Archive for March, 2010


Sandor Abt


Zsolnay factories


Evidence of the drawing back in 1900, Presented in World Exposition in Turin, 1902




Ceramic worked with Eozin technique by Zsolnay Factories, Pecs.


Luna, by Sandor Abt, as seen in Budapest Art Fair, 2009 (probably original)



Luna, by Sandor Abt, in Deutsche Kunst und Dekoration, volume 11 (reportage on Hungarian Kunstgewerbe in Turin 1902)


Luna, by Sandor Abt, in Iparmuveszet, volume 5 1900



Luna, by Sandor Abt, remanufactured by Zsolnay industries, around 1920 (?)


Decoration on the façade of the Budapest “Ferenc Liszt” music Academy, frieze by Geza Maroti, 1907


Ferenc Helbing “Alom” (“the Dream”), 1902



a Ház magazine, first year 1908 complete




Aladar Korosfoi Kriesch







Quote from “Bartók and his world”, author Péter Laki

The most significant sign of the nationalist folk renewal during Bartók’s student years in Budapest was the creation of an artists’ colony, which included craftspeople, designers, and architects, in 190a at Gödöllő, a small town 30 kilometers northwest of Budapest. Its aesthetic philosophy was based on the later writings of Leo Tolstoy and on the ideas of William Morris and John Ruskin. Bartók’s awareness of the Gödöllő experiment can be inferred from the influence exerted by the colony’s celebration of Tolstoyan virtues. The display of allegiance to a credo of anticapitalist, antimodern spiritual simplicity among the Gödöllő circle, particularly in the case of the main ideolo¬gist of the Gödöllő group, the painter Aladár Körösfói Kriesch (1863-1920), was later emulated byBartók.

In 1907 Bartók exchanged the traditional nineteenth century-style Hungarian national outfit to which he had become attached (which he wore at his final recital at the Conservatory, despite the strenuous objections of his teacher, Thomán, who was understandably uncomfortable with its chauvinist and implicitly anti-Semitic symbolism) to a distinctly Tolstoyan outfit, characteristic of Gödöllő. Beyond the search for a simpler rural life as an alternative to the corruptions of urban industrialization and an allegiance to preindustrial artisan modes of production, the Gödöllő group was commit¬ted to documenting and emulating a "true" Hungarian folk art that predated 1848. This group of artists participated in a major study of rural peasant folk art. which ran parallel to Bartök’s and Kodály s re¬searches. A five-volume study was published, of which two focused on Transylvania. Bartók’s affinity for Hungarian folk furniture mirrored a fashion among Budapest intellectuals and artists dating from before 1905- The notion that the rediscovery of a vital rural folk tradition could function as a critical opposition to established Hungarian national ideology emerged in the visual arts before Bartók and Kodály began their work. Even the crafts done at the Zsolnay factory at the turn of the century, which Bartók certainly saw, reflect the ideal of a fusion between the folk Hungarian and the modern.8′- Members of the Gödöllő circle and the Nagybánya group, particularly the painters Sándor Nagy (1869-1950) and István Csók (1865-1961), shared the conviction thai in the synthesis between the rediscovery of a Hun¬garian rural folk tradition and Western aesthetic modernism a distinctly modern Hungarian art and culture would develop.

Gödöllő leading figure, Kriesch, was commissioned to paint the main mural for the new home of the Budapest Conservatory. The 1907 building, designed by Kálmán Gicrgl and Flóris Korb, showed the influence of Lechner. The building was begun in 1903, the year of Bartók s Kossuth. Unlike Lechner’s work, the frame of the building was more directly evocative of Western European historicism. Nevertheless. Jugendstil elements were evident in the exterior, particularly in the design of the facade, around the windows, and the entrance. The exterior statuary of the Conservatory was done by Géza Maróti (1875-1941), Hungary’s leading Jugendstil sculptor and architect, whose designs for the Milan Exposition of 1906celebrated folk, rural, and native Hungarian motifs.

