 5, 6: 95–96.
[van Doesburg, Theo (ed.)]. 1922d. “Kort overzicht der handelingen van het Internationale
Kunstenaarscongres te Düsseldorf (29–31 Mai 1922)” [A short overview of the proceed-
ings of the International Congress of Artists in Düsseldorf (29–31 May 1922)], De Stijl
5, 6: 49–52.
[van Doesburg, Theo (ed.)]. 1922e. “Documentatie De Stijl” [De Stijl documentation], De Stijl
5, 12: 177–178.
van Doesburg, Theo. 1923. “Anti-Tendenzkunst” [Against social art], De Stijl 6, 2: 17–19.
van Doesburg, Theo. 1924a. “Tot een beeldende architectuur” [Towards a plastic architecture],
De Stijl 6, 6/7: 78–83.
van Doesburg, Theo. 1924b. “De nieuwe architectuur” [The new architecture], Bouwkundig
Weekblad 45, 20: 200–204.
van Doesburg, Theo. 1924c. “Odnowienie architektury” [The renewal of architecture], Blok
5: 12–13.
[van Doesburg, Theo (ed.)]. 1924d. “Alphabetische informatie: tijdschriften – boeken –
artikelen enz.” [Alphabetical information: magazines – books – articles, etc.], De Stijl 6, 8:
107–112.
118 References
[van Doesburg, Theo (ed.)]. 1924e. “Tijdschriften en boeken” [Magazines and books], De Stijl
6, 8: 113–117.
van Doesburg, Theo. 1925. “L’évolution d’architecture moderne en Hollande”, L’Architecture
Vivante 3, 9: 14–20.
van Doesburg, Theo. 1926a. “Vers un art élémentaire”, Vouloir 19: n.p.
van Doesburg, Theo. 1926b. “Ku sztuce elementów” [Towards art of elements], Praesens 1: 3.
van Doesburg, Theo. 1926c. “Schilderkunst en plastiek” [Painting and art], De Stijl 7, 75/75:
35–43.
[van Doesburg, Theo (ed.)]. 1927. “Invloedsverhouding van Stijlbeweging in het buitenland
sedert 1917” [The impact of De Stijl-movement abroad since 1917], De Stijl 7, 79/84: 59–60.
van Doesburg, Theo. 1928. “Wyja˛tek z ksia˛żki: Classique–Baroque–Moderne” [Fragment from
the book: Classic–Baroque–Modern], in: Almanach. Katalog. Salon modernistów. Warszawa:
Drukarnia Robotnik, 4–6.
van Doesburg, Theo. 1929. “Uwagi. Ankieta Europy” [Remarks. The survey of Europa], Europa
2: 60–61.
van Doesburg, Theo. 1930a. “Belangrijke nieuwe uitgaven over nieuwe architectuur” [Notewor-
thy new publications on new architecture], Het Bouwbedrijf 7, 20: 401–403.
van Doesburg, Theo. 1930b. “Vers la peinture blanche”, Art Concret: 11–12.
van Doesburg, Theo. 1930/1931. “Kunst- en architectuurvernieuwingen in Polen”, [Artistic and
architectural innovations in Poland] Het Bouwbedrijf 7, 18: 358–361; 8, 5: 87–90.
van Doesburg, Theo. 1931. “Ewolucja architektury nowoczesnej w Holandii” [The evolution
of modern architecture in the Netherlands], Architektura i Budownictwo 7, 8/9: 338–340.
van Doesburg, Theo. 1932. “Élémentarisme (les éléments de la nouvelle peinture)”, Abstraction-
Création 1: 39.
van Doesburg, Theo. 1990. On European Architecture. Complete essays from Het Bouwbedrijf
1924–1931. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag.
van Doesburg, Theo and Cornelis van Eesteren. 1924a. “Vers une construction collective”,
De Stijl 6, 6/7: 89–91.
van Doesburg, Theo and Cornelis van Eesteren. 1924b. “ – □ + = R4”, De Stijl 6, 6/7: 91–92.
van Doesburg, Theo, Cornelis van Eesteren and Gerrit Rietveld. 1923. Vers une construction
collective (Manifeste V du Groupe ‘De Stijl’). Paris: n.d.
van Doesburg, Theo; Piet Mondrian and Antony Kok. 1920. “Manifest II van ‘De Stijl’ 1920.
De literatuur/Kundgebung II des ‘Stijl’ 1920. Die Wortkunst/Manifeste II de ‘De Stijl’ 1920.
La littérature”, De Stijl 3, 6: 49–54.
van Doesburg, Theo; El Lissitzky and Hans Richter. 1922. “Erklärung der internationalen Frak-
tion der Konstruktivisten”, De Stijl 5, 6: 61–64.
van Doesburg, Theo et al. 1918. “Manifest I van ‘De Stijl’, 1918 / 1iere Manifeste de la revue
d’art ‘Le Style’, 1918 / Manifest I of ‘The Style’, 1918 / Manifest I von ‘Der Stil’, 1918”,
De Stijl 1, 1: 2–5.
van Doesburg, Theo et al. 1922. “Konstructivistische Internationale beeldende Arbeidsgemeen-
schap”, De Stijl 5, 8: 113–119.
von Ebeneth, Lajos. 1926. “Doel der ismen” [The aim of isms], Het Woord 4: n.p.
Eemans, Marc. 1925a. “Over konstruktivisme als nieuwe kunst” [On Constructivism as new
art], De Driehoek 4: n.p.
Eemans, Marc. 1925b. “Vers une synthèse esthétique et sociale”, 7 Arts 3, 16: n.p.
van Eesteren, Cornelis. 1930. “Funkcja–przestrzeń–forma” [Function–space–form], Praesens
2: 94–95.
Eiger, Antoni. 1931. “Cement en beton in Polen” [Cement and concrete in Poland], Het Bouw-
bedrijf 8, 26: 354–357.
Flouquet, Pierre. 1930. “Panorama malarstwa współczesnego” [A panorama of contemporary
painting], Praesens 2: 126–129.
References 119
Gleizes, Albert. 1927. Posłannictwo twórcze człowieka w dziedzinie plastyki [Man’s mission
in the field of visual arts]. (Translated by Stanisław Baczyński.) Warszawa: Zakłady Drukarskie
F. Wyszyńskiego i S-ki.
Goriély, Benjamin. 1925a. “Lettres étrangères. Anatol Stern le poète polonais”, 7 Arts 4, 6: n.p.
Goriély, Benjamin. 1925b. “Europe d’Anatol Stern”, 7 Arts 4, 6: n.p.
Gorin, Jean. 1930. “La fonction plastique dans l’architecture future”, Cercle et Carré 3: n.p.
Gotlib, Henryk. 1923. “Droga” [Road], Zwrotnica 5: 141.
Gräff, Werner. 1922. “Für das Neue”, De Stijl 5, 5: 74–75.
Greenberg, Clement. 1939. “Avant-garde and kitsch”, Partisan Review 6, 5: 34–49.
van Hardeveld, Johannes M. 1925. “Is bouwkunst internationaal?” [Is architecture interna-
tional?], De Driehoek 8/9: n.p.
Hélion, Jean. 1930. “Les problèmes de l’art concret. Art et mathématiques”, Art Concret: 5–10.
H[envaux], E[mile]. 1924. “Publicité et urbanisme”, 7 Arts 3, 6: n.p.
H[envaux], E[mile]. 1925. “Esthétique et cité industrielle”, 7 Arts 3, 10: n.p.
de Horion, Constant. 1925. “Wladyslas Reymont, lauréat du Prix Nobel”, Anthologie du
Groupe Moderne d’Art de Liège 5, 3/4: 1.
Hoste, Huib. 1925. “Driehoek-manifest voor bouwkunst” [Architectural manifesto of De Drie-
hoek], De Driehoek 8/9: n.p.
[Jankowski, Józef et al. (ed.)]. 1931. “Dom żelbetowy arch. L.H. de Koninck” [Ferro-concrete
house by architect L.H. de Koninck], Dom, Osiedle, Mieszkanie 3, 2: 31.
[Jankowski, Józef et al. (ed.)]. 1932. “Kronika. Hendrik Petrus Berlage” [Chronicles. Hendrik
Petrus Berlage], Dom, Osiedle, Mieszkanie 4, 5: 19–21.
Jasieński, Bruno. 1923. “Futuryzm polski (bilans)” [Polish Futurism (summary)], Zwrotnica 6:
177–184.
Jasieński, Bruno. 1933. Ik verbrand Parijs [I burn Paris]. (Translated by S. van Praag.) Amster-
dam: De Gulden Ster.
Jasinski, Stanislas. 1924/1925. “Economie”, 7 Arts 3, 7–10: n.p.
Kajruksztis Witold and Władysław Strzemiński (eds.). 1923. Katalog Wystawy Nowej Sztuki
[Catalogue of the Exhibition of the New Art]. Wilno: Lux.
Kahn, Gustave. 1896. “L’Art social et l’art pour l’art”, La Revue blanche 11: 416–423.
Kallai, Ernst. 1923. “Konstructivisme” [Constructivism], Het Overzicht 17: 80.
Kassák, Ludwig. 1923. “Rekenschap” [Accounting], Het Overzicht 16: 70–71.
Kiesler, Frederick et al. 1925. “Appel de protestation”, De Stijl 6, 10/11: 149–150.
Kobro, Katarzyna. 1929. “Uwagi. Ankieta Europy. Rzeźba i bryła” [Remarks. The survey of
Europa. Sculpture and volume], Europa 2: 60.
Kobro, Katarzyna. 1933. “L’action de sculpteur . . .”, Abstraction-Création 2: 27.
Kobro, Katarzyna. 1935. “Funkcjonalizm” [Functionalism], Forma 4: 9–13.
Kobro, Katarzyna and Władysław Strzemiński. 1931. Kompozycja przestrzeni, Obliczenia rytmu
czasoprzestrzennego [The composition of space: the calculation of the rhythm of time and
space]. Łódź: Drukarnia Polska.
[Kobro, Katarzyna et al.]. 1930a. Komunikat grupy ‘a.r.’ no 1 [Bulletin of the ‘a.r.’ group no 1].
Łódź: n.d.
[Kobro, Katarzyna et al.]. 1930b. “Komunikat grupy ‘a.r.’ Nr. 1” [Bulletin of the ‘a.r.’ group
nr. 1], Europa 9: 287–288.
[Kobro, Katarzyna et al.]. 1932. Komunikat grupy ‘a.r.’ 2 [Bulletin of the ‘a.r.’ group 2]. Łódź:
Drukarnia Polska.
Kok, Anthony. 1919. “Kunst en ontroering” [Art and emotion], De Stijl 3, 2: 21–23.
Korngold, Syriusz. 1927. “Les éléments du dessin . . .”, Documents Internationaux de l’Esprit
Nouveau 1: n.p.
Kunzek, Henryk. 1925. “Kilka uwag o Wystawie Sztuki Dekoracyjnej w Paryżu” [Some notes
on the Exhibition of Decorative Art in Paris], Architekt 20, 5: 1–24.
120 References
Kurek, Jalu. 1929. Manifest poetycki o Rzeczypospolitej. Poeci na front. Śpiewajcie o Rzeczy-
pospolitej. Społeczeństwo czeka na wasze usta [Poetic manifesto on the Polish Republic. Poets
to the front. Sing about the Polish Republic. The society awaits your words]. Kraków: Głos
Narodu.
Kurek, Jalu. 1930a. “Zmierzch natchnienia” [The dusk of afflation], Europa 7: 207–210.
Kurek, Jalu. 1930b. “Estetyka ładu” [The aesthetics of order], Europa 8: 245–246.
Kurek, Jalu. 1937. Griep woedt in Naprawa [The influenza rages in Naprawa]. (Translated by
H. Katzee.) ’s-Gravenhage: Uitgever J. Philip Kruseman.
L[auterbach], A[lfred]. 1926. “Tanie mieszkania w Holandji” [Low-cost houses in the Nether-
lands], Architektura i Budownictwo 1, 4: 31–33.
van der Leck, Bart. 1917. “De plaats van het moderne schilderen in de architectuur” [The place
of modern painting in architecture], De Stijl 1, 1: 6–7.
van der Leck, Bart. 1918. “Over schilderij en bouwen” [On painting and building], De Stijl
1, 4: 37–38.
Limperg, Koen. 1934. “Organizacje architektoniczne w Holandji” [Architectural organisations
in the Netherlands], Architektura i Budownictwo 10, 6: 200.
Linze, Georges. 1924. “Słowo o nowej sztuce” [A word on the new art], Blok 6/7: n.p.
Linze, Georges. 1925. “Słowo o nowej sztuce” [A word on the new art], Anthologie du Groupe
Moderne d’Art de Liège 5, 3/4: 2.
Lissitzky, El. 1922. Pro dva kvadrata. Suprematicheskii skaz v 6-ti postroikakh [Of two squares:
A Suprematist tale in 6 constructions]. Berlin: Skify.
Lissitzky, El and Eli Ehrenburg. 1922. “Deklaration an den ersten Kongress Fortschrittlicher
Künstler, Düsseldorf”, De Stijl 5, 6: 56–57.
Lubiński, Piotr. 1930. “Współczesna architektura holenderska” [Contemporary Dutch archi-
tecture], Architektura i Budownictwo 6, 1–7: 57–66, 99–113, 193–200, 228–239, 259–272.
Lubiński, Piotr. 1934. “H. P. Berlage”, Architektura i Budownictwo 10, 11: 360–361.
Mahler, Władysław. 1924. “Szanowny Panie Redaktorze!” [Dear Editor!], Blok 6/7: n.p.
Malewicz, Kazimierz. 1924. “O sztuce” [On art], Blok 2, 3/4, 8/9: n.p.
Malewicz, Kazimierz. 1926. “Świat jako bezprzedmiotowość/L’Univers conçu sans objet”,
Praesens 1: 1–2, 34–40.
Meller, P. 1926. “Nowoczesna architektura holenderska” [Modern Dutch architecture], Blok
11: n.p.
Mesens, Cornelis Nelly [= van Doesburg, Theo]. 1923 [= 1924]. “. . . waar de maes K en Scheld-
woorden vloeien . . .”, Mécano 4/5: n.p.
Miller, Edmund. 1924a. “2 bieguny” [2 poles], Blok 3/4: n.p.
Miller, Edmund. 1924b. “Rola ekonomji w twórczości” [The role of economics in art], Blok
3/4: n.p.
Miller, Jan N. 1921. “Harmonja dźwie˛kowa w poezji najnowszej” [Sound harmony in recent
theory], Ponowa 3: 179–190.
Miller, Jan N. 1922. “Poezja znakowania (Przestankowanie jako sztuka)” [Poetry of marking
(Punctuation as art)], Ponowa 5: 407–417.
Mondrian, Piet. 1917/1918. “De nieuwe beelding in de schilderkunst” [Neoplasticism in paint-
ing], De Stijl 1, 1–12: 2–6, 13–18, 29–31, 41–45, 49–54, 73–77, 88–91, 102–108, 121–124,
125–134, 140–147.
Mondrian, Piet. 1919. “Dialoog over de nieuwe beelding” [Dialogue on neoplasticism], De Stijl
2, 4–5: 37–39, 49–53.
Mondrian, Piet. 1919/1920. “Natuurlijke en abstracte realiteit” [Natural and abstract reality],
De Stijl 2, 8–12: 85–89, 97–99, 109–113, 121–125, 133–137; 3, 2–10: 15–19, 27–31, 41–44,
53–56, 58–60, 65–69, 73–76, 81–84.
Mondrian, Piet. 1920 [= 1921a]. Le Néo-plasticisme. Principe général de l’equivalence plastique.
Paris: Editions de l’Effort Moderne.
References 121
Mondrian, Piet. 1921b. “Le Néo-plasticisme (Principe général de l’équivalence plastique)”,
De Stijl 4, 2: 18–23.
Mondrian, Piet. 1921c. “De ‘Bruiteurs Futuristes Italiens’ en ‘het’ nieuwe in de muziek” [The
‘Bruiteurs Futuristes Italiens’ and ‘the’ new in music], De Stijl 4, 8–9: 114–118, 130–136.
Mondrian, Piet. 1922a. “Het neo-plasticisme (de nieuwe beelding) en zijn (hare) realiseering
in de muziek” [Neoplasticism and its implementation in music], De Stijl 5, 1–2: 1–7, 17–23.
Mondrian, Piet. 1922b. “De realiseering van het neo-plasticisme in verre toekomst en in de
huidige architectuur” [The implementation of Neoplasticism in far future and in current
architecture], De Stijl 5, 3–5: 41–47, 65–71.
Mondrian, Piet. 1923. “Moet de schilderkunst minderwaardig zijn aan de bouwkunst?” [Does
painting need to remain inferior to architecture?], De Stijl 6, 5: 62–64.
Mondrian, Piet. 1927. “Neo-plasticisme. De woning–de straat–de stad” [Neoplasticism. House–
street–city], Internationale Revue i10 1, 12: 421–427.
Mondrian, Piet. 1929. “Nowa plastyka” [Neoplasticism], Europa 3: 90–91.
Mondrian, Piet. 1930a. “Neo-plastycyzm”, Praesens 2: 122–123.
Mondrian, Piet. 1930b. “L’art réaliste et l’art superréaliste (La morphoplastique et la néoplas-
tique)”, Cercle et Carré 2: n.p.
Mondrian, Piet. 1932. “La néo-plastique”, Abstraction-Création 1: 25.
Mondrian, Piet. 1933. “L’efficacité artistique . . .”, Abstraction-Création 2: 31.
Mondrian, Piet. 1934. “Qu’est-ce que je veux exprimer par mon œuvre?”, Abstraction-Création
3: 33.
Mondrian, Piet and Michel Seuphor. 1929a. “Obrazová báseň ‘Tableau poème’ ou ‘Manuscript
illustré’ Bildgedicht (1928)”, ReD 2, 7: 223.
Mondrian, Piet and Michel Seuphor. 1929b. “Tableau poème”, L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka
Współczesna 1: 31.
[Müller-Lehning, Artur (ed.)]. 1927. “Medewerkers” [Contributors], Internationale Revue i10
1: n.p.
[Müller-Lehning, Artur (ed.)]. 1929. “Medewerkers” [Contributors], Internationale Revue i10
19: n.p.
Niemojewski, Lech. 1927. “Na marginesie programów modernistycznych” [On the margins
of modernist programs], Architektura i Budownictwo 3, 7: 195–207.
van Ostaijen, Paul. 1925. “Le renouveau lyrique en Belgique. Un débat littéraire”, 7 Arts 4, 5: n.p.
van Ostaijen, Paul; Oscar Jespers and René Victor. 1921. Bezette Stad [Occupied city]. Antwer-
pen: Het Sienjaal.
Otlet, Paul. 1929. “Osiedle światowe [The world settlement], Europa 2: 33–35.
Oud, J.J.P. 1917. “Het monumentale stadsbeeld” [The monumental townscape], De Stijl 1, 1:
10–11.
Oud, J.J.P. 1918. “Kunst en machine” [Art and machine], De Stijl 1, 3: 25–27.
Oud, J.J.P. 1919a. “Architectonische beschouwing” [Architectural consideration], De Stijl
2, 7: 79–84.
Oud, J.J.P. 1919b. “Orientatie” [Orientation], De Stijl 3, 2: 13–15.
Oud, J.J.P. 1921. “Over de toekomstige bouwkunst en hare architectonische mogelijkheden”
[On future architecture and its possibilities], Bouwkundig Weekblad 42, 24: 147–160.
Oud, J.J.P. 1922. “Bouwkunst en kubisme” [Architecture and Cubism], De Bouwwereld
21, 32: 245.
Oud, J.J.P. 1925. “Ja und Nein. Bekenntnisse eines Architekten”, Bouwkundig Weekblad
46, 35: 431.
Oud, J.J.P. 1926. “Wychowanie przez architekture˛” [Education through architecture], Praesens
1: 4–5.
Oud, J.J.P. [1926] 1929. Holländische Architektur. Bauhausbücher 10. München: Albert
Langen.
122 References
Oud, J.J.P. 1927. “Aangepast bij de omgeving” [Fitted in the surrounding], Internationale Revue
i10 1, 10: 349–350.
Oud, J.J.P. 1930. “Myśli” [Thoughts], Praesens 2: 87–89.
Oud, J.J.P. 1933. “Wpływ Frank Lloyd Wright’a na architekture˛ europejska˛” [The influence of
Frank Lloyd Wright on European architecture], Architektura i Budownictwo 9, 6: 188–189.
Ozenfant, Amédée and Charles-Edouard Jeanneret. 1921. “Le Purisme”, L’Esprit Nouveau 4:
369–386.
Peeters, Jozef. 1921. “Gemeenschapskunst” [Gesamtkunstwerk], Het Overzicht 9/10: 79–80.
Peeters, Jozef. 1922. “Inleiding tot de moderne plastiek” [Introduction to modern art],
Het Overzicht 11/12: 91–96.
Peeters, Jozef. 1923a. “Indrukken uit Berlijn” [Impressions from Berlin], Het Overzicht 16:
58–60.
Peeters, Jozef. 1923b. “Antwoord op ±1000 aanvallen” [Response to ±1000 attacks],
Het Overzicht 17: 92–93.
Peeters, Jozef. 1923c. “Konstruktieve graphiek” [Constructive graphics], Het Overzicht 18/19:
111–114.
Peeters, Jozef. 1923d. “Kathéchéô aan den kunstliefhebber” [Catechism of an art-lover],
Het Overzicht 18/19: 105.
Peeters, Jozef. 1925a. “Over kunst” [On art], De Driehoek 1: n.p.
Peeters, Jozef. 1925b. “Driehoek-manifest voor schilderkunst” [Driehoek’s manifesto for Paint-
ing], De Driehoek 7: n.p.
Peeters, Jozef. 1925c. “Boekbesprekingen. L’art et son avenir par G. van Tongerloo. Uitgave
‘De Sikkel’” [Book reviews. L’art et son avenir by G. van Tongerloo. Edition ‘De Sikkel’],
Het Overzicht 22/23/24: 169.
Peiper, Tadeusz. 1922a. “Punkt wyjścia” [The point of departure], Zwrotnica 1: 3–4.
Peiper, Tadeusz. 1922b. “Miasto. Masa. Maszyna” [Metropolis. Mass. Machine], Zwrotnica
2: 23–31.
Peiper, Tadeusz. 1922c. “La ville. La foulle. La machine”, La Vie des Lettres et des Arts 13: n.p.
Peiper, Tadeusz. 1922d. “Metafora teraźniejszości” [The metaphor of nowness], Zwrotnica 3:
51–55.
Peiper, Tadeusz. 1923a. “Odpowiedzi” [Responses], Zwrotnica 4: 90–93.
Peiper, Tadeusz. 1923b. “Futuryzm (analiza i krytyka)” [Futurism (analysis and critique)],
[Peiper, Tadeusz (ed.)]. 1923c. “Zagranica a my” [Foreign countries and us], Zwrotnica 5: 156.
Peiper, Tadeusz. 1924a. A. Kraków: Zwrotnica.
Peiper, Tadeusz. 1924b. Żywe linje [Living lines]. Kraków: Zwrotnica.
Peiper, Tadeusz. 1925. Nowe usta. Odczyt o poezji [New lips. A lecture on poetry]. Lwów:
Towarzystwo Wydawnicze Ateneum.
Peiper, Tadeusz. 1926a. “Także inaczej” [Thus otherwise], Zwrotnica 7: 198–199.
Peiper, Tadeusz. 1926b. “Gazeta Literacka. Uniwersalizm” [Gazeta Literacka. Universalism],
Peiper, Tadeusz. 1927a. “Sztuka dla wtajemniczonych?” [Art for insiders only?], Zwrotnica
11: 246.
Peiper, Tadeusz. 1927b. “W Bauhausie” [At Bauhaus], Zwrotnica 12: 255–256.
[Peiper, Tadeusz (ed.)]. 1927c. “Stosunek do zagranicy” [Approach to foreign countries], Zwrot-
nica 12: 263.
[Peiper, Tadeusz (ed.)]. 1927d. “Drogi do zagranicy” [The way abroad], Zwrotnica 12: 264.
[Peiper, Tadeusz (ed.)]. 1927e. “Malewicz w Polsce” [Malevich in Poland], Zwrotnica
11: 239.
Peiper, Tadeusz. 1929a. “Droga rymu” [The road of rhyme], Przegla˛d Współczesny 91:
247–264.
Peiper, Tadeusz. 1929b. “Rytm nowoczesny” [Modern rhythm], Kwadryga 3/4: n.p.
References 123
Piotrowski, Roman. 1930. “Przyczynek do sprawy mieszkaniowej w Polsce”, Praesens 2: 77–81.
Pologne [= Szczuka, Mieczysław and Teresa Żarnower (eds.)]. 1925. “Qu’est-ce que le ‘Con-
structivisme’”, Anthologie du Groupe Moderne d’Art de Liège 5, 3/4: 6–7.
Pronaszko, Andrzej. 1930a. “Barwa, architektura, obraz” [Colour, architecture, image], Prae-
sens 2: 103–105.
Pronaszko, Andrzej. 1930b. “Mariage des contrastes”, Praesens 2: 106.
Przyboś, Julian. 1925. Śruby [Screws]. Kraków: Zwrotnica.
Przyboś, Julian. 1926. “Człowiek w rzeczach” [Man in things], Zwrotnica 8: 210.
Przyboś, Julian. 1927. “Idea rygoru” [The idea of rigour], Zwrotnica 12: 252–253.
Przyboś, Julian. 1931. “Kataryniarze i strofkarze” [Organ-grinders and verse-writers], Linia 1:
10–14.
Przyboś, Julian and Władysław Strzemiński. 1930. Z ponad [From above]. Cieszyn: Zakłady
Drukarskie i Wydawnicze Karola Prochaski.
Red. [= Szczuka, Mieczysław and Teresa Żarnower (eds.)]. 1924a. “Drukarstwo. O układzie
graficznym” [Printing. On graphic layout], Blok 5: 11.
Red. [= Szczuka, Mieczysław and Teresa Żarnower (eds.)]. 1924b. “Co to jest konstruktywizm”
[What is Constructivism], Blok 6/7: n.p.
Redakcja [= Szczuka, Mieczysław (ed.)]. 1927. “Zadaniem ‘Dźwigni’ jest . . .” [The task of ‘Dźwig-
nia’ is to . . .], Dźwignia 1: 1.
Richter, Hans. 1922. “Erklärung vor dem Kongress der Internationale Fortschrittlicher Künstler
Düsseldorf”, De Stijl 5, 6: 57–59.
Rietveld, Gerrit. 1927. “Nut: constructive (schoonheid: kunst)” [Utility: construction (beauty:
art)], Internationale Revue i10 1, 3: 89–93.
Rietveld, Gerrit. 1928. “Inzicht” [Insight], Internationale Revue i10 2, 17/18: 89–90.
Rietveld, Gerrit. 1937. “Indrukken op de Parijsche tentoonstelling” [Impressions from the Pari-
sian exhibition], de 8 en Opbouw 8, 18/19: 176–182.
Rosenberg, Léonce. 1920. “Parlons peinture”, De Stijl 3, 12: 97–98.
Servranckx, Victor. 1926. “Za najważniejsze zadanie artysty . . .”, Blok 11: n.p.
Seuphor, Michel. 1929a. “Sardaigne/Sardynja”, L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna 1: 31.
Seuphor, Michel. 1929b. “Filozofia aktualności” [The philosophy of the present], L’Art Con-
temporain – Sztuka Współczesna 1: 31.
Seuphor, Michel. 1930a. “Pour la défense d’une architecture”, Cercle et Carré 1: n.p.
Seuphor, Michel. 1930b. “Textuel”, Cercle et Carré 2: n.p.
Seuphor, Michel. 1930c. “Poétique nouvelle”, Cercle et Carré 3: n.p.
Seuphor, Michel. 1930d. “Spokój wód” [Peace of waters], L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współ-
czesna 2: 69.
Seuphor, Michel. 1930e. “Coeur tendre”, L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna 3: 103.
Seuphor, Michel. 1932. “L’art nouveau et le surréalisme”, Abstraction-Création 1: 11.
Seuphor, Michel [and Piet Mondrian]. 1930. “Textuel”, Praesens 2: 168.
[Seuphor, Michel and Joaquín Torres-García (eds.)]. 1930a. “Vient de paraître”, Cercle et Carré
3: n.p.
[Seuphor, Michel and Joaquín Torres-García (eds.)]. 1930b. “La revue ‘Europa’ de Varsovie”,
Cercle et Carré 3: n.p.
[Seuphor, Michel and Joaquín Torres-García (eds.)]. 1930c. “Catalogue de l’exposition orga-
nisée par le groupe ‘Cercle et Carré’”, Cercle et Carré 2: n.p.
Sijmons, Karel Lodewijk. 1936. “Gang-woningen in het buitenland” [Gallery houses abroad],
de 8 en Opbouw 7, 19: 229.
Stam, Mart. 1937. “Mogelijke en onmogelijke krullen op de Expo 1937” [Possible and impos-
sible twists during the Expo 1937], de 8 en Opbouw, 8, 18/19: 169–175.
Stażewski, Henryk. 1924. “O sztuce abstrakcyjnej” [On abstract art], Blok 8/9: n.p.
Stażewski, Henryk. 1925. “L’Art abstrait”, Anthologie du Groupe Moderne d’Art de Liège
5, 3/4: 7.
124 References
Stażewski, Henryk. 1926a. “Styl współczesności” [The contemporary style], Praesens 1: 2–3.
Stażewski, Henryk. 1926b. “L’art de nos jours”, Praesens 1: 16.
Stażewski, Henryk. 1929. “Sztuki plastyczne jako streszczenie życia kulturalnego” [Visual arts
as summary of cultural life], Europa 3: 87–88.
Stażewski, Henryk. 1930. “L’homme nouveau . . .”, Cercle et Carré 1: n.p.
Stażewski, Henryk. 1932. “L’art plastique comme résumé de la vie culturelle”, Abstraction-
Création 1: 34.
Stażewski, Henryk. 1933a. “Ni le classicisme . . .”, Abstraction-Création 2: 39.
Stażewski, Henryk. 1933b. “ ‘Epigoni modernizmu’ i krytycy-rutyniści” [‘The epigones of mod-
ernism’ and routinist critics], Wiadomości Literackie 10, 32: 4.
[Stażewski, Henryk et al. (eds.)]. 1924a. “Likwidujemy ostatecznie . . . / Nous faisons disparaître
définitivement . . .”, Blok 1: n.p.
[Stażewski, Henryk et al. (eds.)]. 1924b. “Właściwe rzeczy na właściwym miejscu” [Proper things
in proper place], Blok 1: n.p.
[Stażewski, Henryk et al. (eds.)]. 1924c. “Ku płaskości w malarstwie” [Towards flatness in
painting], Blok 1: n.p.
[Stażewski, Henryk et al. (eds.)]. 1924d. “Odczuwa sie˛ w całokształcie życia . . .” [In the totality
of life one feels . . .], Blok 1: n.p.
[Stażewski, Henryk et al. (eds.)]. 1924e. “Blok reprezentuje ludzi . . .” [Blok represents peo-
ple . . .], Blok 2: n.p.
[Stażewski, Henryk et al. (eds.)]. 1924f. “Artysta tworza˛c działa bezinteresownie . . .” [While
creating the artist remains neutral . . .], Blok 2: n.p.
[Stażewski, Henryk et al. (eds.)]. 1924g. “Od krytyka wymaga sie˛ . . .” [One requires from the
critic to be . . .], Blok 2: n.p.
Stern, Anatol and Mieczysław Szczuka. 1929. Europa [Europe]. Warszawa: Ksie˛garnia
F. Hoesicka.
Stern, Anatol and Mieczysław Szczuka. 1982. Europa. Omslag en boekverzorging: Piet Gerards/
AAP [Europe. Cover and edition: Piet Gerards/AAP]. Maastricht: Uitgeverij AAP.
Struszkiewicz, Jerzy. 1929. “Ze świata” [From the world], Architekt 22, 5: 15–16.
Strzemiński, Władysław. 1922/1923. “O sztuce rosyjskiej notatki” [Notes on Russian art],
Zwrotnica 3–4: 79–82, 110–114.
Strzemiński, Władysław. 1923a. “Określam sztuke˛ jako . . .” [I describe art as . . .], Katalog
Wystawy Nowej Sztuki. Wilno: Lux, 19–21.
Strzemiński, Władysław. 1923b. “Wystawa Nowej Sztuki w Wilnie” [Exhibition of New Art in
Vilnius], Zwrotnica 6: 193.
Strzemiński, Władysław. 1924a. “To, co sie˛ prawnie nazywa nowa˛ sztuka˛ . . .” [What is right-
fully called art . . .], Blok 2: n.p.
Strzemiński, Władysław. 1924b. “B=2”, Blok 8/9: n.p.
Strzemiński, Władysław. 1927a. “Notatki” [Notes], Zwrotnica 11: 243.
Strzemiński, Władysław. 1927b. “Malarstwo doby ostatniej” [Recent painting], Zwrotnica 11:
248–249.
Strzemiński, Władysław. 1927c. “Dualizm i unizm” [Duality and Unism], Droga 6/7: 211–225.
Strzemiński, Władysław. 1928a. Unizm w malarstwie [Unism in painting]. Warszawa: Praesens.
Strzemiński, Władysław. 1928b. “Nasza wystawa . . .” [Our exhibition . . .], Almanach. Kata-
log. Salon modernistów. Warszawa: Drukarnia Robotnik, 1–2.
Strzemiński, Władysław. 1928c. “Architektura współczesna na tle wystawy Stowarzyszenia
Architektów Polskich” [Modern architecture in view of the exhibition of Society of Polish
Architects], Wiek XX 13: 4–5.
Strzemiński, Władysław. 1929a. “Bilans modernizmu” [An account of modernism], Europa
1bis: 22–24.
Strzemiński, Władysław. 1929b. “Snobizm a modernizm” [Snobism and modernism], Europa
3: 88–90.
References 125
Strzemiński, Władysław. 1930. “Dramatyzm i architektonizm” [Dramatism and architecto-
nism], L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna 3: 93.
Strzemiński, Władysław. 1931. “Zasady nowej architektury” [Principles of new architecture],
Linia 3: 68–69.
Strzemiński, Władysław. 1932a. “Là, où il y a une division, le tableau est coupé en parties”,
Abstraction-Création 1: 35.
Strzemiński, Władysław (ed.). 1932b. Mie˛dzynarodowa Kolekcja Sztuki Nowoczesnej/
Collection Internationale d’Art Nouveau. Katalog nr. 2. Łódź: Drukarnia Polska Ludomira
Mazurkiewicza i S-ki.
Strzemiński, Władysław. 1933. “En peignant le nu . . .”, Abstraction-Création 2: 40.
Strzemiński, Władysław. 1934. “Sztuka nowoczesna w Polsce” [Modern art in Poland], in: Jan
Brze˛kowski et al. O sztuce nowoczesnej. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Towarzystwa Bibliofilów w
Łodzi, 59–93.
Strzemiński, Władysław. 1975. Pisma. Zebrała, opracowała i komentarzem opatrzyła Zofia
Baranowicz [Writings. Selected, edited and commented by Zofia Baranowicz]. Wrocław:
Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.
Strzemiński, Władysław and Szymon Syrkus. 1928. “Teraźniejszość w architekturze i malar-
stwie” [Nowness in architecture and painting], Przegla˛d Artystyczny 4: 5–8.
van der Swaelmen, Louis. 1926. “Opinions autour de l’architecture moderne”, 7 Arts 4, 17: n.p.
Syrkus, Helena and Szymon Syrkus. 1930. “O teatrze symultanicznym” [On simultaneous the-
atre], Praesens 2: 141–152.
Syrkus, Szymon. 1926a. “Preliminarz architektury” [Preliminaries of architecture], Praesens 1:
6–16.
Syrkus, Szymon. 1926b. “L’Homme c’est l’animal qui a crée (sic) la mathématique”, Praesens
1: 33–34.
Syrkus, Szymon. 1927, “L’Architecture ouvrant le volume”, Internationale Revue i10 1, 5:
163–165.
Syrkus, Szymon. 1930. “Tempo architektury/Le dynamisme de l’architecture moderne”, Prae-
sens 2: 3–45.
Syrkus. Szymon. 1931. “Charakterystyczna˛ cecha˛ architektury współczesnej jest . . .” [Contem-
porary architecture is characterised by . . .], Dom, Osiedle, Mieszkanie 3, 6: 14.
Syrkus, Szymon. 1934 “Het nieuwe bouwen in Polen. De buitenmuur” [Modern building in
Poland. The exterior wall], de 8 en Opbouw 5, 13: 105–110.
Syrkus, Szymon and Helena Syrkus. 1935. “De l’architecture et de la production des habitations
ouvrières”, L’Équerre 7, 7–8: 1–3, 1–6.
Syrkus, Szymon and Helena Syrkus. 1938. “La généalogie de l’architecture fonctionnelle”,
L’Équerre 10, 5: 10–13.
[Syrkus, Szymon, Andrzej Pronaszko and Helena Syrkus (eds.)]. 1930a. “Ksia˛żki nadesłane
1927–1930” [Books received 1927–1930], Praesens 2: 191–197.
[Syrkus, Szymon, Andrzej Pronaszko and Helena Syrkus (eds.)]. 1930b. “Czasopisma zagra-
niczne” [Foreign magazines], Praesens 2: 198–199.
Szczuka, Mieczysław. 1923. “Reakcja otoczenia” [The reaction of the surroundings], Zwrotnica
4: 104–106.
Szczuka, Mieczysław. 1924a. “Próba wyjaśnienia nieporozumień wynikaja˛cych ze stosunku
do Nowej Sztuki” [An attempt to clarify the misunderstandings resulting from the attitude
towards the New Art], Blok 2: n.p.
Szczuka, Mieczysław. 1924b. “3 przykłady zagadnień czysto konstrukcyjnych” [3 examples of
purely constructive issues], Blok 5: 8.
Szczuka, Mieczysław. 1924c. “Ruch artystyczny w Polsce” [Artistic movement in Poland],
Pásmo 4: 1.
[Szczuka, Mieczysław]. 1924d. “!Zur Beachtung! der Zeitschriften der Avangarde!!”,
Blok 6/7: n.p.
126 References
Szczuka, Mieczysław. 1925. “Le mouvement artistique en Pologne”, Anthologie du Groupe
Moderne d’Art de Liège 5, 3/4: 4–5.
[Szczuka, Mieczysław and Teresa Żarnower (eds.)]. 1924a. “O propagandzie sztuki polskiej
zagranica˛” [On the propaganda of Polish art abroad], Blok 6/7: n.p.
[Szczuka, Mieczysław and Teresa Żarnower (eds.)]. 1924b. “Fotomontaż” [Photomontage],
Blok 8/9: n.p.
[Szczuka, Mieczysław and Teresa Żarnower (eds.)]. 1924c. “Architektura wne˛trz” [Interior
architecture], Blok 8/9: n.p.
[Szczuka, Mieczysław and Teresa Żarnower (eds.)]. 1924d. “Należy wynajdywać takie systemy
konstrukcyjne . . .” [One should find such construction systems . . .], Blok 8/9: n.p.
[Szczuka, Mieczysław and Teresa Żarnower (eds.)]. 1925a. “Czy sztuka dekoracyjna?” [Whether
decorative art?], Blok 10: n.p.
[Szczuka, Mieczysław and Teresa Żarnower (eds.)]. 1925b. “Linia nowego stylu . . .” [The line
of the new style], Blok 10: n.p.
[Szyszko-Bohusz, Adolf (ed.)]. 1926. “Nowe pra˛dy w architekturze” [New currents in architec-
ture], Architekt 21, 1: 1–6.
Tołwiński, Stanisław. 1937. “5eme Congrès International d’Architecture Moderne ‘Logis et
Loisirs’”, L’Équerre 9, 7: 2–3.
Torres-García, Joaquín. 1930. “Vouloir construire”, Cercle et Carré 1: n.p.
Treter, Mieczysław (ed.). 1929. Poolsche kunst [Polish art]. Amsterdam: Stedelijk Museum.
Vantongerloo, Georges. 1918/1920. “Réflexions”, De Stijl 1, 9: 97–102; 2, 2–8: 21–22, 35–36,
55–57, 77–79, 89–91; 3, 2–4: 19–21, 31–32, 21–24.
Vantongerloo, Georges. 1924. L’Art et son avenir. Antwerp: De Sikkel.
Vantongerloo, Georges. 1927a. “Principe d’unité”, Internationale Revue i10 1, 3: 94–96.
Vantongerloo, Georges. 1927b. “Réflexions sur l’existence absolue des choses”, Internationale
Revue i10 1, 10–11: 351–356, 387–392.
Vantongerloo, Georges. 1929. “Ankieta Europy” [The survey of Europa], Europa 3: 87.
Vantongerloo, Georges. 1930. “Plastique d’art (S=L2 V=L3)”, Cercle et Carré 2: n.p.
Vantongerloo, Georges. 1932. “Préliminaire axiome”, Abstraction-Création 1: 40–41.
Vantongerloo, Georges. 1933. “Sont compris dans l’art plastique”, Abstraction-Création 2:
43–46.
Vantongerloo, Georges. 1935. “Evolution”, Abstraction-Création 4: 30–32.
Vantongerloo, Georges. 1936. “Réflexion”, Abstraction-Création 5: 27–28.
van de Velde, Henry. 1926. “Le style moderne”, Blok 11: n.p.
Werrie, Paul. 1926. “Harangue en souvenir d’une Fondation”, 7 Arts 4, 21: n.p.
Werrie, Paul. 1927. “Poésie et révolution. Sur le sens du mot ‘révolution’”, 7 Arts 5, 14: n.p.
Wils, Jan. 1918. “Symmetrie en kultuur” [Symmetry and culture], De Stijl 1, 12: 137–140.
[Wóycicki, Zygmunt (ed.)]. 1928. “Technika budowy serjami domów w Holandji” [The technol-
ogy of serial construction of houses in the Netherlands], Architektura i Budownictwo 4, 1: 27.
Zahorska, Stefanja. 1926a. “Krytyka wobec modernizmu” [Critique on modernism], Praesens
1: 41–42.
Zahorska, Stefania. 1926b. “Mie˛dzynarodowa Wystawa Architektury w Warszawie” [Interna-
tional Architectural Exhbition in Warsaw], Architekt 21, 5: 1–17.
Artists’ Memoirs
Berlewi, Henryk. 1957 “Nieco o dawnej awangardzie” [On the historical avant-garde in brief],
Życie Literackie 27: 5–7.
Berlewi, Henryk. 1961. Funktionelle Grafik der zwanziger Jahre in Polen/Functional Design of
the Twenties in Poland. Schweiz: Verlag Otto Walter Olten.
Brze˛kowski, Jan. 1966. Wyobraźnia wyzwolona. Szkice i wspomnienia [The liberated imagina-
tion. Essays and memories]. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Literackie.
References 127
Brze˛kowski, Jan. 1967. “Wspomnienie o awangardzie” [Memories of the avant-garde], Życie
Literackie 1: 8.
Brze˛kowski, Jan. 1968. W Krakowie i w Paryżu [In Krakow and in Paris]. Warszawa: Państwowy
Instytut Wydawniczy.
Brze˛kowski, Jan. 1971. “Garść wspomnień o powstaniu łódzkiej kolekcji sztuki nowoczesnej
i o grupie ‘a.r.’” [A handful of memories regarding the formation of the Łódź collection
of modern art and the ‘a.r.’ group], in: Ryszard Stanisławski (ed.). Grupa ‘a.r.’. 40-lecie
Mie˛dzynarodowej Kolekcji Sztuki Nowoczesnej w Łodzi. Łódź: Muzeum Sztuki, 9–21.
Brze˛kowski, Jan. 1978. Szkice literackie i artystyczne 1925–1970 [Literary and artistic essays
1925–1970]. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Literackie.
Brze˛kowski, Jan. 1984. “Les mouvements d’avant-garde en Pologne dans les années vingt”,
ICSAC cahier 2/3: 41–49.
Seuphor, Michel. 1971. Cercle et carré. Paris: Belfond.
Seuphor, Michel. 1976. “Rétrospection”, in: Het Overzicht. Collection complète 1921–1925.
Anvers: Fonds Mercator – Editions Jean-Michel Place, n.p.
Seuphor, Michel. 1990. Cercle et Carré: thoughts for the 1930’s, painting, sculpture, architec-
ture, theatre. New York: Rachel Adler Gallery.
Seuphor, Michel and Alexandre Grenier. 1996. Michel Seuphor: un siècle de libertés. Paris:
Hazan.
Wat, Aleksander. 2001. Mijn twintigste eeuw zoals verteld aan Czesław Miłosz [My twentieth
century as recounted to Czesław Miłosz]. Amsterdam: Meulenhoff.
Ważyk, Adam. 1976. Dziwna historia awangardy [A strange history of the avant-garde].
Warszawa: Czytelnik.
Secondary Sources
Abastado, Claude. 1980. “Introduction à l’analyse des manifestes”, Littérature 39: 3–11.
Andel, Jaroslav. 2002. Avant-garde page design 1900–1950. New York: Delano Greenidge
Editions.
Antliff, Mark. 2007. Avant-garde fascism. The mobilization of myth, art, and culture in France
1909–1939. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Antonissen, Anton and Evert van Straaten. 2017. De Stijl: 100 jaar inspiratie. De nieuwe beeld-
ing en de internationale kunst 1917–2017 [De Stijl: 100 years of inspiration. Neoplasticism
and international art 1917–2017]. Zwolle: Waanders & de Kunst.
Bäckström, Per and Benedikt Hjartarson. 2014a. “Rethinking the topography of the interna-
tional avant-garde”, in: Per Bäckström and Benedikt Hjartarson (eds.). Decentring the avant-
garde. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi, 7–32.
Bäckström, Per and Benedikt Hjartarson (eds.). 2014b. Decentring the avant-garde. Amsterdam/
New York: Rodopi.
Baljeu, Joost. 1974. Theo van Doesburg. London: Studio Vista.
Bann, Stephen. 1974. The tradition of Constructivism. New York: The Viking Press.
Baranowicz, Zofia. 1973. “Grupa ‘a.r.’ w świetle korespondencji” [The ‘a.r.’ group in light of
its correspondence], Rocznik Historii Sztuki 9: 285–297.
Baranowicz, Zofia. 1975. Polska awangarda artystyczna 1918–1939 [Polish artistic avant-garde
1918–1939]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Artystyczne i Filmowe.
Barr, Allfred. 1936. Cubism and abstract art. New York: Museum of Modern Art.
Bartelik, Marek. 2005. Early Polish modern art: unity in multiplicity. Manchester: Manchester
University Press.
Baudin, Antoine and Pierre-Maxim Jedryka (eds.). 1977. L’Espace uniste: écrits du constructi-
visme polonais. Lausanne: L’Age d’Homme.
Belleguie, André. 1984. Mouvement de l’espace: typographique années 1920–1930. Paris: Jaques
Damase.
128 References
Benson, Timothy O. 2002a. “Exchange and transformation: the internationalization of the
avant-garde(s) in Central Europe”, in: Timothy O. Benson (ed.). Central European avant-
gardes: exchange and transformation, 1910–1930. Los Angeles: County Museum of Art and
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 34–67.
Benson, Timothy O. (ed.). 2002b. Central European avant-gardes: exchange and transfor-
mation, 1910–1930. Los Angeles: County Museum of Art and Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press.
Benson, Timothy O. and Éva Forgács (eds.). 2002. Between worlds: a sourcebook of Central
European avant-gardes, 1910–1930. Los Angeles: County Museum of Art and Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press.
van den Berg, Hubert. 1998. “Das Manifest – eine Gattung? Zur historiographischen Problema-
tik einer deskriptiven Hilfskonstruktion”, in: Hubert van den Berg and Ralf Grűttemeier (eds.).
Manifeste: Intentionalität. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 193–225.
van den Berg, Hubert. 2006a. “Mapping old traces of the new. For a historical topography of
20th-century avant-garde(s) in the European cultural field(s)”, Arcadia 41: 331–351.
van den Berg, Hubert. 2006b. “ ‘A worldwide network of periodicals has appeared . . .’ Some
notes on the inter- and supranationality of European Constructivism between the two wars”, in:
Jacek Purchla and Wolf Tegethoff (eds.). Nation style modernism. Kraków: Mie˛dzynarodowe
Centrum Kultury and München: Zentralinstitut für Kunstgeschichte, 143–156.
van den Berg, Hubert. 2013. “Expressionism, Constructivism and the transnationality of the
historical avant-garde”, in: Hubert van den Berg and Lidia Głuchowska (eds.). Transnational-
ity, internationalism and nationhood. European avant-garde in the first half of the twentieth
century. Groningen: Peeters, 23–41.
van den Berg, Hubert. 2015. “Avant-garde art as art at the service of the revolution. On pure art
and Tendenzkunst as two answers to the question: ‘Should the new art serve the masses?’ ”,
in: Kari J. Brandtzaeg (ed.). The shadow of war. Political art in Norway 1914–2014/Krigens
skygge. Politisk kunst in Norge 1914–2014. Oslo: Teknisk Industri, 54–65.
van den Berg, Hubert and Geert Buelens (eds.). 2014. Dan Dada doe uw werk! Avant-
gardistische poëzie uit de Lage Landen [Then Dada, do your work! Avant-garde poetry from
the Low Countries]. Nijmegen: Vantilt.
van den Berg, Hubert and Gillis Dorleijn (eds.). 2002. Avantgarde! Voorhoede? Vernieuwings-
bewegingen in noord en zuid opnieuw beschouwd [Avant-garde! Vanguard? Renewal move-
ments in north and south reconsidered]. Nijmegen: Vantilt.
van den Berg, Hubert and Lidia Głuchowska. 2013a. “The inter- trans- and postnationality of
the historical avant-garde”, in: Hubert van den Berg and Lidia Głuchowska (eds.). Trans-
nationality, internationalism and nationhood. European avant-garde in the first half of the
twentieth century. Groningen: Peeters, ix–xx.
van den Berg, Hubert and Lidia Głuchowska (eds.). 2013b. Transnationality, inter-nationalism and
nationhood. European avant-garde in the first half of the twentieth century. Groningen: Peeters.
Bless, Frits and Jaromir Jedliński. 1989. Vision and unity: Strzemiński, 1893–1952, en 9 heden-
daagse Poolse kunstenaars [Vision and unity: Strzemiński, 1893–1952, and 9 contemporary
Polish artists]. Łódź: Muzeum Sztuki and Apeldoorn: Van Reekum Museum.
Blom, Lise-Lotte. 1985. Tre pionérer for Polsk avant-garde/Three pioneers of Polish avant-
garde. Oslo: Fins Kunstmuseum and Odense: The Art Museum of Funen.
Blotkamp, Carel. 1990. “Theo van Doesburg”, in: Carel Blotkamp et al. De Stijl. The formative
years 1917–1922. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 3–38.
Blotkamp, Carel. 1994. Mondrian. The art of destruction. London: Reaktion Books.
Blotkamp, Carel (ed.). 1996. De vervolgjaren van De Stijl 1922–1932 [The following years of
De Stijl 1922–1932]. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij L.J.Veen.
Blotkamp, Carel et al. 1990. De Stijl. The formative years 1917–1922. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
References 129
Blotkamp, Carel and Cees Hilhorst. 1996. “De dissidente kunstenaars: Bart van der Leck, Vilmos
Huszár, Georges Vantongerloo” [The dissident artist: Bart van der Leck, Vilmos Huszár,
Georges Vantongerloo], in: Carel Blotkamp (ed.). De vervolgjaren van De Stijl 1922–1932.
Amsterdam: Uitgeverij L.J.Veen, 311–360.
Bock, Manfred, Vincent van Rossem and Kees Somer. 2001. Cornelis van Eesteren: architect,
urbanist. Deel 1: Bouwkunst, stijl, stedenbouw: Van Eesteren en de avant-garde [Cornelis van
Eesteren: architect, town planner. Part 1: Architecture, style, town-planning: Van Eesteren and
the avant-garde]. Rotterdam: NAi Uitgevers.
den Boef, August (ed.). 1987. Piet Mondriaan: twee verhalen [Piet Mondrian: two short stories].
Amsterdam: Meulenhoff.
den Boef, August and Sjoerd van Faassen. 2008. Het pseudo-moderne nevens het ware. De brief-
wisseling van de architect J.J.P. Oud met Jozef Peeters en Michel Seuphor, redacteuren van
het constructivistische tijdschrift ‘Het Overzicht’, 1921–1925 [The pseudo-modern versus the
real. The architect J.J.P. Oud’s correspondence with Jozef Peeters and Michel Seuphor, edi-
tors of the Constructivist magazine ‘Het Overzicht’, 1921–1925]. Antwerpen: Zacht Lawijd
and Garant.
den Boef, August and Sjoerd van Faassen. 2013. Van De Stijl en Het Overzicht tot De Driehoek
[From De Stijl and Het Overzicht to De Driehoek]. Antwerpen: Garant.
Boekraad, Cees, Flip Bool and Herbert Henkels (eds.). 1983. Het Nieuwe Bouwen. De Nieuwe
Beelding in de architectuur/Neo-plasticism in architecture. De Stijl. Delft: University Press and
Den Haag: Haags Gemeentemuseum.
Bois, Yve-Alain. 1998a. Painting as model. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Bois, Yve-Alain. 1998b. “Strzemiński and Kobro: in search of motivation”, in: Yve- Alain Bois.
Painting as model. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 123–156.
Bois, Yve-Alain. 1991. “Lissitzky, Mondrian, Strzemiński: Abstraction and political utopia in
the twenties”, in: Yve-Alain Bois et al. Cadences: icon and abstraction in context. New York:
New Museum of Contemporary Art, 81–105.
Boland, Lynn (ed.). 2013. Cercle et Carré and the international spirit of abstract art. Athens:
Georgia Museum of Art.
Bonet, Juan Manuel and Monika Poliwka. 2014. “Od ‘Manomètre’: szlakiem sieci czasopism
awangardy/From ‘Manomètre’: a walk through the network of modernist magazines”, in:
Paulina Kurc-Maj (ed.). Zmiana pola widzenia. Druk nowoczesny i awangarda/Changing the
field of view. Modern printing and the avant-garde. Łódź: Muzeum Sztuki, 166–194.
Borusewicz, Mirosław et al. 2002. a.r. Artistes révolutionnaires de Łódź. Ixelles: Tempora.
Borusiewicz, Miroslaw and Dominique Boudou. 2004. Avant-gardes polonaises: hier et aujour-
d’hui: espace de l’Art Concret. Paris: Réunion des Musées Nationaux.
Brandt, Marion (ed.). 2006. Grenzüberschreitungen. Deutsche, Polen und Juden zwischen den
Kulturen (1918–1939). München: Martin Meidenbauer.
Brentjens, Yvonne. 2008. Piet Zwart 1885–1977: Vormingenieur [Piet Zwart 1885–1997: form
engineer]. Den Haag: Haags Gemeentemuseum and Zwolle: Waanders Uitgevers.
Brockhaus, Christoph and Hans Janssen (eds.). 2009. Voor een nieuwe wereld. Georges Van-
tongerloo 1886–1965 en zijn omgeving van Piet Mondriaan tot Max Bill [For a new world.
Georges Vantongerloo 1886–1965 and his circles from Piet Mondrian to Max Bill]. Den Haag:
Gemeentemuseum Den Haag.
Brockhaus, Christoph and Ryszard Stanisławski (eds.). 1994. Europa, Europa. Das Jahrhun-
dert der Avantgarde in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Bonn: Stiftung Kunst und Kultur des Landes
Nordrhein-Westfalen.
Brooker, Peter et al. (eds.). 2013. The Oxford critical and cultural history of modernist maga-
zines. Volume III, Europe 1880–1940. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Broos, Kees. 1991. “Letter, woord, tekst, beeld/Letter, word, tekst, image”, in: Jan Brand,
Nicolette Gast and Robert-Jan Muller (eds.). De Woorden en de Beelden. Tekst en beeld in
130 References
de kunst van de twintigste eeuw/The words and the images. Text and image in the art of the
twentieth century. Utrecht: Centraal Museum, 17–40.
Broos, Kees. 1994. Mondriaan, De Stijl en de nieuwe typografie [Mondrian, De Stijl and the
new typography]. Amsterdam-Den Haag: De Buitenkant.
Broos, Kees and Paul Hefting. 1993. Dutch graphic design. London: Phaidon.
Bru, Sascha. 2009. “Borderless Europe, decentring avant-garde, mosaic modernism”, in: Sascha
Bru et al. (eds.). Europa! Europa? The avant-garde, modernism and the fate of a continent.
Berlin: De Gruyter, 3–17.
Bru, Sascha. 2013. “ ‘The will to style’: The Dutch contribution to the avant-garde”, in:
Peter Brooker et al. (eds.). The Oxford critical and cultural history of modernist magazines.
Volume III, Europe 1880–1940. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 293–312.
Bru, Sascha et al. (eds.). 2009. Europa! Europa? The avant-garde, modernism and the fate of a
continent. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Burke, Peter. 2009. Cultural hybridity. Cambridge: Polity.
Bürger, Peter. [1974] 1984. Theory of the avant-garde. (Translated by Michael Shaw.) Minne-
apolis: University of Minneapolis Press. [Originally published, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag.].
Bury, Stephen (ed.). 2007. Breaking the rules. The printed face of the European avant-grade
1900–1937. London: The British Library.
Calinescu, Matei. 1987. Five faces of modernity. Modernism, avant-garde, decadence, kitsch,
postmodernism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Carpenter, Bogdana. 1983. The poetic avant-garde in Poland, 1918–1939. Seattle-London:
University of Washington Press.
Cassou, Jean et al. 1957. Précurseurs de l’art abstrait en Pologne. Paris: Galerie Denise René.
Ceuleers, Jan. 1996. Georges Vantongerloo 1886–1965. Gent: Snoeck-Ducaju & Zoon.
Charlier, Sébastien (ed.). 2012a. L’Équerre. Réédition intégrale/The complete edition 1928–1939.
Liège: Éditions Fourre-Tout.
Charlier, Sébastien. 2012b. “From academy to the CIAM/De l’académie aux CIAM. L’Équerre
1928–1939”, in: Sébastien Charlier (ed.). L’Équerre. Réédition intégrale/The complete edition
1928–1939. Liège: Éditions Fourre-Tout, 36–75.
Choma˛towska, Beata. 2015. Lachert i Szanajca. Architekci awangardy [Lachert and Szanajca.
The architects of the avant-garde]. Wołowiec: Wydawnictwo Czarne.
Claessens, Erik. 1985/1986. Bijdrage tot de studie van het Constructivisme. De uitstraling naar
Polen. Een kritische benadering van het Unisme en de Ruimtecompositie van Władysław
Strzemiński en Katarzyna Kobro [A contribution to studies on Constructivism. The diffusion
to Poland. A critical analysis of Unism and Spatial Composition of Władysław Strzemiński
and Katarzyna Kobro]. [Unpublished thesis, Free University of Brussels.].
Clark, John. 1998. Modern Asian art. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Crowley, David. 1992. National style and nation-state: design in Poland from the vernacular
revival to the International Style. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Czartoryska, Urszula (ed.). 1991. Kolekcja sztuki XX wieku w Muzeum Sztuki w Łodzi
[The collection of twentieth-century art in Muzeum Sztuki in Łódź]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo
Galeria Zache˛ta.
Czekalski, Stanisław. 2000. Awangarda i mit racjonalizacji. Fotomontaż polski okresu dwudzie-
stolecia mie˛dzywojennego [Avant-garde and the myth of rationalisation. Polish photomon-
tage of the interwar period]. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciół
Nauk.
Czerner, Olgierd et al. 1981. Avant-garde polonaise: urbanisme, architecture/Awangarda polska:
urbanistyka, architektura/The Polish avant-garde: architecture, town-planning. 1819–1939.
Warszawa: Interpress and Paris: Éditions du Moniteur.
Czeredys, Maciej et al. 2013: “Wyzwanie z przeszłości. Przedmowa do nowego wydania”
[A challenge from the past. The foreword to the new editon], in: Jan Chmielewski and Szymon
Syrkus. Warszawa Funkcjonalna. Warszawa: Centrum Architektury, 13–58.
References 131
DaCosta Kaufmann, Thomas. 2004. Towards a geography of art. Chicago: University of Chi-
cago Press.
DaCosta Kaufmann, Thomas, Catherine Dossin and Béatrice Joyeux-Prunel (eds.). 2015. Circu-
lations in the global history of art. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Dam, Peter van. 1998. “Reclame of kunst? Miss Blanche moderniseerde zich in ‘Stijl’ ” [Adver-
tisement or art? Miss Blanche got modernised in ‘Stijl’]. Compres, 8 July: 18–21.
Dekkers, Dieuwertje et al. 2008. H.N. Werkman: het complete oeuvre [H.N. Werkman: the
complete works]. Rotterdam: NAi Uitgevers.
Delaperrière, Maria. 1991. Les avant-gardes polonaises et la poésie européenne. Étude sur
l’imagination poétique. Paris: Institut d’Études Slaves.
Delaperrière, Maria. 2003. “La poésie polonaise face à l’avant-garde française: fascinations et
réticences”, Revue de Littérature Comparée 307: 355–368.
