For ‘The Catalogue of the Exhibition ‘Van Gogh in Budapest’, Set up in December of 2006, I made a synopsis of those paintings by Van Gogh, which had used to be part of private art collections in Budapest. Back then, it still appeared that the first Hungarian to have purchased some pieces of the Dutch painter’s newly discovered oeuvre was Adolf Kohner, one of Hungary’s most significant art collectors in the 1900s.That Adolf Kohner’s art collection boasted the painting entitled ‘A Grove of Olive Trees’, acquired from Miethke Gallery in Vienna, was a proven reality in the spring of 1910, for it was Adolf Kohner who lent the painting to the Worldwide Impressionist Exhibition at the House of Artists in Budapest, just a few days, at the latest, prior to the opening of the exhibition in early April of 1910.

As far as the swiftness of collecting Van Goghs is concerned, however, the legendary Marcell Nemes, whose story and art collection are currently being uncovered by an exhibition at the Museum of Fine Arts in Budapest, came in second in the race. Nevertheless, as usual, he ably made up for the loss by acquiring paintings in a larger number and in a better quality. Accordingly, Marcell Nemes was once in possession of five paintings ascribed to Van Gogh, which over the 1910s made him one of the record-holders in Central Europe from this viewpoint. Under no circumstances are Marcell Nemes’s merits diminished by the fact that over the last few years two of his Van Goghs have been judged fakes. The documents, which are still extant, suggest that Marcell Nemes, for whom it took less than half a decade to move up the ranks from coal merchant to world-renowned art collector, patron of the arts and art dealer unique of his kind, may have purchased his initial paintings by Van Gogh in early 1912, such as ‘A Winter Landscape’ and ‘Three Trees’, of which the latter, among other works, regrettably, was judged a fake at a later date.

‘A Bouquet in a Vase’ by Vincent van Gogh, 1890, oil on canvas, 65.1cm by 54cm, De la Faille no. 588, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, part of the Walter H and Leonore Annenberg Collection, the bequest of Walter H Annenberg, 2002

I concluded my study, which was published in ‘The Catalogue of the 2006 Exhibition Van Gogh in Budapest’, and which deals with the Van Goghs owned by Hungarians, by treating a work of art by the artist, which raised at least two important issues unalterably unsettled at the time. One of the still lifes with flowers in the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Collection, featured in ‘The Oeuvre Catalogue of Van Gogh’ by De la Faille as the Number 588 Oil Painting, dating from 1890, has greatly excited and amazed the Hungarian eye twofold, as regards its provenance. Accordingly, on the Museum’s website, which, like those of most state-owned art collections in the United States, dazzles the researcher with a fascinatingly wide range of up-to-date information, there appears, among the previous proprietors of the painting, a certain ‘Baron Frans Havatny, Budapest’. The person mentioned must be identical with Baron Ferenc Hatvany, a Budapest-based art collector, who held an enormous amount of modern French works of art between 1907 and 1944.

Likewise, as furnished by the said Web site of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, Baron Hatvany was in possession of the painting for a mere two years, from 1930 until 1932. The work had previously been owned by Charles Vildrac, a Paris-based art gallery owner. Subsequent to the year 1932, the painting emerged at Marie Harriman Gallery in New York City. The Museum’s database, which is constantly being updated, no longer lists Baron Hatvany as the one who possessed the painting for some time before now. However, that was not what came as a surprise, as far as the history of the work in question is concerned, but rather what I concluded that study of mine authored in 2006 with, ‘The still life raises yet another question, which is at least as much exciting as it is uncertain to answer. Accordingly, De la Faille began by associating the provenance of the painting with a ‘Jules Andorko, Paris’, then went on to note ‘Galérie Druet’, a well-known firm, whose owner already held an exhibition of Van Gogh’s works in 1908. Upon hearing the name of the first proprietor, the author can not help thinking that the individual referred to above may be none other than Gyula Andorkó, a Hungarian painter, who performed his studies in the capital of France for some years in the 1910s. The artist, who had committed suicide at a rather tender age, in 1909, and who therefore was almost fully consigned to oblivion thereafter, had contributed to the exhibition of Salon d’Automne in 1908, and lent his paintings to MIÉNK in Budapest.

