Yes – in that order. My first memory (indeed, my first impression) is his smile. Hang on… the internet… a photograph of Pál Bánszky: that was him! In what follows I offer an overview of his career trajectory, with brief reference to the wider social context. I shall not attempt either a systematic, chronological biography or a selective bibliography; instead, I point to a handful of salient moments and works.
With a smile he lived – throughout. This is reflected in the film about him (Bánszky 2014, Péterfy 2014) and in the radiant, encouraging look on the back of one of his representative volumes (Bánszky, 2000). That is how, with the serenity of folk artists, he took on tasks, formulated institutions, helped many, and created his works. So he perceived, analysed, accepted and encouraged. I will start with the personal.
Starting out as a young economist–researcher, I worked in the Research Department of the Népművelési Intézet (Hungarian Institute for Popular Culture) from September 1974, following an invitation from its director, Iván Vitányi – an invitation that made me feel honoured, and which defined my career. The Institute’s intellectual and profile predecessor, the Magyar Népi Művelődési Intézet (MNMI) (Hungarian People’s Institute for Culture), had been founded by my uncle, István Harsányi (1908–2002), with the support of writers Gyula Illyés and László Németh, and he directed it from the summer of 1946 to the summer of 1948. For understanding the background to Pál Bánszky’s (PB’s) work, the exemplary descriptive, analytical and documentary volume on the MNMI is also essential (Harsányi, 1988). Among other things, it makes clear that the creation of an organisation hardly begins with drafting and registering the founding deed. (On István Harsányi, see: Koncz, G. 2009). In PB’s case, too, many years of sustained labour preceded the founding of organisations and institutions. Today, when the later many times renamed Institute for Popular Culture (just now, in 2016) is being restructured and relocated again as the Nemzeti Művelődési Intézet (National Institute for Culture), it is important to refer to the longer-term historical background also regarding PB. I do so, and we should do so, in order to prepare a thorough personal monograph and an institute history.
Pál Bánszky worked there from 1958 to 1969, first as a member of staff in the Visual Arts Department, then as a senior research fellow, and later as head of the division. When I met him and learnt that he also worked with naïve artists, I felt all the more strongly that I had arrived on familiar ground. During the Sárospatak period of my father, Dr Sándor Koncz (1913–1983), when he taught theology (1947–1952), he supported the Tiszaladány naïve peasant painter Elek Győri – with shopping, breakfasts, and a room in the boarding school. (On such services by teachers, see: Bényei.) Later, ‘having been sidelined’, he served as a village pastor in Alsóvadász. As a child, in the rooms of the parsonage, the paintings by Elek Győri showed me the very same world I experienced outside – the astonishingly varied, colourful life of the village. Even in years that were tormenting for the adults, I could sense that raw, hard, suffering-laden world that was nevertheless lived through with a naïve smile – a world wrestled with, yet always filled with cheerfulness and hope. Poor peasants, branded as ‘kulák’ [communist-era label used to stigmatise and persecute ‘class enemies’ in the countryside], endured – and helped – the innocent, ill-fated people forcibly resettled among them [through state-imposed internal deportations]. And yet the grape harvests and weddings, the wagon- and sleigh-rides, were just like those in Elek Győri’s paintings.
In the mid-1970s and later, over the years at the Népművelési Intézet (Institute for Popular Culture), more than a hundred of us worked together who have since dispersed across the broadest spectrum of Hungary’s academic, community-culture, political (and retired) life, yet still greet one another. (For a list of names, see: Vitányi 2014.)
Indeed, PB’s analysis invites a bow of the head: “Oh, how many have fallen asleep” (quoting the title of a study by educator and thinker Sándor Karácsony), and so “Those who were together, now all gather again” and wave to us from Eternity: Mária Andrássy, Pál Bánszky, Pál Beke, Gedeon Dienes, Katalin Fodor, László Harangi, Péter Hidy, Péter Józsa, Károly Karsai, Zsigmond Karsai, Gitta Kellner, József Kovalcsik, Sándor László-Bencsik, Ernő Lendvai, Zsuzsanna Sipos, Zoltán Szentpéteri, László Thoma, Tamás A. Varga, Anna Vas… and the formative ‘external’ partners: Dezső Bujdosó, Sándor Kígyós, Imre Makovecz, Flórián Kováts, Ferenc Balipap… I think of them now also because, in their cases too, systematic biographical overviews would be needed – so that their messages might be recorded and analysed.
