Frigyes Kőnig Retroaktív (Budapest, 2000)

tion of artists who launched their careers during the 1980s, when ideological pres­sures had eased somewhat, so he did not have to deal with the problem of forced conventions, free of the existential and intellectual struggles thrust upon previous generations. Consequently, he could move freely where his natural interests led him, using an exceedingly far-reaching range of activities (keen observers will note, however, a depth of thought that brings all of these elements together as integral parts of a whole) to blaze the most unconventional trail in contemporary Hungarian art. The scene from "Roman life" described above and similar documentations of time-travel (serious artists doing academic work in 19th century masquerade, or fine images imitating actual 18th century female portrait painting) in addition to group projects with other artists are interesting because they represent a double-edged irony. König and company obviously decided the time had come to take a blast at the pseudo-serious artist's role today (and then) or at artists who took themselves too seriously. On the other hand, perhaps we are attracted to certain periods in his­tory when artistic problems may have been handled with more honesty. These per­formance-like demonstrations also reflected a need to produce works resulting from common artistic effort, a complete realization of which took place at the so­­called "Velence Biennial" organized in the town of Velencefürdő, where six artists revived the 19th century style of panorama painting. The creation of a 20-meter long panorama was directed by free artistic intervention, one person picking up where the other left off, like an informal dialogue. It is necessary to describe all of this because clarifying Kőnig's unique artistic behaviour (where artistic and scientific attitudes intermingle) is an inalienable part of dealing with his work. A consciousness of his intellectual freedom not only more clearly reveals the complex system in which free movement between genre, style and method can be interpreted, but also makes it more unambiguous. Problems in connection with space provide the basic foundation for Frigyes Kőnig's investigations, the creation of proper topography, and perspective, the pri­mary tool for doing so, having emerged since the Renaissance as the most difficult issue in art. It was those preoccupied with the study of sight, perspectiva naturális, who developed the straightforward geometrical relationship between that which is seen and the individual seeing it - "Oh, how sweet a thing perspective is", said Paulo Ucello when he was called to sleep. Hubert Damisch further analyses the cur­rent validity of the debate concerning perspective in his study entitled Perspective -A thing of the past?1 In fact, modern discourse on the issue reveals two forms of rejection: it is argued that perspective is an overly individual, subjective factor and its strict geometry is also dismissed.* 3 In addition to its reflexive, regulatory value, perspective determines the placement of figures within a given space and also pro­vides the painter with a marking system, primarily with the help of concealed van­ishing points. As the lines do not intersect directly in front of us - covered for exam- 3 Hubert Damisch: Perspective - A thing of the past? In: Változó Művészfogalom [Changing Concepts in ArtKKijárat Kiadó, Budapest, 2001) pp. 129-143 3 In addition, it is worth mentioning an exhibit on perspective held at the National Gallery in Budapest, where Kőnig's work was also displayed, and the related symposium as well as the com­prehensive, accompanying catalogue: Perspektíva Ed. Miklós Peternák and Nikolett Erőss, Budapest 2000. 25

Next