Modernizing the teaching of art history at the University of Tartu and on the importance of collections in the election process of the first professor of art history in the years 1919-1921 Eero Kangor, MA, Estonian Academy of Arts The changes in the teaching of art history at the European universities were the product of the modernization of the society in the 19th and the first half of the 20th century. In Estonia these changes were connected to the national movement of both Estonians and Baltic Germans as well as the Russification of the University of Tartu. In 1919 the University was re-established as the national university with the ambition to give the best possible education for the future specialists of all fields of occupation in the Estonian Republic. The article focuses on the election process of the professor of art history at the University of Tartu during the years 1919-1921 and attempts to analyze this in the Northern European context. It develops from the academic background of the candidates and the experts involved in this process to reveal their possible interests directed to the position in Tartu. On the other hand the political situation in Estonia, the material conditions and possibilities but also the ideological preferences of the administration of the University of Tartu have to be born in mind. The election of the professor of art history effected the professionalization of art history and with this the new interpretations given to the arts of “all times” that were created and that had remained in the Estonian territory. More generally it influenced the acceptance of this art heritage as an object of the Estonian (national) art historiography. The work with art heritage assumed a more systematic knowledge about it and required the formulation of new special collections that were to be deposited at the Art History cabinet of the University of Tartu. In the art historiography of this period the medieval art was an active field of heated debates that engaged a lot of many ambitious and talented German and Swedish art historians. Their attention centered on the importance of the medieval Hanseatic League and its member cities and more generally the Baltic Sea as a space and medium of artistic influences. Until the 1920s medieval art in the territory of the Estonian Republic had been studied by the Baltic German art historians as part of the so-called Baltic art. Similarly the object of Estonian art was only the creation of Estonian artists from the mid-19th century onwards. None of this was of interest to the scholars at the University of Tartu where the academic study was exclusively involved with the problems of classical art. At the time of Russification in the last quarter of the 19th century the city of Tartu (then Dorpat) was renamed “Jurjew” and followed by the renaming of the university and adding “Imperial” to it. The classical studies of the antique art where part of imperial discourse and possessed likewise importance in the British, Austro-Hungarian and Prussian Empire. For the new nation-states established after the collapse of the Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empires, this discourse had no relevance. The founders of the Estonian national university in Tartu took the Scandinavian univesities as an example which also meant the ineluctable inclination to the ideology attached to it. As a result the chair of aesthetics and general art history was established in 1919. At the same time it could not be ignored that the University of Tartu had been a Baltic German institution since 1802 and possessed not only an internationally renowned prestige in classical archaeology but also a remarkable collection of Antique art. During the First World War this collection had been evacuated to the Russian Voronezh University and self-evidently it was the duty of the university administrators to get back its assets. This is