Navigation – Plan du site
Varia

Refugee Artists, Architects and Intellectuals Beyond Europe in the 1930s and 1940s: Experiences of Exile in Istanbul and Bombay

Artistes, architectes et intellectuels ayant fui l’Europe dans les années 1930 et 1940 : expériences de l’exil à Istanbul et Bombay
Burcu Dogramaci et Rachel Lee

Résumés

Cet article repose sur l’hypothèse selon laquelle les mouvements migratoires d’artistes, d’architectes et d’intellectuels au cours de la première moitié du xxe siècle ont eu un impact profond et durable sur l’art ainsi que sur la production architecturale et l’histoire de l’architecture. Au cours de cette période, les artistes, architectes et intellectuels ont cherché refuge dans des métropoles mondiales. En tant que plaques tournantes de la mondialisation du modernisme, ces villes étaient des portes d’entrée, des lieux de transition et de création pour ceux qui fuyaient leurs pays en proie aux changements politiques, aux dictatures et aux guerres, à la répression, la persécution et à la violence. Dans les métropoles, de nouveaux lieux transculturels de rencontre artistique ont vu le jour. La fuite, l’exil et la migration ont fait se rencontrer à travers le monde des concepts artistiques et architecturaux, des objets et des acteurs, conduisant à des transformations lisibles dans la topographie et la structure des villes, particulièrement dans les « villes cibles ». Leurs topographies urbaines offrent des quartiers, des endroits et des espaces habités, fréquentés et façonnés par des migrants. En plus de fournir aux migrants des revenus, du travail et de la visibilité, les institutions urbaines, les académies, associations et musées ont joué un rôle décisif dans l’établissement d’interactions et d’échanges entre les populations locales et les immigrés. Sont ici discutés les premiers résultats de recherche portant sur les connexions entre exil, modernisme et environnement urbain à Istanbul et Bombay (aujourd’hui Mumbai). L’article résulte d’une recherche en cours menée par l’ERC Relocating Modernism. Global Metropolises, Modern Art and Exile (Metromod).

Haut de page

Texte intégral

Introduction

  • 1 Relocating Modernism. Global Metropolises, Modern Art and Exile (Metromod) is a five-year research (...)

1During the first half of the twentieth century visual artists, architects and intellectuals from Europe sought refuge in global metropolises. As hubs of globalizing modernism these cities were places of entrance, transition and creativity for people fleeing their native countries due to changes in political systems, dictatorships and wars, repression, persecution and violence. Flight, exile and migration brought artistic and architectural concepts, objects and actors around the world into contact, resulting in transformations that are legible in the topographies and structures of cities, particularly in the “target” cities. Their urban topographies contain neighbourhoods, places and spaces that were populated, frequented and run by migrants. In addition to providing the migrants with income, employment and exposure, urban institutions, academies, associations and museums were crucial settings for interaction and exchange between the local and migrant populations. Exhibitions curated by and including the work of migrant architects were also connected to specific sites and spaces in the urban fabric, as was the circulation of media and dissemination of discourse pertaining to them. In their stations of exile and their final destinations, the migrant artists, architects and intellectuals attempted to continue their production and to build up new networks. There were inspirational and conflict-laden encounters, as well as collaborations and exhibitions between the exiled and local artistic communities. En route and within these cities new theoretical concepts were developed and elaborated upon, pushing the boundaries of art theory and practice. This article draws on ongoing research from the European Research Council funded project Relocating Modernism. Global Metropolises, Modern Art and Exile (Metromod).1 Metromod follows the hypothesis that the migration movements of artists, architects and intellectuals in the first half of the twentieth century in and out of Europe had a profound and long-term impact on art and architectural history. By establishing new transcultural places of artistic encounter in global metropolises, concepts and works were significantly changed. In the following we discuss findings on the connections between exile, modernism and the urban environment in two of the project’s six case study cities: Istanbul and Bombay (now Mumbai).

  • 2 See, among others: Kathinka Dittrich van Weringh, Nederland en het Duitse Exil: 1933-1940, Amsterd (...)
  • 3 See e.g. Übersee. Flucht und Emigration österreichischer Fotografen 1920–1940, Exhibition Catalogu (...)
  • 4 See in chronological order: İnci Aslanoğlu, “Bruno Tauts Wirken als Lehrer und Architekt in der Tü (...)
  • 5 Esra Akcan, Architecture in Translation. Germany, Turkey, & the Modern House, Durham: Duke Univers (...)
  • 6 Ipek Akpınar, “Pay-i Tahtı Sekülerleştirmek: 1937 Henri Prost Planı,” Istanbul, no. 41, 2003, p. 2 (...)
  • 7 Anil Bhatti and Johannes H. Voigt, Jewish Exile in India, 1933-1945, New Delhi: Manohar, 1999.
  • 8 Margit Franz, Gateway India: Deutschsprachiges Exil in Indien zwischen britischer Kolonialherrscha (...)
  • 9 Devika Singh, “German-speaking exiles and the writing of Indian art history,” Journal of Art Histo (...)
  • 10 Rachel Lee, “Constructing a Shared Vision: Otto Koenigsberger and Tata & Sons,” ABE Journal, no. 2 (...)
  • 11 Preeti Chopra, A Joint Enterprise: Indian Elites and the Making of British Bombay, Minneapolis, MN (...)

2Exile studies have so far been dominated by a national perspective that examines cross-border flight and migration movements from the countries of origin or arrival.2 This also applies to art, photographic, and architectural historical research on exile, migration, and flight, which usually examines the emigration countries or even continents.3 This can also be seen in the research on the constellations more closely focused on here: The emigration of architects, artists, and sculptors to Turkey has so far been the subject of studies dealing with the import of skilled workers into the country and the premise of modernization. In their works, Inci Aslanoğlu, Aydan Balamir, Sibel Bozdoğan, Ali Cengizkan, Burcu Dogramaci, Bernd Nicolai, and Bülent Tanju have examined, often in monographic studies, the commitment of German-speaking architects to the construction of the Kemalist republic, taking Turkish domestic and foreign policy into account.4 The connection between national identity and architectural modernity in particular has been exposed. The main focus has been on the new capital Ankara, which was seen as pars pro toto for the Turkish ministries’ will to build. In Architecture in Translation5 Esra Akcan adapted the theory of “cultural translation” and examined the circulation of actors and ideas between Germany and Turkey. Her focus was on the transfer and transformation of new housing concepts. In other words, the perspectives have been based on a bilateral framework, rather than a multilateral, global one. A review of previous publications shows that the connections between Istanbul and emigration movements of the 1920s to 1940s has not yet been made, and the metropolis on the Bosporus has not been investigated as an arrival city—but rather mainly as a laboratory for urban planning by foreign planners.6 So far, the private and professional spaces of emigrants in Istanbul have not been in the spotlight, nor has the question of how emigration in the time of National Socialism inscribed itself into the urban matrix of the city. Likewise, studies of exile in India have tended to focus on India as a target destination for incoming, often Jewish, refugees on a national scale. Jewish Exile in India, the first book to broach the subject, defined India as a destination for exiled Jews but did not have a particular thematic or urban focus.7 Since then, the Austrian scholar Margit Franz has produced several publications on German-speaking exile in India. While some essays focus on exiled artists, her recent book, Gateway India, is a wide-reaching historical survey of German-speaking exile in the subcontinent that, however, does not address urban issues.8 Devika Singh’s recent research on exiled German-speaking art historians in India, does not embed the study in an investigation of urban or rural contexts.9 Rachel Lee, who has studied exile in relation to architecture and the built environment in India, did not focus on Bombay but rather the princely state of Mysore.10 While Preeti Chopra’s A Joint Enterprise connects minority, originally migrant communities, with the construction of Bombay’s built environment, it does not investigate artistic production.11 As in the case of Istanbul, the link between the urban landscape, migration and art production in the first half of the twentieth century has yet to be explored in Bombay.

  • 12 Jens S. Dangscheit, “Ohne Migration keine Stadt? No City without Migration?,” in Uli Hellweg (ed.) (...)
  • 13 Peter Cachola Schmal, Oliver Elser and Anna Scheuermann (eds.), Making Heimat. Germany, Arrival Co (...)

3Recent publications on current migration movements in particular have highlighted the importance of large cities as cities of arrival. “No City without Migration?” asks Jens S. Dangschat in his contribution to the catalogue Metropole: Kosmopolis.12 The German Pavilion at the Architecture Biennale in Venice 2016, with reference to Doug Saunders, dedicated itself to the German “Arrival Cities” as target cities for twentieth-century migrant workers and the fugitives of the present.13 We take these urban research perspectives on contemporary migration movements as a starting point in order to locate the historical emigration phenomena more clearly in an urban context and thus conceptualize the direct living environment of many emigrants as an important field of action. On the one hand, this essay deals with the relationship between the emigrants of the 1930s and 1940s and their living and working conditions in their cities of arrival. On the other hand, the cities are also considered as actors: to what extent did the metropolises of Istanbul and Bombay grant specific forms of “arrival” to the emigrants in relation to the history of these cities, residential quarters and neighbourhoods, infrastructures and topographies?

  • 14 Ulf Hannerz, Transnational Connections: Culture, People, Places, London; New York, NY: Routledge, (...)

