UDe930.85(=861)"1911" :7.036(=861 ):061.4(456.32)" 1911"Original Scholarly WorkMarina ADAMOVICInstitute for Balkan StudiesBelgrade"RETROSPECTIVE"SECTION IN THESERBIAN PAVILIONAT THE1911 UNIVERSAL EXPOSITION IN ROMEAn ArtisticCross-Section of the PeriodAbstract. - Theemphasisin the worksdealingwith tile subjecthas alwaysbeenput onthehighlightsoftile day, i.e., ontheKosovofragments (lidMarkoKraljevic cycleas represented mostlybyIvanMestrovic's sculp-tures. Lackingstylisticandthematicunity of the"historical"segment an-other. "retrospective" section has not been as attractive either for tllecontemporaryor subsequent interpretations. However, it mayhave a pecu-liar value from the actual perspectiveinsofar as it appears as a cross-sectionof the Serbian art of tile epoch.Serbian Pavilion at the 1911Universal ExpositioninRomehasalreadybeendealt with, bothin view of itsartisticcontents, andfromthestandpoint of itspolitical weight. * Naturallyenough, theemphasishasalwaysbeenput onthehighlights of theday, i.e., ontheKosovofragments andMarkoKraljevic cycleas representedmostly byIvanMestrovic's sculptures (judging by thedata contained in the Catalogue,Mestrovic'ssharemade74out of 222exhibits). Lacking stylisticandthematic unity of the "historical" segment, another, "retrospective"sec-tion has not been as attractive either for the contemporary or sub-sequent interpretations. However, it mayhave apeculiarvalue fromthe actual perspective insofar as it appears as across-sectionof theSerbianandSouthSlavuc art of theepoch. Inthesameway, thecriti-cal opinionsontheexhibitionoutlined thegeneral cultural climeandrevealed social background of theset of valuesatthe time. Therefore,theattentionwill be nowdirected towardsthetwoexhibitionhalls of* K. Ambrozic, 9 6 ~ D. Tosie. 1980; M. Adarnovic, 1990.302 Marina AdamovicthePavilionwherethe"retrospection" wasmounted. All theenergieshaving beeninvested in preparingandaffirming proper displayof the"national art", 1 thepresentationof theother worksof art wasvoidofconsistencyand conception. Twentysix artistswho appeared in Romethus made quite a heterogeneous "representation." The youngestamongthem, Ljubo Babic, had just becomethe student of the MunichAcademy, whereastheoldest, StevaTodorovic, hadbegunhiscareeras early as themiddle of the19th century.Theoldergenerationwasrepresented by StevaTodorovic(1832-1925) with his academic Realism, an already anachronistic artisticmanner. As a lively and enterprising spirit, he was one of the animatorsof thecultural life in Belgrade (wherehe hadbeenlivingsince 1857).He was the founder of the first school of painting, actor, singer,scenographer, advocateandprofessor of gymnastics, andbesides, theauthor of thefirst exhibitionof paintingsever mountedinBelgrade.WithDjura JaksicandNovakRadonichecontributed toa short-livedascent of Romanticisminthe 19th-centurySerbianpainting. Havingbecomean official: of the bourgeois elite, however, he graduallyaban-donedhisoriginal' enthusiasmandturned, in hissecondphase(1880-1900), intoaskillful andunimaginativeprofessional. Suchwas theessence of the two static historical compositions he presented in Rome:The Admission ofSt. Simeonto ChilandarandThe Coronation of Ste-fan theFirstly Crowned, whichhadbeenpaintedsomefifteenyearsbefore. It was only My Daughter that might have mitigated the specta-tor's sentence.Quitesimilar weretheaffinitiesof UrosPredic (1857-1953), theauthorof historical compositions, largenumber of portraits andrelig-iouspaintings. In