Delaperrière, Maria. 2004. Polskie awangardy a poezja europejska. Studium wyobraźni poe-
tyckiej [Polish avant-gardes and European poetry]. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu
Śla˛skiego.
Delaperrière, Maria. 2010. Literatura polska w interakcjach. Szkice porównawcze z literatury
i kultury [Polish literature in interactions. Comparative essays on literature and culture].
Warszawa: Neriton.
Derwig, Jan and Erik Mattie. 1995. Functionalism in the Netherlands. Amsterdam:
Architectura & Natura.
De Smet, Johan (ed.). 2013. Modernisme. L’art abstrait belge et l’Europe/Belgische abstracte
kunst en Europa. Gent: Fonds Mercator.
D’Haeseleer, Felix A. 1984. “Pools Constructivisme in Belgische avant-garde tijdschriften tussen
de twee wereldoorlogen” [Polish Constructivism in Belgian avant-garde periodicals between
the two wars], ICSAC cahier 2/3. Brussels: International Centrum voor Structuuranalyse en
Constructivisme, 109–117.
Dickerman, Leah (ed.). 2012. Inventing abstraction, 1910–1925. New York: The Museum of
Modern Art.
Dijk, Hans van. 1999. Architectuur in Nederland in de twintigste eeuw [Architecture in the
Netherlands in the twentieth century]. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010.
Driekoningen, Ferd 1991. “Inleiding” [Introduction], in: Ferd Drijkoningen and Jan Fontijn.
Historische avantgarde. Amsterdam: Huis aan de Drie Grachten, 11–51.
Drijkoningen, Ferd and Jan Fontijn. 1991. Historische avantgarde. [Historical avant-garde].
Amsterdam: Huis aan de Drie Grachten.
Dyroff, Stefan. 2015. “Transpolonität? Gesellschaftliche Eliten in den polnischen Gebieten um
1900 jenseits der Nationalgeschichte(n)”, Zeitschrift für Ostmitteleuropa-Forschung 64, 3:
319–329.
Easley, David and Jon Kleinberg. 2010. Networks, crowds, and markets: reasoning about a
highly connected world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Entrop, Marco and Maurits Verhoeff. 1997. “Een vechttijdschrift, of de absolute nul: over
Het Woord (1925–1926) van Jan Demets” [A combat magazine or the absolute zero: on
Het Woord (1925–1926) by Jan Demets], De Parelduiker 2, 5: 3–19.
Esser, Hans. 1990. “J.J.P. Oud”, in Carel Blotkamp et al. De Stijl. The formative years 1917–1922.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 123–152.
Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1990. Polysystem studies [= Poetics Today 11, 1]. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Ex, Sjarel. 1996. “De blik naar het oosten: De Stijl in Duitsland en Oost-Europa” [A glance east-
wards: De Stijl in Germany and Eastern-Europe], in: Carel Blotkamp (ed.). De vervolgjaren
van De Stijl 1922–1932. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij L.J.Veen, 67–112.
Ex, Sjarel. 2000. Theo van Doesburg en het Bauhaus: de invloed van De Stijl in Duitsland en
Midden-Europa [Theo van Doesburg and Bauhaus: the impact of De Stijl in Germany and
Central Europe]. Utrecht: Centraal Museum.
132 References
Ex, Sjarel and Els Hoek. 1985. Vilmos Huszár: schilder en ontwerper 1884–1960. De grote
onbekende van De Stijl [Vilmos Huszár: painter and designer 1884–1960. The great unknown
of De Stijl]. Utrecht: Reflex.
Eysteinsson, Astradur. 1990. The concept of modernism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Eysteinsson, Astradur. 2009. “ ‘What’s the difference?’ Revisiting the concepts of modernism and
the avant-garde”, in: Sascha Bru et al. (eds). Europa! Europa? The avant-garde, modernism
and the fate of a continent. Berlin: De Gruyter, 21–35.
Fabre, Gladys. 1990. Arte abstracto, arte concreto: Cercle et Carré, Paris, 1930 [Abstract art,
concrete art: Cercle et Carré, Paris, 1930]. Valencia: IVAM Centre Julio Gonzalez.
Fabre, Gladys. 1992. “International relations of the Polish avant-garde between the two wars”,
in: Jaromir Jeliński (ed.). Łódź – Lyon. Muzeum Sztuki w Łodzi 1931–1992: collection –
documentation – actualité. La collection du Musée de Lodz. Lyon: Musée d’Art Contemporain
de Lyon, 247–250.
Fabre, Gladys. 2009. “Towards a spatio-temporality in painting”, in: Gladys Fabre and Doris
Wintgens Hötte (eds.). Van Doesburg & the international avant-garde: constructing a new
world. London: Tate Publishing, 58–67.
Fabre, Gladys (ed.). 2016. Theo van Doesburg. A new expression of life, art and technology.
Brussels: BOZAR BOOKS and Mercatorfonds.
Fabre, Gladys et al. 1978. Abstraction Creation 1931–1936. Paris: Musée d’Art Moderne de
la Ville de Paris and Munster: Westfälisches Landesmuseum für Kunst und Kulturgeschichte.
Fabre, Gladys and Doris Wintgens Hötte (eds.). 2009. Van Doesburg & the international avant-
garde: constructing a new world. London: Tate Publishing.
Fanelli, Giovanni. 1978. Moderne architectuur in Nederland 1900–1940 [Mondern architecture
in the Netherlands 1900–1940]. ’s-Gravenhage: Staatsuitgeverij.
Faxedas, Lluïsa. 2015. “Women artists of Cercle et Carré. Abstraction, gender and modernity”,
Woman’s Art Journal 36, 1: 37–46.
Finkeldey, Bernd. 1992. K.I. Konstruktivistische internationale schöpferische Arbeitsgemein-
schaft 1922–1927, Utopien für eine europäische Kultur. Stuttgard: Hatje Cantz Verlag.
Foster, Hal et al. 2004. Art since 1900. Modernism, antimodernism, postmodernism. London:
Thames & Hudson.
Frankowska, Magdalena and Artur Frankowski. 2009. Henryk Berlewi. [Gdańsk]: Czysty
Warsztat.
Friedel, Helmut et al. 2011. Mondrian, De Stijl. Ostfildern: Hatje Cantz.
Friedman, Mildred (ed.). 1982. De Stijl: 1917–1931. Amsterdam: Stedelijk Museum and Otterlo:
Rijksmuseum Kröller-Müller.
Fuchs, Elżbieta et al. (eds.). 1998. Katarzyna Kobro 1898–1951: w setna˛ rocznice˛ urodzin/
On the 100th anniversary of her birth. Łódź: Muzeum Sztuki.
Gabara, Justyna. 2008. “ ‘Atramentowy bój o Pana Tadeusza’. Polemika wokół wysta˛pienia
Jana Nepomucena Millera” [‘Ink battle for Pan Tadeusz’. Polemics around Jan Nepomucen
Miller’s publications], Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Litteraria Polonica 11: 113–127.
Gast, Nicolette. 1996. “De blik naar het zuiden: De Stijl in België en Frankrijk” [A glance south-
wards: De Stijl in Belgium and France], in: Carel Blotkamp (ed.). De vervolgjaren van De Stijl
1922–1932. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij L.J.Veen, 153–194.
Gazda, Grzegorz. 1987. Awangarda: nowoczesność i tradycja [Avant-garde: modernity and
tradition]. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Łódzkie.
van de Geer, Ceri-Anne. 2012. Between the lines: Reception and influence of De Stijl in avant-
garde periodicals in Antwerp 1917–1926. [Unpublished thesis, University of Utrecht.].
van de Geer, Ceri-Anne et al. 2013. “L’intertionalisme des revues modernistes”, in Johan De
Smet (ed.), Modernisme. L’art abstrait belge et l’Europe. Gent: Fonds Mercator, 165–186.
Głuchowska, Lidia. 2009. “Awangarda: Berlin-Poznań/Avantgarde: Berlin-Poznań”, in: Rob-
ert Traba (ed.). My, berlińczycy! Wir Berliner! Historia polsko-niemieckiego sa˛siedztwa/
References 133
Geschichte einer deutsch-polnischen Nachbarschaft. Berlin: Centrum Badań Historycznych
PAN and Lipsk: Koehler&Amelang, 160–196.
Głuchowska, Lidia (ed.). 2015. Bunt – Ekspresjonizm – Transgraniczna awangarda. Prace z
berlińskiej kolekcji prof. St.Karola Kubickiego/Bunt – Expressionismus – Grenzübergreifende
Avantgarde. Werke aus der Berliner Sammlung von Prof. St.Karol Kubicki. Poznań: Muzeum
Narodowe w Poznaniu.
Gold, John R. 1997. The experience of modernism: modern architecture and the future:
1928–1953. London: E&FN Spon.
Gossel, Peter et al. 1990. Functional architecture: The International Style/Funktionale Architek-
tur/Le style international 1925–1940. Berlin: Taschen.
Goyens de Heusch, Serge. 1976.’7 Arts’ Bruxelles 1922–1929. Un front de jeunesse pour la
révolution artistique. Bruxelles: Le Ministère de la Culture Française de Belgique.
Granovetter, Mark. 1973. “The strength of weak ties”, American Journal of Sociology 6, 78:
1360–1380.
Granovetter, Mark. 1983. “The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited”, Sociological
Theory 1: 201–233.
Greenblatt, Stephen. 2010a. “Cultural mobility: An introduction”, in: Stephen Greenblatt (ed.).
Cultural mobility: A manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–23.
Greenblatt, Stephen. 2010b. “A mobility studies manifesto”, in: Stephen Greenblatt (ed.).
Greenblatt, Stephen (ed.). 2010c. Cultural mobility: A manifesto. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Gresty, Hilary and Jeremy Lewison (eds.). 1984. Constructivism in Poland 1923 to 1936. Cam-
bridge: Kettle’s Yard Gallery.
Grislain, Jean-Etienne (ed.). 2007. Georges Vantongerloo 1886–1965: un pionnier de la sculp-
ture moderne. Paris: Gallimard.
Grüttemeier, Ralf, Klaus Beekman and Ben Rebel (eds.). 2013. Neue Sachlichkeit and Avant-
Garde. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
Guarda, Sandra. 2013. Cornelis van Eesteren: ontmoeting met de avant-garde 1914–1929
[Cornelis van Eesteren: encounters with the avant-garde 1914–1929]. Bussum: Thoth.
Hagener, Malte. 2014. “Mushrooms, ant paths and tactics. The topography of the European film
avant-garde”, in: Per Bäckström and Benedikt Hjartarson (eds.). Decentring the avant-garde.
Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi, 145–168.
Hammacher, A.M. 1964. “Introduction”, in: Mondrian, De Stijl and their impact. New York:
Marlborough-Gerson Gallery, 5–19.
Heller, Steven. 2003. Merz to Emigre and beyond: Avant-garde magazine design of the twentieth
century. London: Phaidon Press.
van Helmond, Toke (ed.). 1994. i10: sporen van de avant-garde [i10: traces of the avant-garde].
Heerlen: ABP.
Hoek, Els. 1990. “Piet Mondrian”, in: Carel Blotkamp et al. De Stijl. The formative years
1917–1922. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 39–76.
Hoek, Els. 2000. Theo van Doesburg: oeuvrecatalogus [Theo van Doesburg: complete works].
Utrecht: Centraal Museum and Otterlo: Kröller-Müller Museum.
Holm, Michael et al. (eds.). 2012. Women of the avant-garde 1920–1940. Humlebæk: Louisiana
Museum of Modern Art.
Holtzman, Harry and Martin S. James (eds.). 1986. The new art – The new life: the collected
writings of Piet Mondrian. Boston: G. K. Hall.
Hoozee, Robert. 1992. L’art moderne en Belgique, 1900–1945/Moderne kunst in België,
1900–1945. Anvers: Fonds Mercator.
Hulten, Pontus et al. 1978. Paris–Berlin, 1900–1933: rapports et contrastes France–Allemagne.
Paris: Centre National d’Art et de Culture Georges Pompidou.
134 References
Ibelings, Hans. 1995. Nederlandse architectuur van de 20ste eeuw [Dutch architecture of the 20th
century]. Rotterdam: NAi Uitgevers.
ICSAC cahier 2/3. 1984. Brussels: International Centrum voor Structuuranalyse en Constructivisme.
Jaffé, Hans L.C. 1956. De Stijl. The Dutch contribution to modern art. Amsterdam: J.M.
Meulenhoff.
Janik, Jadwiga, Zenobia Karnicka and Janina Ładnowska (eds.). 1993. Władysław Strzemiński
(1893–1952). W setna˛ rocznice˛ urodzin/On the 100th anniversary of his birth. Łódź: Muzeum
Sztuki.
Janik, Jadwiga, Zenobia Karnicka and Janina Ładnowska (eds.). 1994. Henryk Stażewski
(1894–1988). W setna˛ rocznice˛ urodzin/On the 100th anniversary of his birth. Łódź: Muzeum
Sztuki.
Janssen, Hans. 2009. “Periode 1929–1942: van de taal van het neoplasticisme naar de wereld
van het onbegrensde” [The 1929–1942 period: from the idiom of Neo-plasticism to the world
of the unknown], in: Christoph Brockhaus and Hans Janssen (eds.). Voor een nieuwe wereld.
Georges Vantongerloo 1886–1965 en zijn omgeving van Piet Mondriaan tot Max Bill. Den
Haag: Gemeentemuseum Den Haag, 107–115.
Janssen, Hans and Michael White. 2011. Het verhaal van De Stijl. Van Mondriaan tot Van
Doesburg/The story of De Stijl. From Mondrian to Van Doesburg. Antwerpen: Ludion and
Den Haag: Gemeentemuseum Den Haag.
Jedliński, Jaromir (ed.). 1992. Łódź – Lyon. Muzeum Sztuki w Łodzi 1931–1992: collection –
documentation – actualité. La collection du Musée de Lodz. Lyon: Musée d’Art Contemporain
de Lyon.
Jedliński, Jaromir. 2002. “Łódź”, in: Timothy O. Benson (ed.). Central European avant-gardes:
exchange and transformation, 1910–1930. Los Angeles: County Museum of Art and Cam-
bridge, MA: The MIT Press, 358–361.
Jeleński, Konstanty A. (ed.). 1965. Anthologie de la poésie polonaise. Paris: Seuil.
de Jong, Cees (ed.). 2015. Piet Mondrian: life and work. New York: Abrams.
Jordens, Peter. 2017. Hendrik Werkman en De Ploeg. The Next Call en het constructi-
visme [Hendrik Werkman and De Ploeg. The Next Call and the Constructivism]. Zwolle:
WBOOKS.
Joyeux-Prunel, Béatrice. 2014. “The uses and abuses of peripheries in art history”, Artl@s Bul-
letin 3, 1: 4–7.
Joyeux-Prunel, Béatrice. 2015a. “Provincializing Paris. The centre/periphery narrative of modern
art in light of quantitative and transnational approaches”, Artl@s Bulletin 4, 1: 40–64.
Joyeux-Prunel, Béatrice. 2015b. “Au-delà d’un Paris-New York. L’art moderne et ses discor-
dances spatio-temporelles”, Atala – Cultures et sciences humaines 18: 119–137.
Joyeux-Prunel, Béatrice. 2016. “Un centre, des périphéries? Les arts dans la géopolitique cul-
turelle mondiale, XIXe–XXe siècles”, in: Philippe Poirrier and Bertrand Tillier (eds.). Aux
confins des arts et de la culture – Approches thématiques et transversales XVIe–XXIe siècle.
Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 159–176.
Juneja, Monica and Margrit Pernau. 2009. “Lost in translation? Transcending boundaries
in comparative history”, in: Heinz-Gerhard Haupt and Jürgen Kocka (eds.). Comparative
and transnational history. Central European approaches and new perspectives. New York:
Berghahn Books, 105–129.
Jurkiewicz-Eckert, Dorota. 2006. “ ‘Mie˛dzynarodowa Kolekcja Sztuki Nowoczesnej’ Muzeum
Sztuki w Łodzi i jej znaczenie dla dziedzictwa kulturowego Europy” [‘The International Col-
lection of Modern Art’ at the Museum of Art in Łódź and its significance for cultural heritage
of Europe], Studia Europejskie 4: 121–143.
Kaelble, Hartmut. 2009. “Between comparison and transfers – and what now? A French–
German debate”, in: Heinz-Gerhard Haupt and Jürgen Kocka (eds.). Comparative and trans-
national history. Central European approaches and new perspectives. New York: Berghahn
Books, 33–38.
References 135
Kemperink, Mary. 2002. “De wiskunde van Theo van Doesburg. Avantgarde en fin de siècle”
[The mathematics of Theo van Doesburg. Avant-garde and the end of the century], in: Hubert
van den Berg and Gillis Dorleijn (eds.). Avantgarde! Voorhoede? Vernieuwingsbewegingen in
noord en zuid opnieuw beschouwd. Nijmegen: Vantilt, 113–122.
Kłak, Tadeusz. 1975. Materiały do dziejów awangardy [Materials for the history of the avant-
garde]. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.
Kłak, Tadeusz. 1978. Czasopisma awangardy. Cze˛ść I: 1919–1931 [Avant-garde periodicals.
Part I: 1919–1931]. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.
Kłak, Tadeusz. 1981. Źródła do historii awangardy [Sources for the history of the avant-garde].
Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.
Kłak, Tadeusz. 1991. “Listy Tadeusza Peipera do Juliana Przybosia z lat 1927–1933” [Letters
from Tadeusz Peiper to Julian Przyboś from 1927–1933], Pamie˛tnik Literacki: czasopismo
kwartalne poświe˛cone historii i krytyce literatury polskiej 82, 4: 142–171.
Kłak, Tadeusz. 1993. Stolik Tadeusza Peipera: o strategiach awangardy [Tadeusz Peiper’s table:
on avant-garde strategies]. Kraków: Oficyna Literacka.
Kleiverda-Kajetanowicz, Joanna. 1985. Elementen van de Nieuwe Beelding in het werk en de
theorie van Henryk Stażewski 1923–1936 [Elements of neoplasticism in the work and theory
of Henryk Stażewski 1923–1936]. [Unpublished thesis, University of Utrecht.].
Kleiverda-Kajetanowicz, Joanna. 1989. “Henryk Stażewski. De Nieuwe Beelding in zijn werk en
theorie” [Henryk Stażewski. Neoplasticism in his work and theory], Jong Holland 5, 2: 5–17.
Kłosiński, Michał. 2015. “Ekonomia i polityka w polskiej poezji lat dwudziestych” [Econ-
omy and politics in Polish interwar poetry], in: Piotr Rypson (ed.). Papież awangardy.
Tadeusz Peiper w Hiszpanii, Polsce, Europie. Warszawa: Muzeum Narodowe w Warszawie,
396–419.
Kmiecik, Michalina and Małgorzata Szumna (eds.). 2014. Awangarda Środkowej i Wschodniej
Europy – innowacja czy naśladownictwo? Interpretacje [Avant-garde of Central and Eastern
Europe – innovation or imitation? Interpretations]. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu
Jagiellońskiego.
Kohlrausch, Martin. 2008. “The communication of architecture as transnational experience:
Poland in the interwar period”, CCGES/CCEAE Working Paper Series 16: 1–19.
Kohlrausch, Martin. 2014. “Warszawa Funkcjonalna: Radical urbanism and the international
discourse on planning in the interwar period”, in: Jan C. Behrends and Martin Kohlrausch
(eds.). Races to modernity. Metropolitan aspirations in Eastern Europe, 1890–1940. Buda-
pest: Central European University Press, 205–231.
Kott, Jan. 1935. Drogi awangardy poetyckiej w Polsce [Paths of the poetic avant-garde in
Poland]. Warszawa: Drukarnia Polska.
Kornhauser, Jakub and Kinga Siewior. (eds.). 2015. Głuchy brudnopis. Antologia manifestów
awangard Europy środkowej [Deaf sketchbook. An anthology of Central-European avant-
garde manifestos]. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
Kornhauser, Jakub, Małgorzata Szumna and Michalina Kmiecik. (eds.). 2016. Awangarda i kry-
tyka: kraje Europy Środkowej i Wschodniej [Avant-garde and critique: Central and Eastern-
European countries]. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
Kostelanetz, Richard. 1993. Dictionary of the Avant-gardes. Pennington, GA: A Cappella Books.
Kowalczykowa, Alina. 1981. Programy i spory literackie w dwudziestoleciu 1918–1939
[Literary programs and polemics in the 1918–1939 period]. Warszawa: Ludowa Spółdzielnia
Wydawnicza.
Kowalska, Barbara. 1985. Henryk Stażewski. Warszawa: Arkady.
Kubiak, Szymon Piotr. 2014. Modernizm zapoznany. Architektura Poznania 1919–1939
[Acquainting modernism. The architecture of Poznań in 1919–1939]. Warszawa: Fundacja
Centrum Architektury.
Kubiak, Szymon Piotr. 2017. “ ‘. . . That black zigzag on the ceiling . . .’ Neo-plastic inspirations
in design in the Second Polish Republic”, in: Paulina Kurc-Maj and Anna Saciuk-Ga˛sowska
136 References
(eds.). Organizers of life. De Stijl, the Polish avant-garde, and design. Łódź: Muzeum Sztuki,
119–151.
Küper, Marijke and Ida van Zijl. 1992. Gerrit Th. Rietveld 1888–1964. Het volledige werk
[Gerrit Th. Rietveld 1888–1964. Complete works]. Utrecht: Centraal Museum.
Kurc-Maj, Paulina. 2012. “Stworzyć dzieło sztuki jako organiczna˛ istote˛ plastyczna˛/To create a
work of art as an organic plastic entity”, in: Jarosław Lubiak (ed.). Powidoki życia. Władysław
Strzemiński i prawa dla sztuki/Afterimages of life. Władysław Strzemiński and rights for art.
Łódź: Muzeum Sztuki, 109–154.
Kurc-Maj, Paulina (ed.). 2014. Zmiana pola widzenia. Druk nowoczesny i awangarda/Changing
the Field of View. Modern Printing and the Avant-Garde. Łódź: Muzeum Sztuki.
Kurc-Maj, Paulina. 2015. “Jakie muzeum? – uwagi na temat historii Muzeum Sztuki w
Łodzi do 1950 roku” [What kind of museum? – remarks on the history of Muzem Sztuki in
Łódź until 1950], in: Aleksandra Jach et al. (eds.). Muzeum Sztuki w Łodzi. Monografia. Łódź:
Muzeum Sztuki, 125–175.
Kurc-Maj, Paulina and Anna Saciuk-Ga˛sowska (eds.). 2017. Organizers of life. De Stijl, the
Polish avant-garde, and design. Łódź: Muzeum Sztuki.
Ładnowska, Janina. 1991. “Sala neoplastyczna – z dziejów kolekcji sztuki nowoczesnej Muzeum
Sztuki w Łodzi” [The Neoplastic room – from the history of modern art collection at Muzeum
Sztuki in Łódź], in: Miejsce Sztuki: Museum – Theatrum Sapientiae, Theatrum Animabile.
Łódź: Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Muzeum Sztuki w Łodzi, 71–80.
Ładnowska, Janina. 1998. “Katarzyna Kobro – zarys twórczości” [Katarzyna Kobro – an outline
of artistic activities], in: Elżbieta Fuchs et al. (eds.). Katarzyna Kobro 1898–1951: w setna˛
rocznice˛ urodzin/On the 100th anniversary of her birth. Łódź: Muzeum Sztuki, 59–70.
Ładnowska, Janina. 2000. “Inny Henryk Stażewski” [A different Henryk Stażewski], Tygiel
Kultury 10/12: 28–34.
Ładnowska, Janina. 2001. “La Belgique en Pologne/La Pologne en Belgique. Quelques remarques
sur les avant-gardes et le Muzeum Sztuki de Łódź”, in: Mirosław Borusewicz et al. a.r. Artistes
révolutionnaires de Łódź. Ixelles: Tempora, 15–19.
Lahoda, Vojtěch (ed.). 2006. Local Strategies, international ambitions. Modern art and Central
Europe 1918–1968. Prague: Artefactum.
Lambrechts, Marc (ed.). 2002. Affinités et particularités. L’art en Belgique et Pays-Bas 1890–1945.
Gent: Museum voor Schone Kunsten.
Laoureux, Denis. 2010. L’art abstrait en Belgique (1910–2010). La Collection Dexia/
De abstracte kunst in België (1910–2010). De Dexia Collectie. Bruxelles: Fonds Mercator.
Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the social. An introduction to actor-network-theory. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Leen, Frederik. 2009. “Michel Seuphor, Het Overzicht en de Brusselse avant-garde van de jaren
twintig” [Michel Seuphor, Het Overzicht and the Brussels-based avant-garde of the 1920s],
Zacht Lawijd 8, 3: 101–113.
Leen, Frederik et al. (eds.). 1992. Avant-garde en Belgique, 1917–1929. Bruxelles: Musee d’art
moderne and Antwerpen: Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten.
Lemoine, Serge (ed.). 1990. Theo van Doesburg. Paris: Philippe Sers Editeur.
Lemoine, Serge (ed.). 2000. Art concret. Paris: Réunion des Musées Nationaux.
Leśniakowska, Marta. 2000. Architektura w Warszawie [Architecture in Warsaw]. Müller-
Warszawa: Arkada, Pracownia Historii Sztuki.
Leśnikowski, Wojciech. 1996. East European modernism. Architecture in Czechoslovakia,
Hungary & Poland between the wars 1919–1939. New York: Rizzoli.
Lionnet, Françoise and Shu-mei Shih. 2005. “Introduction. Thinking through the minor, trans-
nationally”, in: Françoise Lionnet and Shu-mei Shih (eds.). Minor transnationalism. Durham,
NC: Duke University Press, 1–23.
Longmead, Donald. 2000. Artists of De Stijl: a guide to the literature. London: Greenwood
Press.
References 137
Luba, Iwona. 2012. “Paradoks sztuki narodowej i modernizmu. Władysław Strzemiński lau-
reatem nagrody artystycznej miasta Łodzi w roku 1932” [A paradox of national art and
modernism. Władysław Strzemiński – winner of the city of Łódź art award in 1932], Biuletyn
Historii Sztuki 3/4: 707–732.
Luba, Iwona. 2015a. “Utworzenie Mie˛dzynarodowej Kolekcji Sztuki Nowoczesnej ‘a.r.’ –
kontekst polski” [The formation of the ‘a.r.’ International Collection of Modern Art – the
Polish context], in: Aleksandra Jach et al. (eds.). Muzeum Sztuki w Łodzi. Monografia. Łódź:
Muzeum Sztuki, 16–35.
Luba, Iwona. 2015b. “Koncepcja muzeum sztuki nowoczesnej według Władysława
Strzemińskiego – próba rekonstrukcji” [The concept of modern art museum according to
Władysław Strzemiński – a reconstruction attempt], in: Aleksandra Jach et al. (eds.). Muzeum
Sztuki w Łodzi. Monografia. Łódź: Muzeum Sztuki, 66–83.
Lubiak, Jarosław (ed.). 2012. Powidoki życia. Władysław Strzemiński i prawa dla sztuki/
Afterimages of life. Władysław Strzemiński and rights for art. Łódź: Muzeum Sztuki.
Lupton, Ellen and Elaine Lustig Cohen. 1996. Letters from the avant-garde. Modern graphic
design. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Maes, Herman et al. 2007. Karel Maes 1900–1974. Drogenbos: Museum Felix De Boeck.
Mansbach, Stephen A. 1990. “From Leningrad to Ljubljana: The suppressed avant-gardes of
East-Central and Eastern Europe during the early twentieth century”, Art Journal 45, 1: 7–8.
Mansbach, Stephen A. 1999. Modern art in Eastern Europe: from the Baltic to the Balkans, ca.
1890–1939. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marie-Saint Germain, Elsa and Jeanette Zwingenberger (eds.). 2004. Scène polonaise. Paris:
Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Beaux-Arts.
de Marneffe, Daphné. 2013. “Antwerp circles. Languages, locality, and internationalism”, in:
Peter Brooker et al. (eds.). The Oxford critical and cultural history of modernist magazines.
Volume III, Europe 1880–1940. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 313–335.
Martinet, Jan. 1977. Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman 1882–1945. ‘druksels’ en gebruiksdrukwerk/
‘druksel’ prints and general printed matter. Amsterdam: Stedelijk Museum.
Martinet, Jan. 1995. The Next Call. Utrecht: André Swertz.
Meissner, Jill A. 2013. Stefi Kiesler (1897–1963): Kunstlerfrau – Vermittlerin – Literatin.
[Unpublished thesis, University of Vienna.].
Mertens, Phil. 1988. “Constructivisme in Polen en België: contacten en parallellen” [Con-
structivism in Poland and Belgium: contacts and parallels], Bulletin des Musées Royaux des
Beaux-Arts de Belgique/Bulletin van de Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten van België
1/3: 371–380.
Meyer-Kalkus, Reinhard. 2010. “World literature beyond Goethe”, in: Stephen Greenblatt (ed.).
Mitter, Partha. 2008. “Decentring modernism. Art history and avant-garde art from the periph-
ery”, The Art Bulletin 4: 531–548.
Minorski, Jan. 1970. Polska nowatorska myśl architektoniczna w latach 1918–1939 [Polish
innovatory architectural thought in 1918–1939]. Warszawa: PWN.
Morrisson, Mark. 2000. The public face of modernism: little magazines, audiences, and recep-
tion 1905–1920. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Müller, Alexandra (ed.). 2016. Entre deux horizons – Avant-gardes allemandes et françaises du
Saarlandmuseum. Metz: Centre Pompidou.
Müller-Lehning, Artur. 1979. Internationale Revue i10 1927–1929. Nendeln: Kraus Reprint.
Mumford, Eric. 2000. The CIAM discourse on urbanism, 1928–1960. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Mumford, Eric. 2009. Defining urban design: CIAM architects and the formation of a discipline,
1937–69. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Mus, Francis and Hans Vandevoorde 2013. “ ‘Streetscape of new districts permeated by the fresh
scent of cement’: Brussels, the avant-garde, and internationalism”, in: Peter Brooker et al.
138 References
(eds.). The Oxford critical and cultural history of modernist magazines. Volume III, Europe
1880–1940. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 336–360.
Nakov, Andrei. 1981. Abstrait/Concret. Art non-objectif russe et polonais. Paris: Transédition.
Olczyk, Jacek. 2015. “Peiper w oczach współczesnych (1921–1939)” [Peiper in the eyes of his
contemporaries (1921–1939)], in: Piotr Rypson (ed.). Papież awangardy. Tadeusz Peiper w
Hiszpanii, Polsce, Europie. Warszawa: Muzeum Narodowe w Warszawie, 292–323.
Olszewski, Andrzej. 1959. “Neoplastycyzm: najwyższe stadium abstrakcji geometrycznej”
[Neoplasticism: the highest stadium of geometric abstraction], Struktury 2: 8.
Olszewski, Andrzej. 1967. Nowa forma w architekturze polskiej 1900–1925. Teoria i praktyka
[New form in Polish architecture 1900–1925. Theory and practice]. Wrocław: Zakład Naro-
dowy im. Ossolińskich.
Olszewski, Andrzej. 1986. “Les influences de Le Corbusier sur l’architecture polonaise”, Polish
Art Studies 7: 83–97.
Olszewski, Andrzej. 1989. An outline history of Polish 20th century art and architecture. War-
saw: Interpress.
Olszewski, Andrzej. 2009. “American Streamline and European modernism”, in: Maria Sołtysik
and Robert Hirsch (eds.). Modernism in Europe – Modernism in Gdynia. Architecture of
1920s and 1930s and its protection. Gdynia: Gdynia City Hall, 31–36.
Orsini, François. 1992. “Expressionnisme allemand et Futurisme italien”, Germanica 10:
11–34.
Orsini, François. 2005. Drammaturgia europea dell’avanguardia storica: Pirandello, Rosso
di San Secondo, Strindberg, Wedekind [European historical avant-garde drama: Pirandello,
Rosso di San Secondo, Strindberg, Wedekind]. Cosenza: Pellegrini Editore.
Orska, Joanna. 2004. Przełom awangardowy w dwudziestowiecznym modernizmie [Avant-
garde turn in the twentieth-century modernism]. Kraków: Universitas.
Oud, Hans. 1984. J.J.P. Oud: architect 1890–1963: feiten en herinneringen gerangschikt
[J.J.P. Oud: architect 1890–1963: facts and memories classified]. ’s-Gravenhage: Nijgh &
Van Ditmar.
Overy, Paul. 1969. De Stijl. London: Studio Vista.
Overy, Paul. 1979. De Stijl. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Artystyczne i Filmowe.
Paenhuysen, An. 2010. De nieuwe wereld. De wonderjaren van de Belgische avant-garde
(1918–1939) [The new world. The wonder years of the Belgian avant-garde (1918–1939)].
Antwerp: Meulenhoff Manteau.
Paenhuysen, An. 2011. “Berlin am Sonntag. Die belgische Avantgarde über des Chicago am der
Spree”, in: Marnix Beyen et al. (eds.). Deutschlandbilder in Belgien 1830–1940. Munster:
Waxmann, 311–331.
Passuth, Krisztina. 1988. Les avant-gardes de l’Europe Centrale: 1907–1927. Paris: Flammarion.
Passuth, Krisztina. 2009. “De Stijl and the east–west avant-garde: magazines & the formation
of international networks”, in: Gladys Fabre and Doris Wintgens Hötte (eds.). Van Does-
burg & the international avant-garde: constructing a new world. London: Tate Publishing,
20–27.
Piłatowicz, Józef. 2009. “Pogla˛dy Heleny i Szymona Syrkusów na architekture˛ w latach
1925–1956” [Helena and Szymon Syrkus’s views on architecture in 1925–1956], Kwartalnik
Historii Nauki i Techniki 54, 3/4: 123–164.
Piotrowski, Piotr. 2003. Central Europe in the face of unification. (www.artmargins.com/index.
php/featured-articles-sp-829273831/263-central-europe-in-the-face-of-unification) (date of
access: 5 January 2018).
Piotrowski, Piotr. 2005. Awangarda w cieniu Jałty. Sztuka Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej w
latach 1945–1989 [Avant-garde in the shadow of Yalta. Art in Central-Eastern Europe in
1945–1989]. Poznań: Rebis.
Piotrowski, Piotr. 2008. Writing Central European art history. Patterns traveling lecture set.
Vienna: Erste Stiftung.
References 139
Piotrowski, Piotr. 2009. “Towards a horizontal history of the European avant-garde”, in: Sasha
Bru et al. (eds.). Europa! Europa? The avant-garde, modernism and the fate of a continent.
Berlin: De Gruyter, 49–58.
Platzer, Monika. 1999. “Die CIAM und ihre Verbindungen nach Zentraleuropa”, in: Eve Blau
and Monkia Platzer (eds.). Mythos Großstadt: Architektur und Stadtbaukunst in Zentral-
europa, 1890–1937. München: Prestel, 227–231.
Poggioli, Renato 1962. Teoria dell’arte d’avanguardia [The theory of avant-garde art]. Bologna:
Il Mulino.
Poot, Jurrie. 2002. “Hendrik N. Werkman en de internationale avantgarde” [Hendrik N. Werk-
man and the international avant-garde], in: Hubert van den Berg and Gillis Dorleijn (eds.).
Avantgarde! Voorhoede? Vernieuwingsbewegingen in noord en zuid opnieuw beschouwd.
Nijmegen: Vantilt, 37–66.
Poprze˛cka, Maria and Lidia Jowlewa (eds.). 2004. Warszawa – Moskwa/Moskwa – Warszawa
1900–2000 [Warsaw – Moscow /Moscow – Warsaw 1900–2000]. Warszawa: Zache˛ta Naro-
dowa Galeria Sztuki.
Posthuma, Sjoukje and Han Steenbruggen (eds.). 1995. Hendrik N. Werkman 1882–1945.
Groningen: Groninger Museum.
Prat, Marie-Aline. 1984. Cercle et Carré: peinture et avant-garde au seuil ses années 30. Paris:
L’Age d’Homme.
Rickey, George. 1967. Constructivism: origins and evolution. New York: G. Brazillier.
Rypson, Piotr. 1989. Obraz słowa: historia poezji wizualnej [Image of the word: the history of
visual poetry]. Warszawa: Akademia Ruchu.
Rypson, Piotr. 2000. Ksia˛żki i strony. Polska ksia˛żka awangardowa i artystyczna w XX wieku
[Books and pages. Polish avant-garde and artistic books in the 20th century]. Warszawa:
Centrum Sztuki Współczesnej – Zamek Ujazdowski.
Rypson, Piotr. 2011. Against all odds. Polish graphic design 1919–1949. Kraków: Karakter.
Rypson, Piotr (ed.). 2015. Papież awangardy. Tadeusz Peiper w Hiszpanii, Polsce, Europie
[The pope of the avant-garde. Tadeusz Peiper in Spain, Poland, Europe]. Warszawa: Muzeum
Narodowe w Warszawie.
Seuphor, Michel. 1956. Piet Mondriaan. Life and work. New York: Harry Abrams.
Schraenen, Guy (ed.). 1985. Poolse avant-garde [The Polish avant-garde]. Antwerp: Cultureel
Centrum Berchen.
Ślizińska, Milada and Andrzej Turowski (eds.). 2014. Teresa Żarnowerówna 1897–1949. Ar-
tystka końca utopii [Teresa Żarnowerówna 1897–1949. An artist of the end of utopia]. Łódź:
Muzeum Sztuki.
Słodkowski, Piotr. 2009. “Centrum a peryferie, kanon a inna historia sztuki” [Centre and
periphery, canon and another history of art], Miscellanea 5, 9: 61–78.
Śniecikowska, Beata. 2005. Słowo – obraz – dźwie˛k. Literatura i sztuki wizualne w koncepcjach
polskiej awangardy 1918–1939 [Word – image – sound. Literature and visual arts in the Polish
avant-garde 1918–1939]. Kraków: Universitas.
Sołtysik, Maria J. 2009. “Modern movement in Gdynia and in Europe. Inspirations and analo-
gies”, in: Maria Sołtysik and Robert Hirsch (eds.). Modernism in Europe – Modernism in
Gdynia. Architecture of 1920s and 1930s and its protection. Gdynia: Gdynia City Hall, 69–79.
Somer, Kees. 2007. Functional city: the CIAM and Cornelis van Eesteren, 1928–1960. Rot-
terdam: NAi Publishers.
Spencer, Herbert. 1987. The liberated page. An anthology of major typographic experiments of
this century as recorded in ‘Typographica’ magazine. San Francisco: Bedford Press.
Spencer, Herbert. 2004. Pioneers of modern typography. Revised edition. Hampshire: Lund
Humphries.
Stanisławski, Ryszard. (ed.). 1979. L’Avanguardia polacca 1910–1978: S. I. Witkiewicz,
Costruttivismo, atisti contemporanei [Polish avant-garde 1919–1978: S.I. Witkiewicz, Con-
structivism, contemporary artists]. Roma: Electa.
140 References
Stanisławski, Ryszard. (ed.). 1990. Henryk Stazewski: pionero polaco del arte concreto [Henryk
Stażewski: a Polish pioneer of concreto art]. Las Palmas de Gran Canaria: Centro Atlantico
de Arte Moderna.
Stanisławski, Ryszard et al. 1971. Grupa a.r. 40-lecie mie˛dzynarodowej kolekcji sztuki nowo-
czesnej w Łodzi [The a.r. group. The 40th anniversary of the international collection of modern
art in Łódź]. Łódź: Muzeum Sztuki.
Stanisławski, Ryszard et al. 1973. Constructivism in Poland 1923–1936. Blok, Praesens, a.r.
Stuttgart: Dr. Cantz’sche Druckerei.
Stanisławski, Ryszard et al. 1983. Presences Polonaises. L’art vivant autour du Musée de Łódź.
Paris: Centre Georges Pompidou.
van Straaten, Evert. 1988. Theo van Doesburg: schilder en architect [Theo van Doesburg: painter
and architect]. ’s-Gravenhage: SDU Uitgeverij.
van Straaten, Evert. 1996. “Theo van Doesburg”, in: Carel Blotkamp (ed.). De vervolgjaren van
De Stijl 1922–1932. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij L.J.Veen, 15–66.
Strauven, Iwan and Paul Dujardin. 2016. “De Stijl and Belgium”, in: Gladys Fabre (ed.). Theo
van Doesburg. A new expression of life, art and technology. Brussels: BOZAR BOOKS and
Mercatorfonds, 159–165.
Stronias, Izabela. 2012. “Matematyczny świat rzeźb Katarzyny Kobro” [The mathematical
world of Katarzyna Kobro’s sculptures], in: Teksty Konferencji MathPAD 2012, UMK Toruń,
22–25 Sierpnia 2012. Toruń.
Strożek, Przemysław. 2012. Marinetti i futuryzm w Polsce 1909–1939. Obecność – kontakty –
wydarzenia [Marinetti and Futurism in Poland 1909–1939. Reception – contacts – events].
Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Sztuki PAN.
Strożek, Przemysław. 2013a. “Cracow and Warsaw: Becoming the avant-garde”, in: Peter
Brooker et al. (eds.). The Oxford critical and cultural history of modernist magazines. Volume III,
Europe 1880–1940. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1184–1207.
Strożek, Przemysław. 2013b. “Pismo ‘Formiści’ i pocza˛tki mie˛dzynarodowych kontaktów pol-
skiej awangardy (1919–1921)” [The Periodical ‘Formiści’ and the beginnings of the Polish
avant-garde’s international relations (1919–1921)], Rocznik Historii Sztuki 38: 71–86.
Suchan, Jarosław (ed.) 2010. Polak, Żyd, Artysta. Tożsamość a awangarda [Pole, Jew, artist.
Identity and the avant-garde]. Łódź: Muzeum Sztuki.
Suchan, Jarosław. 2012. “Early abstraction in Poland”, Leah Dickerman (ed.). Inventing
abstraction, 1910–1925. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 324–326.
Świtek, Gabriela. 2013. Gry sztuki z architektura˛. Nowoczesne powinowactwa i współczesne
integracje [Art playing with architecture. Modern affinities and contemporary integrations].
Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika.
Szczerski, Andrzej. 2010. Modernizacje. Sztuka i architektura w nowych państwach Europy
Środkowo-Wschodniej 1918–1939 [Modernisations. Art and architecture in the new states of
Central and Eastern Europe 1918–1939]. Łódź: Muzeum Sztuki.
Szczerski, Andrzej (ed.). 2011. Modernizm na peryferiach. Architektura Skoczowa, Śla˛ska i
Pomorza 1918–1939 [Modernism in the peripheries. Architecture of Skoczów, Silesia and
Pomerania 1918–1939]. Warszawa: Stowarzyszenie 40 000 Malarzy.
Szymusiak, Dominique et al. 2006. Avant-gardes polonaises: dialogues historiques depuis Mal-
evitch. Gent: Editions Snoeck.
Taverne, Ed, Cor Wagenaar and Martien de Vletter. 2001. J.J.P. Oud. Poëtisch functionalist
1890–1963. Compleet werk [J.J.P. Oud. Poetic functionalist 1890–1963. Complete works].
Rotterdam: NAi Uitgevers.
Ther, Philipp. 2009. “Comparisons, cultural transfers, and the study of networks. Toward a
transnational history of Europe”, in: Heinz-Gerhard Haupt and Jürgen Kocka (eds.). Com-
parative and transnational history. Central European approaches and new perspectives. New
York: Berghahn Books, 204–225.
Thijssen, Lucia. 1992. 1000 jaar Polen en Nederland [1000 years Poland and the Netherlands].
Zutphen: Walburg Pers.
References 141
Thomas, Angela. 2009. “Uit de turbulente geschiedenis van de internationale kunstenaarsvereni-
ging Abstraction-Création, Parijs 1931–1935” [From the turbulent history of the international
artistic association Abstraction-Création, Paris 1931–1935], in: Christoph Brockhaus and Hans
Janssen (eds.). Voor een nieuwe wereld. Georges Vantongerloo 1886–1965 en zijn omgeving
van Piet Mondriaan tot Max Bill. Den Haag: Gemeentemuseum Den Haag, 227–242.
Thomsen, Mads Rossendal. 2008. Mapping world literature: international canonization and
transnational literatures. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Tołłoczko Zdzisława and Tomasz Tołłoczko. 1999. W kre˛gu architektury konstruktywis-
tycznej, neokonstruktywistycznej i dekonstruktywistycznej [Between Constructivist, Neo-
Constructivist and Deconstructivist architecture]. Kraków: Polska Akademia Nauk.
Troy, Nancy J. 2013. Afterlife of Piet Mondrian. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tschichold, Jan. 1995. The new typography. A handbook for modern designers (Translated
by Ruari McLean. With an introduction by Robin Kinross). Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Tuijn, Marguerite I. 2003. Mon cher ami . . . Lieber Does . . .: Theo van Doesburg en de
praktijk van de internationale avant-garde [Mon cher ami . . . Lieber Does . . .: Theo van
Doesburg and the practices of the international avant-garde]. [Unpublished thesis, University
of Amsterdam.].
Turowski, Andrzej. 1973a. “Listy Władysława Strzemińskiego do Juliana Przybosia z lat
1929–1933” [Władysław Strzemiński’s letters to Julian Przyboś from 1929–1933], Rocznik
Historii Sztuki 9: 223–268.
Turowski, Andrzej. 1973b. “Komentarz do korespondencji Władysława Strzemińskiego”
[Commentary to Władysław Strzemiński’s correspondence], Rocznik Historii Sztuki 9:
269–283.
Turowski, Andrzej. 1979. “De Stijl i polska awangarda” [De Stijl and the Polish avant-garde],
in: Paul Overy. De Stijl. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Artystyczne i Filmowe, 140–163.
Turowski, Andrzej. 1981. Konstruktywizm polski: próba rekonstrukcji nurtu (1921–1934)
[Polish Constructivism. An attempt to reconstruct the trend (1921–1934)]. Wrocław: Zakład
Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.
Turowski, Andrzej. 1986. Existe-t-il un art de l’Europe de l’Est?. Paris: Editions de la Villette.
Turowski, Andrzej. 1990a. “L’avant-garde polonaise et Theo van Doesburg”, in: Serge Lemoine
(ed.). Theo van Doesburg. Paris: Philippe Sers Editeur, 172–179.
Turowski, Andrzej. 1990b. Wielka utopia awangardy [The great utopia of the avant-garde].
Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Turowski, Andrzej. 1998. Awangardowe marginesy [Margins of the avant-garde]. Warszawa:
Instytut Kultury.
Turowski, Andrzej. 1999. “Rytmologia teoretyczna czyli fantastyczny świat rzeźb Katarzyny
Kobro” [Theoretical rhythmology, or the fantastical world of sculptures of Katarzyna Kobro],
in: Elżbieta Fuchs et al. (eds.). Katarzyna Kobro 1898–1951: w setna˛ rocznice˛ urodzin/
On the 100th anniversary of her birth. Łódź: Muzeum Sztuki, 85–90.
Turowski, Andrzej. 2000. Budowniczowie świata: z dziejów radykalnego modernizmu w sztuce
polskiej [Builders of the world. The history of radical modernism in Polish art]. Kraków:
Universitas.
Turowski, Andrzej. 2002a. Malewicz w Warszawie: rekonstrukcje i symulacje [Malevich in
Warsaw: reconstructions and simulations]. Kraków: Universitas.
Turowski, Andrzej. 2002b. “The phenomenon of blurring”, in: O. Benson (ed.). Central Euro-
pean avant-gardes: exchange and transformation, 1910–1930. Los Angeles: County Museum
of Art and Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 362–373.
Turowski, Andrzej. 2015. “O rozkwitaja˛cej formie Tadeusza Peipera” [On the flourishing form
of Tadeusz Peiper], in: Piotr Rypson (ed.). Papież awangardy. Tadeusz Peiper w Hiszpanii,
Polsce, Europie. Warszawa: Muzeum Narodowe w Warszawie, 354–395.
Urbanowicz, Bohdan. 1959. Poolse schilderkunst van nu [Polish contemporary painting].
Amsterdam: Stedelijk Museum.
142 References
Vandevoorde, Hans. 2013. “L’art communautaire au début des années 1920: de l’expressionisme
au consructivisme”, in: Johan De Smet (ed.), Modernisme. L’art abstrait belge et l’Europe.
Gent: Fonds Mercator, 224–232.
Veen, Lodewijk A. 2011. Het geschreven werk van Piet Mondriaan [The written works of Piet
Mondrian]. [Unpublished thesis, University of Utrecht.].
Veivo, Harri (ed). 2012. Transferts, appropriations et fonctions de l’avant-garde dans l’Europe
intermédiaire et du nord. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Versari, Maria E. 2006. “International Futurism goes national: the ambivalent identity of a
national/international avant-garde”, in: Jacek Purchla and Wolf Tegethoff (eds.), Nation style
modernism. Kraków: Mie˛dzynarodowe Centrum Kultury and München: Zentralinstitut für
Kunstgeschichte, 171–184.
de Vries, Anneke et al. (eds.). 2015. H.N. Werkman 1882–1945. Leven & werk [H.N. Werkman
1882–1945. Life & work]. Zwolle: WBOOKS.
Walczak-Delanois, Dorota. 2001. Inne oblicze awangardy: o mie˛dzywojennej poezji Jana
Brze˛kowskiego, Jalu Kurka i Adama Ważyka [Another face of the avant-garde: on interwar
poetry of Jan Brze˛kowski, Jalu Kurek and Adam Ważyk]. Poznań: Poznańskie Studia Polo-
nistyczne. Seria Literacka.
Warncke, Carsten-Peter. 1990. Het ideaal als kunst. De Stijl 1917–1931 [The ideal as art.
De Stijl 1917–1931]. Hedel: Librero and Keulen: Taschen.
Weisgerber, Jean (ed.). 1991. Les avant-gardes littéraires en Belgique. Brussels: Centre d’Etude
des Avant-Gardes Littéraires de l’Université de Bruxelles.
Welsh, Robert P. 1971. “Mondrian and Theosophy”, in: Piet Mondrian Centennial Exhibition.
New York: S.R. Guggenheim Museum, 35–51.
Welton, William A. 2014. Phaedrus. Commentary (http://kentzendo.org/welton/PhaedrusTP1.
html) (date of access: 5 January 2018).
Wenderski, Michał. 2015a. “The influence of interpersonal relationships on the functioning of
the Constructivist network – a case study of Poland and the Low Countries”, Journal of Dutch
Literature 6, 2: 1–20.
Wenderski, Michał. 2015b. “Mutual exchange between Polish and Belgian modernist magazines
as a case study in cultural mobility within the interwar network of the avant-garde”, Tijd-
schrift voor Tijdschriftstudies 37: 37–52.
Wenderski, Michał. 2015c. “Polen, Vlaanderen en Nederland: tussen de oost–west en centrum–
periferie scheidslijnen van de historische avant-garde” [Poland, Flanders and the Netherlands:
between east–west and centre–periphery lines of division of the historical avant-garde], in:
Jana Engelbrechtová (ed.). De Nederlandstalige literatuur internationaal. Centraal-Europese
blikken op de Nederlandstalige literatuur. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci,
85–103.
Wenderski, Michał. 2017a. “Literary, artistic and architectural exchange between Dutch and
Polish avant-gardes: a case study in European cultural mobility in the 1920s and 30s”, Dutch
Crossing: Journal of Low Countries Studies 41, 2: 143–159.
Wenderski, Michał. 2017b. “Between Poland and the Netherlands: an attempt at a reconstruc-
tion of mutual contacts and cultural mobility between selected avant-garde groups”, in:
Paulina Kurc-Maj and Anna Saciuk-Ga˛sowska (eds.), Organizers of life. De Stijl, the Polish
avant-garde, and design. Łódź: Muzeum Sztuki, 79–97.
White, Michael. 2003. De Stijl and Dutch modernism. Manchester: Manchester University
Press.
White, Michael. 2009. “Theo van Doesburg: a counter-life”, in: Gladys Fabre and Doris Wint-
gens Hötte (eds.). Van Doesburg & the international avant-garde: constructing a new world.
London: Tate Publishing, 68–75.
Wicha, Marcin. 2015. Jak przestałem kochać design [How I stopped loving design]. Kraków:
Karakter.
References 143
Wieczorek, Marek. 2002. Georges Vantongerloo. Het heelal in de huiskamer en de Nieuwe
Beelding van De Stijl/The universe in the living room in the space of De Stijl. Utrecht: Centraal
Museum.
Wieczorek, Marek. 2009. “Voor de nieuwe wereld: Georges Vantongerloo en de beloofde van
de kunst” [For the new world. Georges Vantongerloo and the promise of art], in: Chris-
toph Brockhaus and Hans Janssen (eds.). Voor een nieuwe wereld. Georges Vantongerloo
1886–1965 en zijn omgeving van Piet Mondriaan tot Max Bill. Den Haag: Gemeentemuseum
Den Haag, 11–47.
Wierzbicka, Anna. 2009. We Francji i w Polsce 1900–1939. Sztuka, jej historyczne uwarunkowania
i odbiór w świetle krytyków polsko-francuskich [In France and in Poland 1900–1939.
Art, its historical conditions and reception according to Polish–French critics]. Warszawa: Instytut
Sztuki PAN.
Wierzbicka, Anna. 2016. Świadectwa obecności. Polskie życie artystyczne we Francji w latach
1900–1939. Diariusz wydarzeń z wyborem tekstów. Cze˛ść II: lata 1922–1929 [Proofs of pres-
ence. Polish artistic life in France in 1900–1939. A diary of events with a selection of texts. Part II:
1922–1929]. Warszawa: Instytut Sztuki PAN and Fundacja Historia i Kultura.
van Wijk, Kees. 2011. “Een Europees platform voor de avant-garde: de Internationale Revue
i10 (1927–1929)” [A European platform for the avant-garde: de Internationale Revue i10
(1927–1929)], Tijdschrift voor Tijdschriftstudies 30: 107–123.
Wintgens Hötte, Doris. 2009. “Van Doesburg tackles the continent: passion, drive & calcula-
tion”, in: Gladys Fabre and Doris Wintgens Hötte (eds.). Van Doesburg & the international
avant-garde: constructing a new world. London: Tate Publishing, 10–19.
Wisłocka, Izabella. 1968. Awangardowa architektura polska 1918–1939 [Polish avant-garde
architecture 1918–1939]. Warszawa: Arkady.
Yanoshevsky, Galia. 2009a. “Three decades of writing on manifesto: the making of a genre”,
Poetics Today 30, 2: 257–286.
Yanoshevsky, Galia. 2009b. “The literary manifesto and related notions: a selected annotated
bibliography”, Poetics Today 30, 2: 287–315.
Yúdice, George. 1999. “Rethinking the theory of the avant-garde from the periphery”, in:
Anthony L. Geist and José B. Monléon (eds.). Modernism and its margins. Reinscribing cul-
tural modernism from Spain and Latin America. New York: Garland, 52–80.
Zagrodzki, Janusz. 1984. Katarzyna Kobro i kompozycja przestrzeni [Katarzyna Kobro and the
composition of space]. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnicto Naukowe.
Zagrodzki, Janusz. 2000. Henryk Stażewski: w kre˛gu awangardy/within the circle of the avant-
garde 1921–1933. Łódź: Muzeum Sztuki.
Zagrodzki, Janusz. 2014. Władysław Strzemiński. Obrazy słów [Władysław Strzemiński. The
images of words]. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Państwowej Wyższej Szkoły Filmowej, Telewizyjnej
i Teatralnej.
Zajas, Paweł. 2014. “Transfer w czasach konfliktu. Aktorzy propagandy kulturowej w czasie
pierwszej wojny światowej” [Transfer in times of conflict. Actors of cultural propaganda dur-
ing World War I], Przegla˛d Humanistyczny 4: 31–51.
Zajas, Paweł. 2016. Niemilkna˛ce muzy. Wydawcy, pisarze, tłumacze i pośrednicy kulturowi na
frontach Wielkiej Wojny (1914–1918) [Unmuted muses. Editors, writers, translators and cul-
tural intermediaries in the Great War (1914–1918)]. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
Appendix
The following tables include an overview of traces of Polish–Dutch and Polish–Belgian

