The article contains the minutes of the activities of the competition jury for the design of the Adam Mickiewicz monument in Vilnius, together with reproductions of the designs, published in the journal 'Sztuki Piękne', 1926/1927, p. 98 (public domain, reprinted from the Library of the University of Silesia, Katowice).

A modernised reading of the text

Competition for the design of a monument to Adam Mickiewicz in Vilnius. Minutes of the Competition Jury.

The Competition Jury, invited by the Main Committee for the construction of a monument to Adam Mickiewicz in Vilnius to consider and evaluate competition projects for the monument in accordance with the terms of the competition announced in 1925, met in Vilnius on 10 November 1926 with the following composition:

General Lucjan Żeligowski, chairman of the Main Committee, - Governor Władysław Raczkiewicz, deputy chairman of the Main Committee, - President of the Republic of Lithuania. Prof. Ferdynand Ruszczyc, delegate of the Head Committee, - Prof. Jerzy Remer, delegate of the Head Committee, - Prof. Dr. Henryk Kunzek, delegate of the Academy of Fine Arts in Krakow, - Prof. Józef Gałęzowski, delegate of the Institute of Fine Arts in Krakow, - Prof. Dr. Tadeusz Obmiński, delegate of the Faculty of Architecture of the Jagiellonian University, - Prof. Dr. Andrzej Kraszewski, delegate of the Institute of Fine Arts in Krakow Polit. Lviv, - Prof. Dr. Oskar Sosnowski, delegate of the Faculty of Architecture. Polit. Warsaw, - Prof. Józef Czajkowski, delegate of the School of Fine Arts in Warsaw, - Prof. Juljusz Kłos, delegate of the Faculty of Fine Arts of the U.S.B. in Vilnius, - Artur Górski, a literary man from Poznań.

At the outset, the Court organised itself, electing Prof. Dr. Henryk Kunzek as chairman and Prof. Juliusz Kłos as secretary.

The Court then noted that 67 (sixty-seven) designs had been submitted for the competition, marked with the following emblems and numbered by the Court:

No. Emblem:
1. "Crescent"
2. "Axe"
3. "Aquila"
4. "Dal"
5. "Zenith"
6. "Konrad's Cell"
7. "Healthy Grain"
8. "Further from the foundations"
9. "Gustav=Konrad"
10. "Stone"
11. "Wanderer"

No. Emblem:
12. "Scythian"
13. "Timur"
14. "Square"
15. "Niezdara"
16. "Grass"
17. "Block"
18. "Bison"
19. "Improvisation I"
20. "Dziuńka"
21. "Taras"
22. "Filareta"

No. Emblem:
23. "Drogoslav"
24. "Ark of the Covenant"
25. "To weave love"
26. "Filarets' Nest"
27. "Katowice"
28. "Ode to Youth"
29. "F"
30. "Ilanka"
31. "Improvisation II"
32. "Let's Love the Fatherland"
33. "Zdrój"
No. Emblem:
34. "Rhythm"
35. "Thought"
36. "Aurora"
37. "Circle"
38. "Rainbow"
39. "Strength"
40. "Work"
41. "White Wings"
42. "Twilight and Dawn"
43. "Saturn"
44. "Grayson"
45. "Prometheus"

No. Emblem:
46. "Dziady"
47. "Poziomka"
48. "Revival"
49. "Z"
50. "Kosciesza"
51. "Silesia"
52. "Improvisation IV"
53. "Pilgrim"
54. "T. C."
55. "Witold"
56. "Improvisation III"
57. "Swiatowid"

No. Emblem:
58. "Flesh-coloured granite"
59. "Granite"
60. "Triangle"
61. "White raven"
62. "Virgin, what you shine in the Gate of Dawn"
63. "Youth, give me wings"
64. "Exile"
65. "Unity"
66. "Figure"
67. "Longing"

In addition, a design was submitted (emblem "Łada") only in a photographic reproduction, without a plastic model of the whole, and therefore, as not meeting the conditions of the competition, was not taken into account.