Romehewasrepresented bythree of hisportraits:those ofLazaKostic, andtwo patriarchs, Lukijan Bogdanovic andGeorgijeBrankovic. Thoughtful bynature, and of cultivated spirit, hewas able to evaluate his own pictures from the distance of his solitude,asthoughhehaddetachedhimself fromthemandbecomehis owncritic. Asearlyas 1908, withreferencetothissmall portrait of LazaKostic, itwassaid-that itsauthor "is not insensitiveeithertomodemtechniquesormore Impressionistmanner. "2 It is thispieceof portrai-ture that seems to escape Predic's severe and partly justified evaluationof his ownworks: "Theportraits arealways similar totheoriginal,1 M. Adamovic, op. cit.2 M. Curcin, 1908,944."Retrospective"Section intheSerbian Pavilion 303lacking other specificallypictorial features. ".1 Aware of thefact that artwas undergoing great changes, hehimself reached theverdict about thecanvas he exhibitedinRome. Withsomebitternessthough, he said:"[... ] thepicture of patriarch Lukijan Bogdanovic who kneels andpraysinfront of St. NIcholas, pointing toawrecked shipin thetroubled sea.Symbolism of the paintingISrather obvioustoanyonewhoISfamiliarwith Vojvodina of histimes. This picture wasdisplayed in thePavilionof SerbiainRome, but it passedunnoticedonlybecausethe amazingappearance of Mestrovicovershadowed all the rest; and, secondly, be-causethepictureboresigns of obsolescenceanddecline. Thusit hangabovetheentrance ina hall sothattheawful crimsoncolour of the pa-triarch'sgarment shouldnot disturbmodemharmonies. "4 Not alwaysconsistent in his judgements, D. Mitrinovic said about Todorovic's his-torical paintings and the twoPredics portraits that "they may be anobject of affection forthepainters themselves or thepeople of their Or-thodoxage andmentality.:" but that such anexhibitionwasnoplaceforthem.Paintingof MarkoMurat (1864-1944) was akindof transitionto-wards more advanced conceptions. Bemg one of those whowere surpass-ingthe prevailingacademicRealismthroughtheintroductionof naturallight intothe picture, he was openingnewpossibilitiesfor the Serbianpainting. Hisfirstphase (1888-1914) wasbasedupontheMunich Realis-ticprinciples, but theMediterraneansunof hisbirthplacealreadystartedto playthegame of lightand shade (e.g. ,')'pring from1894, 'where "a Ser-bianpainter painted sunlight forthefirst time'"). Inhispaintingsall crit-ics unanimouslyfindmelancholyand tenderness: "Mr. MarkoMuratisan intelligent andtender painter. Hiswork is always carefully done, well-measured, quiet, cultivated andtender. Hispaintings alwaysdepict somesilentandlonely poetical landscape-acoastcoveredwithflowers, WIthcalm sea in thebackground, where, as if in a tale, lonelyislands salecar-ryingsparse cypresses resembling tomasts[...]. At a far end of hispaint-ings, one or two figures always move silently, as though wishmg toemphasize theloneliness ormelancholic silence of thelandscape. "7Suchadescriptionalso applies totwo of the elevenpictures he exhibitedin3 1J. r e d i ~ 1921.4 Loc. cit.< D. Mitrinovic. 191 I. 569.() V Ristic. 19697 B. POpOVIC. 1Y04.304 Marina AdamovicRome: Daphnis and Chloe and Spring (Flowery renee). Thereis a per-fect correspondence betweenthe paintings of this"painter-poet"- whosepictures, ofteninblueandviolet tonalities, are"theimpressionsfull oflight and air'" - and Ducic's verses:Sve jetaka tiho... I u mojoj dusi,Produzeno vidimova mimo more.,\'ume oleandra, ljubicaste gore,I bled obzor sto se svijetli i pusi.Nemostoje11njoj srebrnaste, rodneObaleivrti; i svetli i paliMladokrupnosunce; i ne suste vali-Sve jetako tiho... Mir... Svuda jepodne.It wasthislyrical andmelancholic moodthat Murat tried to trans-pose Intohis paintingPoorMaidenfromLopud. whichwas not "theluckiest solution"." Matosdescribed it as "bluenightly'spinach' withaquite poor composition [...], naive drama and naive symbolism'l.I''General remarkwasthat "themajorityof hispaintingsismarkedbyatonal monotony, whichisalmost exclusivelybased onvariousshadesof blue''."