Yet, “while we are alive among the living” (I allude to the title of a book by Csaba Vas), the great organiser of the club movement [grass-roots club-based cultural life around cultural centres in socialist Hungary], sociologist János Szász could still tell many stories about the teams and aspirations of that period. In his view, PB was a resourceful, productive organiser: he did not merely ‘save’ the art of naïve painters; through his connections he decisively supported those at work at the time and brought them to the surface.
What I found appealing in the Institute’s diversity was precisely that PB brought naïve artists, folk creators, and Roma people [Hungary’s largest ethnic minority] into what was then understood as ‘culture’. Within the Institute, several different currents unfolded in parallel (and, of course, in debate with one another). We researchers represented a kind of sociological eutopianism – that is, a utopia that could be realised on the basis of scientific research. Others – for example, Pál Beke and Tamás A. Varga – organised the social opening-up of community cultural centres. This was the period when ‘popular education’ was reorganising itself into ‘community-based cultural education’, and in what follows I will speak about the outstandingly significant role Pál Bánszky played in this process.
Creating organisations…
…he lived his entire life by initiating, preparing, founding, leading, and expanding institutions. A concise chronology of his work is provided by the invitation to the unveiling of a commemorative plaque in his honour, held on 31 October 2016 in Kecskemét at the Magyar Naiv Művészek Múzeuma (Museum of Hungarian Naïve Artists) (Invitation), as well as by several biographies available online. (Wikipedia; Bácstudástár www.bacstudastar.hu; Hírös Naptár www.hirosnaptar.hu.)
He was born in Kaba on 31 October 1929. His father was shot dead by German forces on 17 October 1944. From the age of fifteen he organised his life independently. He was a commuting pupil to Hajdúszoboszló – “There were more tanks on the road than bicycles.” For a year he was apprenticed to a carpenter, but when the master turned to coffin-making, he left the trade. He worked in a mill and trained as a miller. It was there that he discovered the world of natural objects – and where he also acquired his characteristic hoarseness. After military service in Pécs, he attended the Toldi Gimnázium (Toldi Secondary School) in Budapest. He was not admitted to university (“because they did not admit unskilled labourers”), and continued working as a glazier. Later he was able to continue his studies, and thus in 1966 he obtained a secondary-school teaching diploma in Hungarian and History, and in 1968 a degree in Art History, in Budapest, at the Faculty of Humanities, Eötvös Loránd University.
From late 1958 to 1979 he worked at the Népművelési Intézet (Institute for Popular Culture). He served as a member of staff in the Visual Arts Department, then as a senior research fellow, and later as head of the division. It was there that he formulated the conviction that “a creative person is one who wants to create”. His remit included helping recognition and intention to flourish. His task was the professional organisation and support of photography, fine-art and amateur-film study circles and clubs operating in community cultural centres, as well as art circles and small galleries. He maintained contact with 350 fine-art circles. He worked with these clubs for twenty years. He initiated and led the Fiatal Művészek Klubja (Young Artists’ Club) In Budapest’s District VI.
In 1957, he founded the Művésztelep (Artists’ Colony) in Tokaj. The essence of the fifty years of work connected to it was the facilitation of creative communal relationships. (Bánszky, 2003)
With his own money he collected – that is, he purchased – works by folk artists and naïve artists. In the Institute’s second-floor storeroom he stored many works, which he later donated to Kecskemét. He worked with Roma artists as well, analysing where they came from, what they brought with them, what they knew, and how life proliferated in the colourful world of their creations. In his practical work he looked above all at what sort of person the creator was; he did not select according to whether someone was avant-garde or naturalistic, peasant or ‘ethnic’. With appreciative mention of Pál Bánszky, Iván Vitányi’s decisive and important study on Elek Győri offers a comprehensive account of the theoretical and international background of this process (Vitányi, 2001).
