It is neither coincidental that these sculptures determined all the fundamental principles underlying his sculptural expression and their spiritual atmosphere for the next seven years until now. These works are as follows: Welder 1960/61 and Old Man 1961: Dialogue (in the Style of Moliere) 1962, Dialogue (Old) 1962, Small Rhapsode 1962, Rhapsode 1963, Large Rhapsode 1963, Old Man and Child (Simeon) 1963, Kuros-1944 1964, Pilgrim 1967. Miner with Tool 1961: Dialogue (Courteous) 1962, Dangerous Bird 1962, Hercules with Snake 1963, Bedrich Smetana 1964. Gorgon-Hiroshima 1961: Torso 1961, Dialogue (Fight) 1962, Dialogue (Hidden) 1962, Danae 1962, Torso 1962/66, Danae 1967.
Hanzik's teacher, Jan Lauda, always encouraged his pupils to seek the character of the chosen material and respect the three-dimensionality of the sculpture, principles which Hanzik honoured as well - although in a completely different way. But, perhaps it is these circumstances and emphasis of the psychological human element in his work, or both, which make some people call his art insufficiently "modern or current".
The "idea of metamorphosis" evoked by the psychosis of "current trends"
over the last few years shows that art is increasingly more a question
of mere technique and material and so the artist continues to do what the
technique and the issues connected with it require of him. It is the substitution
of the dominant function of life with intellectual abstraction and speculation.
When I say this, I do not mean that Hanzik's approach is the only possible
one, the only path to "true art"; I am just stating that the stimulus for
individual exchange cannot be merely technical in nature or of the spiritual
nature which comes "from outside", unless it is a mere fashionable trend,
i.e., something which is replaced and "interpreted". Conversions occurred
in Hanzik's work but he does not make interpretations and this is clearly
the reason why he is not highly regarded among "interpreters". He is not
alone in this respect, but does it matter?
I have introduced
three approaches, or developmental currents, in which the sculptor's imagination
chooses experimentation. These also testify to the essence and character
of his vital spiritual strength and to the type of sculpture which materialises
from his ideas. We should first note, however, what the sculptor's ideas
are expressing and the nature of his motifs or themes. Above all, we discover
that for this sculptor only one shape matters - the human shape, its observation
and study. There are no signs of discontinuity here. His main focus is
always human vision and the depiction of nature. He has three motifs or
themes which are constantly in a stage of development: the torsos of a
meditating man, the conflict of a woman - torso, and the struggle of a
man - namely, continuity, struggle, and the cessation of life. In our contemporary
sculpture, Hanzik represents aesthetic activity which "summons" the power
and strength of a man living, even now, in anxiety evoked by his wartime
experiences, an anxiety which has become as "universal as the events which
evoke it" (Garaudy). A learned misconception might prompt these torsos
to be seen as allegories inspired by classical mythology. Modern sculptors
turn to mythology to define the magic in relationships between man, life,
and nature which it captured as an enduring, aesthetic virtue and lasting
application, and not for the sake of archaic symbolism. Hanzik develops
the contemporary emotional intensity of life and its dominant features
in these three motifs.
Is it then possible to judge the essence of the sculptor's vital spiritual strength and the type of sculptural materialisation of his ideas simply by his thematic orientation and motifs? Can one unambiguously claim that, in this, he appears as a sculptor with a sense of reflection, i.e., the sensuous materialisation of certain intellectual ideas or ideals? A "thematic" assessment of his work would lure us to this notion. I believe that such an approach is reflexive itself and attributes the sculptor with something from outside, like the one who claims to have always fostered the traditions of classical realism. The truth is that works such as Old Man, Kuros, and the Rhapsodes are associated with the traditions of pre-classical Greece, Gorgon and Danae are closer to the local baroque tradition, and Miner with Tool and Hercules foster links with modern expressionism. This alone clearly indicates that the sculptor was not seeking to achieve the ideal in beauty of expression, although the origin and type of materialisation of this force are rooted in various of the principles and in the clarification of their mutual contexts.
Thus, we find a marked difference in the origin and type of materialisation
between the Old Man sculptures, the Rhapsodes, and Kuros on one hand, and
Gorgon, Danae or Miner, and Hercules on the other, while Danae and Kuros
visibly incorporate both distinct principles: the principles of organic
and constructive forms. The fact that the sculptor does not "limit" these
works strictly to one principle means that he protects his forms from steering
them towards a single canon. It is chiefly in this that I perceive the
nature of his pure, original, and spiritual vitality: a direct expression
of nature embracing the full depths of theme and motif, intense and concealed
in volume. An expression such as this does not arise from the sensual symbolisation
of a thought's intellectual origin (a typical phenomenon of the classical
tradition).