mobility identified in the analysed periodicals and books. Tables 1, 2 and 3 include
texts, reproductions and mentions of books: both Belgian and Dutch elements in
Polish publications (including L’Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna), and Pol-
ish contributions to Dutch and Belgian periodicals, as well as to Cercle et Carré and
Abstraction-Création. Table 4 presents traces of mutual references between the analy-
sed periodicals from Poland and the Low Countries. Selected architectural periodicals
are also included in the tables. For untitled texts published in the analysed periodicals,
the names of their editor(s) are given in square brackets. If possible, titles of untitled
works have been identified and are given in square brackets.
Table 1 Written contributions of Polish, Dutch and Belgian provenance in the analysed books
and periodicals
No. Author Title Source Vol. Issue Date
1 Baugniet, “Wieczysta wartość Blok – 11 03.1926

Marcel-Louis dzieła sztuki maleje
jeżeli . . .”
2 Berlinerblau, “Budowa domu Dom Osiedle 5 7/8 07/08.1933
Tadeusz biurowego Mieszkanie
towarzystwa
asekuracyjnego
O.L.V.E.H w
Haadze”
3 “Holenderskie Architektura i 12 1 01.1936
mieszkania na Budownictwo`
jednej kondygnacji
(Flatbouw)”
4 Bourgeois, Victor “Sztuka Grupowania” Blok – 11 03.1926
5 [Bourgeois, “Artysta a rewolucja” Zwrotnica – 11 03.1927
6 Pierre et al.] “Revue de la presse. 7 Arts 5 17 03.1927
Pologne littéraire –
Złota 8 – Varsovie”
144
7 Brze˛kowski, Jan “De nieuwe kunst in Het Overzicht – 21 04.1924