4Despite their diverse political and economic situations in the first half of the twentieth century, today Istanbul and Mumbai are commensurable on a global scale. They are megacities and hubs of the global art world. Moreover they can undoubtedly be characterized as “world cities” which are “places in themselves, and also nodes in networks; their cultural organization involves local as well as transnational relationships” in which transnational business, immigrant populations, creative culture and tourism play constitutive roles.14 In the 1930s and 40s, Istanbul, the former centre of the Byzantine and Ottoman empires, became the cultural capital of a newly modernising nation state, the Turkish Republic, which invited qualified exiled artists, architects and scientists to build its cultural and scientific landscape. Bombay, however, was not often the first choice destination for artists and architects seeking to leave Europe. Nevertheless, around 1,000 refugees made the journey to the cosmopolitan Presidency City and centre of imperial trade, which was transitioning towards independence. The emerging modern art scene and cultural landscape provided a rich environment for collaborations between local and migrant artists, and the indigenous elite.

5In the following we shed light on the emigration histories of the two metropolises Istanbul and Bombay as target destinations for exiled modern artists and architects, discussing how the urban matrix and the interaction with local actors shaped their lives and work while also searching for the traces they left. We address questions such as: Which neighbourhoods became home to migrants and how did the urban topographies support contact—through social spaces, institutions, or exhibition spaces—but also segregation, exchange and isolation? Which spaces were inhabited, designed or built by the emigrants? How can historical emigration, architecture and the city be brought together? By shifting the focus away from Central Europe and analysing the development of artistic modernism in these diverse urban contexts beyond Europe and in two historical megacities, questions relating to dichotomies such as centre and periphery, colonial and post-colonial, north and south are brought more sharply into relief. The terms “centre” and “periphery” also gain meaning within the cities themselves; for while most emigrants preferred a central residential location in Istanbul, some also settled on the periphery of the city.

Istanbul: Histories and Traces of Exile

  • 15 See Deniz Sert, “Bringing Together, Dividing Apart: Istanbul’s Migration History,” in Hou Hanru, Ç (...)
  • 16 See Giuliano Gresleri (ed.), Le Corbusier. Reise nach dem Orient. Unveröffentlichte Briefe und zum (...)

6Istanbul has a long history of internal and transnational migration. As the centre of the Ottoman Empire and also after the establishment of the Turkish Republic in 1923 with the new capital Ankara, the city at the Bosporus was a destination for people who had to change their place of residence for economic or political reasons.15 Modernist architects including Le Corbusier or Bruno Taut visited the metropolis on the Bosporus in the 1910s as travellers.16 Twenty years later Taut returned, but this time as an exiled person who embarked on a new chapter of building activity in the city.

  • 17 The notion of “contact zones” is borrowed from Mary Louise Pratt, “Arts of the Contact Zone,” Prof (...)
  • 18 See George Chauncey, Gay New York. Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 18 (...)

7As a city on two continents with a multi-religious and multi-ethnic population, Istanbul exhibited a heterogeneous picture to the arriving people: contrasting environments depending on the neighbourhoods, their development and population, their proximity (or distance) to the water, their accessibility by public transport. Thus, this urban body provides numerous clues for exploring the interaction between migration or exile, architecture and the city. Here institutions such as academies, universities or social “contact zones”17 such as cafés and bars, or even private residences where there was an exchange between emigrants and/or locals, are significant. For the Gay New York of the 1930s and 1940s, George Chauncey pointed out the importance of urban places as contact zones and for the formation of identity.18 This approach can be adapted for the examination of migrant Istanbul and discussed referring to specific places of contact, exchange and debate. In addition, the buildings built by foreign architects also refer to the history of migration and exile in the city.

  • 19 See Thomas Lier (ed.), Bir Başkentin Oluşumu: Avusturyalı, Alman ve İsviçreli Mimarların Ankar (...)
  • 20 Paulina Dominik, “From the Polish Times of Pera. Late Ottoman Istanbul Through the Lens of Polish (...)
  • 21 Hans von Rimscha, Der russische Bürgerkrieg und die russische Emigration 1917-1921, Jena: Frommann (...)
  • 22 Aleksandr Vassiliev, Beauty in Exile. The Artists, Models and Nobility who fled the Russian Revolu (...)

8In the following, Beyoğlu and Bebek, two neighborhoods in which emigrants of the 1930s settled or where migrated architects built, will be examined. From the perspective of German-speaking architects, Istanbul was less important than Ankara, where architects such as Clemens Holzmeister and Ernst Egli developed diverse portfolios of construction activities.19 Nevertheless, Istanbul (fig. 1) was an important point of reference for the emigration movements of the nineteenth and early twentieth century. In the nineteenth century Istanbul was the target city of Polish emigration with one of its main centres in Beyoğlu/Pera on the European Side.20 After the Russian Revolution and especially after the Crimea Crisis several thousand refugees from southern Russia sought refuge in the Ottoman Empire via the Black Sea. In 1920, Rimscha writes of circa 50,000 Russian emigrants in Turkey (thus being a preferred refugee destination after Poland, Germany and France), most of whom went to Istanbul.21 Many lived on the European side in the Galata district, in the vicinity of the main street, which was initially called Grande Rue de Péra, later Istiklal Caddesi, and which leads to Taksim Square. In this neighbourhood, the following places and institutions were important points of reference for the Russian emigrant community in Istanbul: the Russian Embassy, a Russian hotel, an Orthodox monastery and a church, which offered the emigrants a first refuge and an infrastructure for social contacts. The direct consequence of this Russian emigration, which turned Istanbul into a “Russian Constantinople,” at least temporarily, were numerous restaurants, pastry shops and cabarets on Grande Rue de Péra. In addition, various dance and ballet performances testify to the presence of Russian artists in Istanbul.22 In 1921, the first Russian book store “Kultura” was opened and in the same year the “Union of Russian Artists” presented their first exhibition in the Mayak Club. The members of this Union included Vasily Iosifovich Ivanov, Vladimir Konstantinovich Petrov und Boris Isaevich Egiz. The migration of Russian artists to Istanbul has received little scholarly attention so far and numerous sources (e.g. Burnakin’s almanac Russkiye na Bosfore, Istanbul 1928) have yet to be examined.

Figure 1: Map of Istanbul with Galata.

Figure 1: Map of Istanbul with Galata.

Source: Ernest Mamboury, Stambul Reiseführer, Istanbul: Rizzo, 1930 (Private Archive).

  • 23 For the emigration of architects and city planners to Turkey see Bernd Nicolai, Moderne und Exil, (...)
  • 24 With the exception of Martin Wagner, for example, who lived on the Asian side in Moda/Kadıköy.
  • 25 For the history of the Academy see Buket Altinoba, Die Istanbuler Kunstakademie von ihrer Gründung (...)
  • 26 Orhan Pamuk describes the Grande Rue de Péra through the eyes of the French writer Gérard de Nerva (...)

9Interesting is a comparative perspective on the second wave of emigration in the twentieth century to Istanbul—the arrival of exiled artists, architects and urban planners from Nazi Germany. Despite the fact that not many refugees came to the Turkish Republic (about 1,000), which had been established in 1923, the constellation of the emigration community is significant. In contrast to other countries of exile, it was a relatively homogeneous group of academics, including many university teachers or artists, with few exceptions regarding social status and education, who sought refuge in Istanbul. They had been invited by ministries to participate in the construction of universities, urban redevelopment and the artistic life of the Republic.23 This elite emigration of established, well-known persons was especially bound to certain institutions of the city of Istanbul: the emigrants from Germany and Austria worked at the Academy of Fine Arts, Istanbul University and the Technical University. The emigrants also settled in the radius of these institutions on the European continent. Many emigrants lived on the European side of Istanbul24in the European-style district Beyoğlu, where embassies, cultural institutes, bookstores and international restaurants were located. For example, the Academy of Fine Arts, for a long time Turkey’s only art academy, was also an important reference point for artists and architects: the sculptor Rudolf Belling, architect Bruno Taut and urban planner Gustav Oelsner taught there.25 German-speaking architects such as Clemens Holzmeister, Paul Bonatz and Gustav Oelsner also taught at Istanbul Technical University’s Faculty of Architecture, which was founded in the 1940s and is located in Istanbul-Macka, not far from Taksim Square. Some of the aforementioned artists may have chosen their places of residence so that they were able to reach institutions such as the Academy and the Technical University on foot: The proximity to these institutions could explain why many of the German-speaking emigrants of the 1930s and 1940s settled in Beyoğlu/Pera. For example, Rudolf Belling and Gustav Oelsner lived in Beyoğlu. In addition, the district, which is located on the European continent and opposite the historic Stambul, has been an important trading and transhipment centre for international goods since the thirteenth century, and in the nineteenth century the number of merchants and diplomats and thus also the Western European inhabitants in Beyoğlu increased considerably. Embassies, foreign schools, churches, hotels and restaurants were established along the Grande Rue de Péra, the central shopping street.26

  • 27 See Zuhal İbidan, The Urban Development of Istanbul in the Nineteenth Century. The Role of Expropr (...)
  • 28 See Burcu Dogramaci, Fotografieren und Forschen. Wissenschaftliche Expeditionen mit der Kamera im (...)
  • 29 George Tabori, Das Opfer, Göttingen: Steidl, 1996, p. 239.