!Theother paintingsMurat exhibitedwereportraits(Portrait of aLady, Portrait of Friends, Prayer. ortheSerbsCatholics -asort ofgroupportrait, theportrait of crownpnnceAlexander). Theportrait ofMyBrother (Dum Andro, 1904)maybesingled out as"vivid, expres-siveand, fortunately, not toopolished" 12: it isa facelit up withlight,wrapped up in transparent atmosphere; spontaneouslyrecorded ina re-laxed moment of reading, it radiates with serenityand intimacy.Mitrinovic resumedMurat's virtues and faults by emphasizing"theabundanceof emotionsheinvestedinhis coloursandtones [...]whilepainting dream, painting withdreams", as opposed to"weakanduncertain modelling" .13Such atransitory position was also held by JosifLalic (1867-1953) fromSplit, formerlytheItalianstudent, almost forgottennowHis shareintheRomeexhibitionwas unusuallylarge - SIXpaintingsandsevenwatercolours. Quantitywasobviouslynot compensatoryfor8 N. Petrovic, 1904,216.9 MDeanovic, 1911, 139.10 A.G. Matos, 1973.47.II M. Deanovic.lococit.12Loc. cit.13D. Mitrinovic. 1911a. 886."Retrospective"Section111 theSerbian Pavilionquality-critics either said nothing about him ormentioned him onlyinpassing. Mitrinoviclookeddownonhimas on"anicepainter, butin-distinctly mediocre", pointingonlyto thetechniqueof his watercol-ours."' Lalic hadbeenincludedintheSerbiansectionat theYugoslavExhibitions, and since The First Dalmatian Exhibition becamea mem-ber ofthe "Medulic" group. His Roman appearancewas based uponthe Ragusan landscapes, figures ofMontenegrins and inhabitants ofDubrovnik (their picturesque costume beingSUItablemotif), andthecompositions such as The Insurgents or Montcnegrins at the KotorMarket (whichwas saidtobe distinguished"by thepurity, vividnessandabundance ofcolours"!"). The Pile RoadinDubrovnikwas de-scribed as "beautiful and successful piece of work, withmuchsunlighthere and there". 16Pasko Vucetic (1871-1925) also presented quite a number ofpaintings -elevenlandscapes, portraits, and akind of genre-scenes. Asmany others originating fromSplit, he had studied inItaly, thenmMu-nich. At first hewasinterestedinSymbolistmotifs-asearlyas 1904Nadezda recognized Ropss Ideas noticing, however, that each pamtingwas doneindifferent technique. 17 Matos's judgement from1907waspretty much the same. He thought of Vucetic as of "true Proteusamongpainters"for whom"styleisnotapersonal or unique thing, butsomethingthat vanesfrompamtingto painting". Thoughafewweredoneinacademicmanner, "somelandscapesare purelymodemstud-ies, while the harmonies of some genre-scenes in Vidovics fashionconvey theatmosphere of a tired, nightlysoul" .18 Matos thought highlyof his landscapeexhibited111Rome- On theDanube- as "beautiful,delicate, great". Thereporter of the"Jug" consideredhispamtings as"pleinairist", and some ofthem"rather vivid". Generally, however,they "lack major artistic effects"."? Mitrinovics opinion may havebeen thehighest ofall, withreservations thoughthat Vucetic "treatshimselfwithout seriousness" : "Mr. Vuceticworks with ease, that isobvious; thereis acertaineleganceinhis stroke, hehasagooddraw-ing, andhIS modellingiswell-doneinfewstrokes; besides, his sense14Ibid.. 888.15K. Jorgovic, 1912.39916 V. Lunacek. 