Sculpture extends as far back as the first human tribes. Sculpture was primarily a form of ritual, acting as a communication tool between humans and their gods. But, this also served as a tool of communication between generations. It told the stories of a particular tribes’ place in the world. Unfortunately, after civilization became the dominant form of lifestyle sculpture began to serve different purposes, not least important being a mechanism for control over people. Sculpture was representational, that is, an imagery tool used to influence society’s opinions and beliefs through love, fear, and other intense emotions. The vast majority of people could not read so art and sculpture became their books. This is evident in the 4th through 12th centuries when the civilized world was controlled by the Christian, Holy Roman Empire. Sovereigns of the state or church were almost if not more represented in sculpture than the god and prophets they claimed to serve. One must only wander in any city of the civilized world to observe the great statues of Jesus, Buddha, the saints, prophets, and angels; all are symbols of our religious heritage. In symmetry are the monuments to our ancient rulers, kings, or nations i.e. Caesar, Napoleon, the great Pyramids, the Statue of Liberty, etc., which utilize sculpture to convey their great achievements, immortality, and power. The great sculptors; Michaelangelo Buonarroti, Leonardo Da Vinci, Giovanni Bernini, Donatello, and others used their master skills for these purposes. As empires and kingdoms expanded and contracted, the styles and techniques of sculpture did the same.

For our purposes, we will pick up at the period when Czech sculpture began to shift away from the national revivalist movement of the late 19th century led by Josef Vaclav Myslbek (1838-1922) and his students who focused almost entirely on creating the figures and legends of Czech history, i.e. King Vaclav, Emperor Charles IV, Libuse and Premysl. Though this movement provides a space of individual expression, there is little room to expand. What developed was a movement of monographic or individual expression. The work of Frantisek Bilek (1872-1941) underlies this belief. Bilek broke away from the style of his mentor, Myslbek, and combined his passion for both religion and nature with his artistic ability to realize astonishing pieces that not only evoke awe but a deeper understanding of life and its sometimes painful past. This can be said about his piece, ‘Golgotha’ (1891-92), which depicts Christ as a starved and broken man, far from the Neo-Romantic ideal. Another is his ‘Parable of the Great Decline of the Czechs’ (1898), “…which is imbued with tragic pathos, for Bilek injects the theme of national destiny with his own convictions on the decadence of humanity…” This was truly a time of change in Czech sculpture and the artists who spawned this change reveled in it.

Classical styles were being pushed aside for more symbolic ones and the man to lead this movement was the Frenchman, Auguste Rodin. Rodin moved away from the classical approach in several ways, one major reason being the view of the human body articulated through sculpture. "...the irregular surface and cuts of the hollow portions of the body are...a departure from the cold, impersonal smoothness of the classical tradition...” The human body became something real, something to be looked upon in its true state; curves, emotions, movements. Every part of the body conveyed an emotion through its placement in relation to the body as a whole. Rodin paid special attention to hands and feet; his studio was literally filled with these ‘spare parts’. Most Czech sculptors of the later century unanimously agreed on the work of Rodin as the Modele Acheve and subsequently an exhibit of his collected works was held in Prague in 1902. The influence is evident in such pieces as Josef Maratka’s ‘Male Right Hand’ (1903). The inspiration he provided for these early 20th century artists like Maratka, Jan Stursa, Stanislav Sucharda, and others changed the styles of sculpture for years to come. Rodin would continue to have a lasting impact on these artists and his influence can be seen in the subtleties of numerous sculptures. After 1909, Symbolism lost it attractiveness and, “…these same sculptors mostly returned to a calm, sculptural structure and the requirements of a strict order and pure form…” Others though, would once again feel the restlessness that so often harbors inside the artistic mind and create a reality previously unknown to their contemporaries’.