10Beyoğlu was European in character, and the development of the infrastructure was certainly a concession to the foreign inhabitants and tourists who stayed in this part of the city. The tram and the underground Tünel provided good connections to the port and other parts of the city.27 And luxury Hotels like the Tokatliyan, the Pera Palace and the Park Hotel in Beyoğlu served not only as places to meet but also gave incoming emigrants residency for a couple of days or weeks. Like many exiled artists, Rudolf Belling was first accommodated in the Park Hotel, a luxurious hotel that opened in 1934 in Beyoğlu-Gümüşsuyu, designed in Art Deco style. It (fig. 2) was extremely popular among the arriving emigrants, not least because of its panoramic view of the Bosporus. In a photograph by Gertrud Hindemith, the view of the water from the Park Hotel is captured (fig. 3); sitting on the balcony of the hotel room is the composer Paul Hindemith who was brought into the country by the Turkish Ministry of Education.28 Many descriptions by the newly arrived emigrants referred to the experience of the Bosporus. The author and director George Tabori, who stayed in Istanbul at the beginning of the 1940s, writes about the aesthetics of the water landscape,29just as Rudolf Belling expressed himself at the beginning of 1937:

  • 30 Rudolf Belling to Alexander Amersdorffer, 23 January 1937, Berlin (Germany), Akademie der Künste, (...)

“From my hotel window I look down to the Sea of Marmara, the Bosporus on the left, Golden Horn on the right. Vis-à-vis the Asian coast, Skütari, Haidarpasa, Kadiköi. Then a couple of wonderful islands and at the back a beautifully curved low mountain range. You can’t imagine how different the city can look, which pastel tones are over houses and water.”30

Figure 2: Letterhead of Park Hotel, Istanbul, 1938.

Figure 2: Letterhead of Park Hotel, Istanbul, 1938.

Source: Private Archive.

Figure 3: Gertrud Hindemith, Paul Hindemith on the balcony of Park Hotel in Gümüşsuyu, Istanbul, April/May 1935.

Figure 3: Gertrud Hindemith, Paul Hindemith on the balcony of Park Hotel in Gümüşsuyu, Istanbul, April/May 1935.

Source: with kind permission of the Fondation Hindemith, Blonay, Switzerland.

  • 31 “Alles in allem kommt uns diesmal Istanbul viel viel östlicher u. orientalischer vor als die letzt (...)

11Beyoğlu/Pera was a central place and an arrival city for the German-speaking emigrants of the 1930s who found an environment that provided a degree of comfort with newly built apartments, coffeeshops, restaurants and a European flair with different languages spoken on the streets and an infrastructure connecting them with their working places. Besides, the “oriental” Istanbul was close; Eminönü and the old Stambul with its mosques, the hippodrome and the University of Istanbul was not far away and connected to Beyoğlu by the Galata bridge. The doubleness of “West” and “East” or “Occident” and “Orient” is visible in a photograph (fig. 4) showing the architects Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky and Wilhelm Schütte, who arrived in 1938 in Istanbul and lived in an apartment in Hacı İzzet Paşa Sokak in Beyoğlu. The camera captured their image with the minarets of a mosque at their back. Schütte-Lihotzky wrote after her arrival: “All in all, this time Istanbul seems much more eastern and oriental than the last times when we didn’t come from the West [but from the Soviet Union].”31

Figure 4: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky and Wilhelm Schütte in Istanbul, 1938.

Figure 4: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky and Wilhelm Schütte in Istanbul, 1938.

Source: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, Erinnerungen aus dem Widerstand 1938–1945, edited by. Chup Friemert, Berlin: Volk und Welt, 1985, p. 49.

  • 32 Cahit Kayra, Bebek. Mekânlar ve zamanlar, Istanbul: Akbank, 1993 (Akbank kültür ve sanat kitapları (...)

12The “Orientality” of the city was less visible a few kilometres further down the waterfront in the former suburb of Bebek, where some emigrants settled. In those days Bebek was no more than a fishing village. Since the nineteenth century the Ottoman elite had begun to build summer houses in Bebek32 which was not too far away from the very centre of the Empire—the old Stambul—but far enough to build up a prestigious closed community. This might be the reason that also in Kemalist times, after the founding of the Republic in 1923, rich and wealthy Turks—the new elite—began to build houses in and around Bebek. Especially Ernst Egli’s villa for the engineer Ragip Devres in Istanbul-Bebek (1932/1933, Cevdet Paşa Caddesi No. 101, fig. 5) has to be mentioned as an example for modern housing with architectonic reference to the International style as well as to the Viennese interiors of Adolf Loos. With its wraparound balconies, steel columns, flat roof and panoramic windows and its interior with wooden wall panels, the house followed the parameters of international architectural modernity and thus differed from the classic Turkish residential building.

Figure 5: Ernst Egli, Ragip Devres Villa, Istanbul Bebek, Cevdet Paşa Caddesi no. 101, 1932/33.

Figure 5: Ernst Egli, Ragip Devres Villa, Istanbul Bebek, Cevdet Paşa Caddesi no. 101, 1932/33.

View from the street.

Source: Werk, no. 25, 1938.

  • 33 See Horst Widmann, Exil und Bildungshilfe. Die deutschsprachige akademische Emigration in die Türk (...)
  • 34 Kemal Bozay, Exil Türkei. Ein Forschungsbeitrag zur deutschsprachigen Emigration in der Türkei (19 (...)
  • 35 Ernst E. Hirsch, Als Rechtsgelehrter im Lande Atatürks, Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, 200 (...)
  • 36 Ibid., p. 131.

13Not far away, the biologists and zoologists Kurt and Leonore Kosswig lived in a house built around 1900 (Inşirah Sokağı No. 32, fig. 6). They kept an open “house on the mountain,” where many emigrants met, theatre performances took place and music was played. The Kosswigs, who both spoke Turkish, were part of an association of scientists—a kind of “private academy”—which was led by the economist Alexander Rüstow and the jurist Andreas Schwarz and included representatives of various disciplines—including the financial economist Fritz Neumark. The meetings took place at the homes of the members of the “Privatakademie,” and participants lectured on their own field of study.33The Kosswig’s house in Bebek was a place of exchange between emigrants, a refugium in exile, but also an island or an exile in exile. In 1943 Kurt Kosswig founded with other emigrants like Alexander Rüstow, Ernst Reuter and Gerhard Kessler the political circle “Deutscher Freiheitsbund.” In their pamphlet “Was soll werden?” [What shall be?] they formulated ideas for the reconstruction of Germany, the restoration of democracy and the prosecution of Nazi crimes.34 The periphery, at a distance from the sites where history, culture and migration agglomerated, offered on one hand the opportunity to build a social place where life could unfold at its own rhythm and pace. On the other, distant neighbourhoods like Bebek gave other possibilities for cultural and political self-organization of the emigrants. For Bebek it is possible to say that different minorities settled here including people from England or Levantines.35 The socializing between the German-speaking emigrant community was easy because several professors lived close to each other with their families.36

Figure 6: Kurt and/or Leonore Kosswig, House of Family Kosswig in Bebek, Istanbul, 1940s.

Figure 6: Kurt and/or Leonore Kosswig, House of Family Kosswig in Bebek, Istanbul, 1940s.

The Kosswig house is pictured at the back, left of centre

Source: Private Archive.

14The importance of the house as an additional place of refuge can be seen in series of photographs by Kurt and Leonore Kosswig, showing their home from inside and outside, and the view from the terrace of the Bosporus (fig. 7). Photographs from 1940 were devoted to the living room (fig. 8) as a relaxed place with a canapé in the foreground, a dining table with four chairs and a child’s chair in the corner. The residents do not appear in most of the pictures; rather the furnishings—most of which they brought with them from Europe—are centre stage. The deserted interior is photographed in detail, clearly showing that European conventions have been retained. Other Turkish immigrants also photographed their apartments, including the Indologist Walter Ruben and the municipal scientist Ernst Reuter, who lived in apartments in Ankara. These photographs could be interpreted as proof of self-assurance about one’s own status in exile. In addition, the photographs were also taken as a means of communication and were intended to provide friends and relatives who remained in their country of origin with information about their living conditions in exile.

Figure 7: Kurt and/or Leonore Kosswig, House of Family Kosswig in Bebek, Istanbul.

Figure 7: Kurt and/or Leonore Kosswig, House of Family Kosswig in Bebek, Istanbul.

View from the terrace towards the Bosporus, 1940.

Source: Private Archive.

Figure 8: Kurt and/or Leonore Kosswig, House of Family Kosswig in Bebek, Istanbul, interior, 1940.

Figure 8: Kurt and/or Leonore Kosswig, House of Family Kosswig in Bebek, Istanbul, interior, 1940.

Source: Private Archive.

15Bebek as well as Beyoğlu/Pera were two different neighbourhoods offering diverse “entries” to Istanbul for the arriving emigrants: while the vivid cosmopolitan Beyoğlu/Pera was an important place in the very centre of the metropolis and well connected to central institutions, the calm Bebek at the periphery was a place of retreat where the Kosswigs actively used their own agency to build social networks.

Cross-cultural collaborations in Bombay

  • 37 Prashant Kidambi, The Making of an Indian Metropolis: Colonial Governance and Public Culture in Bo (...)
  • 38 Christine Ithurbide, Géographie de l’art contemporain indien: villes, acteurs et territoires. Le c (...)