1908.17 N. Petrovic. 1904,2161XACT. Matos. 1973a. 33.19 M. Dcanovic, 1911. 139.306 Marina Adamovicfor colouringis vivid, strongandclear; thereisnot much spirit withhim, and his toneis empty, but thepictorialqualityis incontestable. "20AnteKatunaric (1877-1935), alsobornin Split andeducated in It-aly, presented twomarine paintings,whichweretobedisplayedat theFourth Yugoslav Exhibition (1912) and, probablyhadbeenat the 1910exhibition of the"Medulic". Matosconsidered himtobea"blind imi-tator"of Vidovic"andMitrinovics opimonwasalsonegative ("quitemediocre learner's quality").22 Together with Virgil Meneghello-Dincic(whoalsoappearedinRome, but withone workonly)andE.Vidovic, Katunaric was the editor of a satirical magazine "DujeBalavac" substantially contributing to the art of caricature.Apainter fromSarajevo, Todor Svrakic (1882-1931), also pre-sentedtwoof his canvases: Ulcinj andTheFirst Sunbeams(both dis-played a year later at the Fourth Yugoslav Exhibition). Nadezdawelcomedthemascalmpaintings of pleasantcolours, donewitheasystrokes.PNor were much better receivedPetar Pocek (1878-1963) fromCetinje, and his heterogeneous paintings (tenof them) : fromland-scapesandgenre-scenestoasizablecompositionTheFiddle. Havingbeenastudent of theItalianschool of Realism, hemainlystuckwithAcademism. After ashort-livedlighteningof his palettejust around1910,24 hewentbacktodarktonalities. Some of his landscapeswereevaluatedas"rather nice", but the compositionfailedtheexam "It'stooobsolete. Nothing of hisownpersonality. "25The Fiddlewas donein anillustrativemanner, under nightillumination, withanabundanceofethnographic details peculiar to aMontenegrin house. Mitrinovicmet Pocek'sworks withsevere, even harshcriticism, saying that they"stupefywiththeirstupidity" .26Suchanextremestatementwas inap-propriate insofar as the"representation" of our artists wasfarfrombe-ing "representative".After his studies at the ViennaAcademy, Lazar Drljaca(1882-1970) left for ParisandRome. Itwas inRomethat hefirst presentedhis works: Portrait ofan Artist, A Bosnian Girl, Mountain Motif and A20 D. Mitrinovic, 1911a. 887.21 AG.Matos, 1973a, 37.22 D. Mitrinovic. 19l1 a. 887.23 N. Petrovic, 1912.24 V. Djuric, 1964.ll.25 M. Deanovic, 1911, 139.26 D. Mitrinovic. 1911. 569."Retrospective"Section in theSerbian Pavilion307Gypsy. The insight intotheEuropean art he had gained at theAcademywas intertwinedwiththe affinityof his environment for story-tellingand anecdotes, pleinairist pastoral landscape, domestic motifs - folk-lore, and portraiture-'?Young Jozo Kljakovic (1889-1969) exhibitedA1ale Nudeand Eve.Thelatterwasjudged byBrankoLazarevicasa verygood work"withwell depicted flesh in passion, vibrant tones and characteristic de-tails. "28 Symbolistinterest Il1 theerotic-witha tinge of saturationandresignationhere-prevailedover thepictorial. Theform, simplifiedinSezessionist manner, bearstraces of Mestrovic' sinfl uence, especiallythe faceitself whoseroughprofilerepeatsthesculptor'speculiarwaytoemphasize expressi veness.Six paintingsof MihoMarinkovic(1883-1933) alsobelongedtothe Symbolistcircle. Reproachinghimfor his muchtooliterarystyle,Matos describedthe atmosphereofhis canvases 111 1910: "Corpses,blood, battleanddeath: thereissomethingstrong, andSpanish, abitof Zurbaran and Goya in this young man.1129 Having studied at theMu-nich Academy, he built his paintings withdark, gloomy