After the conditions of the competition were read out, a detailed inspection of the competition designs, displayed in the former military riding school on Orzeszkowa Square, began.
In the first bypass, the projects, numbered as: 1, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 20, 23, 24, 26, 32, 35, 40, 47, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 67 (32 projects in total).

These projects do not rise to the level that should be expected of such a large task, either because of blatant dilettantism, immaturity of conception and execution, or superficiality, not commensurate with the seriousness and height of the subject.

On the next vote, the following projects were rejected: 3, 8, 16, 18, 21, 27, 29, 30, 34, 36, 39, 41, 43, 45, 46, 48, 49, 58, 64, 65 (20 projects in total).

Although these designs showed greater technical proficiency and mastery of the whole, or some merit in the details, and although some of them had some artistic value, they could not be taken into consideration because some of them did not go beyond the limits of the average correct banality, operating both in the idea and in the solution with the use of worn-out templates. As for the rest of the listed projects, it should be stressed that although the above accusations apply to them to a lesser extent, they, like the previous ones, lacked sufficient architectural orientation. It was generally noticeable

noticeable, when reassuming the overall impression gained from the yield of the competition, was the general lack of sufficient insight into, and feeling for, the architectural side of the monumental tasks.

At the next bypass, the previous group included projects numbered: 4, 13, 9, 75 (4 projects in total).

The remaining n projects were subjected to detailed consideration due to their more serious values.

No. 2, the "Axe" emblem, is strikingly superior to all the projects submitted in every respect. It captures the essence of Mickiewicz's individuality and creativity most profoundly in a highly artistic and visual manner, with strength and power of expression, brings freshness of thought and artistic invention, and strikes with an outstanding rhythm of original architecture. Moreover, it stands out among the submitted designs for the precision of its execution at a high level of artistic culture down to the smallest detail. A certain exoticness of form, which is part of the artistic intentions of the work, should not, in this case, be an obstacle to the realisation of the project, in view of the aforementioned extraordinary values of the work.Furthermore, project no. 28, emblem "Ode to Youth", was recommended for purchase (by a majority of votes), and a distinction was awarded to project no. 59, emblem "Granite".

After opening the envelopes, it turned out that the author of the work awarded the first prize was Mr Stanisław Szukalski, a sculptor in Paris, - the author of the work awarded the second prize was Mr Rafał Jachimowicz, a sculptor in Vilnius, - the author of the work awarded the third prize was Mr Mieczysław Lubelski, a sculptor in Warsaw.

At this point, the Court has completed its work and the present protocol was signed on 12th November 1926.

L. Żeligowski m.p., Władysław Raczkiewicz m.p., W. Bańkowski m.p., Ferdynand Ruszczyć m.p., Jerzy Reiner m.p., Henryk Kunzek m.p., Józef Gałęzowski m.p., Dr Tadeusz Obmiński m.p., O. Sosnowski m.p., Józef Czajkowski m.p., Juljusz Kłos m.p., Artur Górski m.p.

We would like to add the following comments to the above protocol sent to us by the Competition Committee:

As with many other things, Poland has no luck with monuments either. Suffice it to mention "Jagiełło" in Kraków, "Mickiewicz" in Warsaw, Lviv and Kraków, and those "Kościuszko", "Bartosz" and "Kiliński" monuments adorning the numerous castles and chateaux of Małopolska. Smaller "Bolesławs" have already appeared, and there is a threat of much larger ones, not to mention some monuments glorifying Silesian insurgents. The capital city has recently been treated to Chopin, one of those fundamental artistic misunderstandings, eagerly awaited perhaps only by the artist himself and regarded by many with a shudder of horror. This is not the place to dwell on it, all the more so as, for any expert in sculptural values, the work's fundamental misunderstanding is immediately obvious.

The dark gloom which envelops the field of our contemporary monument-making makes us yearn all the more strongly for some kind of dawn in this field, which is by no means easy. This is why the tension of awaiting the outcome of the competition for the design of the Mickiewicz monument in Vilnius, of such exceptional importance, not only artistically, but also nationally, was so great. The task of erecting a monument to the bard in his close borderland homeland, which not long ago would have been unthinkable in the land of Vilnius, groaning under the heavy burden of slavery, where the name of Poland seemed to be wiped out once and for all, should have attracted Polish sculptors with exceptional charm.