The interior of the new Conservatory building was more radical. The decoration, particularly along the staircase, evoked the styles of distinctly Hungarian crafts. Kriesch s mural presented a symbolist al¬egory in which the embodiment of innocence, simplicity, devotion, and nature becomes a metaphor for the true source of art. The aspiration to a state of premodern purity evident in Kricsch’s renderings mirrored the anti-urban and anti-cosmopolitan direction of Hun¬garian aesthetic visual modernism during the first decade of the twen¬tieth century. Kriesch wrote, "We cannot bring art worthy of the name into modern life until we consciously restore the social conditions . . . in their more primitive and unconscious manifestations."*’ Few state¬ments were as reminiscent of and congruent with Bartok*s own rheto¬ric alKnit folk music than Kriesch s 1908 view concerning folk art: "The art of the Hungarian people, like all true art, is a fully organic »art of the life of the people



 Aladar Korosfoi KrieschAladar Korosfoi KrieschAladar Korosfoi Kriesch





Mihails (Mikhail) Eizenšteins (1867—1921)




1867—1921 in Riga, Latvia



Eisenstein took inspiration from Paris 1900 World Exhibition, and this interest is reflected in his style.  Lazdiņa House in Elizabeth Street 33 facade  is the first Eisenstein design making use of a particularly rich sculptural elements. In 1903  projects he began the construction of the house in Albert Street 8 (owner A. Pole). In the same year started facade in Iljaševa / von Hanovskas rental house and shop 10a Elizabeth Street, as well as rent and store house of Elizabeth Street, 10b, whose owner was a high-ranking Russian government official. In the following two years Eisenstein designed the three buildings at Alberta: Alberta Street 6 Albert Street 13 (both – 1904) and Albert Street 4 (1905). In 1905 designed Mitusova S. School Street Riflemen 4a, as well as P.Šteinberga House .

Eisenstein façades have a rich, powerful sculptural use of the plastic compositions, the direct result of Historicism buildings typical facade decor with emphasis on the principles of geometrical one. Decor widely used characteristic motifs of Art Nouveau style, as well as those who inherit from Historicism and heraldry (for example, griffin, lions, dragons, etc.), thereby producing an impressive look. Plastically, the rich ornament motives creates strong light typify contrasts, the contrast principle is also dominant in the treatment of same theme, focusing on naturalistic or stylized powerful solution. Facades also used typical Art Nouveau decoration of glazed brick and plastered surfaces , in some cases, focusing on the unusual window shape solution (as in Elizabeth Street 10a.

Eisenstein building decor consists of anthropomorphic nature of the theme expressive decor, or – conversely – the static solution, as well as the ability to create emotionally impacting decorations, combining  zoomorphic motive and fantastic elements, balancing between the beautiful and terrible.

Eisenstein facade decor theme was inspired by the work of O. Wagner School, as well from the decorative ideas taken from Historicism of Vienna and Paris II Empire style buildings.  The somewhat eclectic style of citations (mannerism grotesque ornament, ancient Greek, ancient Oriental civilization, etc. themes), as well as contemporary sources (Rene Lalika jewelery, Otto Morning architectural fantasies, etc.). he also revitalized the use of castle aesthetic, with a taste of neogothic revival (J. Lazdiņa House Elizabeth Street 33, A.Ļebedinska tenements Alberta Street 6 and 13), complementing the decor of the then modern accents.


Elizabetes iela 10b 1903


Strēlnieku iela 4a 1905


Elizabetes iela 33 1901


Elizabetes iela 10a 1903


Alberta iela 8 1903


Alberta iela 6 1903


Alberta iela 4 1904


Alberta iela 2 1906


Alberta iela 13 1904



 picture503 Eizensteins_Alberta_4_zimejums



Löffler Béla (Budapest. 1880 – ?) and Löffler Samu Sándor (Budapest, 1877 – ?)


Spiegel Frigyes


Löffler Béla (Budapest. 1880 – ?) and Löffler Samu Sándor (Budapest, 1877 – ?)