colours andprecisely definedforms without any mterest 111 researchon light andcolour, except for theirsymbolicfunctions. Criticsnoticed his affinityfor Stuckand Rops. The intention of his chalkdrawingThe IIIWomanwas "not to prompt our compassion, but [...] fateful anticipation ofdeath".3o "Though simple in composition", the picture Sinners suc-ceeded111"expressing themost complex emotions. The same applies to[cantsand Longing".31TwoportrartsiSelf-Ponraitand Portrait ofMyFather) accomplished"what makesportrait atrueartisticimage", I.e."the expression of character" 32 Thecritics, however, werenot alwaysunanimous : Lunacekthought himto be "quiteanon-artisticnature"andadilettantewhocopied subjects, attitudes, even entire canvases ofFranz StuckI"However, besides theauthors of the Kraljevic Markocycle, it wasMarinkovic, Murat sometimesPocekandLalicthat werepraisedby27 AReg.ie, 1973,61.2RB. Lazarevic, 1912, 217.29 ACT. Matos. 1910.805.30 AMilcinovic, 1910, 82231 M. Deanovic. 191 L138.1') Loc. cit.33 c-[VLunacek], 1910.1.3U8 Marina AdarnovictheItaliancritics whosetexts werereprintedInBelgradeandZagrebnewspapers.I"From our actual perspective it becomesquiteclear that thebreak-throughintothenewin theSerbianpainting of thetimeswas accom-plished by the artists whose appearance in Rome remained almostunnoticed. These wereNadezda Petrovic and Malisa Glisic.Glisics(1885-1915)paintingTasmajdan, Nadezda'sBarges ontheSava andMilovanovics TheBridgeof EmperorDusaninSkopje (allfrom1907) are considered to be the first truly Impressionist achievementsin theSerbianart.:"Glisic'sItalianlandscapes, painted in1911,foundtheirplaceamong thefivecanvasesheexhibited. Their atmosphere ofsolitudeandmysterycorrespondstothespirit of Symbolist expressionof mental states. However, theIrrationaldimension of thepainter's ex-penence was transposedby very peculiar plastic means which musthave been touched byItalianmodels, Segantinis forexample. Yellow.green, andbluelight condensedintoa bushystructure of paint appliedwitha throwel. Suchtechnique introduced theIdea of tactile value intothe Serbianpainting.I"Thosewere"monochromaticandgloomypic-tures,which preferred matter to colour". 37Nadezda Petrovic (1873-1915) presented three paintings : ASnowyStreet of Belgrade. The Seine, and TheNotre-Dame inParisThe first onewas paintedin 1908, whereasthe twoothers belongtoherParisian penod (1910-12)38 It is noteworthy that, having arrived inParis, shealsobeganpreparationsfor theKraljevicMarkocyclewiththeintentiontodo"sevenlargedecorativecanvases". Shesent two ofthem for theRoman Exhibition, but theywere declined.P In revolt,shewrotetoMestrovic: "[...] youlet MarkoMurat, Bajalovic, Steva To-dorovicandothersbemy Judges, andsayIwas a'pornographer' andmypaintings aresult of pomography. "40ThIS event alonetestifiestothefact that herart could not fit inwiththeofficialpublicdemands.Inthe environment wherepleinairismwas only acceptedas anultimate34 Srpski paviljon II Rimui Mestrovicevuspeh . Srbobran87. 191 LM. Deanovic,Pismoiz Italije. Slovenski jug ~ Srpski pavilionu Rimu. Velikiuspeh, Vecemjenovosti, 105.35 L. Trifunovic, 1973.48.36 Ibid.60.37 Lac. cit38 K. Ambrozic. 