It goes without saying that the above proposition about Gyula Andorkó is nothing but a hypothesis, which hardly stands a chance of being substantiated today. Nonetheless, raising the hypothesis carries importance so as to believe that the painter of tragic destiny is likely to be the first Hungarian to have obtained a Van Gogh, as well as to indicate that there will still and long be some more surprises in store for those engaged in the history of Hungarian art collection.’

By contrast, here comes the happy end of the story! Life has proved my sceptical attitude wrong, and I wish that it were always the case. Accordingly, for the last few months, I have been doing a lot of research in the Archive of the Museum of Fine Arts in Budapest. At one time, in perusing the registers of receipt, which was at once a tiring and, over and over again, an exciting activity for me, I lit upon a few electrifying notes. Accordingly, Gyula Andorkó, who was residing at 15 Quai St. Michel, in Paris, at that time, offered some paintings for sale to the Museum of Fine Arts in Budapest on several occasions throughout the year 1908. Earlier that year, he had sent in ‘The Knight’ by Ludwig von Herterich, a Munich-based painter. Then the painting was purchased by the Hungarian State for 3000 crowns. In the early autumn days of the same year, Gyula Andorkó made another attempt at selling a painting and some graphic works but his effort met with failure. The true sensation, in contrast, was created by the young painter’s letter of 25 October, 1908, still extant today. It is worth presenting this document, which reads,

‘To the Honourable Directors of the Museum of Fine Arts in Budapest

I, the undersigned, do hereby respectfully take the liberty of proffering an authentic painting by Vincent van Gogh, the painting being in my possession, for sale to the Collection of the Museum of Fine Arts in Budapest. The work of art, which I intend to present simultaneously, is a still life with flowers painted by the Master in Saint Rémy. My request to you is that you should be so kind as to purchase the painting for the sum of 12, 000 crowns.

Respectfully submitted,
Gyula Andorkó, Painter
Written in Liptószentmiklós, on 25 October, 1908’

The letter from Gyula Andorkó to the Directors of the Museum of Fine Arts in Budapest, dated 25 October, 1908, Receipt Register Number 1773/1908, held by the Archive of the Museum of Fine Arts in Budapest

Viewed from the present time, the offer then turned out to be a rather saddening failure. Accordingly, the Directorate of the Museum sent a letter to Franz Hancke, who operated an art gallery at 3 Tautentzienplatz, in Breslau, from 1907 to 1909, to enquire of him the then prices of Van Gogh’s paintings. In response, Franz Hancke wrote to Ernő Kammerer, listing twenty paintings by Van Gogh, the prices of which ranged between 2500 and 10, 000 German marks, which at that time were equivalent to between 3000 and 11, 800 Austro-Hungarian crowns.

The letter from Franz Hancke to the Director of the Museum of Fine Arts in Budapest, dated 9 November, 1908, held by the Archive of the Museum of Fine Arts in Budapest

The letter of 9 November 1908 raises some thrilling questions, for Franz Hancke’s wording of it is as if the works listed by him had been put on display for the purpose of a Van Gogh exhibition being held at his own art gallery at the time. The list includes both titles and sizes, which renders the majority of the paintings identifiable. I am currently making known the De la Faille oeuvre catalogue numbers for some of them: ‘1. Pont de Clichy’ – F 303, ‘4.Getreidefeld’ – F 561, ‘5. Die Brücke’ –F 400, ‘6. Maler zur Arbeit gehend’ –F 448, ‘16. Kastenienbaum’ –F 752, ‘17. Citronen’ – F 340, ‘19. Mühle am Montmartre’ – F 227.

Paintings by Vincent van Gogh, pictured above, are featured in Franz Hancke’s letter to the Director of the Museum of Fine Arts in Budapest: ‘A Still Life with Lemons’ (The Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam), ‘A Field of Wheat with Bundles of Wheat’ (The Honolulu Academy of Art) and ‘A Chestnut Tree’ (The Kröller-Müller Museum in Otterlo).