Polen”
8 “Après une vingtaine Cercle et Carré – 1 03.1930
d’années de
recherche . . .”
9 “Pour le film abstrait” Cercle et Carré – 3 06.1930
10 Carlsund, Otto “Deklaracja sztuki Europa – 11 08.1930
et al. konkretnej”
11 Dermée, Paul “O literaturze Europa – 1 05.1929
proletarjackiej”
12 “Literatura Europa – 1’ 09.1929
proletarjacka”
13 van Doesburg, “Odnowienie Blok – 5 07.1924
Theo architektury”
14 “Ku sztuce Praesens – 1 06.1926
elementów”
15 “Klassiek–Barok– Almanach. – – 1928
Moderne” Katalog. Salon
[fragment] modernistów
16 “Uwagi. Ankieta Europa 2 10/11.1929
‘Europy’”
17 “Belangrijke nieuwe Het Bouwbedrijf 7 20 09.1930
uitgaven over nieuwe
architectuur”
18 “Kunst- en Het Bouwbedrijf 7 18 08.1930
19 architectuur- 8 5 02.1931
vernieuwingen in
Polen”
20 “Ewolucja Architektura i 7 8/9 08/09.1931
architektury Budownictwo
nowoczesnej w
Holandji”
21 [editos of] Blok “7 Arts et le 7 Arts 4 20 02.1926
modernisme
international.
Pologne: ‘Blok’”
22 van Eesteren, “Funkcja–przestrzeń– Praesens – 2 05.1930
Cornelis forma”
23 Eiger, Antoni “Cement en beton in Het Bouwbedrijf 8 26 08.1931
Polen”
24 Flouquet, Pierre- “Panorama malarstwa Praesens – 2 05.1930
Louis nowoczesnego”
25 “Un peintre Polonais Anthologie 9 5/6 05/06.1929
Leopold Survage” du Groupe
Moderne d’Art
26 Goriély, Benjamin “Lettres étrangères. 7 Arts 4 6 11.1925
Anatol Stern: le
poète polonais”
(Continued)
145
Table 1 (Continued)
27 de Horion, “Wladyslas Reymont, Anthologie 5 3/4 03/04.1925

