Artist's studios in Zagreb from 1896 until 2007 : from research of the phenomenon towards the guidelines for musealisation

Cilj istraživanja bio je dokazati da su ateljei, kao umjetnički, arhitektonski i kulturnopovijesni fenomen nositelji muzealnosti te usporediti pristup muzealizaciji ateljea u Hrvatskoj u odnosu na europska iskustva, a čemu je na prvom mjestu pridonijelo sustavno istraživanje korpusa zagrebačkih ateljea kao dominantnog za uočavanje postojanja obrazaca. Kronološki gledano, rad obuhvaća povijesti ateljea u Zagrebu od prvih namjenski građenih ateljea za potrebe slikara i kipara u Ilici 85 iz 1896. do 2007. godine kada je otkupljen i relociran cjeloviti atelje Ivana Kožarića. Ova disertacija sastoji se iz dva dijela, kako bi pružila interdisciplinaran pogled na problematiku umjetničkih ateljea. U prvom dijelu donose se rezultati istraživanja ateljea unutar povijesno-umjetničkog okvira, a drugi dio rada usmjeren je na istraživanje ovog fenomena u sklopu muzeologije. Što se metodologije istraživanja tiče, prije svega korištene su metode povijesti - proučavanje i analiza arhivske građe i izvora vezanih uz postupak izgradnje i dodjele ateljea umjetnicima. Identificirani fenomeni opisani su, analizirani i valorizirani. Potom su odabrani primjeri analizirani u smislu muzealnosti – Umjetnički ateljei u Prilazu – Akademija likovnih umjetnosti, ateljei na Voćarskoj cesti, majstorske radionice, odnosno utvrđen je njihov stupanj muzealnosti i mogućnosti tretiranja kao potencijalnih muzejskih cjelina. U tome su značajnu ulogu imali i prepoznavanje i stupanj autentičnosti ateljerske građe. Uzimajući sve očitane vrijednosti u obzir, fenomeni su razvrstani u spomenute tipološke grupe. Na interdisciplinarni način sagledani i obrađeni zagrebački ateljei omogućit će prenošenje višeslojnih poruka o društvenom i umjetničkom životu Zagreba u posljednjih stotinu i petnaest godina. Na kraju je razrađen koncept komuniciranja zagrebačkih ateljea i edukativne prezentacije nepokretnih spomenika. Njihov argumentirani razvoj od umjetničke radionice klasičnog europskog tipa do ateljea kao artefakta, potkrjepljuje tezu kako je umjetnost u Hrvatskoj bez prekida pratila vodeća europska kretanja.On the practical level, museology concerns the issues of cultural, natural and technical heritage protection and issues pertaining to museum activities, as well as areas where these two great issues interwine. The aim of our research is to identify heritage potentials, their protection and communication of heritage messages to the broadest of audiences. We convey our messages through objects, museum items and museograhic devices, while contemporary technological accomplishments provide us with more and more new possibilities every day, precisely in terms of communication. Due to our possibility to communicate with the entire world, today our museum profession should be analysed from two points of view – local and international. Zagreb's studios musealised in a contemporary manner could become a destination and generator of culture at particular locations in the city. The existing historical overview, listed examples from the current practice and an insight into Croatioan museum experiences were all used to try and provide a historical and museological framework that acknowledged the phenomenon of artist's studios as a torchbearer of heritage messages and was, as such, musealised in different ways. We analysed several types of museum presentation of studios – from the presentation of a studio in a solo, retrospective or monographic exhibition – Radauš, Kožarić – and the relocation of a studio as a unique facility – Brancusi – to its incorporation into a museum's permanent display – Vidović, Bacon. We described several examples of renovation and museum presentation of artis's homes with studios – Bukovac, Meštrović. Studio as a workshop of art, place of artistic production, with all the specitics of a certain meduim, studio as a place of social significance gathering the social and intellectual elite, studio as a place of creation of new art groups and movements, studio as a place of heterotopy, studio as a mirror of time, studio as discursive identity, studio as a manifest expression of architecural or artistic convictions, presents rows and rows of examples of its value as the bearer of multiple – historical, aesthetical, technological, social, political and artistic messages. By preserving and presenting the studio heritage from the very first artist's studio sin Prilaz, today's Academy of Fine Art, from the late 19th century to Kožarić's studio int he 21st century, we contribute to the overall cultural identity of Zagreb and Croatia and tell the tale oft he 100 years of history marked by series of important artists, such as Vlaho Bukovac, Ivan Meštrović, Tošo Dabac, Vanja Radauš, Vjenceslav Richter and Ivan Kožarić, authors who crossed the boundaries and changed our artistic and social reality. The complexity of information certain studios carry in them provides us a possibility for several levels of evaluation in accordance with the Ivo Maroević's proposed theory of museality. On the level of primary evaluation, we need to establish two fundamental facts – was a studio preserved as an original ambience, i.e. was the architecural