Strange as it may seem, the extensive literature on Van Gogh, to the best of my knowledge, makes no mention of the exhibition. Nor is there any record of it in an impressive study on the reception of the artist in Germany by Walter Feilchenfeldt, undoubtedly the most dependable author on the subject. The year 1908 marks the boom in the exhibition of works by Van Gogh ever, given the fact that, owing primarily to the ambitious arrangements by Paul Cassirer, a legendary art dealer of Berlin, a vast assortment of the artist’s paintings were exhibited in Paris, Berlin, Munich, Dresden, Frankfurt, as well as in Zurich. Breslau, today’s Wroclaw, however, to the best of our knowledge, was certainly not the venue for the prestigious series of exhibitions. Consequently, the riddle is yet to be solved. Franz Hancke may have done nothing but make a list, in that letter of his, of the exhibits that he may have been planning to put on display at the time. Nevertheless, the deplorable fact is that having seen the prices on the part of the Breslau-based art dealer, Franz Hancke, Ernő Kammerer, citing a resolution by the Council of Art, rejected the offer from Gyula Andorkó. The letter by Ernő Kammerer reads,

‘To Mr Gyula Andorkó, a respected painter residing in Budapest

In your letter of 25 October 1908, you were gracious enough to offer the Museum a still life with flowers by Vincent van Gogh for sale. I have presented the painting to the Council of Art. Regrettably, the Council have decided against purchasing the work of art. Kindly notify me of your intention, as regards the painting.

Yours Sincerely,
Ernő Kammerer
7 January 1909’

It is the above letter that indicates the end of the story, as far as we are concerned. Gyula Andorkó went on to carry the painting to Paris, where he probably sold it to Druet, a noted art gallery owner at that time. Half a century later, the still life came to be possessed by Wildenstein to be passed on to the world-famous Annenberg Collection, then, eventually, as a result of a generous offer, to show its splendour to those observing it, as part of the Ongoing Exhibition of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City.

The painting by Van Gogh, offered for sale in 1908 from Gyula Andorkó to the Museum of Fine Arts in Budapest, as seen today at the exhibition of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City.

The question arises today: does the story have a moral to convey? The answer to this question is that whether there is a message from the story to the reader or not depends upon the way in which one personally regards the developments of the story itself, and this principle also applies to judgement as such. Although the Directorate of the Museum of Fine Arts in Budapest paid too close attention to being conscientious, they failed to take advantage of an opportunity to purchase a masterpiece, which at the present time is worth thousands of times as much as it was proffered for back then, i.e. 12, 000 Austro-Hungarian crowns. However, this proposition is mere false sophistry devised by posterity, for in 1908 Van

Gogh’s paintings were accorded a different judgement than they are these days. Over the same year 1908, hardly any of the painter’s works were sold at the megaexhibitions mentioned earlier in this study, at those held in Munich, Frankfurt and Dresden. Furthermore, sales, in this connexion, even tended to be a complete fiasco. At that time, few were the courageous and perceptive art collectors, who, having realised Van Gogh’s magnificence, paid the prices, which were not regarded as low by then standards. Consequently, it is easy to make allegations but they are unjustifiable. A year or two later, in contrast, sales turned around. Accordingly, permit me to quote a sales figure. A mere five years subsequent to that letter of Gyula Andorkó, at a Paris auction of 1913 for the Marcell Nemes Collection, Van Gogh’s ‘A Still Life with an Onion’, which had belonged to the above-mentioned collection before, which was nearly of the same size, and which was dated back to less than one year earlier, fetched

32, 000 French franks, which equalled approximately the same sum in Austro-Hungarian crowns. It took four years for the price to be raised nearly threefold. It is common knowledge that there has since been a steep increase in the prices, and it is rather saddening that, in retrospect, none of Van Gogh’s paintings remained belonging to Hungarian collections, private or state-run.

Who Was Gyula Andorkó, and How Was He in a Position to Obtain a Major Work by Van Gogh?