Constant Lauréat du Prix du Groupe
Nobel” Moderne d’Art
28 [Jankowski, Józef “Kronika” Dom Osiedle 2 7 07.1930
et al.] Mieszkanie
29 “Dom żelbetowy arch. Dom Osiedle 3 2 02.1931
L. H. de Koninck” Mieszkanie
30 “Kronika. Hendrik Dom Osiedle 4 5 05.1932
Petrus Berlage” Mieszkanie
31 Jasieński, Henryk “O nowem Dom Osiedle 3 3 03.1931
trzytraktowem Mieszkanie
rozwia˛zaniu
holenderskiem”
31 Kobro, Katarzyna “L’action de Abstraction- – 2 1933
sculpteur . . .” Création
32 Korngold Syriusz “Les éléments du Documents – 1 1927
dessin . . .” Internationaux
de l’Esprit
Nouveau
33 Lauterbach, “Tanie mieszkania w Architektura i 2 4 01–05.1926
Alfred Holandji” Budownictwo
34 Leppla, Heinrich “Schiedam Dom Osiedle 6 2 02.1934
(Holandja)” Mieszkanie
35 Limperg, Koeb “Organizacje Architektura i 10 6 06.1933
architektoniczne w Budownictwo
Holandji”
36 Linze, Georges “Słowo. O nowej Anthologie 5 3/4 03/04.1925
sztuce” du Groupe
Moderne d’Art
37 Lubiński, Piotr “Współczesna Architektura i 6 1/2 01/02.1930
38 architektura Budownictwo 6 3 03.1930
39 holenderska” 6 4/5 04/05.1930
40 6 6 06.1930
41 6 7 07.1930
42 “H.P. Berlage” Architektura i 10 11 11.1934
Budownictwo
43 Mondrian, Piet “Nowa plastyka” Europa 3 11/12.1929
44 “Neo-plastycyzm” Praesens – 2 05.1930
45 Otlet, Paul “Osiedle światowe” Europa 2 10/11.1929
46 Oud, J.J.P. “Wychowanie przez Praesens – 1 06.1926
architekture˛”
47 “Myśli” Praesens – 2 05.1930
48 “Wpływ Franka Architektura i 9 6 06.1933
Wright’a na Budownictwo
architekture˛
europejska˛”
146
49 Peiper, Tadeusz “7 Arts et la 7 Arts 4 24 04.1926