In biographies and interviews one often comes upon (I deliberately use this colloquial turn of phrase) the Vitányi–Bánszky ‘opposition’. Yet I have not found a detailed, itemised analysis. The volumes by writer and cultural organiser József Zelnik, cited in the references, present the political tensions surrounding these movements. By discovering, presenting and bringing into the public sphere the naïve artists, folk creators and Roma artists, Bánszky launched a mass movement. He mobilised many people, supported them, and thus exerted real influence. All this must have been seen as dangerous by central Party politicians. Iván Vitányi, whose entire oeuvre likewise worked on the key processes outlined here, assumed – as institute director – the role of negotiator, intermediary and broker. Very likely there were also concrete differences between them, for instance around the then-emerging idea of establishing professional ‘houses’ for folk art. All this deserves historical analysis – not in order to set up an either/or, but to bring out the both/and. It is beyond doubt, for example, that Tibor Debreczeni’s book makes a sharp allusion to the Vitányi–Bánszky conflict, though it gives no specifics (Debreczeni, 2012). Recently, in a conversation, I asked someone about this. “Oh, come on! They got together for a ‘debate’s worth of time” [word play on Vitányi’s name, which has the same spelling as the Hungarian word meaning ‘a debate’s worth of’], came the reply. It is also beyond doubt that Iván Vitányi, in the writings listed in the references, mentions Pál Bánszky with appreciation.
In 1978 PB commuted for a year between Kecskemét and Budapest, living in museum accommodation and rented rooms. From 1977 he was a research fellow at the Bács-Kiskun Megyei Múzeumi Szervezet (Bács-Kiskun County Museum Organisation). From 1978 he served first as acting, then from 1983 to 1990 as county museum director. He further developed and expanded the Magyar Naiv Művészek Múzeuma (Museum of Hungarian Naïve Artists), founded by documentary filmmaker and cultural organiser Domonkos Moldován. For this purpose he secured the purchase of the characteristic ‘gólyás ház’ [locally nicknamed ‘stork house’], and then even after retiring in 1991, he continued to lead the institution until 1999.
Between 1982 and 2007 he was president of the Bács-Kiskun Megyei Népművészeti Egyesület (Bács-Kiskun County Folk Art Association), and later of its legal successor, the Duna–Tisza közi Népművészeti Egyesület (Danube–Tisza Interfluve Folk Art Association). In 1981, he founded the Szórakaténusz Játékmúzeum (Szórakaténusz Toy Museum) in Kecskemét. He was also responsible for establishing the Cifra Palota Kecskeméti Képtár (Cifra Palace – Kecskemét Picture Gallery) in 1983. From 1977 he renewed the Magyar Naiv Művészek Múzeuma (Museum of Hungarian Naïve Artists) systematically; beyond his own collection already mentioned, he expanded the holdings significantly, organising collections not only from the Népművelési Intézet (Institute for Popular Culture) but also from the Magyar Nemzeti Galéria (Hungarian National Gallery) – for example in 1978–1979, including the estates of István Farkas – Ferenc Glücks and Menyhért Tóth. In total, he organised 112 temporary exhibitions. Many times, whenever he could, he himself guided and informed visitors. He was an outstandingly significant, formative organiser of Hungary’s amateur arts scene.
Beyond all this, in his birthplace Kaba he also led the amateur fine-art group of the Mácsai Sándor Művelődési Ház (Mácsai Sándor Community Cultural House), which today operates under the name Bánszky Pál Képzőművészeti Csoport (Bánszky Pál Fine Arts Group). He promoted Hungarian naïve art extensively abroad too, organising twelve exhibitions – in Japan, India and England.
From 2007 he was a corresponding member of the Section of Visual Arts of the Hungarian Academy of Arts, and from 2012 a full member. He worked as the leader of the Tokaji Nyári Művésztelep (Tokaj Summer Artists’ Colony) and organised the “Viselet és csipke” (“Dress and Lace”) creative camps. His name is also associated with launching a creative camp for traditional crafts in the outlying area of Jakabszállás. The online biographies list the exhibitions curated by him and his many significant awards, as well as catalogues of his major works and writings about him.
By creating works…
…he grounded and brought to fulfilment his practical work, leaving us a substantial legacy. These works distilled his theoretical and practical activity and carry it for us as a set of messages. His work of preparing, founding and operating organisations and institutions was, in theoretical terms, very well founded. This is reflected in his shorter studies (e.g. Bánszky, 1967, 1968, 1973, 2012) and in the larger works discussed below. He also supported his work with empirical sociological research. It is telling that, at one conference, he delivered a paper among outstanding empirical sociologists (Ágnes Losonczy, Judit H. Sas, Ernő Gondos) under the title “Methodological questions of research in arts education” (Szemle, 1968). Yes – as he himself conducted surveys and analysed statistics. In one text he reported, for example, on a study of art circles surveying 300 participants (Bánszky, 1968). Around that time, a debate was taking place in Élet és Irodalom about folk arts. PB stressed activity, and supported this with his surveys and analyses.