16Occupying and later claiming ownership of the island territory that had been under Portuguese control for 150 years, the British East India Company began developing what had largely been a Christian missionary base into a centre of trade in the mid-seventeenth century. As the Company did not take control of the Maratha States of western India until the nineteenth century, indigenous merchants were able to participate in the development of the steadily growing town, connecting the group of islands with the mainland interior and the rest of the world. The early nineteenth century opium trade with China brought the city’s first economic boom. The cotton industry, which was established in the mid-1800s, further catalysed urban growth and a process of rural-urban migration that resulted in a population increase from around 200,000 in 1800 to almost 1,000,000 in 1900.37 By the end of the nineteenth century, Bombay had become an Asian port city that rivalled Calcutta (now Kolkata), Singapore, Shanghai and Batavia (now Jakarta), and was the most important city in India in economic terms.38

  • 39 Ibid., p. 5.
  • 40 Gyan Prakash, Mumbai Fables, [s.l.]: Princeton University Press, 2010, p. 73.
  • 41 Prashant Kidambi, The Making of an Indian Metropolis, op. cit. (note 37).
  • 42 Ibid., p. 32.

17Clearly, this rapid growth affected the form of the city, which was founded on a site unsuited to urban expansion. Indeed, Bombay is a product of the anthropocene. Firstly, the seven islands that now constitute Bombay were connected through the construction of causeways and embankments, creating a unified field on which the infrastructures and edifices of the city were built. By the mid-nineteenth century, the fortified town was overcrowded, leading to the demolition of the Fort’s walls in 1860.39At around the same time the large-scale Back Bay scheme was introduced to reclaim further land from the sea on the southern tip of the island. As Gyan Prakash states, the colonization of Bombay was twofold: “domination over the land and its people combined with the conquest of nature by culture.”40 Within this space, the British colonisers implemented town-planning measures that attempted to achieve racial segregation by designating an “Indian town,” outside the Fort’s walls in the early nineteenth century.41 However, unlike other colonial cities in India, the separation of groups in Bombay was never rigid.42 And, despite being woven on a colonial loom, at the turn of the twentieth century Bombay’s urban fabric was a complex tapestry crafted by a multitude of hands (fig. 9).

Figure 9: Map of Bombay from 1909.

Figure 9: Map of Bombay from 1909.

Source: Edinburgh Geographical Institute.

18In the following, the impact of exiled artists, architects and intellectuals in the 1930s and 1940s in Bombay will be contextualised within a longer history of migrant communities’ contributions to the development of the city’s artistic infrastructure. Focusing on the locations of key institutions, including the Bombay Art Society Salon and the Tata Institute for Fundamental Research, as well as more informal meeting places and typologies such as hotels, Bombay’s topography of cultural production is investigated in relation to migrant and local catalysts. In addition to the specific locales, key local figures involved in the production of the city’s artistic landscape are analysed in relation to their transnational agency. Finally, preliminary conclusions are drawn regarding the locations of the named places and people, that suggest that while the colonial city centre was established as the core of the art scene, the neighbouring areas, and indeed some further afield, also played important roles in the development of Bombay’s artistic topography.

  • 43 Ibid., p. 22.

19Famed for its cosmopolitanism, Bombay is a city of migrants: in 1891, for example, only a quarter of the population had been born in the city.43 As well as being settled by people from neighbouring regions and other parts of India, and the European colonial presence, the city was international, as Dinshaw Wacha vividly described:

  • 44 Dinshaw Edulji Wacha, Shells from the sands of Bombay; being my recollections and reminiscences, 1 (...)

“Do we not see every year how when trade is active in the busy season people from the south and north, especially the Pathans, the Afghans and others, throng to our markets. Then look at the number of Arab and Somali and other Mahomedan mariners, crews of buglows from Muscat, Makalla, Aden, Basra and Zanzibar who are to be seen in large numbers at our docks and more distant bunders. Is it not literally true that in modern Bombay we witness a truly cosmopolitan population in which every nationality is represented, not only from China but from Japan on the east, and from Brazil, Mexico, California and San Fransisco [sic] on the West?”44

  • 45 For more on the Parsi contribution see: Preeti Chopra, A Joint Enterprise, op. cit. (note 11).

20Among the rich mix of communities, two migrant groups stand out as key contributors to Bombay’s civic infrastructure: the Parsis, who had previously settled in Gujarat, and the Baghdadi Jews. Pioneering industrialists including Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy, Jamsetji Nusserwanji (J.N.) Tata and David Sassoon amassed fortunes through trade in opium and cotton before investing in landmark projects such as the J.J. School of Art, the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel, or the Sassoon Library and Reading Room.45 Belonging to the indigenous elite, the Parsi and Jewish communities actively participated in shaping Bombay’s early twentieth century cityscape of bombastic neo-Gothic public buildings, suavely modern Art Deco apartment developments, overcrowded, badly-serviced chawls, industrial mills, and docks, punctuated with colonial statuary. It was into this urban context that the exiled artists, architects and intellectuals from Europe arrived.

  • 46 London (United Kingdom), IOR, Correspondence from C.H. Silver, for Secretary Public and Judicial D (...)
  • 47 Margit Franz, Gateway India: Deutschsprachiges Exil in Indien zwischen britischer Kolonialherrscha (...)
  • 48 See for example: “Cauldron of Anti-Semitism Boiling. No Peace for Jews in Germany,” The Jewish Tri (...)

21Along with Shanghai and Singapore, Bombay was one of the major Asian port cities to allow entry to Jewish refugees until the late 1930s. Despite this, meeting the British colonial government’s entry requirements was difficult for many seeking refuge from national socialist Europe, as proof of employment or means had to be confirmed by a “person of standing” in India.46While the Jewish Relief Association in Bombay provided support to applicants, their capacities were limited.47The Jewish Tribune, a Bombay-based newspaper, regularly reported on the worsening situation in Europe and appealed to readers for assistance.48 While prominent figures in the Indian independence movement, such as the future Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, were in favour of the entry of refugees into India, others, including Mohandas Gandhi, were not. Unlike in Turkey, there was no national policy to invite “expert” refugees to India.

  • 49 Devika Singh, “German-speaking exiles and the writing of Indian art history,” op. cit. (note 9), p (...)
  • 50 Rachel Lee and Kathleen James-Chakraborty, “Marg Magazine: A Tryst with Architectural Modernity,” (...)
  • 51 Devika Singh, “German-speaking exiles and the writing of Indian art history,” op. cit. (note 9).

22The refugees who successfully gained entry to Bombay included the Polish painter and illustrator Stefan Norblin, the Hungarian photographer Ferenc Brenko, and the Russian painter Magda Nachman (Acharya). However, it was a group of German-speaking emigrants who exerted the most sustained influence on Bombay’s cultural scene: Walter Langhammer, painter and art director at the Times of India, Rudy von Leyden, art critic for the Times of India and illustrator for the Illustrated Weekly, and Emmanuel Schlesinger, an entrepreneur and art collector who reportedly brought works by Oskar Kokoschka and Egon Schiele with him to Bombay.49 As well as catalysing the emergence and popular reception of the Progressive Artists’ Group (the Progressives), which included now-canonised Indian artists such as Francis Newton (F.N.) Souza and Krishnaji Howlaji (K.H.) Ara, they taught and collected art. In addition, von Leyden was a regular contributor to MARG: A Magazine of Architecture and Art, co-founded in Bombay in 1946 by a group of artists, architects and intellectuals led by Mulk Raj Anand and including the German architect Otto Koenigsberger, who was exiled in princely Mysore State and regularly visited Bombay.50 Similarly, the exiled art historian Ernst Cohn-Wiener was employed in the princely state of Baroda, as was Hermann Goetz, a specialist in Mughal art history. Both lectured at the University of Bombay.51

  • 52 “Prof. Langhammer’s Exhibition,” The Times of India, Bombay, 24 November 1945, p. 10.
  • 53 Christine Ithurbide, Géographie de l’art contemporain indien, op. cit. (note 38), p. 15.
  • 54 The Journal of the Bombay Art Society 1906-1910, Bombay: Bombay Art Society, 1910.
  • 55 Naresh Fernandes, Taj Mahal Foxtrot: The Story of Bombay’s Jazz Age, Har/Com edition, New Delhi: R (...)

23Indeed, the University of Bombay’s Convocation Hall, designed by George Gilbert Scott and completed in 1874, was a location where the exiled artists, architects and intellectuals, gave talks and also held art exhibitions.52 Like numerous other art-related institutions in Bombay, it was located in the historical colonial centre of the city—in the Fort area rather than the “Indian town” to the north—and had been financed by a figure from the Parsi community—in this case it was the businessman, local politician and philanthropist Cowasji Jehangir Readymoney. The Parsis were not only crucial players in the development of Bombay’s civic infrastructure but its artistic infrastructure as well. Of the three artistic societies established in Bombay in the nineteenth century—the Asiatic Society (1804), the Photographic Society (1847) and the Bombay Art Society (1888)53—the Bombay Art Society in particular received their support and was even temporarily housed in the J.J. School of Art, the city’s first art (and later architecture) school, founded in 1857 by Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy in partnership with George Buist and Jagannath Shankarseth.54 (fig. 10) Beyond the fine arts, twentieth century cultural venues including theatres and cinemas, such as the Regal (1933) or the Eros (1938), were built by Parsi businessmen, while the burgeoning jazz and cabaret scene centred on the Taj Mahal Hotel, which was built and operated by the Tata family.55

Figure 10: Cover of the Journal of the Bombay Art Society, 1910.

Figure 10: Cover of the Journal of the Bombay Art Society, 1910.