The emerging ideas of Cubism started a few years earlier by painters; Georges Braque and Pablo Picasso, impressed on Czech culture and its young sculptors to a larger degree than possibly any other nationality. In 1911, the younger artists of the elitist group, Manes Association of Plastic Artists, formed their own group called The Group of Visual Artists and brought Cubism to Prague. The group consisted of well known artists such as Josef Capek, Emil Filla, Antonin Prochazka and the leader of the Czech Cubist movement in sculpture, Otto Gutfreund. Gutfreund left for Paris in 1909 to study under Emile Antoine Bourdelle, the former pupil and colleague of Rodin. Bourdelle’s guidance and the general, artistic turmoil that was radiating through Paris at the time pushed Gutfreund farther away from his schooling in Art Noveau in Prague towards a style that was, “oriented towards the dynamic composition of solid, clearly defined volumes…” Upon Gutfreund’s return to Prague in 1910 he further manifested his talent and creative inspiration, absorbed along his European travels, which led to the peak of his Cubo-Expressionist phase in 1911-1912. Prague, in itself, was an artistic forefront in Europe at this time and though Cubism elsewhere in Europe was scrutinized and generally unaccepted until 1914, Czechs embraced this new style in nearly every form including architecture, furniture, and textiles. While the traditional cubist approach used cones and cubes to form compositions, some Czech artists experimented with crystalline forms, such as pyramids and prisms. A fine example of this comes from the premiere piece of Gutfreund’s cubist work, ‘Cubist bust’ (1914). Unfortunately, Czech Cubism only flourished for 4 years and by the time the movement had matured enough to expand beyond its borders the onset of World War I stopped its momentum. Though it stopped Czech Cubism from further development it did not stop artists from developing themselves and in conjunction with the creation of an independent Czechoslovak state following the Great War came the next step in Czech sculptural art.

The horrors of war seem to bring us back to our fundamental joy in life…that being life itself. And what people yearn to experience is ‘normal’ life once again. In a letter from Vaclav Spala to Vlastislav Hofman, both members of the Group of Visual Arts, during the onset of war in 1915, he wrote:

“Art will be much simpler and more compact, more joyful like the convalescent who, while he still feels the cold of spring, goes out and let’s himself be warmed by the sun, and he is glad that he still breathes and lives. Thus, the noticeable tendency towards Rousseau and the like, rather than towards Picasso’s expertise.”

Czech artists achieved this through the movement of Social Civilism, which paralleled the German Neue Sachlichkeit (New Practicality), even if the content and formal differences of these trends were considerable. Otto Gutfreund, once again, took a leading role. New appreciation was given to color which Gutfreund had not yet applied to his works. “Color in combination with rounded, simplified shapes, new use of other materials (color-baked clay and plaster) and thematic orientation from a world of the mundane all constitute signs of Civilism.” A deliberate primitivising form and poetic nature brought not only a truly authentic, artistic style to the new country, but one could believe that the public embraced the movement as it did because of the simplistic and straightforward theme. This quality is evident in Gutfreund’s ‘Trade’ and ‘Industry’ (1923). But even within this movement, the opinions and styles differed. Bedrich Stefan’s work ‘Girl with Absinth’ (1924) “represents a shifted theme: against the glorification of work, human solidarity or exoticism we have a woman from the demi-monde, a favorite theme of poetry at that time.” Karel Dvorak evoked a socially critical tone in his ‘To America’ (1924) that stands on the opposing pole of social empathy. Others still were drawn to the modern, technological developments that included new and better means of transport. Otakar Svec’s ‘Sunbeam Motorcycle’ (1924), “…is a work of unusual intensity which places among the most remarkable works of Social Civilism.” Hints of further development that would surpass this movement began to appear. Gutfreund’s emblematic piece of Social Civilism, ‘Family’ (1925) bears traces of a growing drive towards Neo-Classicism, but stylistically is still a civilist work on account of its simplified form and characterization of the faces. A tragic drowning accident in Prague’s Vltava River on the 2nd of June, 1927 would never allow Gutfreund the chance to see this shift blossom. Social Civilism really found its life and death through Gutfreund and after 1927 this artistic movement died just as suddenly.

Was the next movement a reaction to the realism of the 20’s, an ebb in the flow as so many critics of this movement proclaim, or the first look at the world from beyond the concrete and physical; a view from within the mind?

Despite the fact that the Czech avant-garde purposely avoided the influences of Surrealists in the late 20’s, it was the 1930’s that brought about a more compromising relationship between each school of thought. And the Surrealists became the “head of the class” per say.

