How have avant-garde collections, artistic donations, and institutional architectures shaped the historical, political, and social frameworks of modern museums? Between Strzemiński and Kandinsky, a conversation bringing together Daniel Muzyczuk, director of the Muzeum Sztuki in Łódź, and Stephanie Weber, curator and art historian at Lenbachhaus, Munich, joined by Melanie Vietmeier, formed part of the return study visit of the Lenbachhaus team and accompanied the exhibition Ways of Seeing. Collection of the Muzeum Sztuki in Łódź.
Framed by the figures of Strzemiński and Kandinsky, the discussion unfolded less as a linear art-historical comparison than as a reflection on how artists’ ideas survive, mutate, or are instrumentalised once they enter institutional life. While rarely positioned as direct counterparts, Strzemiński and Kandinsky here functioned less as heroic figures than as lenses through which competing ideas of abstraction, pedagogy, and political responsibility could be reconsidered. Founded within a few years of each other – Lenbachhaus in 1929 and Muzeum Sztuki in Łódź in 1931 – both institutions share origins rooted in early twentieth-century avant-garde practices, while also bearing distinct and often conflicted legacies.
As such, central to the discussion were the transformative donations that defined each museum’s identity: the 1957 gift of approximately 1,000 works by Gabriele Münter, including key paintings by Wassily Kandinsky, to Lenbachhaus, and the foundational donation of works by the Polish avant-garde a.r. group to Muzeum Sztuki in Łódź. In both cases, the collections emerged not from neutral accumulation but from artists’ own urgencies – whether Münter’s insistence on safeguarding Kandinsky’s legacy or the a.r. group’s belief that modern art could actively shape social consciousness. However, these gestures were not only discussed as acts of generosity but also as structural interventions that continue to influence curatorial methodologies, institutional narratives, and questions of ownership and responsibility. The conversation also lingered on the personal dimensions of these gestures: how do trust, loss, and uneven power relations between artists, heirs, and public institutions shape what ultimately enters the museum?
During that conversation back in October, the speakers reflected on how the ruptures of World War II shaped both museums, the imposition of Nazi cultural policies, and the material consequences of destruction and reconstruction. Particular attention was given to the symbolic and political dimensions of museum architecture – from Lenbachhaus’s origins in the villa of nineteenth-century painter Franz von Lenbach to Muzeum Sztuki’s locations in a former industrial building (ms²) and the reconstructed Herbst Palace. These spaces were discussed as active agents in shaping institutional memory, class relations, and modes of public address. Moving between villa, palace, and factory, the speakers reflected on how these architectural frames subtly condition visitors’ expectations – whether of intimacy, authority, or collective experience. Architecture, in this sense, was understood not merely as a container for art but as a material expression of institutional values, hierarchies, and intended publics.
Beyond historical comparison, the conversation posed broader questions central to contemporary museum practice: the distinction between modern and contemporary art; the historiographic erasure of women artists; the impact of gender, class, and race on institutional canons; and the role of museums as sites of labour, conflict, and public responsibility. Weber emphasised Lenbachhaus’s engagement with anti-fascist legacies, while Muzyczuk addressed Muzeum Sztuki’s long-standing commitment to international solidarity and critical approaches to modernism. What emerged was not a model to be replicated, but a shared recognition that museums remain sites of tension – between preservation and activation, canon and critique, legacy and reinvention.
Rather than presenting fixed answers, the exchange remained open-ended, shaped by moments of disagreement, shared uncertainty, and the recognition that museums are always provisional constructions. Between Strzemiński and Kandinsky offered then a framework for future collaboration between the two institutions – one grounded not in simplified narratives of shared heritage, but in an acknowledgement of the complex, contradictory, and unfinished histories that continue to shape the museum as a critical public institution.
Project „Between Strzemiński and Kandinsky – study visits at Muzeum Sztuki in Łódź and Lenbachhaus in Munich” is funded by the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage under the Kultura Inspirująca programme, 2025–2026.