His most frequent output – and thus the bulk of his work – consisted of exhibition catalogues and short monographs. Openings, evaluations, moderating debates, lectures and interviews enriched his life. Indeed, we may also count among his works the very frequent guided tours already mentioned. All this demanded considerable energy, time and intellectual investment. From a daily, weekly, visitor-oriented and contemporary perspective, the catalogue is the most useful genre and work. Yet it is undeniable that, like radio programmes and newspaper articles, their “immortality lasts only a day”. PB, however, drew on these experiences in his short monographs, and built on them in his large, systematising works presenting a multitude of creators.
The outstanding significance of these works lies in the fact that PB both illustrated and documented. That is, he presents photographs of characteristic works by the creators he evokes, and records precise data: who exhibited when, where, and with whom. Then, as an art historian, he analyses the works. Community-culture researcher Zoltán Szentpéteri used to work at the Institution for Popular Culture. Once – in a then topical debate on demography – he made a remark that has since been much quoted: “It is not only the capacity to sustain the population that matters, but also the population to sustain capacity.” PB discovered precisely this, and placed it at the centre of his practical and written work: the sheer importance of physical creation as it manifests in objects – for manual workers, peasants, those struggling with illness or family troubles, and those excluded from further study.
His important volume published in 1984, A naiv művészet Magyarországon (lit. Naïve Art in Hungary) (Bánszky, 1984), also synthesises his earlier work and cites substantial background literature. Whenever I reread it – and leaf through it with pleasure – I always begin with the collection of colour images starting on page 131, and from there turn forward to the book’s second part: the analytical presentations of 32 creators in alphabetical order.
Time and again I am drawn back to the thorough art-historical study that forms the book’s first block. Its opening section is Utazás az őskezdetekhez és a gyermekkorba (lit. A Journey to Origins and Childhood). A naiv művészet felfedezése (lit. The Discovery of Naïve Art) offers a concise, rigorous and illustrated account of the characteristics of naïve art, and we become acquainted with the period history of its ‘discovery’. This is followed by the chapter A naiv művészet első hírnökei Magyarországon (lit. The First Heralds of Naïve Art in Hungary), which is extremely concise, yet convincingly illustrative and built with excellent didactic clarity. The A magyar naiv művészet második hulláma (lit. The Second Wave of Hungarian Naïve Art) part offers an exacting, vivid presentation of the 1960s and 1970s (and it has a scholarly, analytical follow-up – see in the references the studies by Iván Vitányi and Zsolt Kőháti).
In his representative, comprehensive bilingual Hungarian–English work A képzőművészet vadvirágai (lit. The Wild Flowers of Fine Art) – spelt on the cover with a lower-case ‘a’ – the English title appears as “The wild flower if fine arts”. In this volume he presents a hundred “Hungarian artists following a folk and naïve approach” (Bánszky, 1997/a), with concise biographies and, in each case, a photograph of a characteristic piece of work.
The substantial introductory study begins with Ősök, előzmények Magyarországon a népművészetben és a provinciális kultúrában (lit. Ancestors and Antecedents in Hungary in Folk Art and Provincial Culture), presenting the subject in documented and illustrated form. The subsequent chapters then discuss a thematic analysis of naïve arts. This is followed by the chapter Naiv művészet határai (lit. The Boundaries of Naïve Art), which is a synthesis and expansion of the 1984 volume discussed above.