presse étrangère.
Pologne”
50 Servranckx, “Za najważniejsze Blok – 11 03.1926
Victor zadania
artysty . . .”
51 Seuphor, Michel “Filozofja L’Art Contem- – 1 04.1929
aktualności” porain – Sztuka
Współczesna
52 “Sardaigne/Sardynja” L’Art Contem- – 1 04.1929
porain – Sztuka
Współczesna
53 “Spokój wód” L’Art Contem- – 2 05.1930
porain – Sztuka
Współczesna
54 “Cœur tendre” L’Art Contem- – 3 06.1930
porain – Sztuka
Współczesna
55 [Seuphor, Michel “La revue ‘Europa’ de Cercle et Carré – 3 06.1930
and Joaquín Varsovie”
Torres-García]
56 Stażewski, Henryk “L’Art abstrait” Anthologie 5 3/4 03/04.1925
du Groupe
Moderne d’Art
57 “L’homme nouveau Cercle et Carré – 1 03.1930
sait voir le
monde . . .”
58 “L’art plastique Abstraction- – 1 1932
comme résumé de la Création
vie culturelle”
59 “Ni le classicisme . . .” Abstraction- – 2 1933
Création
60 Stern, Anatol “Europe” 7 Arts 4 6 11.1925
61 Strzemiński, “Là, où il y a Abstraction- – 1 1932
Władysław une division, Création
le tableau est
coupé en parties”
62 “En peignant le Abstraction- – 2 1933
nu . . .” Création
63 Syrkus, Helena “De l’architecture et L’Équerre 7 7 07.1935
and Szymon de la production
64 7 8 08.1935
Syrkus des habitations
ouvrières”
65 “Une colonie pour L’Équerre 8 3/4 03/04.1936
3.000 familles . . .”
(Continued)
147
Table 1 (Continued)
66 Syrkus, Helena “Quand on a compris L’Équerre 9 1 01.1937

and Szymon que . . .”
Syrkus
67 “La généalogie L’Équerre 10 5 05.1938
de l’architecture
fonctionnelle”
68 Syrkus, Szymon “L’Architecture Internationale 1 5 05.1927
ouvrant le volume” Revue i10
69 “Charakterystyczna˛ Dom Osiedle 3 6 06.1931
cecha˛ architektury Mieszkanie
współczesnej
jest . . .”
70 “Het nieuwe bouwen de 8 en Opbouw 5 13 06.1934
in Polen. De
buitenmuur”
71 Szczuka, “Le mouvement Anthologie 5 3/4 03/04.1925
Mieczysław artistique en du Groupe
Pologne” Moderne d’Art
72 [Szczuka, “Notre enquête 7 Arts 3 5 12.1924
Mieczysław internationale sur
and Teresa le modernisme.
Żarnower] Pologne. La revue
Blok (Varsovie) nous
répond. Quelques
principes. Quelques
exemples”
73 “Qu’est-ce que le Anthologie 5 3/4 03/04.1925
‘Constructivisme’” du Groupe
Moderne d’Art
74 Toeplitz, Teodor “Societé nationale Dom Osiedle 3 2 02.1931
d’habitation à bon Mieszkanie
marché”
75 “Krajobrazy Dom Osiedle 3 3 03.1931
przyszłości” Mieszkanie
76 “Belgijski domek Dom Osiedle 5 1 01.1933
robotniczy” Mieszkanie
77 Tołwiński, “5me Congrès L’Équerre 9 7 07.1937
Stanisław International
d’Architecture
Moderne ‘Logis et
Loisirs’ (Juillet 1937)”
78 Vantongerloo, “Ankieta Europy” Europa – 3 11/12.1929
Georges
79 van de Velde, “Le style moderne” Blok – 11 03.1926
Henry
148
Table 2 Reproductions of artworks of Polish, Dutch and Belgian provenance in the analysed
books and periodicals
1 Baugniet, [furniture design] Blok – 11 03.1926

Marcel-Louis
2 Berlage, H.P. [various architectural Architektura i 6 1/2 01/02.1930
4 projects] – 7 figures Budownictwo 6 3 03.1930
8 Dom Osiedle 4 5 05.1932
Mieszkanie
9 Bourgeois, La Cité Moderne in Blok – 11 03.1926
Victor Brussels
10 Houses in Brussels Praesens – 2 05.1930
27 Brinkman Van Nelle factory Architektura i 6 6 06.1930
Johannes and in Rotterdam – 19 Budownictwo
29 Leendert van figures 7 2 02.1931
31 der Vlugt Van Nelle offices in Architektura i 6 6 06.1930
Leiden – 2 figures Budownictwo
33 Brukalska, Polish pavilion at the de 8 en Opbouw 8 18/19 09.1937
Barbara Parisian exhibition in
1937–2 figures
35 Brukalska, House in Warsaw – 2 Het Bouwbedrijf 7 18 08.1930
Barbara and figures
Stanisław
Brukalski
37 Brukalski, House in Warsaw – 2 de 8 en Opbouw 7 19 09.1936
Stanisław and figures
Józef Szanajca
40 Chmielewski, [Warszawa L’Équerre 7 8 08.1935
Jan and funkcjonalna] – 3
Szymon Syrkus figures
41 van Doesburg, [Compositie XIII] Blok – 2 04.1924
42 Theo [Compositie XX] L’Art Contem- – 3 06.1930
porain – Sztuka
Współczesna
43 Compositie VI op Architektura i 7 8/9 08/09.1931
zwart grond Budownictwo
44 Contra-compositie VI Architektura i 7 8/9 08/09.1931
Budownictwo
45 Contra-compositie VIII Praesens – 1 06.1926
46 Contra-compositie XIII Architektura i 7 8/9 08/09.1931
Budownictwo
47 Contra-compositie XIV Praesens – 1 06.1926
48 Kompozycja – – 1931
przestrzeni
(Continued)
149
Table 2 (Continued)
49 van Doesburg, Contra-compositie Praesens – 1 06.1926

Theo XIV – sketch
50 Kompozycja – – 1931
przestrzeni
51 Simultane compositie Architektura i 7 8/9 08/09.1931
XXIV Budownictwo
53 van Doesburg, Maison Particulière – Blok – 5 07.1924
55 Theo and 5 figures Kompozycja – – 1931
Cornelis van przestrzeni
56 Eesteren Dom Osiedle 5 3/4 03/04.1933
Mieszkanie
57 Maison d’Artiste – Praesens – 1 06.1926
59 3 figures Kompozycja – – 1931
przestrzeni
60 van Doesburg, Hôtel Particulier – Zwrotnica – 8 06.1926
63 Theo, Cornelis 5 figures Architekt 21 1 1926
64 van Eesteren Architektura i 7 8/9 08/09.1931
and Gerrit Budownictwo
Rietveld
65 van Doesburg, Hall in Dom Osiedle 1 4 06.1929
Theo and J.J.P. Noordwijkerhout Mieszkanie
Oud
66 Domela [linocut] Blok – 8/9 11/12.1924
Nieuwenhuis,
César
68 Dudok, W.M. De Bijenkorf in Architektura i 6 3 03.1930
Rotterdam – 2 figures Budownictwo
69 Collège néerlandais in Architektura i 6 3 03.1930
Paris Budownictwo
70 Columbarium in Architektura i 6 3 03.1930
Westerveld Budownictwo
72 House in Hengelo – Architektura i 6 1/2 01/02.1930
2 figures Budownictwo
82 Various school Architektura i 6 3 03.1930
buildings in Budownictwo 6 5/6 05/06.1934
Hilversum –
10 figures 6 7 07.1930
83 Duiker, Jan [Openluchtschool voor Dom Osiedle 6 5/6 05/06.1934

het gezonde kind in Mieszkanie
Amsterdam]
84 [interior design] Architektura i 6 7 07.1930

