Seite - 380 - in Rudolf Eitelberger von Edelberg - Netzwerker der Kunstwelt

380 Matthew Rampley There was undoubtedly exaggeration in this complaint. Subsequent histories of Aus- tria-Hungary have argued that there was significant loyalty to the Empire across all the crownlands at least until 1914, and in many cases beyond then.47 Yet liberal ideology was clearly being challenged in numerous ways, and hence concern over the growing frag- mentation of the Empire became a recurring feature of Eitelberger’s writings from the 1870s onwards. Thus, he complained, cosmopolitanism was being replaced by its prob- lematic other face : eclecticism, which involved diversity but one in which the diverse artistic currents co-existed without any relation between them, without any sense of the whole, without a “Gesammt-Kunstauffassung”.48 Instead, there was individuality, atomi- sation and “romanticism”. Vienna was no longer the automatic focus of interest ; artists no longer exhibited in the capital, and if one wished to see work by successful painters such as the Poles Jan Matejko (1838–1893) and Artur Grottger (1837–1867), one would have to look elsewhere, and the same held for Czech artists or even those from the Tyrol. Eitelberger found this development all the more perplexing in the visual arts. For whereas linguistic pluralism might be a recognisable cause of cultural difference  – in- tellectual exchange is either not possible or extremely limited between parties lacking a common language  – this could certainly not apply to art. Indeed, art could overcome linguistic divides : “[…] bisher war man der Ansicht, dass eben die Kunst dasjenige El- ement sei, welches die Völker vereinige. Denn eine Zeichnung, ein Gemälde, spricht zu Jedem gleich, ist Jedem gleichmässig verständlich und zugänglich.”49 Perversely, this commonality was being lost : “Die Kunst ist keine gemeinsame Angelegenheit mehr der Völker Oesterreichs.”50 For Eitelberger one reason for this lay in the absence of shared historical myths and narratives that could underlie a common Austrian identity ; this stood in contrast to the national cultures of the Czechs, Poles and even the Hungarians, where artists were becoming dedicated to the cultivation of historical memory.51 The only artist he singled out for mention was Matejko, whose large-scale heroic depictions of key moments in 47 See, for example, P. Judson, The Habsburg Empire : A New History, Cambridge MA, 2017 ; D. Unowsky, The Pomp and Politics of Patriotism : Imperial Celebrations in Habsburg Austria 1848– 1916, West Lafayette 2006. 48 R. Eitelberger von Edelberg, Die Kunst-Entwicklung des heutigen Wien. Retrospective Be- trachtungen aus Anlass der historischen Kunst-Ausstellung der Wiener Akademie, in : idem, Gesa- mmelte kunsthistorische Schriften, vol.  1 (cit. n.  13), pp.  1–36, esp. p.  13. 49 “[…] hitherto it was held that art is the one element that unites peoples. For a drawing, a painting, speaks in the same way to everyone, is equally comprehensible and accessible to everyone.” Eitel- berger, Die Kunstbestrebungen Oesterreichs (cit. n.  38), p.  197. 50 “Art is no longer a common pursuit in Austria.” Ibid. 51 Eitelberger, Die Kunstentwicklung des heutigen Wien (cit. n.  48), p.  28. Open Access © 2019 by BÖHLAU VERLAG GMBH & CO.KG, WIEN