Surrealism, in general, shares the same ideologies, but the form is different depending on the medium. For painting, the use of positive and negative space allows for a greater cohesion with surrealist theory. In poetry, the ability to describe the overly real nature of the world, whereas in sculpture and its use of forms comes closer to abstract expression. Vincenc Makovsky, Hana Wichterlova, Josef Wagner, and Zdenek Pesanek created some of the most definitive works of this time. They, like their painting contemporaries, looked to Paris for inspiration.

Hana Wichterlova, in her most famous piece ‘Bud’ (1932), suggests a reflection of her several-year stay in Paris and respect to the work of Constatin Brancusi, but this also marks the first occurrence in Czech sculptural history that the concept was not of animal or human form. “The vital form of the strictly abstract ‘Bud’ expressed a direct interaction with nature and universal cosmic forces.” She continued and expanded on this idea over several decades creating ‘Stone’ (1964), ‘Pod’ (1967- 1968), and ‘Kernel’ (1976).

Josef Wagner also felt this strong connection to the natural world, but a romantic appeal as well, which is evident in his classical piece ‘Memories of Greece’ (1932). Arguably Wagner’s most important contribution to this era of imaginative art comes from his work, ‘Albatross’ (1934), which “…symbolizes in its formal deliverance and liberty, a feeling of freedom and the joys of life.” The inspiration for the piece derived from an almost intuitive discovery of the expressional potential of the non-figural sculpture.

Through Vincenc Makovsky, whose own work kept the Czech inter-war avant-garde movement vibrating, we are able to see the diversity of the movement. His cubist influences pervade his work, as in ‘Sculpture on Fountain’ (1930) and ‘Head’ (1926- 1927). Thanks to him, various other approaches to sculpting revealed themselves in the Czech avant-garde along with the “conception of the organic whole”. In ‘Reclining Woman’ (1929-1930), Makovsky displays a willfulness and animalism that led with its brutal incorporation of metal hooks, to the disintegration of the figure. This was the first time in Czech sculpture that non-classical forms were being used to such an extent and for the creation of a “wholly definitive and complete idea.” This work and another, ‘Girl’s Dream’ (1932) are sometimes regarded in connection with advancing Surrealism. Makovsky believed Surrealism to be merely a transitional stage and not a movement as such so when he joined the Surrealist group in 1934 he decided to return to traditional, realist sculpture, which even during times of much experimentation, the artist continued to make a constant line in his work. Even though his ‘Head of Prometheus’ (1936) was published in the Surrealist commemorative in 1936, he was expelled from the group the same year.

But, of these artists, it was Zdenek Pesanek who went beyond the traditional borders of modern sculpture and founded the conception of the sculpture on movement and light. Pesanek, nicknamed The Electrician, not only expanded on the concept of sculpture but also demonstrated that it was possible to use new, technological inventions during the creation of a sculpture and bring these new tools under the control of the artistic idea. He was the only sculptor up till that point to interrelate both aural and visual expression within the context of a single artistic work; an important idea because it involves the thought process working on several different planes. Little is left of his work beyond some pictures and drawings, but his most widely known and seen work of art is ‘Czechoslovak Spa Fountain’ (1937) that he displayed at the Czechoslovak pavilion at the World’s Fair in Paris in 1937. In the middle of a pool, Pesanek placed one vertical and one horizontal torso made from fiberglass; a long neon bulb protruding from the upper part of each torso curving towards the lower part of the torso in awkward angles accentuated not only the exterior, but simultaneously illuminating the interior. “In addition to neon pipes in two colors, several sections of colored light bulbs ran through the work alternating with white light bulbs. The changing colored light also enriched the play of light through the water beneath the pool.” And the whole work was coordinated to light in rhythmic synchronization with music. Although the public and French press was undoubtedly captivated by such a creation, critics at home considered his work marginal and an “undignified representation” of his native country. Interestingly, Pesanek himself considered this only a study and was faintly disappointed by its completion. He wanted to include an additional set of illuminated jetting columns of water with search lights, but it was never fulfilled for reasons of space. When it was proposed to rebuild this fountain somewhere in Prague, a site was selected; however, the fateful year of 1938 came and the realization of this piece could never be fulfilled.