The volume published in 2000, Megújhodó faragóhagyomány 1973–1998 (lit. Renewing Traditions of Woodcarving, 1973–1998) (Bánszky, 2000), is likewise a foundational work. It presents 108 creators with excellent descriptions and explanations and, naturally, beautiful illustrations. Bánszky’s introductory study surveys the youth folk-art movements that unfolded and spread around the turn of the 1960s and 1970s, and the young people’s struggle for a new way of seeing things. He presents the creation of shared workshops and ‘creative houses’, pointing clearly to the role of outstanding co-organisers such as József Zelnik and architect Imre Makovecz. A distinctive feature of this work – outstanding both as a whole and in its details – is the presentation of toy- and playground-making trends, alongside thematic analyses of artworks (statues, memorial columns, monuments). An important part of the volume is the chapter Élő népművészet (lit. Living Folk Art), which examines what new directions emerged in the creation of utilitarian objects: how the beauty of natural materials appeared; how the worlds of small furniture and room interiors, church interiors, domestic environments, and folk instruments took shape. In a previous study, József Zelnik summarised all this in a striking aphorism: “The table serves; the chair lives.” (Zelnik 1976)
The era…
…in which we lived must be sketched also in order to assist the preparation of a historically grounded monograph and to better understand the road leading to the regime change of 1989. To recognise PB’s substantial work it is not enough merely to list his deeds, for their true value can only be interpreted when placed within their time. After the shocks of the 1956 Revolution and the reprisals that followed [Hungarian uprising against the Soviet-backed regime], political consolidation in the early 1960s marked the beginning of society’s ‘reclaiming of itself’. In later phrasing, demands multiplied for “here and else” and for “professionals rather than prophets”. This was the historical period in which ‘popular education’ reached completion, developed into ‘community-based cultural education’, and – in today’s terms – prepared the way for the 1989–90 regime change [Hungary’s transition from state socialism to parliamentary democracy and a market economy] (though at the time it was framed as the building of ‘developed socialism’). Today we increasingly accept a historical-analytical stance that does not so much set up either/or oppositions as bring out the both/and – the elements that shape the present and may perhaps still be usable tomorrow.
Which processes were outstandingly important from the perspective of community culture?
Opening up in intellectual, international matters and in tourism.
Youth and music mass movements: beat and other music clubs, and later the táncház movement [Hungarian folk ‘dance-house’ revival from the 1970s].
The launch and unfolding of the club movement in connection with the widest range of activities. Amateur arts movements.
Folk-high-school initiatives, followed by the organisation of folk high schools [non-formal adult-education institutions, revived in late socialism and after 1989].
The renewal of the activity-structure of cultural houses and later community cultural centres.
‘Open house’ experiments and programmes, followed by the opening of community cultural centres towards local social problems.
‘Churchification’: the major churches’ opening towards secular public events, and the emergence of numerous smaller churches.
Building new institutions – for example, county cultural centres and libraries; the creation of local-history collections; and the care of cemeteries.
Alongside and intertwined with all this: the examination the connections between economy and culture. Efforts in social planning, long-range planning and cultural planning.
Across this broad field and spectrum, it was of decisive importance that naïve art, folk art, amateur arts movements and Roma art were brought into everyday culture. This was, to a significant extent, the achievement of Pál Bánszky and his colleagues.
The above-mentioned initiatives and programmes are thoroughly reviewed in the writings of Pál Beke found in the references, and in the volumes edited by Gabriella Slézia. (The most recent study on the role of Imre Makovecz is written by Márton Beke.)The political tensions are discussed in several studies by József Zelnik. The conceptual, economic and organisational dimensions are discussed in the writings of Gábor Koncz. But our task is precisely to place the crucial work of Pál Bánszky and his colleagues in the light of these!
In a monograph – and in an institute and period-historical analysis – it will be important to present these interconnections. Because what, in fact, happened in the recent past? The geopolitical essence of the 1989–90 regime change was this: with the preparation for, and then the completion of the withdrawal of the Soviet Red Army, and with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, we became free – and at the same time international capital of many kinds entered. The previously largely two-sector economy (state and family ownership) became a four-sector one: profit-oriented, budgetary, non-profit and family-based economic organisation and reproduction. All these sectors had existed earlier too, but their scale and function changed markedly. The flow of resources between sectors became decisive. Relations, knowledge and values were increasingly dimensioned according to which sector produced, or could produce, a given form of property, activity or product. Accordingly, new values, measures and interests emerged; new forms of knowledge were generated; and relational systems widened regionally and then internationally.
Among the decisions of post-1990 governments within the narrower cultural sphere, it is often cited as a negative that they devalued earlier socialist-era popular education and community cultural education. At the same time, however, they set four essential, decisive changes in motion. They revalued relations and networks with Hungarians beyond the borders [ethnic Hungarians living outside Hungary’s post-1920 borders] and created Duna Televízió (Duna Television) [public service broadcaster established to serve Hungarians worldwide]. They made education ‘sector-neutral’ – that is, they supported accredited providers across the state, church, private-enterprise and non-profit sectors. They recognised and aided the emergence of non-governmental organisations, and developed a system of state-founded foundations and later public foundations (most of these were nationalised and abolished in 2010–2011). Finally, they also supported community culture, public collections and the arts through new legislation.