Of these two brothers, Bela was the most experienced. He graduated at Felső Építőipariskolát. Between 1897 and 1899 he worked jointly with Spiegel Frigyes and with Bela Lajta. He traveled throughout Europe with his brother Sandor, and he kept in touch with different architectural traditions. Returned in Hungary in 1906, he worked with the brother and with Spiegel , also in furniture design. After the First war he planned several apartements houses. In 1923, he designed the synagogue in Antwerp and then won the 1925 application to the Nationa Theatre in Jerusalem.

The Löffler apartment house lacks the Gödöll -inspired decorative elements. Dark colored austere construction, with essentialand geometrical lines, closer to the theoretical directions of an architect such as the AustrianAdolf Loos. Details, such as flower pot, well visible in the facade, are designed with geometric lines in a sort of checker board, following so much the Austrian secession taste, that
really it seems a typical production of the Wiener Werkstaetter, close to the ones designed by Josef Hofmann. On the Loffler building’s facade are often present human figures. Here the
sculpture style is, if possible, even more essential and absolutely in disregard respect to every
proportions directives: the spectator can feel immediately this lacks of proportions just looking
at the oversize heads of the figures. Animals are also present in those scenes, members of fantastic species, mythological animals, which seems
to directly come out of artist’s own dreams or incubuses. The spectator himself can feel the
inquietude of these human figure’s sights, at the same time, inexpressive and sinister as in a
work by Alfred Kubin. The Löffler’s symbolism is so obscure, and even difficult to translate into
meaningful images that constitutes a sort of intricate hermetism , similar to several works by
the German painter Franz von Stuck.


Budapest VI.. Aradi utca 57. Piatschek-ház. MÉ 1908/10


Budapest VII., Síp utca 17. Lakóház MÉ 1908/10. Műlakatos-munka: Migray József



Budapest VI., Székely Bertalan utca 2/B. és 2/C. Lakóházak 1909-1910


Budapest VII., Izabella utca 34. Lakóház 1910


Budapest II., Szilágyi Erzsébet fasor 1 Lakóház. Műlakatos-munka: Migray József. MÉ 1910/8.


Budapest VI., Ö utca 49 Magyar Vegyikészítményű Papírgyár 1910 körül

Sandor and Béla LöfflerDSCF1566DSCF1567DSCF1568DSCF1569

Budapest VIII., Népszínház utca 37 Lakóház. MÉ 1911/9

Sandor and Béla LöfflerSandor and Béla LöfflerSandor and Béla LöfflerSandor and Béla LöfflerSandor and Béla LöfflerSandor and Béla LöfflerSandor and Béla LöfflerSandor and Béla Löffler

Budapest VII., Kertész utca 29 Lakóház 1911 körül


Budapest VII., Kazinczy utca 29-31 Ortodox izraelita hitközség temploma, iskoJája és lakóháza. Pályázat 1910. díjazva és kivitel 1912-1913.


Budapest VII., Rákóczi út 74. Rosenberg Márk lakó- és üzletháza 1914.

Sandor and Béla LöfflerSandor and Béla Löffler

Budapest VII., Dob utca 35. Ortodox izraelita hitközség temploma, iskoJája és lakóháza. Pályázat 1910. díjazva és kivitel 1912-1913.