This was due solely to the signing of the Munich Agreement on September 29, 1938, which effectively gave away the Sudetenland in the northern region of Czechoslovakia, and the only real defense against Nazi aggression and expansion. In acknowledging this accord, the western countries essentially gave Czechoslovakia to Germany and what followed was 7 years of Nazi occupation and almost total suppression of artistic thought and expression. Not long after the Prague Uprising started on May 5, 1945, the city was “liberated” by Soviet troops (May 9th, 1945), Czechoslovakia was free again. Though the Nazis had been expelled from the country, times hardly looked better for the Czech people as the Communists now firmly established themselves in the country. Czechoslovakia became a Socialist state in 1948 and though artists would regain some freedom, the freedom that was granted was not for individual expression. The individual was dead and all that existed was the state. Art movements now became official property of the state and the only official art to be recognized was Social Realism, an endeavor to produce nothing but art that promoted the state doctrines and pure communist propaganda…kitsch in the truest form of the word.

The majority of the artists of Czech post-War sculpture continued in the traditions of the modern figural approach. A thaw in state intervention during the latter part of the 1950’s established a degree of liberalism. Josef Wagner’s studio at the Academy of Applied Arts saw many of Czech’s finest sculptors pass through in these times of relative freedom. Wagner’s approach tended to push students more towards the dynamic styles of Otto Gutfreund rather than the more conservative Makovsky. The human figure, which still maintained the central form of sculpture, was understood as a “continually remodeled unit.” From the beginning, they clung to organic morphology, but slowly left this in favor of the geometric form.

“All meanings consisted in the form itself, while the theme was largely nude. The choice of motif was naturally also conditioned by external circumstances which led the artists both to dynamic, multifaceted sculptures and to the expression of solitude by means of the static, gently curving body. Nevertheless the sculptor’s own language remained a priority.” – National Gallery of Sculpture (Prague, Czech Republic)

The year 1963 is a pivotal year in not only Czech sculpture, but the Czech art community as a whole. It saw a culmination of all the multi-lateral processes and techniques that were being developed in the past decade. A fair number of artists at this time had not, as yet, clearly defined themselves and their styles, but we see following this year an unambiguous consolidation of these ideas into visible style and forms. A plain, collective orientation towards Abstraction as a means of expression can be seen among artists on opposing ends, but it is clear, artists took this as a weak common foundation and again pursued a more personal interpretation of the world and presentation in their art. Unfortunately, this liberal attitude and open expression would have to return underground as the Prague Spring in 1968 and the normalization years that followed once again tightened the grip on public discourse and artistic expression.

These times of normalization that followed are regarded as the darkest for Czech’s during the 50 year communist experiment and the art created during this period reflects that. The main ideals behind this movement were a representation of how man in this chosen lifestyle degenerated to nothing more than a cog in a machine. Creativity had been all but quashed in communist society. But, where there is a will, there is a way and Czechs found their path. The diversification of the different voices, mediums, motifs, etc., was so great that it’s hard to really pinpoint any major movement among the Czech sculptural arts from this time. Vera Janouskova’s ‘Pierrot/Harlequin’ (1963) not only combines techniques of early modernism and cubism, but presages an element of grotesque in later works. The departure from a “natural” or “Czech” state of being brought about the grotesque movement. It was, as some believe, the only way to really depict the reality that now wore on their very existence; not like any one weight that forces down on one particular point of the body, but one that covered the whole; like being pulled from the sea and carrying the weight of drenched clothes, all day, everyday. Eve Kmemtova’s ‘Hands’ (1968) projects the human and material anguish that many Czechs felt at this time. It is one of many works spawned partly in reaction to the Soviet occupation in 1968. Grotesque continued a bold evolution from the metaphorical to the apparent as Vladimir Janousek’s ‘Blind Men’ (1981) clearly demonstrates. Blind men intrinsically give the impression of instability and the verge of collapse. “The amputated, crooked, blind, and unstable figure is introduced in the theme of blind men who do not see, cannot see, or perhaps do not want to see.” an obvious salute to the somber reality of socialist realism. Karel Nepras using red rubber piping, small tanks, iron strips, and armature demonstrated his understanding of the concept “Czech Grotesque.” Man truly has become a product and tool of the world around him. No longer molding his creations in his own image, but casting himself from his creations. A victim of his own conceptions.