Budownictwo
85 Cinema in Amsterdam Architektura i 10 11 11.1934
Budownictwo
150
87 Duiker, Jan and Sonnenstraal Praesens – 2 05.1930

89 Bernard Byvoet sanatorium, Architektura i 6 3 03.1930
Hilversum – 4 figures Budownictwo
91 van Eesteren, Commercial centre Praesens – 2 05.1930
Cornelis by Laan van
Meerdervoort in The
Hague – 2 figures
92 Unter den Linden in Architektura i 3 1 01.1927
Berlin [competition Budownictwo
entry]
94 Flouquet, Pierre- [painting] – 2 figures Praesens – 2 05.1930
Louis
95 Golus, Jan [painting] Anthologie 5 3/4 03/04.1925
du Groupe
Moderne d’Art
96 van ’t Hoff, Huis-ter-Heide Architekt 21 1 1926
Robert
97 de Klerk, Michel Eigen Haard, Praesens – 2 05.1930
98 Amsterdam Architektura i 6 1/2 01/02.1930
Budownictwo
99 [painting] Architektura i 6 1/2 01/02.1930
Budownictwo
101 de Koninck, [Lenglet] House in Dom Osiedle 5 7/8 07/08.1933
L.H. Brussels – 2 figures Mieszkanie
104 [residential building] – Dom Osiedle 3 2 02.1931
3 figures Mieszkanie
105 Kobro, [Kompozycja Abstraction- – 2 1933
Katarzyna przestrzenna 5] Création
106 [Kompozycja Abstraction- – 2 1933
przestrzenna 7] Création
109 [Akt 5] Abstraction- – 5 1936
Création
111 Korngold, [drawing] – 2 figures Documents – 1 1927
Syriusz Internationaux
de l’Esprit
Nouveau
112 Lachert, Bohdan PWK pavilion Het Bouwbedrijf 7 18 08.1930
113 and Józef Szyller’s Villa in Het Bouwbedrijf 8 5 02.1931
Szanajca Warsaw
114 Row house in Warsaw Het Bouwbedrijf 8 5 02.1931
115 [residential building] L’Équerre 7 8 08.1935
(Continued)
151
Table 2 (Continued)
116 Mondrian, Piet [Tableau No. IV. L’Art – 3 06.1930

Ruitvormige Contemporain –
Compositie met Sztuka
Rood, Grijs, Blauw, Współczesna
Geel en Zwart]
117 [Tableau I: Ruit met Praesens – 2 05.1930
vier lijnen en grijs]
118 [Compositie met rood, Praesens – 2 05.1930
119 zwart, blauw en geel] Dom Osiedle 3 6 06.1931
Mieszkanie
120 [Compositie II Dom Osiedle 3 6 06.1931
met rood, blauw, Mieszkanie
zwart en geel]
121 [Tableau Dom Osiedle 3 6 06.1931
Losangique II] Mieszkanie
122 [library for Ida Bienert Praesens – 2 05.1930
– interior design]
123 [painting 1] L’Art Contem- – 1 04.1929
porain – Sztuka
Współczesna
124 Praesens – 2 05.1930
125 [painting 2] Dom Osiedle 3 6 06.1931
Mieszkanie
126 Mondrian, Piet Tableau-poème L’Art Contem- – 1 04.1929
and Michel (Textuel) porain – Sztuka
Seuphor Współczesna
127 Praesens – 2 05.1930
128 Nicz-Borowiak, [painting] Anthologie 5 3/4 03/04.1925
Maria du Groupe
Moderne d’Art
130 Norwerth, Architectural project – Het Bouwbedrijf 8 5 02.1931
Edgar 2 figures
131 Oud, J.J.P. Row houses in Hoek Blok – 11 03.1926
133 van Holland – Architekt 21 5 1926
136 8 figures Praesens – 2 05.1930
138 Architektura i 6 1/2 01/02.1930
Budownictwo
143 Kiefhoek estate, Praesens – 2 05.1930
Rotterdam – 5 figures
144 Weissenhof estate, Architektura i 3 11/12 11/12.1927
145 Stuttgart – figures Budownictwo 6 1/2 01/02.1930
146 Oud-Mathenesse estate Blok – 8/9 11/12.1924
– 10 figures
147 Blok – 11 03.1926
152 Praesens – 1 06.1926
152
153 Oud, J.J.P. Oud-Mathenesse estate– Dom Osiedle 1 4 06.1929

10 figures Mieszkanie
154 Architektura i 6 1/2 01/02.1930
Budownictwo
155 Dom Osiedle 5 3/4 03/04.1933
Mieszkanie
156 Café de Unie in Architekt 21 1 1926
157 Rotterdam Architektura i 6 3 03.1930
Budownictwo
158 [other architectural Blok – 11 03.1926
166 projects] Architektura i 2 4 01/05.1926
Budownictwo
168 6 3 03.1930
170 6 6 06.1930
172 6 7 07.1930
174 Peeters, Jozef [linocuts] – 2 figures Blok – 11 03.1926
175 Rafałowski, [painting 1] Anthologie 5 1/2 12.1924/
Aleksander du Groupe 01.1925
Moderne d’Art
176 [painting 2] 7 Arts 3 5 12.1924
178 van Ravesteyn, [interior design] – 5 Architektura i 6 7 07.1930
Sybold figures Budownictwo
181 Blok – 11 03.1926
182 [railway building] Blok – 11 03.1926
183 Rietveld, Gerrit [Berlijnse stoel] Blok – 11 03.1926
184 Architekt 21 5 1926
185 [Rood-blauwe stoel] Blok – 11 03.1926
186 [N.V. Goud- en Blok – 11 03.1926
187 Zilversmidcompagnie Architektura i 6 7 07.1930
shop] Budownictwo
190 Schröder House, Architektura i 6 7 07.1930
Utrecht – 9 figures Budownictwo
191 Praesens – 1 06.1926
192 Architekt 21 1 1926
194 Architekt 21 5 1926
196 Blok – 11 03.1926
197 [other projects] – 3 Blok – 11 03.1926
199 figures Architektura i 6 7 07.1930
Budownictwo
200 Servranckx, [interior design] Blok – 11 03.1926
201 Victor [painting 1] Blok – 10 04.1925
202 [painting 2] Blok – 10 04.1925
203 [painting 3] Blok – 10 04.1925
204 [painting 4] Praesens – 2 05.1930
205 [sculpture] Blok – 11 03.1926
(Continued)
153
Table 2 (Continued)
206 Stam, Mart Weissenhof estate, Praesens – 2 05.1930

Stuttgart
207 Stażewski, [painting 1] 7 Arts 3 5 12.1924
208 Henryk [painting 2] Anthologie 5 3/4 03/04.1925
du Groupe
Moderne d’Art
209 [painting 3] Internationale 1 5 05.1927
Revue i10
210 [painting 4] Cercle et Carré – 2 04.1930
211 [painting 5] Abstraction- – 1 1932
Création
Création
Création
Création
216 Stefanowicz, Jan Market hall in Końskie Het Bouwbedrijf 8 5 02.1931
– 2 figures
217 House in Warsaw Het Bouwbedrijf 8 5 02.1931
218 Strzemiński, [Kompozycja 7 Arts 3 5 12.1924
Władysław syntetyczna]
architektoniczna 6] Création
architektoniczna 7] Création
unistyczna] Création
unistyczna 12] Création
unistyczna 13] Création
227 Syrkus, Szymon PWK pavilion – Het Bouwbedrijf 7 20 09.1930
2 figures
229 PWK pavilion – Het Bouwbedrijf 7 18 08.1930
2 figures
230 Syrkus, Szymon House in Katowice de 8 en Opbouw 3 18 09.1932
and Stanisław
Hempel
238 Syrkus, Helena [various architectural de 8 en Opbouw 5 13 06.1934
243 and Szymon projects] – 31 figures 10 17/18 09.1939
249 Syrkus L’Équerre 7 7 07.1935
259 7 8 08.1935
261 10 5 05.1938
154
262 Szanajca, Józef Crematorium project Het Bouwbedrijf 7 18 08.1930

263 Szczuka, [Montaż fotograficzny] 7 Arts 3 5 12.1924
264 Mieczysław [collage] Anthologie 5 3/4 03/04.1925
du Groupe
Moderne d’Art
265 [painting] 7 Arts 3 10 01.1925
266 Szczuka, [Zabudowania 7 Arts 4 20 02.1926
Mieczysław, blokowe]
Piotr Koziński
and Antoni
Karczewski
267 Vantongerloo, Construction des Praesens – 2 05.1930
268 Georges rapports des volumes L’Art Contem- – 3 06.1930
émanant du carré porain – Sztuka
inscrit et le carré Współczesna
269 circonscrit d’un cercle Kompozycja – – 1931
przestrzeni
270 [Construction dans la L’Art Contem- – 2 05.1930
sphère] porain – Sztuka
Współczesna
271 Construction xy = k Kompozycja – – 1931
przestrzeni
272 Construction des Kompozycja – – 1931
rapports des przestrzeni
volumes émanent de
l’ellipsoïde
273 Construction des Kompozycja – – 1931
rapports des volumes przestrzeni
275 van de Velde, La Nouvelle Maison Dom Osiedle 5 9 09.1933
Henry in Brussels – Mieszkanie
2 figures
277 Theatre in Koln – Blok – 11 03.1926
2 figures
278 van der Vlugt, Houses in Ommen Blok – 11 03.1926
Leendert and Rotterdam –
5 figures
282 Architektura i 6 1/2 01/02.1930
Budownictwo
284 Nijverheidsschool in Blok – 11 03.1926
285 Groningen – Architekt 21 5 1926
3 figures
286 [other projects] – Architektura i 6 3 03.1930
2 figures Budownictwo
287 Dom Osiedle 3 12 12.1931
Mieszkanie
288 Werkman, [druksel] Blok – 8/9 11/12.1924
Hendrik
Nicolaas
(Continued)
155
Table 2 (Continued)
289 Wils, Jan [interior design] Architektura i 6 7 07.1930

Budownictwo
292 Olympic Stadium Architektura i 6 3 03.1930
in Amsterdam – 3 Budownictwo
figures
318 OLVEH offices in The Dom Osiedle 5 7/8 07/08.1933
Hague – 16 figures Mieszkanie
319 House in The Hague Architektura i 6 4/5 04/05.1930
Budownictwo
320 Żarnower, [Konstrukcja filmowa] Anthologie 5 3/4 03/04.1925
Teresa du Groupe
Moderne d’Art
321 [painting 1] 7 Arts 3 5 12.1924
322 [painting 2] 7 Arts 3 10 01.1925
323 Construction théâtrale 7 Arts 5 3 11.1926
325 Żarnower, [Projekt kina] – 2 7 Arts 4 20 02.1926
Teresa, Piotr figures
Koziński
and Antoni
Karczewski
326 [various [various projects and 7 Arts 4 23 03.1926
327 authors] photos] – 125 figures Praesens – 2 05.1930
332 Architektura i 6 1/2 01/02.1930
342 Budownictwo 6 3 03.1930
364 6 4/5 04/05.1930
369 6 6 06.1930
378 6 7 07.1930
384 7 2 02.1931
385 10 12 12.1934
386 [various [various projects and Architektura i 11 2 02.1935
387 authors] photos] – 125 figures Budownictwo 11 3/4 03/04.1935
399 Het Bouwbedrijf 8 26 08.1931
402 Dom Osiedle 1 2 04.1929
403 Mieszkanie 1 3 05.1929
404 2 7 07.1930
416 3 2 02.1931
432 3 3 03.1931
434 5 1 01.1933
435 6 2 02.1934
442 6 5/6 05/06.1934
450 de 8 en Opbouw 5 13 06.1934
156
Table 3 Mentions of books of Polish, Dutch and Belgian provenance in the analysed periodicals
No. Book Author Book Title Source Vol. Issue Date

1 Aronson, Chil L’Art polonais Praesens – 2 05.1930
moderne
[exhibition
catalogue]
2 van Doesburg, Grundbegriffe der Praesens – 2 05.1930
Theo Neuen Kunst
3 Kurek, Jalu Upały De Stijl 7 75/76 1926
4 van Loghem, J.B. Bouwen Dom Osiedle 5 2 02.1933
Mieszkanie
5 Mondrian, Piet Le Néo-plasticisme Praesens – 2 05.1930
6 Neue Praesens – 2 05.1930
Gestaltung (Le
Néoplasticisme)
7 Oud, J.J.P. Architektura Praesens – 1 06.1926
holenderska
[unpublished]
8 Holländische Praesens – 2 05.1930
Architektur
9 Peiper, Tadeusz A Het – 21 04.1924
Overzicht
10 Żywe linje Het – 22/23/24 02.1925
Overzicht
11 Szósta! Szósta! De Stijl 7 75/76 1926
12 Poupeye, Camille La mise en Praesens – 2 05.1930
scène théâtrale
d’aujourd’hui
13 Przyboś, Julian Z ponad De Stijl 7 75/76 1926
14 Śruby De Stijl 7 75/76 1926
15 Seuphor, Michel Diaphragme Praesens – 2 05.1930
intérieur et un
drapeau
16 Strzemiński, catalogue of Het – 18/19 10.1923
Władysław Exhibition of New Overzicht
and Witold Art in Vilnius
Kajruksztis
17 Vantongerloo, L’Art et son avenir Praesens – 2 05.1930
Georges
18 Werrie, Paul L’Œuvre créatrice Praesens – 2 05.1930
et critique du
peindre Flouquet
19 Wattjes, J.G. Moderne villa’s Dom Osiedle 3 11 11.1931
en landhuizen Mieszkanie
in Europa en
Amerika
20 [unknown author] L’Art Polonais Praesens – 2 05.1930
[exhibition
catalogue]
157
Table 4 Mutual references between the analysed periodicals
No. Title Mentioned Source Vol. Issue Date Form
1 Almanach 7 Arts 3 25 04.1925 list “Remerciments”

Nowej Sztuki
2 Architektura i de 8 en 6 20 09.1935 short note
Budownictwo Opbouw
3 L’Équerre 9 7 1937 list “Echange de
revues”
4 Praesens – 2 05.1930 short note
“Czasopisma
nadesłane”
5 Blok 7 Arts 2 30 07.1924 list “Remerciments”
6 3 18 03.1925 table
7 3 25 04.1925 list “Remerciments”
8 5 10 01.1926 reproduction of
Hannes Meyer’s
“Die Neue Welt”
from Das Werk
9 Anthologie 5 1/2 12.1924/ table
du Groupe 01.1925
10 Moderne 5 3/4 03/04.1925 table
11 d’Art 5 1 11.1925 table
12 De Stijl 6 8 1924/1925 short note (rather
enthusiastic)
13 6 8 1924/1925 list “Tijdschriften
en boeken”
(enthusiastic)
14 Het Overzicht – 21 04.1924 list “Tijdschriften
(5e aanvullingslijst)”
15 – 22/23/24 02.1925 cover table
“Tijdschriften –
Revues modernes”
16 The Next Call – 6 10.1924 list “The Next Call
onderhoudt . . .”
17 Europa Cercle et Carré – 3 06.1930 short article
18 Pologne 7 Arts 5 17 13.03.1927 article “Revue de
littéraire la presse. Pologne
littéraire”
19 Praesens – 2 05.1930 short note
“Czasopisma
nadesłane”
20 Praesens Cercle et Carré – 3 06.1930 short note (very
enthusiastic)
21 De Stijl 7 75/76 1926 list “Toegezonden
tijdschriften en
boeken”
22 L’Art – 1 04.1929 reference (big)
Contemporain
23 L’Équerre 7 12 12.1935 article by Victor
Bourgeois
24 Het 7 20 09.1930 article by Theo van
Bouwbedrijf Doesburg
158
25 Warsaw De Stijl 6 9 1925 listed on the cover

26 6 10/11 1925 as one of De Stijl-
cities
27 6 12 1926
28 7 73/74 1926
29 7 75/76 1926
30 8 85/86 1928
31 Zwrotnica 7 Arts 2 30 07.1924 list “Remerciments”
32 Anthologie 3 11 10.1923 note in “Mouvement
du Groupe d’art en Europe”
Moderne
d’Art
33 Blok – 1 03.1924 list “Przegla˛d
czasopism
zagranicznych”
34 Zwrotnica Blok – 3/ 4 06.1924 table “Przegla˛d pism
modernistycznych
polskich i
zagranicznych”
35 De Stijl 7 75/76 1926 list “Toegezonden
tijdschriften en
boeken”
36 Het Overzicht – 16 05/06.1923 list “Wij ontvingen
als periodieken
O.M.”
37 – 20 01.1924 table
“Het netwerk”
38 L’Art – 1 04.1929 reference (big)
Contemporain
39 7 Arts Blok – 1 03.1924 list “Przegla˛d
czasopism
zagranicznych”
40 – 3/4 06.1924 table “Przegla˛d pism
modernistycznych
polskich i
zagranicznych”
41 – 8/9 11/12.1924 table
42 – 11 03.1926 note on the
100th issue of
7 Arts
43 De Stijl 5 9 9.1922 list “Ontvangen
boeken en
tijdschriften”
44 6 2 4.1923 list “Ontvangen
boeken en
tijdschriften”
45 6 5 1923 list “Ingekomen
tijdschriften en
boeken”
(Continued)
159
Table 4 (Continued)
46 7 Arts De Stijl 6 8 1924/1925 list “Tijdschriften en

boeken”
47 7 75/76 1926 list “Toegezonden
tijdschriften en
boeken”
als periodieken
O.M.”
49 – 18/19 10.1923 short note in
“Tijdschriften”
50 – 20 01.1924 table “Het
netwerk”
51 – 21 04.1924 short note in
“Tijdschriften”
52 – 22/23/24 02.1925 cover table
Revues modernes”
53 Praesens – 1 06.1926 list “Czasopisma
modernistyczne”
54 – 2 05.1930 short note
“Czasopisma
zagraniczne”
55 Zwrotnica – 11 03.1927 article quotation
from 7 Arts 5, 1
56 Anthologie 7 Arts 1 25 04.1923 list “Remerciments”
du Groupe
Moderne d’Art
59 4 1 10.1925 list “La cité
moderne et la
presse”
60 5 22 04.1927 list “Revue des
revues belges”
61 5 25 06.1927 list “Revue de la
presse et revue des
revues”
62 Blok – 3/ 4 06.1924 table “Przegla˛d pism
modernistycznych
polskich i
zagranicznych”
63 – 6/7 09.1924 table (big)
64 – 8/9 11/12.1924 table
65 De Stijl 6 8 1924/1925 list “Tijdschriften en
boeken”
66 7 75/76 1926 list “Toegezonden
tijdschriften en
boeken”
160
67 Anthologie Het Overzicht – 17 09.1923 list “Aanvullingslijst

du Groupe van ontvangen
Moderne d’Art tijdschriften”
68 – 21 04.1924 short note in
“Tijdschriften”
69 – 22/23/24 02.1925 cover table
Revues modernes”
70 L’Équerre Architektura 11 12 1935 short note from the
i Budownictwo magazine
71 Documents Zwrotnica – 11 03.1927 reference (big)
Internationaux
de l’Esprit
Nouveau
72 Het Overzicht 7 Arts 1 9 12. 1922 long note
73 1 24 04. 1923 article “Revue de la
presse”
74 1 25 04. 1923 list “Remerciments”
77 4 1 10. 1925 list “La cité moderne
et la presse”
78 5 10 01. 1926 reproduction of
Hannes Meyer’s
“Die Neue Welt”
from Das Werk
79 5 25 06.1927 list “Revue de la
presse et revue des
revues”
czasopism
zagranicznych”
modernistycznych
polskich i
zagranicznych”
82 De Stijl 4 12 12.1921 list “Ontvangen
boeken en
tijdschriften”
83 5 1 01.1922 list “Ingekomen
boeken en
tijdschriften”
84 5 9 09.1922 list “Ontvangen
boeken en
tijdschriften”
85 Het Overzicht – 20 01.1924 table “Het netwerk”
onderhoudt . . .”
87 Zwrotnica – 6 10.1923 list “Otrzymaliśmy”
(Continued)
161
Table 4 (Continued)
88 Cercle et Carré L’Art – 2 05.1930 reference (small)

89 Contemporain – 3 06/07.1930 reference (small)
90 de 8 en Architektura i 10 8 1934 short note from the
Opbouw Budownictwo magazine
91 10 9 1934 short note from the
magazine
magazine
magazine
magazine
magazine
96 11 3/4 1935 short note from the
magazine
97 11 5/6/7 1935 short note from the
magazine
98 de 8 en Architektura i 11 10 1935 short note from the
Opbouw Budownictwo magazine
magazine
100 De Stijl 7 Arts 1 25 04. 1923 list “Remerciments”
102 3 18 03. 1925 table
104 5 10 01. 1926 reproduction of
Hannes Meyer’s
“Die Neue Welt”
from Das Werk
czasopism
zagranicznych”
modernistycznych
polskich i
zagranicznych”
107 – 6/7 09.1924 reference (very big)
108 – 8/9 11/12.1924 table
als periodieken
O.M.”
110 Praesens – 1 06.1926 list “Czasopisma
modernistyczne”
onderhoudt . . .”
162
112 i 10 Praesens – 2 05.1930 short note in

“Czasopisma
zagraniczne”
113 de 8 en 4 14 07.1933 article (long)
Opbouw
114 Mécano 7 Arts 2 30 07. 1924 list “Remerciments”
115 Blok – 3/4 06.1924 table “Przegla˛d pism
modernistycznych
polskich i
zagranicznych”
116 – 6/7 09.1924 table (big)
117 – 8/9 11/12.1924 table
118 De Stijl 5 1 01.1922 list “Ingekomen
boeken en
tijdschriften”
119 6 8 1924/1925 list “Tijdschriften
en boeken”
(enthusiastic)
onderhoudt . . .”
121 The Next Call 7 Arts 3 25 04. 1925 list “Remerciments”
122 De Stijl 6 8 1924/1925 list “Tijdschriften
en boeken”
(enthusiastic)
123 Het Overzicht – 22/23/24 02.1925 list “Tijdschriften
(6e aanvullinglijst)”
163
Index
7 Arts 4, 15–16, 18, 23–6, 43–5, 47n4, Bielski, M. see Peiper, T.