Eižens Laube



22 May, 1880, Riga – 21 July 1967, Portland, Oregon, USA



In the beginning of 20th century, when Riga architecture school flourished and gained foothold, already the third generation of professional Latvian architects after J. F. Blaumanis and K. Pēkšēns started their creative work. This generation was fronted by Eižens Laube. Architecture styles and artistic trends one after another were swiftly substituted by new ones. At the beginning of the century eclectism was substituted by Art Nouveau, 20ies saw the development of functionalism and 30ies also a parallel development of neo-eclectism. E. Laube was always in the very centre of these stylistic twists and turns. He contributed immensely to the progress of event both as architect – practitioner, architect – theoretician and also teacher. In Riga alone more than 200 buildings have been built, reconstructed and renovated according to his designs, among them about 80 multi-storey stonework construction projects. Eižens Laube was born in Riga on the 25th of May, 1880. His father Kārlis Teodors Laube (1862-1920) was a master pottery craftsman and trader. He had arrived in Riga from the north of Vidzeme region where his ancestors had been farmers and craftsmen for many generations. Already as a boy Eižens Laube got acquainted with construction work and projects – his mother’s stepfather was in construction business. Thus Eižens’ interest in architecture arose and in 1899, after graduating from Realschule named after Peter I, he enrolled in Riga Polytechnical Institute, architecture department. In his student days he stood out among others with his brilliant artistic talent and outstanding work capability, and reached professional maturity quite early. In 1900 alongside with his studies Eižens started working in K.Pēkšēns’ construction design firm, where a study colleague of his, Aleksandrs Vanags, was also employed. In 1904 Laube went to Finland together with Vanags. There he admired buildings designed by L. Sonck, E. Saarinen, A. Lindgren, H. Gesellius and established personal contact with the Finnish architects G. Lindberg and K. Wasastjerna. Later Laube travelled even more to improve his professional skills – in 1909 he visited Sweden, Denmark and Germany and in 1910 – Germany and France. In 1906 he graduated from the Riga Polytechnical Institute with the diploma of engineer architect. He worked for K. Pēkšēns for one more year and then in 1907 opened his own architectural design firm that soon became one of the largest in Riga. At the same time he was invited to teach at this own Alma Mater, and E. Laube became associate professor at RPI at the age of 27. He lectured on theoretical subjects as well as conducted classes in drawing and architecture design. At a time when teachers at the institute were all local Germans and education in architecture had slipped into a certain stagnation, the young Latvian associate professor brought a multitude of fresh and new things into academic work. E. Laube worked as a teacher also elsewhere. From 1907 to 1908 he taught technical drawing and construction forms at the technical department of Public courses, established by him, J. Rozentāls and A. Vanags at the Riga Latvian Society. Starting from the year 1909 E. Laube together with architects W. Bockslaff and K. Felsko was the official counsellor in art matters of Riga City Council building authority. He was also invited to be in the jury of several big contests, for instance, in 1910 he was the judge of projects for Ozoliņš’ tenement building at 88 Brīvības Street in Riga and in 1912 participated in the jury of the international project contest for Tallinn town hall. E. Laube also participated in several contests with his own projects, and did that with remarkable success – before 1912 nine of his works were prize-winners of various project contests. During World War I he closed down his firm and together with the Riga Polytechnical Institute evacuated to Moscow in 1915. In 1917 E. Laube returned to Riga and continued working in the field of architecture education. In University of Latvia he was in charge of one of the architecture design workshops, workshop „A”, and during certain periods of time was also the dean of the faculty and even the rector of the University. In 1920 E. Laube became a professor and in 1930 – Honorary doctor of architecture. From 1924 to 1936 he was the chairman of Commission of architectonic matters at National building committee, in 1937 he was elected corresponding member of Royal Institute of British Architects. In 1940 E. Laube was awarded the Fatherland Award, he is also the bearer of Three-Star Order, the Cross of Recognition and the Swedish Royal Order of Vasa. In 1944, just like many other Latvian intellectuals, he emigrated. At first he lived in Berlin, then in 1950 moved to the USA, worked in an architecture design office in Olympia, Washington, and since 1955 lived in Portland, Oregon, where he spent the rest of his life. During the course of his very fruitful life E. Laube has published a great number of articles on different issues concerning the art of building, from the much-quoted essay „On the style of building” („Zalktis” – 1908. – issue No 4. – pages 145 through 148) to the impressive volume of the book „Writings on architecture” (Lincoln, Nebraska, 1960 – 205 pages). He has immensely contributed to the theory of architecture with his „Logic of colour and shape” (Riga, 1921. – 74 pages) and in his final years in Portland E. Laube wrote a manuscript of nearly 700 pages in typescript – „Manifestation of Architecture” which can now be found at the Architecture museum of Riga. However, the most significant part of the master’s heritage is his buildings. A vast majority of them were created before World War I – during a time when Riga was experiencing a building boom. The first works by Laube saw daylight in the firm of K. Pēkšēns. There is at least half a dozen of them and all are fine monuments of architecture.