Other forms of art that took shape over the course of the 1960’s still have a lasting impression on future artists and reached a sort of crescendo in the 1990’s. In a book entitled Slovo, písmo, Akce, Hlas (Word, Letter, Action Voice), written in 1966 by Josef Hirsal and Bohumila Grogerova, the term “experimental art” is used to set a parameter to what Czechs were developing at this time. Although two dominant trends were seen to be emerging; one of Tachism, influenced heavily by the domestic tradition of Surrealism or Czech Informal and Constructivism, which pertains to the struggle against tradition and for a foundation of its own. Though both of these movements were halted, quite literally, by the normalization period of the 70s and 80s, the increase of technology and mass communication spawned new ideas for social revolution.

Lucio Fontana, an Italian artist famed for his splitting of canvases, wrote in his ‘White Manifesto’ of 1946, ideas that formulated these techno-artistic movements of the 1960s; stating:

"We want to go beyond painting, sculpture, poetry, music. We need an art that would be in greater harmony with the needs of the new spirit... The motionless pictures of yesterday no longer satisfy the longings of the new man, formed by the necessity of action (emphasis added, VH) and co-habitation with machinery, demanding a constant dynamic. The aesthetics of organic motion replace the aesthetic lassitude of rigid forms. In the name of this change, which has occurred in the character of man, and in the name of the spiritual and internal changes in all human relations and activities, we abandon the use of the familiar art forms and begin the development of the new art, consisting in the unity of time and space."

Although the ideas and demonstrations of movement in sculpture were not entirely new as Zdenek Pesanek had demonstrated in his kinetic sculptures of the 30s, it was during the 1960s that experimentation with movement, word, and space became more prominent. On December 16th 1964, Milan “changed his clothes on 17th of November Street in Prague. He also drew on a sheet of paper, read aloud from a book, burned the pages of the book and swept up the ashes. He addressed pedestrians with a sign, asking them to support his efforts by crowing like a rooster.” The viewer was asked to become part of the work, a co-creator of its existence. This type of group action was “a renaissance of ritual and games,” as in the works of Eugen Brikcius.

Time became the motif of a number of his happenings, as he called them. For example, ‘Happening No 7’ (1967) began when a group of participants were asked to watch the hands of a clock in Prague's Jungmann Square; they could then compare the normalized time on the public clock with individual time, as indicated on the watches of the participants. In an earlier happening enacted in the Spala Gallery in Prague, Brikcius had participants sit down and listen to the slow ticking of a metronome interrupting the silence.

This type of sculpture begs argument from critics because of traditional views of what characterizes a sculpture, but that was fundamentally what artists wanted to challenge during this time; the rigidity and separation of art into acceptable classes and mediums.

Following the Velvet revolution of November 1989, and the resignation of the Communist Party as the controlling party of Czechoslovakia, a new world opened for the citizens of the country and for artists as well. A freedom of artistic expression not found in this country in over 50 years would face its first public test in April 1991, when the memorial tank placed by the communist regime representing the first tank to enter liberated Prague was painted pink by then art student and now controversial artist, David Cerny. His installations are ambiguous: he leaves the interpretation to the viewer, never offering his own explanation, but always aiming to provoke and challenge. "Cerny's art is designed to become only a centerpiece for a larger chaotic event, accompanied by protestors, police officers, journalists..." wrote journalist Ross Crockford. Cerny is also responsible for the “Babies” installation that made its Prague debut on the Zizkov television tower in 2000. Once again, his sculptures sparked debate and were removed only to be re-installed in 2001 as a permanent exhibition.

Although Czech artists have criticized the government and society for being non-supportive of their efforts following 1989, public exhibitions and installations prevail throughout the capital city of Prague and the Czech Republic. The long history of sculpture in the Czech lands and the many artists, both known and unknown, have given their culture over the past 100 years a history to literally touch and grasp; a voice to speak for them in times of oppression and freedom, and maybe most importantly a path to a personal beauty only felt in one’s own soul.