framework oft he studio preserved, either as a part or as a whole. The second step, the level oft he identification o fan object's meaning for a particular scientific discipline, we need to establish if there are sufficient valuable messages for the history of urban planning, architecure and design this architectural framework and interior speak about, and if there is a sufficient amount of good objects, from the point of view of art history and visual criticism. In this case, we can illustrate the example of Zvonko Car's studio in Crikvenica, which fulfils one but not both criteria. The architecure of Car's studio is valuable and interesting as it is the only commisioned studio in Primorje region, whereas Car's work is completely irrelevant for the development of sculpture and painting in Croatia. The example of Ivan Kožarić's studio is a completely opposite situation; the architecural framework is irrelevant, unlike the interior and artworks which at a certain point marked the critical moment in Croatioan contemporary art. When studios are evaluated on the secondary level in the process oft he determination of objects' museality, important criteria are artists' biographies and the history of a studio, which help convey the messages of „past and present into present and future“ with the help of preserved objects and museographic aids. However, I wish to point out that it appears to me that in our museum practice it is often the case that the moment the museality of objects or ambiences is determined, work on collection, display or exhibition is finished. In my opinion, objects' museality should be contionously re-examined. The value of a studio collection will be even greater if we re-evaluate it every few years. In order to denote particular moment in history and map studio heritage on Zagreb city plan, we have reached several proposals for studio muselisation with a wish to transform the existing studio collections pusuant to the principles of contemporary museology into research, scientific and educational centres. The history of Zagreb's studios began with the initiative of Art Society and the very first studio sin Prilaz 1896, as well as private studios of Vlaho Bukovac (1897), Ivan Tišov (1901) and Ivan Meštrović (1920s). The following significant step was the establishment of art colonies in Rokov perivoj (1910-1928) and Voćarska street (1919). After World War II, monumental sculpting studios were bulite, master workshops belonging to Antun Augustinčić and Vanja Radauš, as well as Krsto Hegedušić's painting studio. That period also witnessed a very developed system of support for the design and construcstion of personal studio spaces. The most common formo f artist support was allocation of office premises owned by the City of Zagreb, with affordable rents. After master workshops built in Zagreb int he ratly fifties, no new studios were builte. The archive oft he Croatian Association of Fine Artist keeps some interesting and ambitious plans for a studio neighbourhood with 17 studio houses in Dubrava – Grana, as well as designs for studios on the upper floors in new high-rises in Utrine, a neighbourhood in Novi Zagreb, which were never executed. Speaking of studio architecure, ina n overview of Zagreb cases we noticed all studio types, even though they are not as numerous as in other Europen countires, like in Italy, France and Germany – studios within the artist's flat, studios within the artist's villa, large state-owned studios, common studios, commissioned and adapted spaces, representative studios and studio-salon. Differences between European and Zagreb studios are illustrated in the time delay regarding the beginning of studio development. This process was also closely linked to the delay in the eduactional system intended for painters and sculptors int he 18th and 19th century. However, we have encountered several excellent examples of studio architecure occurring hand in hand with the world development of style – architect Baranyai designed an Art Nouveau villa for Ivan Tišov in 1901. Listing these examples and analysing the Croatian practice, a question is raised: have we sufficiently pointed to the specifics and values of the collected and presented heritage? Have we created and adequate cultural and social atmosphere in which we contionuously acquaint the public with aesthetic, social and historical values these studios carry, with all their traits rooted in situations typical for either the beginning or middle of the previous century, or the present time, with all the values that can bear new values. Working hours when studios are open to the public and the number of visitors in the previous year clearly point to the fact that these heritage sites are not well valorised and interpreted in accordance with the expectations of today's societiy. Opening the doors of artist's studios during regular monthly or annual events of diverse nature, organising programmes like children's studios, studio open doors days, breakfasts in studios with artist, as well as other usual forms of museum communication, occasional or permanent exhibitions on various subjects pertaining to the studio or studio histry would help the boradest audeince recognise the inspiring and creative potential of artist's studios