Brīvības iela 62



Alberta iela 11


Brīvības iela 47


Brīvības iela 37


Lāčplēša iela 51


Brīvības iela 59 (with Oskar Bars)


Ģertrūdes iela 23


Aleksandra Čaka iela 26 (with Konstantīns Pēkšēn)


Alberta iela 12 (with Konstantīns Pēkšēn)






Béla Lajta (nèe Leitersdorfer)


Bela Löffler, Szendrői Dezso, Tálos Gyula, Lajos Kozma


Pest, 23 Jan 1873 – Vienna, 12 Oct 1920



He visited Italy, Germany and England. France Spain and Russia.
In Germany he keep in touch with Alfred Messel in Germany  and Eberhard Ihne. In years 1898-1899 he was in London where he staid in close contact with Richard Norman Shaw, and with Baillie Scott, and subsequently in Austria with  Josef Hoffmann, and personal Adolf Loos. After his return in Hungary, he studied the national art and the style Transylvania and Upper Hungary folk art. 
During 1902 and 1903, he worked in contact with Ödön Lechner. Other than pure Architecture design, he worked also as interior designer
His style was heavily influenced by the ideas about national art of Odon Lechner and, as a matter of fact, Lajta himself had the goal to preserve folk architecture style, together with ancient
motives. Lajta art was also influenced by the English villa’s architecture, by Finnish national
romantic and Austrian modern architecture.


Budapest X., Kozma utcai izraelita temető Schmidt Sándor sírboltja



Budapest XIV., Mexikói út 60. Vakok Intézete 1905—1908


Budapest XIV., Izsó utca Malonyay Dezső villája 1905-1907.


Budapest XIV., Amerikai út 57. Budapesti Chevra Kadisa Gyógyíthatatlan Betegek Intézete


Budapest VI., Paulay Ede utca 35. Parisiana mulató 1908-1909. Épületszobrász -munkák Maróti Géza


Budapest VIII, Vas utca 11. Székesfővárosi Kereskedelmi Iskola 1909-1912


Budapesí V.. Martinelli tér 5. Lajta Henrik és Rezső üzletháza. Földszintjén a Rózsavölgyi Zeneműbolt berendezése Kozma Lajos tervei szerint készült. 1911—1912.


Budapest VII., Rákóczi út 18. Erzsébetvárosi Bank háza 1911 —1913.


Budapest VIII., Népszínház utca 19. Harsányi-ház 1911—1912


Budapest V. Szent István tér 14. Hecht Jónás nagykereskedés portálja 1906—1907



Művészet magazine, volume 12, pp 285 – 294

285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294

Der Architekt, Volume 1911, pp-34-37

page_5_33 page_5_34 page_5_35 page_5_36 page_5_37 page_5_38 page_5_39 page_5_40


Una delle più controverse vexata quaestion nella storia dell’Arte fin dè siècle, è costituita dal rapporto tra il cosiddetto estetismo, vera e proprio fondamento teorico ed estetico, e gli sviluppi dell’estetica della linea Art Nouveau. In più: se si considera la Secessione austriaca in particolare, costituisce un punto cardine della definizione dell’estetica secessione l’influenza delle produzioni di Kunstgewerbe della scuola di Glasgow, e di Rennie Mackintosh in particolare, e delle raffinate illustrazioni in bianco e nero di un Aubrey Beardsley o di un Selwyn Image su produzioni che spaziano dalla Kunstgewerbe Schule di Vienna fino all’estetica Wiener Werkstaette. Tuttavia, a mio avviso, rimane da indagare quanto, anche da un punto di vista teorico, un ulteriore contributo d’oltre Manica sarebbe stato destinato ad esercitare un definitivo e determinante influsso sui fondamenti teorici della Secessione Viennese. In particolare, rilevo come due dei maggiori teorici dell’Art Nouveau austriaca, Hermann Bahr e Ludwig Hevesi, conservino questo particolare legame teoretico con i fondamenti dell’Estetismo inglese.