Referring to the more distant and immediate antecedents of Act CXL of 1997 [on the protection of cultural goods, museum institutions, public library services and community culture], and to the folk-art and youth movements outlined above, matters because the impulse that is now distant yet still formative was the community-culture and folk-art momentum of the 1970s. The two major events at which significant overviews and evaluations took place were the 1970 and 1972 conferences on community cultural centres and national popular culture. It was there that the development of popular education into community culture education was declared: the active, creative character; the turn towards society; and the emphasis on participation. This was followed (and accompanied) by research analyses, as well as the 1974 community-culture Party resolution [Hungarian Socialist Workers’ Party policy decision]. That, in turn, was followed by the 1976 community-culture act. In any comprehensive analysis one must also take account of international influences, as Pál Bánszky did in his 1984 work cited above. In the 1970s, for example, UNESCO saw an intensification of emphasis on the cultural dimension of development. Not least through the work of Hungarian experts, the analysis of cultural contribution and participation – and the highlighting of their importance – moved to the foreground.
The preparation for the regime change took place largely within the cultural sphere – and, within that, in community culture. I myself published a study on this, stressing that we did not speak of ‘regime change’ at all; we spoke of modernisation – including in the contexts of education, continuing professional development and leadership training. It was not we who named or decided the regime change, but we helped to prepare it. (Koncz, 2002)
In analysing and judging community culture today, in weighing its possibilities (and its habitual crisis), it is fundamentally important to bring forward the values of the recent past, not only in documents but also in order to distil and re-live the enduring messages of key individuals.
To review other major, formative trends beyond those mentioned above, one very good opportunity would be, for example, to survey the past forty-one volumes of the journal Kultúra és Közösség – to examine what larger thematic fields this authoritative organ engaged with from 1974 onwards. To cite only a few examples: the social role of community culture; workers’ cultural life; youth culture; amateur movements; theory of culture; the situation of community cultural centres; cultural economics; cultural planning; organising communities; complex cultural research; socio-cultural changes; media; multiculturalism; adult education; cultural anthropology; religions; the information society; urbanisation; and so on. Similar analyses could and should also be undertaken on the basis of processing issues of SZÍN Közösségi Művelődés. Particularly important is the publication series of the Budapesti Művelődési Központ (Budapest Cultural Centre), which on the one hand presented the capital’s community-culture institutions, and on the other surveyed the socio-cultural initiatives and innovations that emerged from community cultural centres and public cultural institutions. To mention only a few: the club movement; amateur arts; traditional dance house; children’s ‘play-house’ programmes; creative circles; complex arts education; workers’ culture; trainings and workshop conversations; community mental health; artistic and creative movements; popularisation of science; crime prevention; programmes supporting family socialisation; equal-opportunity initiatives; environmentally conscious behaviour; and care for older people. (See Slézia ed. volumes)
From the 1970s onwards, cultural-sociological surveys were also carried out, assessing changes along the branches and sub-branches, products and productions of the narrower cultural sphere. By way of example, already from the mid-1980s book publishing expanded without limit. Works previously hidden away, silenced or banned appeared. A multitude of art albums and travel guides opened up the world. The publication of encyclopaedias, handbooks, thematic collections, directories and vade mecums became richly varied. Alongside the canonised contemporary literature, amateurs also gained space. Periodical culture proliferated, as did political analyses and memoirs. Later all this found its way onto – and across to – the internet.
The same was true in the field of venues and opportunities for visual-arts exhibitions. It was not only specialised professional opportunities that multiplied: shows and displays appeared in hotels, guesthouses, libraries, restaurants, office buildings, community cultural centres, factories, stations, home galleries, and later in shopping malls as well. Performance culture also broadened and flourished, since alongside traditional theatres and concert halls the venues listed above likewise became institutions of cultural mediation.
And, most importantly, these changes appeared in hundreds upon hundreds of new events, objects and customs – phenomena for which cultural sociologists Ágnes Kapitány and Gábor Kapitány published one of the most important synthesising works in Hungarian social-science literature (Kapitány–Kapitány 2013). On all this, see further, as groundwork for forecasting and with a forward-looking perspective: Koncz 2016.