1973.4539 K. Ambrozic, 1978.34940 Lac.cit."Retrospective"Section in theSerbian Pavilion 309formofmodernity, such an incomparable "leap" inthe evolution ofSerbian painting could not have been met with understanding. Noteven the desirable subject-matter could prevent rejection. "MissNadezdaPetrovicis also superficial andlacks seriousness; sheistoodaringandtooloud[... ] ThereIS some dynamicsand some talent, bothtreatedwithoutseriousness, it IStrue, but bothincontestable[... ]. "41In1911this wasthemost that NadezdasThe Notre-Damein Pariscouldget, theverysamepainting that ispresentlyincludedamongthe mas-ter-pieces of her artand theSerbianart in general.TomislavKrizman(1882-1955) exhibitedelevencopper engrav-ings andfour illustrationsof Livadicsshort stories. Thetimehe hadspent inViennainthe period of theSezessions vividest activityleftVIsible traces. The most frequently registered influences have beenthose ofHodler andFidus.42However, these engravings, mostly de-pictingBosnianlandscapes, werequiterealisticanddescriptive. Tonalsolutions sometimes mergedwith sketchy details, markedwith clearcontours. Thegreatest success among thembeyondanydoubtwastheportrait of MaryDelvard(1908). Thepale woman's face stands outagainst blackandgraysurfacewhichwas built withsoft shadingandslightlydifferentiatedtones. An Interestingframingof thefigure intothe right part of the surfacecontributedtothe atmosphere of mystery.His illustrations, however, werepermeatedWIththe Symbolist spiritandtheSezessionist flatness, revealing "a lot of skill and a lot of taste",but "too much of Klimt's and Fiduss influence'v'-'Thework of MirkoRacki (1879-1982) originated from theSezes-sionist currents of Vienna andMunich. InRomeheexhibiteda senesof24 illustrations for Dante's Divine Comedy. The entire series ofdrawings illustrating Hell was doneon colouredpapermdarktones,with some parts finished off In watercolour or gouache techniques.Few illustrations of Paradiseand Purgatory weremoredecorative andinpastel shades. Rackispamtingsalsodealtwithmotives from Hell :The City ofDis, Minos (Francesca da Riminii. Bloody River andCharon. Dante'spoetrywas favouritesource of Symbolist inspiration,especiallyHell, asit offeredthepossibilityof interpreting ina varietyof waysthe concept of thisearthlyworld being thekingdom of Satan.BloodyRiver(presentlyfound damaged''") was mentioned by Mitri-4] D. Mitrinovic. 1911 a, 887.42 V. Novak-Ostric. 1962, 11.43 nMitrino\i6. 1911a, 727.310 Marina AdamovicnovicalongwithThe Cityo]Dis: "[...] if theadmirablecolouristicef-fects are set aside, astothe tone, the colouristicharmonies andthespiritual natureof his shades, Mr. Racki isgreaterartist thanartisan,greater poet than painter, greater philosopher than technician't"RackisSymbolist preoccupationwithideas wasthus simplydefined.Itwasconfirmed by other criticsas well: "In thesepictures he appearsassystematic thinker dealingwiththeproblem of ourexistenceontheplanet Earth. "46 Literary background of hispaintingscouldberecog-nizedin theimplied thoughts about deathand theunreal settings of thelower world. Not onlytheaccessories(skulls, fantasticanimals)servetheidea, but theplasticmeans aswell: intensecontrasts of light andshade wherefrom yellow-andred-hot surfacesalmost popout; imagi-nary, dimmedspace; pointillist techniquelacking original motivation,used to effect a vibrant surface. Hisuse of colour is literallySymbolist:Minos, e.g., isdominantlyred, eitherinlargesurfaces(redmantleintheforeground), orunderlying all other shadesin order todemonstratethe atmosphere of death and passion.Both PoleksijaTodorovic and Zoe Borelli presentedone workonly. According totheCatalogue, Vladimir Becic(1886-1954)exhib-itedtwo paintings within the KraljevicMarko cycle, but Mitrinovicspoke about two portraits "with large planes, intense colours andthicklyapplied paint" 