Leggo e traduco Ludwig Hevesi, il quale, nella fondamentale raccolta di articoli e saggi brevi intitolata “Acht Jahre Secession” scrive:

La Vereinigung Bildender Kuenstler Oesterreich è principalmente una Kampfgesellschaft (una Società Guerriera) che conserva come proprio campo di battaglia l’Arte stessa. E tale battaglia non si connoterà di sterile polemica, ma, al contrario, sarà come suo proprio una finalità artistica. Quella di risvegliare gli occhi delle masse e far sì che essi si aprano e contemplino e comprendano gli sviluppi dell’arte giovane.

Le masse diseducate alla fruizione ed al riconoscimento del gusto, alla appercezione del bello. La Secessione non costituisce, dunque, un elemento di polemica o rottura con la tradizione del passato, con una estetica ritenuta vetusta e superata. La Secessione ha come proprio un fine meramente estetico, proponendosi come veicolo di una sensibilità sconosciuta, come una sorta di sileno pronto ad elettrizzare, talvolta scandalizzando, i dormienti ed assuefatti occhi dei più, per consentir infine loro non solamente di apprezzare la nuova arte, ma soprattutto di liberare la naturale umana tendenza al godimento del bello.


Ancora Hermann Bahr, in “Secession”:

Se si considerano le secessioni di Parigi e Monaco, risulta evidente come quelle siano in deiretta contrapposizione alla Vecchia Arte in nome dell’Arte Giovane e Nuova. In questo senso si potrebbe dire che essa promuove uno scontro fra modernità contro la tradizione, o più modestamente: giocare una lotta per una nuova tecnologia, o innovazioni ancor non accettate: un tentativo, la moda di oggi contro la legge eterna. Ma pur sempre una controversia nelle arti. Entrambi gli avversari volevano servire la medesima cosa, la bellezza mediante l’unico mezzo con cui la potevano comunicare. Artisti  contro altri artisti. E ‘stata una battaglia delle scuole, le dottrine, di temperamento. Tutto questo non ci appartiene. Noi non argomentare contro la tradizione, dato che non ne abbiamo nessuna. Non è tra l’arte antica e nuova, non intendiamo discutere su come cambiare l’arte.  Al contrario, la Secessione si interesserà dell’arte stessa. L a nostra associazione dirime ogni dubbio, "rinuncia alla battaglia contro il vecchio, ed essa stessa rinuncia a chiamarsi moderna. Ill punto vero sarà il seguente: "contro i meri produttori, noi vogliamo essere artisti! Questa è tutta la controversia: o Business o l’arte, è la questione della nostra secessione.

La secessione dunque si propone portatrice di un nuovo modo di concepire l’arte, ancor più ed ancor prima di un nuovo modo di fare arte. E per i secessionisti, lo scontro esiziale è tra l’artista al solo servizio della Bellezza, ed il commerciante, al soldo di mecenati più o meno interessati, schiavo delle imposture del gusto borghese. Non è l’arte ad essere vecchia, al limite lo è l’artista, caduto nell’oblio della bellezza, non più in grado di lasciarsi avviluppare dall’estatico abbraccio della bellezza, potere eccitante e taumaturgico. Eco del campione dell’estetismo, Pater Walter, il cui pensiero è posseduto e veicolato dalle parole dell’Epicureo Mario:

Tutto questo è servito, come ha capito in seguito, in una sola volta a rafforzare e purificare una vena certa di carattere in lui. Sviluppare l’ideale, pre-esistente , di una bellezza religiosa, che MArio accumunerà in futuro con lo splendore meraviglioso del tempio di Esculapio, come si rese conto su di lui quella mattina della sua prima visita – Si è sviluppata in questo un ideale legame con un vivace senso del valore della salute mentale e corporea. E questo riconoscimento della bellezza, una estetica che mediante il bello veicolato dai sensi dona  salute al corpo, una sorta di influsso moralmente salutare, liberando le tendenze meno desiderabili o pericolose di alcune fasi del pensiero.


VER SACRUM – Organ der Vereinigung Bildender Kunstler Osterreichs – 1898



Ferdnand Khnopff vs Otto Eckmann

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...