It is probably in this context that I would consider the remarkable and
non-academic idea underlying the following words by Auguste Rodin: "There
is no need to create. To create, irnprovise - these are words which
mean nothing. Genius comes only to those who know how to use their eyes
and their intelligence". The woman, mountain, or horse is formed according
to these principles. "A thing can be beautiful if it is true to life, but
only in the above sense since "true to life" does not mean a copy of nature,
nor does it mean the true nature of speculative thought".
When I speak of the strength of expression in Hanzik's sculptures, I do
not intend the viewer to see this strength merely in the wake of the sculptor's
struggle with the physical properties of the material, maanifested in the
laws of balance, load, the centre of gravity, and the weight of the human
body. In certain respects, it might indeed seem as if the strength of expression
is substituted by shifting the load from its own centre of gravity, resulting
in the struggle of two forces as the artist attempts to balance a failing
weight. This is a baroque tradition with its dramatic pathos and, as I
have said, the sculptor draws from it what he needs. Nevertheless, tension
such as this, created for an independent dramatic effect, is not typical
for Hanzik's spiritual vitality and does not determine the strength of
expression in his sculptures. The stability of the sculpture does not come
from its base which transfers the former's centre of gravity to its own
material; instead, at least in the majority of cases, it adjusts itself
to the centre of gravity of the overall volume. This then develops freely
and ultimately finds its own stable centre of gravity which in turn develops
freely and seeks perpetual alignment to compensate for the shifted load.
This notion fully corresponds with Hanzik's spiritual vitality, its ability
to express nature in such a direct way that it contains an intensity of
motif in its very volume. The artist thus betrays a strength disciplined
in "serving the idea", an idea rooted in the organic process during which
it becomes an abstract notion.
The strength of expression of Hanzik's sculptures is generated when the abstract idea, materialised by the volume and intensity of his motif, acquires a concrete form in order for it to become, once more, an abstract concept for the viewer, i.e., a spiritual value. Thus, it may transpire that his sculptures reflect numerous feelings in different people, from meditative, balladic, dramatic impressions to sensual impressions, from Dionysian joy to a Platonic conception of the world. And everyone would be justified in what they feel!
Hanzik's works show that their relevance is not determined by the contemporary character of their theme but by the special nature of the motif chosen by the sculptor and its expression which give the theme its relevance and inner sense.
It is said of Hanzik that he is a sculptor of "sculptural orientation", a brilliant modeller, and hence he is necessarily bound to a tradition which does not allow him to experiment with different materials and techniques. I regard this as the chimera of "interpreters" and I agree with H.Read who stated that "...the dispute between sculptors who carve or chisel and sculptors whose model is more one of ethics than aesthetics. Respect for the material is an aesthetic mandate in the same way respect for nature is: to favour stone instead of clay or the chisel instead of one's own fingers is a matter of emotional preference. The accomplished sculptor is able to use all kinds of materials from clay to obsidian, from wood to steel". The exhibited works by Hanzik clearly demonstrate Read's highly just and precise definition.
The important position this sculptor enjoys in contemporary Czech art is unquestioned. We should not yield to the pressure of a reality which may have brought fresh sculptural qualities to life but which, at the same time, also requires us to acknowledge its privilege as a higher form of sculpture, as if art had always been founded on the dogma of a single principle.
I understand and admire this new sculptural essence not because it prevails in present conditions but for its many innovative traits. However, I do not think that it replaces something else that was here, or something which is different, since development "in sequence" is typical for the development of art in general, and not development from a lower to a higher form. Picasso is not "more" than Rembrandt, nor is Moore "higher" than Donatello.
The painter has everything "available" to him, the sculptor, in the end, has only the human form or his "correlation" with the universal, introduced by new sculptural qualities. What remains open to sculpture after this is a frenzy of materials, techniques, an analogy, a metaphor of what is fundamental, the materialisation of what painting has "at its disposal", or, in the end, an expression of originally applied industrial art, symbolised in sculptural form. This is only the beginning of sculpture. The rudimentary problem of today's sculpture is therefore not a question of "figurativeness" or "non-objectivity".
Without doubt, the endeavours of Hanzik, unmistakable from the point of
view of issues which matter, represent one of the essential stages of this
process of which we are a part. Even his collaboration in a number of isolated
architectural-sculptural projects (in Most, Teplice etc.) indicates that
he seeks sculptural expression and its function in a broader context than
the sculpture as a single artefact, without one being directed through
the other.
Dr. Josef Cisarovsky
Nova Sin, Prague, August - September 1967