Source: The Journal of the Bombay Art Society 1906-1910, Bombay: Bombay Art Society, 1938, 1910.

  • 56 Devika Singh, “German-speaking exiles and the writing of Indian art history,” op. cit. (note 9), p (...)
  • 57 Ibid.
  • 58 Naresh Fernandes, “Up in the AIR,” Taj Mahal Foxtrot. URL: http://www.tajmahalfoxtrot.com/?p=2407. (...)
  • 59 “Chamber Music’s New Home,” Times of India, Bombay, 10 January 1939, p. 14.

24The exiled artists became actively involved with these institutions. Langhammer took on the chairmanship of the Bombay Art Society, which often exhibited in the Town Hall or the Cowasji Jehangir Public Hall—both located in Fort—in 1938 and von Leyden joined the committee in 1939 after many board members resigned in reaction to the Hungarian-Indian artist Amrita Sher Gil’s work winning an award.56 Langhammer’s own painting won the Society’s gold medal in 1939.57From these positions, they were able to establish the Bombay Art Society Salon, which regularly showed work by members of the Progressives at a venue on Rampart Row, again in the Fort area. Because of the proximity between venues, von Leyden could bicycle from the Bombay Art Society Salon vernissages to the Times of India building to write reports on the current shows that would appear in the next day’s paper. Some exiles also formed new institutions with local artists: the Bombay Chamber Music Society was founded by the composer and pianist Walter Kaufmann together with the violinist Mehli Mehta in 1934, performing weekly at the Willingdon Club,58 a sports club that allowed entry to Europeans and Indians, after having initially performed in private homes.59 It was located 7 km north of the centre, near the racecourse. In early 1939 the Bombay Chamber Music Society relocated to a more central and appropriate location, to the approval of its patrons:

  • 60 “Bombay Music,” Times of India, Bombay, 11 January 1939, p. 8.

“Pleasant though it was to drive out to the Willingdon Club in the late evening every Thursday to listen to the concerts of the Bombay Chamber Music Society, most of its members have welcomed the change over to A.I.R. Studios which have the advantages of being air-conditioned and better acoustically than the old Badminton Hall.”60

25The exiled dancer Hilde Holger established her dance school, the School of Art for Modern Movement, in a building called Queen’s Mansion on Prescott Road in the Esplanade area (fig. 11), which was within a short walk of the Institute of Foreign Languages (ifl), founded by the exiled journalist Carl Petras in 1946. In addition to teaching languages and providing translation services, the ifl became a key exhibition space in Bombay, showing works by the Progressives as well as by central European artists. In circa 1950, the ifl moved to premises next to the Indian Coffee House at Kala Ghoda, about one kilometre to the south. It was this area of Fort that evolved into the city’s art district throughout the course of the twentieth century. An exhibition of the exiled painter Magda Nachman’s works opened at the ifl just hours before her death in 1951.

Figure 11: Queen’s Mansion building in Mumbai.

Figure 11: Queen’s Mansion building in Mumbai.

Source: Rachel Lee, 2019.

  • 61 Minnette de Silva, The Life & Work of an Asian Woman Architect, Colombo: Smart Media Productions, (...)
  • 62 Amrit Gangar, The Music that Still Rings at Dawn, Every Dawn: Walter Kaufmann in India, 1934-1946, (...)

26On a less formal level, other spaces in the city functioned as meeting places for both the exiled and the local artists. Walter Langhammer and his wife Käthe’s dinner parties and salons were social hubs where aspiring young local artists and architects, as well as other exiled artists, networked and exchanged ideas. Their flat on Nepean Sea Road in the exclusive Malabar Hill neighbourhood is credited with being a venue where patrons, critics and artists regularly came together, spurring the emergence of the Progressives. The Ceylonese architect Minnette de Silva attributed the inception of MARG to the informal soirees at Jassim House at 25 Cuffe Parade, in the Colaba area, which she shared with Mulk Raj Anand and her sister Anil—both MARG co-founders (fig. 12).61 The Parsi collector and gallerist Kekoo Gandhy began exhibiting works by the Progressives in his frame shop Chemould Frames, which was another meeting space that crosscut both the local and exilic artistic communities. Chemould Frames, possibly the first non-commercial gallery in Bombay, was located on Princess Street, at the southern end of the “Indian town,” just outside Fort. In 1963 Kekoo Gandhy formalised his exhibition space by opening Gallery Chemould in the Jehangir Art Gallery in Kala Ghoda. The cafe in the Soona Mahal building, an Art Deco apartment block on Marine Drive, was also a popular meeting place for local and exiled artists.62

Figure 12: Jassim House at 25, Cuffe Parade where Anil and Minnette de Silva shared an apartment with Mulk Raj Anand in the 1940s.

Figure 12: Jassim House at 25, Cuffe Parade where Anil and Minnette de Silva shared an apartment with Mulk Raj Anand in the 1940s.

Source: Rachel Lee, 2018.

27Less obviously connected to art, but important sites for cultural production nonetheless, were hotels. The Taj Mahal Palace and Green’s, two neighbouring hotels operated by the Tata Group at Apollo Bunder in Colaba, just south of the Fort area, were venues for local cultural and social life: as well as dances and dinners they hosted classical music and jazz performances, political meetings and conferences, and exhibitions. For the local and exiled artistic communities, they were places to meet and exchange, formally and informally. The All-India Association of Fine Arts met at Green’s, Hilde Holger’s first dance performance was in the Taj, while Kekoo Gandhy curated exhibitions at the hotels: Kattingeri Krishna (K.K.) Hebbar’s work was shown in the Princes’ Room at the Taj, for example. It is also very possible that the exiled artists met with local artists on Green’s terrace for lunch, danced to the swing/jazz music played by Teddy Weatherford’s band in the first-floor ballroom, or enjoyed drinks together at Green’s famously long bar. And perhaps, on more formal occasions, they attended exhibition openings at the Taj, mingling with Bombay’s cultural elite. The painter Walter Langhammer and the composer and musician Walter Kaufmann both gave lectures at the Rotary Club’s regular luncheon meetings at Green’s, as did the author Mulk Raj Anand and the Parsi atomic physicist Homi J. Bhabha.

  • 63 Mumbai (India), tifr Archive: D-2004-01015-4(1 - 12), List of Works of Art in the Institute 19.04. (...)
  • 64 Mumbai (India), tifr Archive: Kekoo Gandhy and Indira Chowdhury, Oral History with Kekoo Gandhy, 2 (...)
  • 65 Mumbai (India), tifr Archive: D-2004-00921-615, Drawings by Otto Koenigsberger and Master, Sathe a (...)
  • 66 Mumbai (India), tifr Archive: D-2004-010253, Letter from B.V. Doshi to Homi Bhabha, forwarding a l (...)
  • 67 Mumbai (India), tifr Archive: D-2004-01014-19, Internal tifr documents, 1962.

28As well as lecturing at the Rotary Club, Homi J. Bhabha was a prominent patron and art collector in the Bombay art scene of the 1940s. He also founded the the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (tifr). tifr’s impressive art collection, initiated by Bhabha, includes works by Langhammer as well as K.H. Ara and other members of the Progressives.63Interested in art that was being produced locally, Bhabha would stop at Chemould Frames on his way back to tifr after eating lunch at home.64 Bhabha was also peripherally active in the forming of MARG, and cooperated with exiled architect Otto Koenigsberger on a number of projects, including the design of tifr (fig. 13). Temporarily housed in the Yacht Club from 1945, just a block north of the Taj on Apollo Bunder, it was not until 1962 that the custom-built and unabashedly modernist institute was inaugurated by Jawaharlal Nehru at its new seaside location on reclaimed land in the very south of Bombay (fig. 14). After initial designs were produced by Koenigsberger and the local practice Master, Sathe and Bhuta, the commission was awarded to Holabird and Root, a Chicago-based architectural firm.65 Bhabha did however employ local architects for detailed design work. Although Le Corbusier suggested he work with Balkrishna Doshi, Bhabha chose to collaborate with the young Achyut Kanvinde, as well as Master, Sathe and Bhuta.66 In the competition for the foyer mural in 1962, six of the twelve invited artists were part of the Progressives, and another three were based in Bombay.67

Figure 13: Otto Koenigsberger’s design for the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, 1945.

Figure 13: Otto Koenigsberger’s design for the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, 1945.

Source: Private Archive.

Figure 14: The tifr building, designed by Holabird and Root.

Figure 14: The tifr building, designed by Holabird and Root.

Source: Rachel Lee, 2018.

29An impressive collection of works by the Progressives and exiled figures, including a portrait of Rudy von Leyden by Walter Langhammer, hangs on the walls of tifr’s public and private spaces. Rather than a museum, it is interesting that a scientific research institute owns this collection. Perhaps it is further testament to the significance of the agency of individual figures in Bombay—both local and foreign—in the shaping of the city’s artistic topography.

  • 68 Mulk Raj Anand, The Hindu View of Art, London: Allen & Unwin, 1933.
  • 69 Partha Mitter, “Decentering Modernism: Art History and Avant-Garde Art from the Periphery,” The Ar (...)
  • 70 Further elements on Bombay’s art scene is provided by Karin Zitzewitz, The Art of Secularism: The (...)