Returning to the debates around Pál Bánszky that were perceptible in the mid-1970s: the Party politicians of the time presumably saw the danger in the fact that Bánszky’s work was all about the large-scale production of objectified, renewing, usable creations. In this way a multitude of folk products came into being – visible, tangible and usable – and connections, groups, circles and associations organised themselves on an object-based foundation as well. On all this, in accordance with the habits of the period, a synthesising, explanatory analysis was also produced. (Vas, ed.) József Zelnik, in several of the volumes listed in the references, discusses all this with emphatic, striking formulations. (See also Striker, ed.)
Pál Bánszky, attentive to people, creations, objects and images, looked closely and saw far. He noticed and discovered the ‘little people’ who, amid the torments of everyday life, still wanted to create and could create; and by supporting, analysing and collecting their work, he brought them into public awareness and into the wider culture. He founded organisations and institutions, patronised a multitude of exhibitions, and managed collections. And he grounded and brought all this to fulfilment in enduring works of art-historical value – works that can and should be taught.
[2016]
References
Bánszky Pál [1967]: A képzőművészeti ízlésről. In: Társadalmi Szemle/8-9.
Bánszky Pál [1968]: Műkedvelő képzőművészeti mozgalmunkról. In: Népművelési Értesítő, A Népművelési Intézet elméleti folyóirata, IX. évf. 2. szám, 91-100.
Bánszky Pál [1973]: Zsákutca és útkeresés. In: Forrás, július-október.
Bánszky Pál [1984]: A naiv művészet Magyarországon. Budapest, Képzőművészeti Kiadó, 194 p.
Bánszky Pál [1997/a]:. Budapest, A szerző saját kiadása. 182 p.
Bánszky Pál [1997/b]: Izinger Anna interjúja. In: SZÍN Közösségi Művelődés, a Magyar Művelődési Intézet folyóirata, 2. évf. 6. szám, 13.
Bánszky Pál [2000]: 1973–1998. A szerzői kiadás. 180 p.
Bánszky Pál (szerk.) [2003]: 50 éves a Tokaji Művésztelep. Művészeti és Szabadművelődési Alapítvány, Budapest, 36 p.
Bánszky Pál [2012]: A politikai és a szakmai vezetés találkozása volt a motor. In: Szépirodalom, szociográfia, művészet /7-8., 91-97.
Bánszky Pál [2014]: Az alkotó ember. Magyar Művészeti Akadémia, Székfoglaló, 2014. február 14. DVD
Beke Pál [1987]: Művelődési otthonon innen és túl, Budapest, Művelődéskutató Intézet, 109 old.
Beke Pál [2001]: Méltóságkereső. Budapest, epl, editio plurilingua, pp 416
Beke Pál, Deme Tamás (szerk.) [2003]: A szabadművelődéstől a közösségi művelődésig. Budapest, Széphalom Könyvműhely, 399 p.
Beke Márton [2016]: Makovecz Imre - A közösség drámája. In: Magyar Művészet A magyar Művészeti Akadémia Folyóirata IV. évfolyam, 1. szám, március, 81-89.
Bényei József [2002]: Győri Elek világa. Kecskemét, Magyar Naiv Művészek Múzeuma. 31 p.
Debreczeni Tibor [2012]: Történt pedig. Egy Corvin téri népművelő a puha diktatúrában, 1966-1989. Budapest, Játszó Kuckó Társaság, Vári Színpadosok Köre, Játszó Ember Alapítvány, 236 p.
Harsányi István [1988]: A Magyar Népi Művelődési Intézet 1946-1948, történet és dokumentumok. Budapest, Országos Közművelődési Központ, 301 p.
Nagy Veronika dr., Gärtner Petra [2012]: Hetedhét Játékmúzeum. Székesfehérvár Moskovszky és Réber Gyűjtemény, Székesfehérvár, Hetedhét Játékmúzeum, Hiemer-ház, 96 p.
Izinger Anna interjúja [1997]: Bánszky Pál Arcképek. In: SZÍN Közösségi Művelődés, a Magyar Művelődési Intézet folyóirata, 2. évf. 6. szám, 13. p.
Kalmár Ágnes [2002]: A Szórakaténusz Játékmúzeum és Műhely gyűjteménye. Kecskemét, Bács-Kiskun Megyei Önkormányzat Múzeumi Szervezete, 115 p.