48n28, 55–7, 59, 66, 70, 76, 79, 82, 93–4, Bijdorp 108n28
144–5, 147–8, 153–6, 158–62, 163 Blok 2, 4, 14, 18, 20–1, 23–9, 32–5, 44–6,
de 8 en Opbouw 32, 148–9, 154, 156, 158, 48n15–16, 49n40, 57, 63, 66, 70–3,
162–3 77–83, 85–6, 90–1, 98, 101, 106, 107n6,
109, 111, 144–5, 147–50, 152–3, 155,
a.r. 2, 19–20, 28, 38, 40, 48n17, 49n40, 74, 158–62, 163
99 Bonset, I.K. see van Doesburg, T.
Abstraction-Création 2, 4, 15, 32, 39, 41, Bourgeois, P. 16, 24, 26, 56, 60, 63–4, 66,
47, 62, 64, 90, 110, 144, 146–7, 151, 154 70, 76, 144
Albatros 94 Bourgeois, V. 16, 23, 26–7, 31, 79, 104–5,
Alkema, W. 14 144, 149, 158
Almanach. Katalog. Salon modernistów 32, Het Bouwbedrijf 15, 31–2, 74, 103, 145,
145, 158 149, 151–2, 154–6, 158
Amsterdam 15, 30, 38, 91, 97–8, 102, Bouwkundig Weekblad 32, 70
150–1, 156 De Bouwwereld 15
Anthologie du Groupe Moderne d’Art de Braque, G. 24
Liège 4, 15–16, 24–5, 28, 44, 145–8, Brinkman, J. 102, 104–5, 149
151–6, 158–60 Brno 29
Antwerp 8, 15–16, 47n4, 82, 93 Brukalska, B. 32, 66, 101, 104, 107,
Apollinaire, G. 8, 10, 84 111, 149
Architecture Vivante 97 Brukalski, S. 66, 101, 104, 107,
Architekt 28, 38, 150–3, 155 111, 149
Architektura i Budownictwo 28, 31, 38, Brussels 16, 23, 26–7, 49n34, 66, 82, 104,
144–6, 149–53, 155–6, 158, 161–2 149, 151, 155
Arp, H. 8, 15, 74, 108n28 Byvoet, B. 151
Art Concret 2, 4, 15, 41, 59, 62 Brze˛kowski, J. 5, 8, 19–23, 27–8, 30, 32,
Art Contemporain – Sztuka Współczesna 39–42, 44, 48n12, 49n40, 50n63, 58–60,
4, 19–20, 27–8, 32, 39–40, 42, 58, 144, 78, 89, 110–11, 145
147, 149, 152, 155, 158–9, 162
Athens 32 Ça Ira! 43
Caden, A. 47n7
Baczyński, S. 19 Camini, A. see van Doesburg, T.
Baugniet, M.-L. 144, 149 Carlsund, O. 15, 32, 59, 62, 145
Bauhaus 36, 67, 70, 80, 83 Casteels, M. 76–7
Behne, A. 15, 55, 77 Cendrars, B. 18
Béothy, É. 15 Cercle et Carré 2, 4, 17, 27, 39–42, 47,
Berckelaers, F. see Seuphor, M. 50n71, 61–2, 67, 71, 80, 110, 144–5,
Berlage, H.P. 34, 38, 79n7, 146, 149 147, 154, 158, 162
Berlewi, H. 4, 6, 18, 28–30, 56, 84, 92–4, 111 Chenoy, L. 56, 64, 70
Berlin 8, 16, 21, 28, 34, 93, 95, 110, 144, Chmielewski, J. 105–6, 149
151 Chodasiewicz-Grabowska, W. 19, 41
Index 165
CIAM 2, 17, 26–7, 30, 32, 36, 47, 66, 79, Hélion, J. 15, 41
104–6, 110 Hengelo 150
Cieszyn 19 Henvaux, E. 56, 59
Code 15, 17 Herbin, A. 15, 41
Contimporanul 28 Herwarth, W. 15
Czyżewski, T. 57, 84, 86–7 Hilversum 108n28, 150–1
Hitchcock, H.R. 100
Dekeukelerie, C. 70 Höch, H. 15
Demets, J. 15, 66, 85 Hoek van Holland 34, 102, 152
Dermée, P. 8, 17, 39, 42, 89, 145 van ’t Hoff, R. 13, 151
Documents Internationaux de l’Esprit de Horion, C. 16, 24, 146
Nouveau 4, 17, 39, 146, 151, 161 Hoste, H. 26, 41, 49n32, 55, 60
van Doesburg, T. 10–13, 15–18, 28–32, Hryniewicz-Piotrowska, A. 102, 104
34–6, 38, 41, 43–5, 49n40, 53–5, 57–61, Huis-ter-Heide 151
63–4, 66–71, 73–6, 79–80, 82–8, 93–101, Huszár, V. 5, 10, 12, 15, 32, 92–3, 97–9,
103–4, 106–7, 108n18, 108n28, 111, 108n18, 108n20, 111
145, 149–50, 157–8
Dom i Osiedle 31 Iancu, M. 47n7
Dom, Osiedle, Mieszkanie 28, 38, 148–53, Internationale Revue i10 4, 13, 15, 17, 26,
155–7 30–1, 36, 44, 148, 154, 162
De Driehoek 4, 15–16, 45, 47n7, 55, 77, 82
Dudok, W.M. 102, 150 Jasieński, B. 38, 83–4
Duiker, J. 102, 108n28, 150–1 Jeanneret, C.-E. see Le Corbusier
Düsseldorf 6, 28, 75, 93–4 Jespers, O. 84
Dźwignia 73, 91–2
Kahn, G. 63
von Ebenteh, L. 15 Kajruksztis, W. 10, 18, 21, 95, 157
Eemans, M. 63, 66, 79 Kallai, E. 59
van Eesteren, C. 13, 18, 31–2, 36–8, 60, Kandinsky, W. 15, 47n7, 90
68–70, 73, 97, 101, 110, 145, 150–1 Karczewski, A. 26, 104, 155–6
Équerre 4, 16, 26, 147–9, 151, 154, 158, 161 Kassák, L. 63, 81
Esprit Nouveau 17–18, 43, 80 Katowice 154
Europa 19, 28, 32, 58, 88, 145–8, 158 Katwijk aan Zee 97
Katzee, H. 38
Fitschy, P. 26, 48n29 Kiesler, F. 29, 95–96
Flouquet, P.-L. 16, 27, 145, 151, 157 Kiesler, S. see (de) Saga, P.
Formiści 84 Kiev 9
Fornari, A. 47n7 de Klerk, M. 151
Frankfurt 27 Kobro, K. 2, 5, 10, 18–19, 32, 41, 60–1, 64,
66, 74, 79, 88–90, 99, 106, 107n14, 111,
G: Material zur elementaren Gestaltung 28 146, 151
Gdynia 102, 104 Kok, A. 12, 54
Het Getij 15 Koluszki 19
Gleizes, A. 36, 49n40, 88 de Koninck, L.H. 28, 104, 146, 151
Goldberg, M. 105 Końskie 154
Gorin, J. 67 Korngold, L. 102, 146, 151
Goriély, B. 24, 145 Koziński, P. 26, 104, 155–6
Gräff, W. 68 Krakow 1, 20–1, 23, 48n12
Grafika 88 Kubicki, S. 28, 75
Greenberg, C. 52, 62–3 Kurek, J. 20, 38–40, 48n12, 50n67, 57,
Groningen 13–14, 44, 155 64–5, 157
Gropius, W. 31, 105–6, 108n28
Lachert, B. 66, 98–9, 101–4, 107, 111, 151
Hannover 29 Le Corbusier 15, 17–18, 31, 40, 48n17, 57,
Hansen, J. 14 79n2, 88, 100, 103, 105–6
van Hardeveld, J.M. 77 van der Leck, B. 12–13, 73, 79n7
166 Index
Léger, F. 17–18, 55 Oud, J.J.P. 12–13, 15, 18, 30–2, 34–6,
Leiden 1, 8, 12, 29, 104, 149 38, 47n4, 54–5, 59–60, 64, 66, 73, 79,
Liège 4, 15–16, 24–6, 28 100–2, 104, 108n28, 110–11, 146, 150,
Lincoln 108n28 152, 157
Linia 18, 20, 32 Het Overzicht 4, 6, 15–16, 21–3, 26, 39,
Linze, G. 16, 24, 146 42–6, 47n4–5, 48n24, 55, 59, 63, 70–1,
Lissitzky, E. 75, 81, 94–5, 107, 111 77, 82, 94, 109, 145, 157–63
van Loghem, J.B. 157 Ozenfant, A. 17, 57, 79n2, 80
Łódź 2, 8, 20, 27, 41–3, 47, 48n22, 49n40,
73, 96, 99, 107, 110 Paris 5, 7–8, 10, 15–17, 19–21, 27, 29–30,
32, 34, 38–40, 42, 49n41, 59, 77,
Ma 43, 48n15, 80, 88 79n6, 87, 89, 93, 95, 102, 104, 110,
Maes, K. 16, 47n4, 92–4, 111 149, 150
Malevich, K. 9, 11n10, 18–19, 31, 36, Pásmo 4, 21
48n15, 48n17, 74, 83, 95, 100 Peeters, J. 15–17, 21, 27, 45, 47n4, 55, 63,
Mallet-Stevens, R. 103–4 70–1, 77, 98, 153
Marcoussis, L. 10 Peiper, T. 7, 17–21, 23–4, 26, 30, 44,
Marinetti, F.T. 18, 84–5 48n12–13, 48n24, 48n28, 49n40, 50n67,
Mécano 13, 15, 29, 44–5, 82–3, 163 57, 60, 63–4, 77–8, 79n3, 147, 157
Meller, P. 34 du Perron, E. 15–16
Merkelbach, B. 105 Picasso, P. 8, 24, 42
Merz 4, 43, 80, 87–8 Pijnenburg, G. 15, 77
Méudon 104 Piotrowski, R. 27, 102
Meyer, H. 80, 158, 161–2 Plater-Zyberk, Z. 102
Micić, L. 15, 81 De Ploeg 14
Mickum, L. 39 Pniewski, B. 102
Miller, E. 18, 60, 85–6 Pologne littéraire 24, 144, 158
Miller, J.N. 79n3, 86 Polski Klub Artystyczny 26
Minkiewicz, W. 31 Ponowa 86
Minsk 10 Poupeye, C. 27, 157
Młodożeniec, S. 88 Poznań 19, 74, 93, 102
Moholy-Nagy, L. 15, 28, 81 Poznański, V. 49n41, 93
Monaco 10 van Praag, S. 38
Mondrian, P. 2, 5, 8, 10, 12–13, 15, 17, 27, Praesens 2, 4, 18–20, 26–7, 31–2, 34–6, 38,
31–2, 36, 38–42, 45, 47, 52–5, 57–60, 40, 44, 48n17, 48n19, 49n40, 54, 57,
63–4, 71, 73, 78–80, 87–9, 96, 98–9, 66, 71, 74, 81, 87, 89, 98, 103, 145–6,
106, 110–11, 146, 152, 157 149–58, 160, 162–3
Monier, G. 16 Prampolini, E. 27, 47n7
Moscow 10, 20 Pronaszko, A. 18, 31
Müller-Lehning, A. 15, 17, 31 Przyboś, J. 18–20, 28, 39–40, 48n12, 57,
73, 84, 88, 157
Nasz Kurjer 28 Purmerend 100
New York 1, 19–20, 95–6
The Next Call 4, 13–14, 16, 29, 44–5, 82–3, Rafałowski, A. 25, 34, 42, 153
90–1, 96, 106, 158, 161–3 van Ravesteyn, S. 34, 153
Nezval, V. 27 Ray, M. 108n27
Nicz-Borowiakowa, M. 25, 152 ReD 4, 27
Niemirowska, H. see Syrkus, H. De Reclame 92
Niemojewski, L. 104 Reymont, W. 24, 146
Nieuwenhuis, C. 32, 150 Richter, H. 28, 75
Noi 43 Rietveld, G. 13, 15, 30, 32, 34, 38, 68–70,
Noordwijkerhout 150 97–9, 101, 104, 111, 150, 153
Norwerth, E. 152 Rodchenko, A. 81
Nowa Sztuka 17 van der Rohe, M. 28, 100, 107n9
Rome 10
Ommen 155 Rosenberg, L. 17
van Ostaijen, P. 16, 56, 59, 84–6 Rotterdam 13, 31, 36, 38, 50n62, 73, 102,
Otlet, P. 28, 146 104–5, 149–50, 152–3, 155
Index 167
Rousseau, H. 28, 49n39 Teige, K. 27, 80
Rutkowski, H. 105 The Hague 12, 15, 144, 151, 156
Rutkowski, S. 34 Torres-García, J. 17, 40–1, 147
Tołwiński, S. 26, 36–7, 148
(de) Saga, P. 95–6, 107, 111 Tschichold, J. 80–1
Scheveningen 12, 92–3 Tutundjian, L. 15
Schoenmaekers, M.H.J. 52 Tzara, T. 18, 83
Schuitema, P. 82
Schwitters, K. 20, 81, 86–7 Uccle 104
Sert, J.L. 106 Utrecht 98, 101, 153
Servranckx, V. 25–7, 71, 147, 153
Seuphor, M. 5, 8, 10, 13, 15–17, 21, 23, Vantongerloo, G. 2, 10, 13, 15, 17, 27–8,
26–8, 32, 39–42, 45, 47, 50n71, 55, 31, 36, 38–9, 41–2, 47n5, 55, 60, 64, 71,
61, 63, 71, 73, 77, 89, 110, 147, 152, 79n4, 88–90, 106, 111, 148, 155, 157
157 van de Velde, H. 26–7, 48n16, 148, 155
Sigalin, R. 31 Victor, R. 84
Skolimów 1045 La Vie des Lettres et des Arts 18, 43
Śliwiński, J. 39 Vienna 29
Służewiec 102 Vilnius 18, 21, 44, 59, 81, 95, 157
Soziale Bauwirtschaft 34 Vitebsk 95
Stam, M. 32, 102, 154 van der Vlugt, L. 34, 38, 102, 104–5,
Stażewski, H. 2, 17–20, 24, 31–2, 34–5, 108n28, 149, 155
38–42, 57–8, 63–4, 71, 74, 78–80, 87–90, Vouloir 35
98–9, 106, 110–11, 147, 154 de Vries, J. 15
Stern, A. 24, 48n16, 84, 87, 145, 147
De Stijl 1–2, 4, 7, 10–15, 26, 28–32, 34–5, Walden, H. 15, 55
44–6, 49n41, 52–5, 64, 67–70, 73–6, Wantz, M. 15
79n6, 82, 86–8, 92, 95–8, 100, 104, Warsaw 18–19, 21, 23–4, 26, 29–30, 34–5,
106–9, 111, 157–62, 163 41, 44, 48n17, 91, 98, 101, 103–7, 149,
Stowarzyszenie Architektów Polskich 31 151, 154, 159
Strasbourg 74 Wat, A. 84
Strzemiński, W. 10, 18–20, 24, 28, 31–2, 36, Wattjes, J.G. 157
40–2, 44, 48–9, 59–61, 63–4, 66, 72–4, Weimar 34, 75, 83
78–80, 83–4, 88, 90, 95–6, 99, 107n7, Das Werk 158, 161–2
108n18, 147, 154, 157 Werkman, H.N. 13–18, 32, 40–3, 45, 82–3,
Der Sturm 4, 43, 93–4 87, 90–2, 96–7, 106, 108n17, 111, 155
Stuttgart 102, 152, 154 Werrie, P. 27, 56, 63, 70, 157
Stynen, L. 102 Wiegers, J. 14
van der Swaelmen, L. 56 Wilrijk 102
Syrkus, H. 2, 18, 26, 30, 35–7, 98, 104–6, Wils, J. 13, 38, 60, 73, 98, 108n25, 156
110, 147–8, 154 Het Woord 4, 13, 15, 47n3, 66
Syrkus, S. 2, 18, 26–7, 30–2, 34–8, 52, 60, Wright, F.L. 100, 146
64, 66, 71, 73–4, 78–9, 98, 102, 104–6,
110, 147–9, 154 Żarnower, T. 18, 24–6, 44, 66, 73, 100–2,
Szanajca, J. 32, 66, 101–4, 107, 111, 149, 104, 148, 156
151, 155 Zdanyevich, I. 85
Szczekacz, S. 96–7 van der Zee, J. 14
Szczuka, M. 18–19, 21, 24–6, 28, 31, 44, Zenit 43
48n22, 66, 73, 79, 84, 90–2, 98–9, 102, Zurich 4
104, 106, 111, 148, 155 Zwart, P. 82
Zwrotnica 4, 7, 14, 17–19, 21, 23–4, 26, 32,
Taelemans, E. 28 43–5, 48n12, 48n28, 49n40, 77, 79, 81,
Taeuber-Arp, S. 74 83–4, 86, 144, 150, 159–61

Michał Wenderski - Cultural Mobility in The Interwar Avant-Garde Art Network - Poland, Belgium and The Netherlands

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Michał Wenderski - Cultural Mobility in The Interwar Avant-Garde Art Network - Poland, Belgium and The Netherlands

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cultural Mobility in the Interwar

Avant-Garde Art Network

Michał Wenderski, PhD, is an architect, translator and scholar of modern Dutch

The Société des Trois in the Nineteenth Century

Raymond Jonson and the Spiritual in Modernist and Abstract Painting

Pop Art and Popular Music

Globalizing East European Art Histories

Visual Typologies from the Early Modern to the Contemporary

Cultural Mobility in the Interwar Avant-Garde Art Network

For a full list of titles in this series, please visit https://www.routledge.com/Routledge-

1 Polish, Belgian and Dutch Avant-Garde Formations,

3 “What we do is no imitation, but an effort parallel to . . .” –

Plates (between 108 and 109)

Closing Remarks 109

1 H.N. Werkman’s list of addresses to congenial formations and artists 14

(between pages 108 and 109)

1 Selected avant-garde periodicals of Polish, Dutch and Belgian provenance

1 Written contributions of Polish, Dutch and Belgian provenance in the

AA-SL – Architecture Archive – Sint-Lukasarchief in Brussels

Student: But that’s not what my supervisor wants. He wants a frame in

1.1. Interwar Avant-Garde Formations of Dutch,

. . . n’oubli jamais que; V;d.Leck, Mondrian et Vantongerloo sont trois individus

1.2. Cultural Mobility between Polish and

1.2.1. Traces of Polish–Belgian Cultural Mobility

1.2.2. Traces of Polish–Belgian Cultural Mobility

1.3. Cultural Mobility between Polish and Dutch

1.3.1. Traces of Polish–Dutch Cultural Mobility

Paris exhibition,41 the journal’s international outreach came to be increasingly empha-

1.3.2. Traces of Polish–Dutch Cultural Mobility

Pour ce qui concerne la collaboration de M. Van Doesburg, permettez-moi de vous

. . . Herbin a été désigné comme Président et moi comme Vice-Président. (. . .)

[. . . Herbin was designated President and me Vice-President. (. . .) Later, much

Between 1932 and 1936 five issues of Abstraction-Création. Art non-figuratif

Later, established Polish formations maintained contacts with Belgian journals

1.6. Preliminary Observations

Le chaos esthétique est dû à la prédominance du passé sur le présent: le jour où

Similar standpoints were expressed by various contributors to 7 Arts. Van Ostaijen

Nowa plastyka, abstrakcyjna, wyzwala sie˛ od ‘opisowości’ i ma na celu jedynie

L’esprit nouveau supprime la description dans l’art (. . .) tout art (. . .) s’efforce

La forme géométrique concrète, exprimée dans les plus concrètes proportions,

[Concrete geometrical form, expressed in the most concrete proportions, becomes

Interestingly, Brze˛kowski’s viewpoint corresponds closely with Mondrian’s observa-

W porównaniu z konkretami przyrody, rzeczywistość ta [= nowa rzeczywistość –

Seuphor’s perception of “architecture” as a total unification of constructive princi-

2.2. L’art pour . . .?

Figure 16 The manifesto of Art Concret from 1930 (source: RCE)

2.3. Cooperation between Disciplines and across Borders

Ingénieurs, architectes, peintres et sculpteurs travailleront en étroite collaboration,

As a reaction to the events of the Düsseldorf congress, in Weimar in September 1922

Figure 21 Manifesto of “Konstruktivistische Internationale Beeldende Arbeidsgemeenschap”

2.4. Preliminary Conclusions

3.1. Avant-garde Publications from Poland and the Low Countries

Merz 14/15 in 1924 as well as by Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman in his typographical

3.2. Piet Mondrian, Theo van Doesburg and Henryk Stażewski

3.3. Katarzyna Kobro and Georges Vantongerloo

Figure 29 Georges Vantongerloo, Construction of Volumetric Interrelationships Derived from

sculptural accomplishments also becomes apparent in his unpublished text “Plastique

3.4. Mieczysław Szczuka and Hendrik Nicolaas Werkman

3.5. Henryk Berlewi, Vilmos Huszár and Karel Maes

it is again impossible to establish whether it is correct to speak of direct influence

3.7. Interior Design

Figure 39 One of numerous reproductions of Rietveld’s house in Utrecht in Polish magazines

3.9. Preliminary Conclusions