30Like other South Asian figures mentioned above—Minnette and Anil de Silva, Mulk Raj Anand, Kekoo Gandhy, Achyut Kanvinde—Homi Bhabha had studied in the uk and attended conferences in Europe, building up international networks. While Minnette de Silva took a graduate degree at the Architectural Association in London and participated in the ciam VI meeting in Bridgwater in 1947, Mulk Raj Anand was involved with the Bloomsbury Group, as Eric Gill’s preface to his book The Hindu View of Art attests,68 and Kekoo Gandhy studied economics at Cambridge University. Achyut Kanvinde studied architecture at the J.J. School and at Harvard University under the exiled architect Walter Gropius. Thus although many local artists, who were generally not able to travel until after Indian independence, may have been part of the “virtual cosmopolis” proposed by Partha Mitter,69 several of the key local figures were working transnationally, enmeshed in networks that spanned the globe, in a variety of fields and capacities. The Bombay artscape that the exiled European artists encountered was cosmopolitan, globally networked and open to their input and ideas.70 What emerged was a productive space of cooperation that was mutually beneficial and transformative.

  • 71 Prashant Kidambi, The Making of an Indian Metropolis, op. cit. (note 37), p. 34.
  • 72 Louis Bromfield, Night in Bombay, New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1946, p. 167-168.

31Mapping the locations of Bombay’s artscape with that of the exiled and local artists as well as the western-educated local intelligentsia reveals that while most of the institutions were in Fort, which was dominated by Europeans and the local mercantile elites, several important places, such as the ifl, Chemould Frames or the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel, were located in neighbouring areas, at their borders with Fort. Other venues, such as the Willingdon Club, were located much further north, requiring a degree of motorised mobility from their patrons. As Fort began to take on the character of a central business district, in terms of choosing residences it seems that the artists followed the trend of the “European and indigenous propertied elites” who preferred living in the “more secluded areas in the western part of the island, extending from Malabar Hill to Breach Candy.”71 Or as Louis Bromfield describes it in Night in Bombay: “the ancestors of […] the rich Khojas and Parsees who owned the mills […] had moved long ago to the splendor of the Race Course and the Willingdon Club and Malabar Hill.”72 These included Walter Kaufmann, Homi Bhabha, Walter Langhammer, Rudy von Leyden, K.H. Ara and Magda Nachman. Others, such as Mulk Raj Anand, Minnette and Anil De Silva, and Mehli Mehta, chose to live in Colaba, on Cuffe Parade, which also enjoyed a proximity to the water, as did the new Art Deco flats on Marine Drive, where the exiled screenwriter Willy Haas lived (fig. 15). It is significant to note that none of the people or places discussed in this article were situated in the “Indian” part of Bombay.

Figure 15: Map of Bombay from 1940.

Figure 15: Map of Bombay from 1940.

This map shows the locations of the art institutions and social infrastructure in black and residences of exiled and local artists in white.

32Bombay’s artistic, social and cultural infrastructure was, to a significant extent, instigated, developed and sustained by the Parsi community. Building on this, the exiled and local artists, architects and intellectuals developed a vibrant art scene in Fort and the adjoining neighbourhoods of Colaba and Esplanade in the twentieth century. This was supported by the local media, to which the artists also contributed. While the artists may have preferred living in quieter areas of Bombay, closer to the water—particularly Malabar Hill where they could take advantage of the sea breezes—it was in Fort that many events and exhibitions were held. Although it was the colonial centre of the city, it offered access to spaces that became cosmopolitan art venues for locals and migrants alike.

Conclusion

  • 73 Devika Singh, “German-speaking exiles and the writing of Indian art history,” op. cit. (note 9), p (...)
  • 74 As the Kosswigs did not keep a guestbook that recorded the names of their visitors, and references (...)

33In our historical research we propose that research on the exile of artists, architects and intellectuals should focus more on the local contexts of their target cities. In doing this, it is important to identify places where exiled artists lived and practised, as well as where existing artistic infrastructures were located. While the cases discussed here are distinct, we can observe some similarities between them. In both Istanbul and Bombay, the migrant artists, architects and intellectuals sought institutional spaces of discourse, by teaching and lecturing at a variety of universities. As well as innovatively addressing challenging issues such as nationalism in art, as Cohn-Wiener did in Bombay,73 these fora also contributed to building the migrant artists’ networks and may have led to collaborations. In the case of Bombay, the university was also an exhibition venue where the exiled artists showed their work. Similarly, their participation, and, in some cases, instigation of informal spaces of discussion and debate in private residences also played an important role in cementing relationships that led to the establishment of a magazine and the consolidation of an art group in Bombay. In contrast, the Istanbul case suggests that networking in private residences generally took place among emigrant groups, perhaps to the exclusion of locals.74

  • 75 Rachel Lee, “Constructing a Shared Vision: Otto Koenigsberger and Tata & Sons,” op. cit. (note 10)

34In the case of Bombay, British government regulations attempted to curb the involvement of refugee artists and architects through harsh entry requirements. In contrast, the government of Turkey actively invited persecuted artists, architects and intellectuals to assist in its nation-building programme. While their government’s mechanisms may have been disabling, in Bombay local individuals, groups and organisations enabled and supported cooperations within the city, creating networks and an art infrastructure that to some extent undermined the official policies, and also contributed to developing an indigenous cultural infrastructure that is embedded in the context of the independence movement.75 In Istanbul there seems to have been an inclination among the migrant artists and architects to settle in the perhaps more culturally familiar “European” parts of the city. In Bombay a similar case could be made for the exiled artists settling in the preferred neighbourhoods of the European and local elites, although some also lived in newer, more fashionable neighbourhoods. Hotels too, seem to have played an important role in both Bombay and Istanbul—as temporary places of residence, as meeting places and as spaces of cultural production.

35It can be assumed that the emigrants identified themselves more intensively with their immediate environment and context: the close community, the neighbourhood, the quarter or the city. In their everyday lives, they reacted directly to the challenges and opportunities offered to them by their places of work and residence. They settled in certain places and thus shaped the face of the neighbourhoods in which they lived. While some preferred to live and work in the central areas of their cities, others chose more peripheral locations where they lived in close proximity to each other. In Bombay these suburban spaces gave the exiled artists, architects and intellectuals the freedom to determine their own social lives while also opening these neighbourhoods to those who may not have otherwise visited them. In both cities the topography challenged and constituted their identities as emigrants. Water seems to have been a decisive factor in both choice of residence and as a stimulus for visual production, as Leonore and Kurt Kosswig’s photographs show.

36This article also underlines the limits of approaching the cities studied as autarkic entities: the example of the connections to the princely states in the Bombay case, for example, indicates the importance of understanding how the cities are positioned within their regions, and how regional and national communication and exchanges affected the metropoles, in addition to the flows from abroad. Similarly, rather than conceiving of the migrant artists as in flux and the local art scene as static, the Bombay and Istanbul cases illustrate that both were undergoing dynamic processes of change. Without overestimating or inflating their significance, we hope that through following the trajectories of exiled architects, artists and intellectuals, and examining their practices in certain urban locations we can contribute to an understanding of exile architectural and intellectual history as less of a transnational issue than an urban or metropolitan topic. For further research, an essential task is to grasp this microcosm of emigrants more precisely and thus synthesize exile research and urban research with one another.

Haut de page

Notes

1 Relocating Modernism. Global Metropolises, Modern Art and Exile (Metromod) is a five-year research project that started in 2017, is based at the Institute of Art History, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet Munich and led by Burcu Dogramaci. URL: https://metromod.net/. Accessed 25 June 2019.

2 See, among others: Kathinka Dittrich van Weringh, Nederland en het Duitse Exil: 1933-1940, Amsterdam: Van Gennep, 1982; Martin Conway and José Gotovitch, Europe in Exile. European Exile Communities in Britain 1940-1945, New York, NY: Berghahn, 2001; Kemal Bozay, Exil Türkei: ein Forschungsbeitrag zur deutschsprachigen Emigration in die Türkei (1933-1945), Münster: Lit, 2001 (Fremde Nähe, Bd. 15).

3 See e.g. Übersee. Flucht und Emigration österreichischer Fotografen 1920–1940, Exhibition Catalogue (Vienna, Kunsthalle Wien im Museumsquartier, 16 January-15 March 1998), Vienna: Remaprint, 1997; Andreas Schätzke, Deutsche Architekten in Großbritannien. Planen und Bauen im Exil 1933-1934 = German Architects in Great Britain. Planning and Building in Exile 1933-1945, Stuttgart; London: Axel Menges, 2013; Id., Transatlantische Moderne: Deutsche Architekten im lateinamerikanischen Exil, Münster: MV-Verlag, 2015.