47Astothesculpture, IvanMestrovic(1883-1962) dominatedbothin the"historical"and"retrospective"sections. Laocoonof ourTimes,OldMan andGirl, Head of OldMan, OldWoman, Innocence weresome of his works presentedout of the Cycles. Rodinianmanner ofmodelling wasunited there with themotives of Sezzesionist-Syrnbolistorigin. Thismoralizing line would almost always markhiscreations inoneformoranother. Promment place among theseworks belonged toa piece of portraiture MyMother -hieraticattitude, static andfrontal,inconformitywithstylized drapery. Out of thisgeometncal structure,softlymodelled faceemerged.StylisticoppositiontoMestrovicandRosandicwas embodiedinten sculptures of DjordjeJovanovic (1861-1953). It was academismtending to formal refinement, even Idealization, and requmng full44 JUskokovic. 1979, 32.45 D. Mitrinovic. 1911 a. 726.46 V. Lunacek. 191Oa. 391.47 D. Mitirnovic, 1911a. 888..,Rctrospcctlvc"Section intheSerbian Pavilion 311measure of skill Delicatemodellingandsoft contourssometimesaddaRomantictmge. Mitrinovics evaluationwas rather correct. He sin-gled out Sorrow, the Abandoned Woman, andUnc...lc Milovan(portraitofMilovan Glisic), the latter containingsome elements ofRealism.RosaBelgradcnsisandthe bust ofVladan Djordjevic, however, werecriticizedas corruc. absurd, anddreadful. Generally, theseworksweredesignatedas "non-sculptural sculpture, illogical tothematerial, lack-ing construction, strengthandvitality, Withmorepictorial thansculp-tural effects"j:\DragornirArambasic(1881-1945) .. whowasIncludedamong"fu-tureSerbiansculptors"thesame year. belongedwithhis fourworks tothe Similar stylistic sphere as Simeon Roksandic (1874-1943). Rok-sandicwas representedWithoneworkonly- Surprise (The HoywithTurtle) .. his favouritemotif: aboysteppingbackIn front of ananimal.HIsinterest 1Il motionandanecdote.. arousedmItaly.. originatedbothfromhis affinity for Hellenisncsculptureandhis ownlyrical nature.Some of thecritics considered this Italian influence as hisdefect.Apart fromhis contributions totheKraljevicMarkocycle, wherethe vigour of expression was formally achieved by emulgatingMestrovics style, TomaRosandic (1878-1958) presented ten sculp-tures.. mostlystudiesof headsandportrait busts, suchasMother, OldMan or(iUI.Theyweredistinguishedby warmhumanequalities, in-herent Inhis truenature. ItwasaccuratelyrecognizedbyMitrinovic:"Mr. Rosandic does not have powerful and vigourous nature ofMestrovics[... ] his domainis not that of courage, but of mildness, notstrengthbutsoftness. that IS his, and therehecomes II1tohis own. "49As anexamplaryworkof Rosandicpossessingall therequiredquali-tiesandrevealing his true natureinthemostauthenticway..hesingledout the bust of Mrs Benne.ThoughtheSerbianart was representedneitherinitstotalrtynorby its best achievements the Romeexhibitiondiddepict across-sec-tionof theart of theperiod. Itscharacteristicsmaybe resumedasfol-lows: a gradual transformation of academism took form of thepleinairist treatment oflight includingcertain aspects ofSymbolismandSezzesionisrn. Researchonlightas central "subjectmatter" ledtoImpressionism. Its further transformation through the Cezannean or4RD. Mitrinovic. up. cit .. XO).49 D. Mitrinovic. op. cit.. X02-XW.312 Marina Adamovic19731978Expressionist conceptions eventuallyled toother formal problems andpaved the waytowards another artistic period.Thereisnodoubt that thepolitical aspect promotedbythe "na-tional" art toneddownthevarietyof stylisticorientationsthat wouldenable, only ayear later at the FourthYugoslavExhibition, amuchsharper distinguishing between"art andnon-art", 50 between those whoare"only extrasintheart of their times" andthose"whoare distinctfromtheir milieu for their intellect, mdividuality and thewaytheylookon thepeople, and nature withall its phenomena". 