Gyula Andorkó was born in Bodolló, on 2 February 1883. He carried on his secondary schooling in Eperjes, Budapest and Rimaszombat, then was further educated under the direction of Henrik Pap at Iparművészeti Iskola, the School of Applied Arts in Budapest. In 1902, Gyula Andorkó became a student at Képzőművészeti Főiskola, the College of Art. In the autumn of the same year, however, he left that institution in Hungary for the Royal Academy in Munich to be a disciple of Hackl’s. He went on to study with Herterich and Zügel. After he had befriended the latter, a noted animal painter, the two gentlemen worked together in Zügel’s summer residence in Wörth. Following a period of four years spent studying in Munich, Gyula Andorkó settled in Paris, and also worked in Nagybánya in the summer of 1906. He was supposed to be on a study trip to the Netherlands for months in 1907, which must have been of vital importance to the history of the Van Gogh painting in question. In both 1907 and 1908, Gyula Andorkó participated in the exhibitions of Salon d’Automne. Clovis Sagot, an art dealer, was alleged to be planning to conclude a business deal with him with a view to making him the only person to sell his own works. It was at the first exhibition of MIÉNK, OURS, in Hungary that Gyula Andorkó appeared. He returned to Hungary in the summer of 1908, for a relatively long time, and it was then that his life took a tragic turn. According to an obituary published in the periodical ‘Művészet’,‘Art’, ‘It was by fate’s decree that he met and had a love affair with a young lady, who, a nervous fit having come over her, committed suicide far beyond a reason. The young artist, endowed with such a sensitive heart, could not resign himself to his own grief over the young lady’s death. In the end, he resorted to a firearm, and brought his life so promising to an end.’ Moreover, an article, authored by Dezső Rózsaffy and published in the periodical ‘Nyugat’, ‘The West’, allows the reader to learn that the suicide of the fiancée touched off a veritable series of calamities. Accordingly, her father hanged himself, the family’s servant hit the bottom of a well, and the fiancé, Gyula Andorkó, having undergone eight months’ treatment in a sanatorium for his nervous disorder, was discharged from the institution, but shot himself in the head shortly afterwards.

Gyula Andorkó

In December of 1910, close upon one and a half years following Gyula Andorkó’s death on 25 March 1909, Művészotthon, the Artists’ Home in Budapest, held an exhibition of his bequest. The event turned out to be a huge success. Consequently, the reviews pertaining thereto laid emphasis upon what Gyula Andorkó, Cézanne, Gauguin and Van Gogh’s works had in common. Furthermore, the Museum of Fine Arts in Budapest obtained four of the paintings of Gyula Andorkó’s bequest. As far as these works are concerned, one of them, a composition entitled ‘A Bridge Over the River Seine’, which dates from 1908, bears a striking similarity to a work executed by Tihanyi in the same year, a painting depicting Pont Saint-Michel from an almost identical vantage point. In addition, this work by Gyula Andorkó manifests a close resemblance to some of Matisse’s paintings of the subject. Among other things, the latter reality is worthy of note since at an auction held in the Ernst Museum in Budapest in 1920, one of Gyula Andorkó’s works, ‘Matisse’s Ethiopian Nude’, dating back to 1907, was put under the hammer. While Andorkó was residing at 15 Quai Saint-Michel, Matisse and Marquet were doing so at 19. Often, all three gentlemen depicted the River Seine and Pont Saint-Michel, while peering out of their windows.

‘Pont Saint-Michel’ by Henri Matisse, circa 1901, the Santa Barbara Museum of Art
‘Pont Saint-Michel’ by Albert Marquet, circa 1910, Musée de Grenoble
‘A Detail of a Quay of the River Seine’, by Gyula Andorkó, 1908,  Budapest, the Hungarian National Gallery in Budapest

Bibliography

• ‘The Catalogue of the Exhibition of the Late Gyula Andorkó’s Bequest at the Artists’ Home in Budapest, in 1910’
• ‘Gyula Andorkó’ by Dezső Rózsaffy, the West, 1/1911
• ‘The Bequest of Gyula Andorkó’ by Elek Magyar, Hungary, 8 and 14 December 1910
• ‘Vincent van Gogh & Paul Cassirer’ by Walter Feilchenfeldt, Berlin, ‘The Reception of Van Gogh in Germany from 1901 to 1914’, Berlin, 1988
• ‘The Works of Vincent van Gogh in Hungary’ by Péter Molnos and Judit Geskó, In: ‘The Catalogue of the Exhibition Van Gogh in Budapest at the Museum of Fine Arts in Budapest, in 2006’, Edited by Judit Geskó, Budapest, 2006, 105-129