4 See in chronological order: İnci Aslanoğlu, “Bruno Tauts Wirken als Lehrer und Architekt in der Türkei,” in Bruno Taut, Exhibition Catalogue (Berlin, Akademie der Künste, 29 June-3 August 1980), p. 143-150; Sibel Bozdoğan, “Against Style: Bruno Taut’s Pedagogical Program in Turkey 1936-1938,” in Martha D. Pollak (ed.), The Education of the Architect: Historiography, Urbanism and the Growth of Architectural Knowledge, Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1997, p. 163-192; Bernd Nicolai, Moderne und Exil: Deutschsprachige Architekten in der Türkei 1925-1955, Berlin: Verlag für Bauwesen, 1998; Bülent Tanju, “Türkiye’de Farklı Bir Mimar: Bruno Taut,” in Afife Batur (ed.), Atatürk için düşünmek. İki eser: Katafalk ve Anıtkabir. İki Mimar: Bruno Taut ve Emin Onat. Für Atatürk gedacht. Zwei Werke: Katafalk und Anıtkabir, Zwei Architekten: Bruno Taut und Emin Onat, Istanbul: Istanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Rektörlüğü, 1998, p. 22-25; Ali Cengizkan, “Bruno Taut: Duygu ve Gönül. Türkiye'ye Gönül Veren Duygulu Dünya Yurttaşı,” in Id., Modernin Saati. 20. Yüzyılda Modernleşme ve Demokratikleşme Pratiğinde Mimarlar, Kamusal Mekan ve Konut Mimarlığı, Ankara: Mimarlar Derneği; Boyut Yayın Grubu, 2002, p. 29-35; Burcu Dogramaci, Kulturtransfer und nationale Identität. Deutschsprachige Architekten, Stadtplaner und Bildhauer in der Türkei nach 1927, Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 2008; Aydan Balamir (ed.), Clemens Holzmeister: çağın dönümünde bir mimar = An Architect at the turn of an era, Istanbul: Boyut Yayın Grubu, 2010.

5 Esra Akcan, Architecture in Translation. Germany, Turkey, & the Modern House, Durham: Duke University Press, 2012.

6 Ipek Akpınar, “Pay-i Tahtı Sekülerleştirmek: 1937 Henri Prost Planı,” Istanbul, no. 41, 2003, p. 20-25; Uğur Tanyeli, İstanbul 1900-2000 Konutu ve Modernleşmeyi Metropolden Okumak, Istanbul: Ofset Yapımevi, 2005.

7 Anil Bhatti and Johannes H. Voigt, Jewish Exile in India, 1933-1945, New Delhi: Manohar, 1999.

8 Margit Franz, Gateway India: Deutschsprachiges Exil in Indien zwischen britischer Kolonialherrschaft, Maharadschas und Gandhi, Graz: CLIO Verein f. Geschichts- & Bildungsarbeit, 2015; Id., “Transnationale & transkulturelle Ansätze in der Exilforschung am Beispiel der Erforschung einer kunstpolitischen Biographie von Walter Langhammer,” in Margit Franz, Heimo Halbrainer, Gerald Lamprecht, Karin M. Schmidlechner, Eduard G. Staudinger, Monika Stromberger, Andrea Strutz, Werner Suppanz and Heidrun Zettelbauer (eds.), Mapping contemporary history: Zeitgeschichten im Diskurs, Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, 2008, p. 243–272.

9 Devika Singh, “German-speaking exiles and the writing of Indian art history,” Journal of Art Historiography, no. 17, December 2017, p. 1-19.

10 Rachel Lee, “Constructing a Shared Vision: Otto Koenigsberger and Tata & Sons,” ABE Journal, no. 2, 2012. URL: https://journals.openedition.org/abe/356. Accessed 19 May 2019; Id., “Otto Koenigsberger, Transcultural Practice and the Tropical Third Space,” OASE, no. 95, December 2015, themed issue Crossing Boundaries. Transcultural Practices in Architecture and Urbanism p. 60-72; Id., Negotiating Modernities: Otto Koenigsberger’s Works and Networks in Exile (1933-1951), Berlin: TU Berlin, 2014.

11 Preeti Chopra, A Joint Enterprise: Indian Elites and the Making of British Bombay, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2011.

12 Jens S. Dangscheit, “Ohne Migration keine Stadt? No City without Migration?,” in Uli Hellweg (ed.), Metropole: Kosmopolis = Metropolis: Cosmopolis, Berlin: Jovis, 2011 (Metropole, 5), p. 60-67.

13 Peter Cachola Schmal, Oliver Elser and Anna Scheuermann (eds.), Making Heimat. Germany, Arrival Country, Exhibition Catalogue (Venice, 15th International Architecture Exhibition, 28 May-27 November 2016), Berlin: Hatje Cantz, 2016.

14 Ulf Hannerz, Transnational Connections: Culture, People, Places, London; New York, NY: Routledge, 1998 (Comedia), p. 128.

15 See Deniz Sert, “Bringing Together, Dividing Apart: Istanbul’s Migration History,” in Hou Hanru, Çeren Erdem, Elena Motisi and Donatella Saroli (eds.), Istanbul. Passione, gioia, furore = Istanbul. Passion, Joy, Fury, Exhibition Catalogue (Rome, MAXXI Museo nazionale delle arti del xxi secolo, 11 December 2015-30 April 2016, Macerata: Quodlibet, 2015, p. 219-222.

16 See Giuliano Gresleri (ed.), Le Corbusier. Reise nach dem Orient. Unveröffentlichte Briefe und zum Teil noch nicht publizierte Texte und Photographien von Edouard Jeanneret, Zurich: Spur Verlag, 1991. For Taut’s trip to Istanbul in the context of the competition Haus der Freundschaft see Burcu Dogramaci, Kulturtransfer und nationale Identität, op. cit. (note 4), p. 53.

17 The notion of “contact zones” is borrowed from Mary Louise Pratt, “Arts of the Contact Zone,” Profession, 1991, p. 33-40.

18 See George Chauncey, Gay New York. Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940, New York, NY: Basic Books, 1994.

19 See Thomas Lier (ed.), Bir Başkentin Oluşumu: Avusturyalı, Alman ve İsviçreli Mimarların Ankara’daki İzleri = Das Werden einer Hauptstadt: Spuren deutschsprachiger Architekten in Ankara, Ankara: Goethe-Institut, 2011.

20 Paulina Dominik, “From the Polish Times of Pera. Late Ottoman Istanbul Through the Lens of Polish Emigration,” in Anna Hofmann and Ayşe Öncü (eds.), History Takes Place: Istanbul. Dynamics of Urban Change, Berlin: jovis, 2016, p. 92-103. Polish émigrés built their own social infrastructure with cafés and shops; until the middle of the twentieth century a side street from the main Rue de Péra was named “Leh Sokak” (Polish Street).

21 Hans von Rimscha, Der russische Bürgerkrieg und die russische Emigration 1917-1921, Jena: Frommann, 1924, p. 51.

22 Aleksandr Vassiliev, Beauty in Exile. The Artists, Models and Nobility who fled the Russian Revolution and Influenced the World of Fashion, New York, NY: Harry N. Abrams, 2000, p. 68-72.

23 For the emigration of architects and city planners to Turkey see Bernd Nicolai, Moderne und Exil, op. cit. (note 4); Burcu Dogramaci, Kulturtransfer und nationale Identität, op. cit. (note 4).

24 With the exception of Martin Wagner, for example, who lived on the Asian side in Moda/Kadıköy.

25 For the history of the Academy see Buket Altinoba, Die Istanbuler Kunstakademie von ihrer Gründung bis heute. Moderne Kunst, Nationenbildung und Kulturtransfer in der Türkei, Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 2016.

26 Orhan Pamuk describes the Grande Rue de Péra through the eyes of the French writer Gérard de Nerval in his book Voyage en Orient (1851): “Nerval describes the avenue leading away from the lodge as resembling Paris: fashionable clothes, laundries, jewelers, sparkling display windows, candy shops, English and French hotels, cafés, embassies.” Orhan Pamuk, Istanbul. Memories and the City, New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005, p. 219.

27 See Zuhal İbidan, The Urban Development of Istanbul in the Nineteenth Century. The Role of Expropriations, Istanbul: Libra, 2015, p. 91-106.

28 See Burcu Dogramaci, Fotografieren und Forschen. Wissenschaftliche Expeditionen mit der Kamera im türkischen Exil nach 1933, Marburg: Jonas, 2013, p. 82-84.

29 George Tabori, Das Opfer, Göttingen: Steidl, 1996, p. 239.

30 Rudolf Belling to Alexander Amersdorffer, 23 January 1937, Berlin (Germany), Akademie der Künste, Historisches Archiv, , I/284, Bl. 37-39.

31 “Alles in allem kommt uns diesmal Istanbul viel viel östlicher u. orientalischer vor als die letzten Male, wo wir eben nicht aus dem Westen kamen [sondern aus der Sowjetunion],” Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky to Adele Hanakam, 25 August 1938, Vienna (Austria), Collections of the Universität für angewandte Kunst, Estate of Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky.

32 Cahit Kayra, Bebek. Mekânlar ve zamanlar, Istanbul: Akbank, 1993 (Akbank kültür ve sanat kitapları, 57), p. 50-119.

33 See Horst Widmann, Exil und Bildungshilfe. Die deutschsprachige akademische Emigration in die Türkei nach 1933. Mit einer Bio-Bibliographie der emigrierten Hochschullehrer im Anhang, Bern; Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1973, p. 180; see also Fritz Neumark, Zuflucht am Bosporus. Deutsche Gelehrte, Politiker und Künstler in der Emigration 1933-1953, Frankfurt; Main: Knecht, 1980, p. 190-191.

34 Kemal Bozay, Exil Türkei. Ein Forschungsbeitrag zur deutschsprachigen Emigration in der Türkei (1933-1945), Münster; Hamburg; London: Lit, 2001, p. 72-73.

35 Ernst E. Hirsch, Als Rechtsgelehrter im Lande Atatürks, Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, 2008, p. 47.