the background for considering the Baltic German classical archeologist Oskar Waldhauer as one of the candidates for the chair of art history. The Faculty of Philosophy that was in charge of the election process might have hoped to achieve a quicker solution to the problems of the art collections when electing Waldhauer as the professor. As I have tried to present in my article it was in conflict with first the progressive mindset and the modernization efforts of the university administrators and the pursuit to approach the Scandinavian examples. At this time a significant change was taking place at the Scandinavian universities in the study and teaching of art history with the decreasing attention to antique art and aesthetic problems. Instead of the study of classical texts much importance was given to the meticulous study of the art objects, to stylistic generalizations and an attempt to chart the cultural geographical migration of the art motives in the Baltic Sea region. This meant a totally different approach to art heritage and effected the formulation of new kinds of specialist collections, e.g. photo-collections that required notable financial support. From the correspondence with the candidates it can be concluded that it was not easy to attract foreign professors to the newly established Republic because the university could not offer sufficient financial and institutional support that was anticipated by the candidates. For the candidates it was important to have modern equipment and the special collections (books, photos and artefacts) for teaching art history, on the other hand, the professor could become a pioneer in research on the heritage of Estonia. The help of the most renowned scholars in Germany and Scandinavia were contacted as experts to find the candidates: Fritz Knapp (1874—1938), Martin Wackernagel (1881—1962), Wilhelm Worringer (1881—1965), Helge Kjellin (1885—1984), Kurt Gerstenberg (1886—1968), Onni Okkoneni (1886—1962) and Erwin Panofsky (1892—1968). Only four of them actually considered to accept the offer (Knapp, Gerstenberg, Kjellin and Wackernagel). The reason for the dominance of German candidates was first that in Germany there were enough professional art historians at that time. There was a surplus of scholars who looked for a stable job as the inflation during the 1920s affected foremost the German academic community. However, the the University of Tartu had a cautionary standpoint towards the German candidates and the attitude towards (Baltic) Germans was also generally negative in Estonia. Unlike in Germany there was scarcity of professional art historians in Scandinavia and Finland. Though Estonian archaeology could profit from the Finnish scholars Aarne Michaël Tallgren and general history from Arno Rafael Cederberg there was less opportunity to provide the southern nation-relatives with a professor in art history. On the other hand the concept of Baltic-Nordic Art Region put forward by the Swede Johnny Roosval could profit remarkably from the work of a disciple doing research on Estonian Middle Age art heritage. It is clear from the correspondence with Roosval that he made an effort to support his countryman Kjellin’s candidacy. Kjellin’s mission actually turned out to be successful in establishing that at least the Western-Estonian Medieval Churches have strong connections with the art of Gotland. Finally, the Faculty of Philosophy elected the internationally renowned though notorious Strzygowski as the first professor of art history at the University of Tartu. At this time Strzygowski was already a professor in Vienna and Åbo (Finland). Estonian art history students could have profited from his inarguably strong methodological teaching but his ideological inclination would certainly have been undesirable. Strzygowski seems to have rejected the chair because of practical reasons. This meant that the second in election — Kjellin — was given a chance to develop Estonian art history study. One of Kjellin’s first jobs was the establishment of the research collections at the Art History cabinet. For this he organised research trips with his student to the medieval land churches, the cloisters, castles, fortressess and the old towns in Estonia and also northern Latvia. During his time in Estonia (1922-24) he could not publish any research on this material until 1928 when his monograph on the Karja Church in Saaremaa appeared. This received a sharp critique by other scholars mainly because of overinfluencing the artistic influences from Gotland. This was achieved by matching the material with the Roosval’s conception of the Baltic-Nordic art region, but not convincingly enough. More important of this was that with his monograph Kjellin managed to open up a debate on Estonian medieval art heritage and make its study tempting for the Estonian researchers and in the long run this meant the integration of this heritage to Estonian art. This research profited greatly from the research collections established by Kjellin during his time in Tartu.
展开▼
机译：塔尔图大学（University of Tartu）的艺术史教学现代化，以及馆藏在1919年至1921年第一位艺术史教授的选举过程中的重要意义爱沙尼亚艺术学院硕士Eero Kangor，艺术教学的变化欧洲大学的历史是19世纪和20世纪上半叶社会现代化的产物。在爱沙尼亚，这些变化与爱沙尼亚人和波罗的海德国人的民族运动以及塔尔图大学的俄罗斯化有关。 1919年，大学重新成立为国立大学，以期为爱沙尼亚共和国各职业领域的未来专家提供最好的教育。本文重点介绍1919年至1921年间塔尔图大学艺术史教授的选举过程，并试图在北欧背景下对此进行分析。它是根据候选人和参与此过程的专家的学术背景而发展的，以揭示他们对塔尔图职位的潜在兴趣。另一方面，必须牢记爱沙尼亚的政治局势，物质条件和可能性以及塔尔图大学行政管理的意识形态偏好。艺术史教授的选举影响了艺术史的专业化，因此，对“始终”的艺术有了新的诠释，这种诠释是在爱沙尼亚领土上一直存在的。更广泛地说，它影响了这种艺术遗产作为爱沙尼亚（国家）艺术史学对象的接受。具有艺术遗产的作品假定对此有更系统的了解，因此需要制定新的特殊收藏，这些新藏品将存放在塔尔图大学的艺术史内阁中。在这一时期的艺术史学中，中世纪的艺术是一个激烈的辩论活跃的领域，吸引了许多雄心勃勃，才华横溢的德国和瑞典艺术史学家。他们的注意力集中在中世纪的汉萨同盟及其成员城市以及更广泛的波罗的海作为艺术影响空间和媒介的重要性上。直到1920年代，波罗的海德国艺术历史学家一直在研究爱沙尼亚共和国境内的中世纪艺术，这是所谓的波罗的海艺术的一部分。同样，爱沙尼亚艺术的对象只是19世纪中叶以来爱沙尼亚艺术家的创作。这些都不是塔尔图大学（University of Tartu）学者的兴趣所在，那里的学术研究只涉及古典艺术问题。在19世纪后半叶的俄罗斯化时期，塔尔图市（当时的多尔帕特市）更名为“朱瑞夫”，随后对该大学进行了更名，并为其添加了“帝国”名称。古典艺术的古典研究，一部分帝国话语在英国，奥匈帝国和普鲁士帝国中同样具有重要意义。对于在俄罗斯和奥匈帝国崩溃后建立的新民族国家，这种论述没有任何意义。爱沙尼亚国立大学塔尔图分校的创始人以斯堪的纳维亚的大学为例，这也意味着对它所附加的意识形态的必然倾向。结果，美学和一般艺术史的主席于1919年成立。同时，不容忽视的是，塔尔图大学自1802年以来一直是波罗的海德国大学，不仅在古典考古学方面享有国际声誉，而且也是一个非凡的古董艺术品收藏。第一次世界大战期间，这批藏品被撤回了俄罗斯沃罗涅日大学，这显然是大学管理者有责任取回其资产。这是考虑波罗的海德国古典考古学家奥斯卡·瓦尔多厄（Oskar Waldhauer）作为艺术史主持人之一的背景。负责选举过程的哲学系可能希望当选Waldhauer教授时能更快地解决艺术品收藏的问题。正如我试图在文章中介绍的那样，这首先与大学管理者的进取心态和现代化努力以及追求斯堪的纳维亚范例的追求相矛盾。当时，斯堪的纳维亚的大学在艺术史的研究和教学方面发生了重大变化，对古董艺术和美学问题的关注日益减少。与其研究古典文本，不如说是对艺术品的细致研究。，进行风格概括，并尝试绘制波罗的海地区艺术动机的文化地理迁移。这意味着对艺术遗产采取完全不同的方法，并影响了新型专业收藏品的制定，例如需要显着财务支持的照片集。从与候选人的书信中可以得出结论，将外国教授吸引到新成立的共和国并不容易，因为大学无法提供候选人期望的足够的财政和体制支持。对于候选人来说，拥有现代化的设备和特别的藏书（书籍，照片和手工艺品）以教授艺术史非常重要，另一方面，这位教授可能成为爱沙尼亚遗产研究的先驱。联系了德国和斯堪的纳维亚半岛最著名的学者作为专家，他们找到了候选人：弗里茨·纳普（1874–1938），马丁·瓦克纳格尔（1881–1962），威廉·沃林格（1881–1965），赫尔格·凯林（1885–1984） ），库尔特·格斯滕贝格（Kurt Gerstenberg，1886年-1968年），奥妮·奥克科尼（Onni Okkoneni，1886年-1962年）和欧文·帕诺夫斯基（Erwin Panofsky，1892年至1968年）。实际上，只有四个人（纳普，格斯滕贝格，凯林和瓦克纳格尔）接受了这个提议。德国候选人之所以占主导地位，首先是因为当时德国有足够的专业艺术史学家。由于1920年代的通货膨胀影响了德国学术界，因此有大量的学者寻求稳定的工作。但是，塔尔图大学对德国候选人持谨慎态度，在爱沙尼亚，对（波罗的海）德国人的态度也普遍持消极态度。与德国不同，斯堪的纳维亚半岛和芬兰缺少专业艺术史学家。尽管爱沙尼亚的考古学可以从芬兰学者AarneMichaëlTallgren和Arno Rafael Cederberg的通史中受益，但为南方民族亲戚提供艺术史教授的机会却很少。另一方面，瑞典人约翰尼·罗斯瓦尔（Johnny Roosval）提出的波罗的海北欧艺术区的概念，可以从一个门徒对爱沙尼亚中世纪艺术遗产进行研究的工作中获益匪浅。从与罗斯瓦尔的往来信件中可以明显看出，他正在努力支持他的同胞凯杰琳（Kjellin）的竞选资格。事实证明，凯杰琳（Kjellin）的任务成功地证明，至少西爱沙尼亚中世纪教堂与哥特兰（Gotland）的艺术有很强的联系。最后，哲学系选举塔尔图大学为国际历史悠久但臭名昭著的斯特雷佐夫斯基（Strzygowski）作为艺术史的第一位教授。此时，Strzygowski已经是维也纳和Åbo（芬兰）的教授。爱沙尼亚艺术史的学生本可以从他无可争议的强大方法学教学中受益，但他的意识形态倾向肯定是不可取的。 Strzygowski似乎出于实际原因拒绝了主席。这意味着当选第二名凯林（Kjellin）得到了发展爱沙尼亚艺术史研究的机会。凯林（Kjellin）的第一批工作之一是在艺术史橱柜中建立研究收藏。为此，他与学生一起组织了考察之旅，参观了中世纪的土地教堂，回廊，城堡，要塞和爱沙尼亚以及拉脱维亚北部的老城区。在爱沙尼亚（1922-24）期间，他直到1928年在萨列马（Saaremaa）的卡尔哈教堂（Karja Church）专着出现之前，都无法发表对此材料的任何研究。这受到其他学者的尖锐批评，主要是因为过度影响了哥特兰岛的艺术影响力。这是通过使材料与Roosval对波罗的海北欧艺术区的概念相匹配而实现的，但还不足以令人信服。更重要的是，凭借他的专着，凯杰琳（Kjellin）设法展开了一场关于爱沙尼亚中世纪艺术遗产的辩论，并使其研究吸引了爱沙尼亚研究人员，从长远来看，这意味着将这种遗产与爱沙尼亚艺术相融合。该研究得益于Kjellin在塔尔图期间建立的研究收藏。
展开▼