51"PETPOCI1EKTI1BHO"O;J:EJbElhE ('PIT('KOr I1ABI1JbOHAHA CBETCKOJ 113JIO)KEI1 Y PI1MY 1911. rO;J:I1HE- Ilpecex YMeTHHQKOr JIIIKa enoxe-Pe31IMeBeoxra33HIIMJbIlBH3cTyncpnCKe LJ,p)K3Be na Mel)yH3poLJ,Hoj 1911.rOLJ,IIHe y PIIMY II pannje .Ie npIlBJI3l.UIO n(l)Klby nCTp3)K1IB3l.Ia. ITOJIIITIIl.IKaTe)KIIH3 xojy je onaj norahaj IIMaoje na TO LJ,a je narnacax, II ynpOIllJIOCTII II nanac, npeBaCXOLJ,HO crann.an naT3B. "rrcropnjcxn"neoI13JIo)K6e Kpan.ennha MapxaII KOCOBCKII (IJparMeuTII), yrnaanoxrnpeLJ,CTaBJbeULJ,eJIIIMa Hsaaa MellITpOBIIna. 3aTOce y OBOMpanyseha nascn.a nocsehyjeOUOM "peTPocneKTIIBHOM" AeJIy IBJIo)K(}e KOjII, .\faAa JIIIllIeUnpaseunje II aeyjennaneaor KB3JIIITeT3, npencraan,a npecex JIlIKOBUOr )KIIBOTaenoxe.LITERATUREAmbrozic, Katarina1962/63PaviljonSrbijena medunarodnoj izloibi u Rimu1911. godine,Zbomikradova Narodnog muzeja III, Beograd.Nadezda Petrovic (Catalogue of theMuseum of Modem Art). Beograd.Nadezda Petrovic. Beograd.Adamovic, Marina1990 "Nacionalna umetnost" na Svetskoj izlozbi u Rimu 1911. go dine -umetnost i politika, Balcanica XXI, Beograd.50 M. Pijade, 1912,43.51 N. Petrovic, 1912.237."Retrospective"Section in theSerbian Pavilion 313Begic. Azra1973 Poceci nioderne umjetnosti u Bosni i l Ierccgovini (Catalogue oftheMuseum of ModemAn "Poccci jugoslovenskog modemog slikarstva"),Beograd.Curtin. Milan1908 Treca Juino....'Iovcnskn Umetnicka izloiba u Zagrebu, SKGXX/12.Beograd.Deanovic. Mirko1911 NasaumjetnostII Rimu. Jug5.Djuric. Veljko1964 Slikariivajari iz erne Gore(/900-1960). Cetinje.Jorgovic. Kosta1912 Juinoslovenskaumetnickaizlozba. .lena7. inD. Tosic. Jugoslovenskeutnetnicke izloibe. Beograd 1983. 116.Lazarevic. Branko1912 Jugoslovenskaizloiba. Rec 1912. in D.Tosic, op. cit.Lunacek. Josip1908 III jugoslovjenska umjetnicka izlozba "Lade" u Zagrebu. Obzorilustrovani. Zagreb1908. in DTosic. op. cit.1910 lzlozba drustva"Medulic''. Obzor 302. Zagreb.1910a Mirko Racki. Savrernenik 6. Zagreb.Matos.Antun Gustav1910 Povodomizlozbe Medulica. Savremenik 6. Zagreb.1973 Izloibeneimpresije. in Sabranadjela XLZagreb.1973a lzlozba Jugoslavenske umjetnicke kolonijeu Beogradu, in Sabrana djelaXLZagreb.Milcinovic. A.1910 AlillO A. Marinkovic. Savremenik1L Zagreb.Mitrinovic, Dimitrije1911 Reprezentacija Srba i Hrvata na medunarodnoj izlozbi u Rimu.Savrernenik 9.1911a Srbii Hrvati namedunarodnoj izlozbi u Rimu, SKGXXVI/9.Beograd.Novak-Ostric. Vesna1962 IntroductiontotheCatalogue of thecritical exhibition of the"Medulic"group. Zagreb.Petrovic. Nadezda1904 Prvajugoslovenska umetnicka izlozba, Delo, 1904. inL. Trifunovic.Srpskaumetnicka kritika. Beograd 1967. v1912 S'a cetvrte jugoslovenske izloibe u Beogradu, Stampa 1912, in L.Trifunovic.opcit.314 Marina AdamovicPijade. Mosa1912 Kro: jugoslovenskuizloibu. Mali zurnal. 1912in0 umetnosti. Beograd1963.Popovic. Bogdan1904 Prva jugoslovenska umetnicka izlozba, SKGXIII/2. Beograd.Predic. Uros1921 Autobiografija. Godisnjak SKAXXVIII. Beograd.Ristic.Vera1969 Marko Murat. Narodni muzej, Beograd.Tosic. Dragutin1980 Ucesce Srbije na izlozbi U Rimu 1911. If izvestaju arhivske grade,Zbomik za likovne umetnosti Matice srpske 16. Novi Sad.Trifunovic. Lazar1973 Srpsko slikarstvo 1900-1950. Beograd.Uskokovic, J.1979 Mirko Racki. Zagreb.