36 Ibid., p. 131.

37 Prashant Kidambi, The Making of an Indian Metropolis: Colonial Governance and Public Culture in Bombay, 1890-1920, Aldershot; Burlington, VT : Routledge, 2007 (Historical urban studies), p. 22.; Ira Klein, “Urban Development and Death: Bombay City, 1870-1914,” Modern Asian Studies, vol. 20, no. 4, 1986, p. 729.

38 Christine Ithurbide, Géographie de l’art contemporain indien: villes, acteurs et territoires. Le cas de Bombay, Ph.D. dissertation, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, 2015, p. 8.

39 Ibid., p. 5.

40 Gyan Prakash, Mumbai Fables, [s.l.]: Princeton University Press, 2010, p. 73.

41 Prashant Kidambi, The Making of an Indian Metropolis, op. cit. (note 37).

42 Ibid., p. 32.

43 Ibid., p. 22.

44 Dinshaw Edulji Wacha, Shells from the sands of Bombay; being my recollections and reminiscences, 1860-1875, Bombay: K.T. Anklesaria, 1920, p. 411.

45 For more on the Parsi contribution see: Preeti Chopra, A Joint Enterprise, op. cit. (note 11).

46 London (United Kingdom), IOR, Correspondence from C.H. Silver, for Secretary Public and Judicial Department, to Richard Smith, 17 July 1939. L/PJ/7/2356.

47 Margit Franz, Gateway India: Deutschsprachiges Exil in Indien zwischen britischer Kolonialherrschaft, Maharadschas und Gandhi, Graz: CLIO Verein f. Geschichts- & Bildungsarbeit, 2015, p. 65.

48 See for example: “Cauldron of Anti-Semitism Boiling. No Peace for Jews in Germany,” The Jewish Tribune, Bombay, May 1933; “Bombay’s Outstanding Contribution to German Fund,” The Jewish Tribune, Bombay, August 1933.

49 Devika Singh, “German-speaking exiles and the writing of Indian art history,” op. cit. (note 9), p. 17.

50 Rachel Lee and Kathleen James-Chakraborty, “Marg Magazine: A Tryst with Architectural Modernity,” ABE Journal, no. 1, 2012. URL: https://journals.openedition.org/abe/623. Accessed 8 July 2019.

51 Devika Singh, “German-speaking exiles and the writing of Indian art history,” op. cit. (note 9).

52 “Prof. Langhammer’s Exhibition,” The Times of India, Bombay, 24 November 1945, p. 10.

53 Christine Ithurbide, Géographie de l’art contemporain indien, op. cit. (note 38), p. 15.

54 The Journal of the Bombay Art Society 1906-1910, Bombay: Bombay Art Society, 1910.

55 Naresh Fernandes, Taj Mahal Foxtrot: The Story of Bombay’s Jazz Age, Har/Com edition, New Delhi: Roli Books, 2012.

56 Devika Singh, “German-speaking exiles and the writing of Indian art history,” op. cit. (note 9), p. 16.

57 Ibid.

58 Naresh Fernandes, “Up in the AIR,” Taj Mahal Foxtrot. URL: http://www.tajmahalfoxtrot.com/?p=2407. Accessed 12 November 2015.

59 “Chamber Music’s New Home,” Times of India, Bombay, 10 January 1939, p. 14.

60 “Bombay Music,” Times of India, Bombay, 11 January 1939, p. 8.

61 Minnette de Silva, The Life & Work of an Asian Woman Architect, Colombo: Smart Media Productions, 1998, p. 65.

62 Amrit Gangar, The Music that Still Rings at Dawn, Every Dawn: Walter Kaufmann in India, 1934-1946, Mumbai: Goethe-Institut Max Mueller Bhavan, 2013, p. 26.

63 Mumbai (India), tifr Archive: D-2004-01015-4(1 - 12), List of Works of Art in the Institute 19.04.1962.

64 Mumbai (India), tifr Archive: Kekoo Gandhy and Indira Chowdhury, Oral History with Kekoo Gandhy, 22 November 2006.

65 Mumbai (India), tifr Archive: D-2004-00921-6>15, Drawings by Otto Koenigsberger and Master, Sathe and Bhuta.

66 Mumbai (India), tifr Archive: D-2004-010253, Letter from B.V. Doshi to Homi Bhabha, forwarding a letter from Le Corbusier 4 January 1955; D-2004-00919-40, Internal tifr documents relating to lobby and stairs; D-2004-00923, Internal tifr documents, undated.

67 Mumbai (India), tifr Archive: D-2004-01014-19, Internal tifr documents, 1962.

68 Mulk Raj Anand, The Hindu View of Art, London: Allen & Unwin, 1933.

69 Partha Mitter, “Decentering Modernism: Art History and Avant-Garde Art from the Periphery,” The Art Bulletin, vol. 90, no. 4, December 2008.

70 Further elements on Bombay’s art scene is provided by Karin Zitzewitz, The Art of Secularism: The Cultural Politics of Modernist Art in Contemporary India (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2014) particularly chapter 3.

71 Prashant Kidambi, The Making of an Indian Metropolis, op. cit. (note 37), p. 34.

72 Louis Bromfield, Night in Bombay, New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1946, p. 167-168.

73 Devika Singh, “German-speaking exiles and the writing of Indian art history,” op. cit. (note 9), p. 6.

74 As the Kosswigs did not keep a guestbook that recorded the names of their visitors, and references to their home as a meeting place have only been sporadically recorded in a variety of memoir-tye publications by some of the guests, it is not possible to make a conclusive statement about the involvement of local people in their social activities.

75 Rachel Lee, “Constructing a Shared Vision: Otto Koenigsberger and Tata & Sons,” op. cit. (note 10).

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Figure 1: Map of Istanbul with Galata.
Crédits Source: Ernest Mamboury, Stambul Reiseführer, Istanbul: Rizzo, 1930 (Private Archive).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/5949/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 455k
Titre Figure 2: Letterhead of Park Hotel, Istanbul, 1938.
Crédits Source: Private Archive.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/5949/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 56k
Titre Figure 3: Gertrud Hindemith, Paul Hindemith on the balcony of Park Hotel in Gümüşsuyu, Istanbul, April/May 1935.
Crédits Source: with kind permission of the Fondation Hindemith, Blonay, Switzerland.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/5949/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 110k
Titre Figure 4: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky and Wilhelm Schütte in Istanbul, 1938.
Crédits Source: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, Erinnerungen aus dem Widerstand 1938–1945, edited by. Chup Friemert, Berlin: Volk und Welt, 1985, p. 49.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/5949/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 95k
Titre Figure 5: Ernst Egli, Ragip Devres Villa, Istanbul Bebek, Cevdet Paşa Caddesi no. 101, 1932/33.
Légende View from the street.
Crédits Source: Werk, no. 25, 1938.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/5949/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 158k
Titre Figure 6: Kurt and/or Leonore Kosswig, House of Family Kosswig in Bebek, Istanbul, 1940s.
Légende The Kosswig house is pictured at the back, left of centre
Crédits Source: Private Archive.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/5949/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 101k
Titre Figure 7: Kurt and/or Leonore Kosswig, House of Family Kosswig in Bebek, Istanbul.
Légende View from the terrace towards the Bosporus, 1940.
Crédits Source: Private Archive.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/5949/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 74k
Titre Figure 8: Kurt and/or Leonore Kosswig, House of Family Kosswig in Bebek, Istanbul, interior, 1940.
Crédits Source: Private Archive.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/5949/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 84k
Titre Figure 9: Map of Bombay from 1909.
Crédits Source: Edinburgh Geographical Institute.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/5949/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 173k
Titre Figure 10: Cover of the Journal of the Bombay Art Society, 1910.
Crédits Source: The Journal of the Bombay Art Society 1906-1910, Bombay: Bombay Art Society, 1938, 1910.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/5949/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 227k
Titre Figure 11: Queen’s Mansion building in Mumbai.
Crédits Source: Rachel Lee, 2019.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/5949/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 207k
Titre Figure 12: Jassim House at 25, Cuffe Parade where Anil and Minnette de Silva shared an apartment with Mulk Raj Anand in the 1940s.
Crédits Source: Rachel Lee, 2018.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/5949/img-12.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 202k
Titre Figure 13: Otto Koenigsberger’s design for the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, 1945.
Crédits Source: Private Archive.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/5949/img-13.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 70k
Titre Figure 14: The tifr building, designed by Holabird and Root.
Crédits Source: Rachel Lee, 2018.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/5949/img-14.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 121k
Titre Figure 15: Map of Bombay from 1940.
Légende This map shows the locations of the art institutions and social infrastructure in black and residences of exiled and local artists in white.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/5949/img-15.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 744k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Burcu Dogramaci et Rachel Lee, « Refugee Artists, Architects and Intellectuals Beyond Europe in the 1930s and 1940s: Experiences of Exile in Istanbul and Bombay », ABE Journal [En ligne], 14-15 | 2019, mis en ligne le 28 juillet 2019, consulté le 18 octobre 2019. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/abe/5949 ; DOI : 10.4000/abe.5949

Haut de page

Auteurs

Burcu Dogramaci

Professor, Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Munich, Germany

Rachel Lee

Post-Doc, Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Munich, Germany

Articles du même auteur

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Licence Creative Commons
La revue ABE Journal est mise à disposition selon les termes de la Licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.

Haut de page
  • Logo INHA
  • Logo CNRS – Institut des sciences humaines et sociales
  • Logo In Visu
  • Logo DOAJ - Directory of Open Access Journals
  • OpenEdition Journals