Kapitány Ágnes, Kapitány Gábor (2013): Látható és láthatatlan világok az ezredfordulón – és utána. Typotex, Budapest
Koncz Gábor Dr. [2002]: Rendszerváltó közművelődés. In: Új Holnap, Tél, 134-157.
Koncz Gábor (2004): „…mélységes mély a nemrég…" Vázlat a kultúra fogalmáról. SZÍN, Közösségi Művelődés, 9. 3.
Koncz Gábor Dr. [2009]: Feladatokat adott. Dr. Harsányi István (1908-2002) emlékezete. In: Napút Kálvin 500 november, 199-206.
Koncz Gábor Dr. [2010]: A közművelődés gazdasági kutatásának kezdetei Magyarországon, 1974-1989 között. Budapest, Napkút Kiadó, 273 p.
Koncz Gábor Dr. [2016]: A népesség kulturáltsági színvonalánalk változása 2025-ig. In: Tóth Attiláné, S. Gubik Andrea (szerk.): Magyarország 2025-ben és kitekintés 2050-re. Tanulmánykötet Nováky Erzsébet 70. születésnapjára. Budapest, Arisztotelész Kiafdó, 143-150. p.
Kőháti Zsolt [2012]: A naiv film a hetvenes évek magyar filmművészetében. In: Zempléni Múzsa, XII. évf. 3. szám, Ősz, 51-63. p.
Meghívó [2016]: Ünnepélyes emléktábla avatás. Kecskeméti Katona József Múzeum Magyar Naiv Művészek Gyűjteménye. 2016. október 31. Felelős Kiadó Dr. Rosta Szabolcs, a Kecskeméti katona József Múzeum igazgatója, 4 p.
Péterffy András (rendezte) [2014]: Vadvirágaim. Film Bánszky Pálról. Magyar Művészeti Akadémia, DVD
Slézia Gabriella (szerk.) [2001]: A BMK szakmai fórumai, Műhelybeszélgetések a közművelődés aktuális témáiról 1998-2000., Módszertári Füzetek 10., Budapest,
Budapesti Művelődési Központ, 274 p.
Slézia Gabriella (szerk.) [2002]: Szakma tükör 3., A budapesti közművelődési intézményekből – a 60-as évektől elindult szakmai innovációk és újszerű kezdeményezések., Módszertári Füzetek 11., Budapest, Budapesti Művelődési Központ, 241 p.
Slézia Gabriella (szerk.) [2005]: Szakma tükör 4., A budapesti közművelődési intézményekből – a 80-as évektől elindult szakmai innovációk és újszerű kezdeményezések., Módszertári Füzetek 12., Budapest, Budapesti Művelődési Központ, 378 p.
Slézia Gabriella (szerk.) [2012]: Szakma tükör 5., Trendek, változások, innovációk a budapesti közművelődésben, Módszertári Füzetek 13., Budapest, Budapesti Művelődési Központ, 218 p.
Striker Sándor (szerk.) [1997]: Lidérces mennyország. A kultúra szerepe a változó világban, Országos Tudományos Konferencia Győr, 1995. március 9-10. Bartók Béla Megyei Művelődési Központ, Budapest, Magyar Művelődési Intézet, 191 p.
Szemle [1968]: A Népművelési Intézet második kutatás-módszertani konferenciája. Salgótarján, 1967. december 4-8. In: Népművelési Értesítő, 178-181. p.
Vas Anna (szerk.) [1976]: Amatőr művészeti mozgalom. Helyzetelemezés 1976. Budapest, Népművelési Propaganda Iroda, 86 p.
Vercseg Ilona (szerk.) [2003]: Varga A. Tamás 1940. március 21- 2002. július 5., Budapest, Közösségfejlesztők Egyesülete, 288 p.
Vitányi Iván [2001]: Győri Elek és a naiv festészet. In: Zempléni Múzsa, I. évf., 2. szám, 5-19. p.
Vitányi Iván [2014]: A küszöbember. Életem történetei Horthytól Orbánig. Budapest,
Noran Libro, 327 p.
Zelnik József [1976]: Szolgál az asztal, él a szék. In: Élet és Irodalom, IX. 25.
Zelnik József [1994]: Vissza az ünnephez. Budapest, Peti Szalon Kiadó, 231 p.
Zelnik József [1998]: A magyar kultúra selyemövezetei. Budapest, Ökotáj, 306 p.