When we add to this three high - by our standards - competition prizes, we can justifiably claim that there were quite exceptional grounds for nourishing the hope of a great collective effort by Polish sculptors, which would express itself in a much higher level of overall output and produce a handful ofNr. 9, emblem "Gustaw-Konrad". The whole organically bound well, - the vigorous movement of the figure is not a convincing expression of the ideological basis of the task, which rather gives the impression of purely physical strength, with a good sculptural solution.

No. 22, emblem 'Filaret'. An interesting and well architecturally related silhouette of a whole with monumental features with an expression of the youthful, Philaret era of Mickiewicz. This expression, however, in the figure of the poet itself was not completely and happily resolved.

No. 28, emblem 'Ode to Youth'. The design is characterised by noble pathos and artistic culture, but gives the impression of insufficient balance and does not visually resolve the pedestal, and thus the whole monument.

No. 31, emblem "Improvisation II". Average correctness of the whole with some theatricality in the movement of the figures.

No. 33, emblem 'Zdrój'. A noble take on the whole, but giving too little expression for this kind of task. The figure is slightly too heavy and too large in relation to the base.

No. 37, emblem "Circle", and No. 38, emblem "Rainbow". The basic scale is misconceived, both in terms of the plastic depiction of the square and in terms of the ideological content, given the freshness of the artistic endeavour.

No. 42, emblem "Dusk and Dawn". The design is characterised by a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of statics, resulting in a lack of monumentality. The expression of Mickiewicz's idea is lost in details of great artistic value and freshness of invention.

No. 44, emblem 'Grażyna'. The design exhibits sculptural qualities without embracing the architectural whole and without ideological expression.

No. 59, emblem "Granite". The design is characterised by grace and nobility of architectural proportions with a lack of stronger expression and a certain impersonality of character.

After consideration of the projects listed above, a vote was taken on the awarding of prizes.

Prize I (in the amount of PLN 10,000) was awarded unanimously to project No. 2, emblem "Axe".
Prize II (in the amount of PLN 8,000) was awarded by a majority vote to project no. 22, emblem 'Filareta'.
The third prize (PLN 6,000) was awarded by a majority of votes to design No. 9, the emblem "Gustaw-Konrad", a work surpassing everything that has been done in this field so far, and finally allowing us to honour the Great Pioneer not only with the will of our hearts, but with a real, eternal work of high art - not standing in such desperate disproportion to his enormity, a work for which we will not need to be ashamed for once and for all.

The copy of the Competition Jury minutes sent by the Monument's Committee, together with the photographs of the prize-winning designs, as well as a close look at the competition exhibition, allow us to form an opinion on the outcome of the competition as a whole, and on the prize-winning designs in particular. It is sad to say that the hopes so justifiably expressed above were disappointed. The exhibition of projects gives the general impression of too little effort in relation to the size and importance of the task.

Not to mention the utterly dilettante mediocrities - among them a few pity-inducing atrocities - a significant proportion of the projects show a lack of deep thought and careless superficiality. In others, a certain amount of effort and care is present, but the authors are either unable to break out of the vicious circle of hackneyed countenances, trivialised allegorisation and clichéd literary ideas, or they are strikingly at odds with the elements of monumental architecture, which prevents certain artistic values of their works from achieving a satisfactory overall expression.

The impossibility of obtaining photographs of non-awarded projects does not allow us to assess individual works that deserve to be dissected separately. This forces us to confine ourselves to the awarded and commended projects and to touch, moreover, on some more notable phenomena.

The project by S. Szukalski's project from Paris, under the emblem 'Axe', was awarded first prize in comparison with other projects. It cannot be denied that its artistic level far surpasses the others. First and foremost, it is characterised by a noble attempt to break out of the vicious circle of banal allegories that are constantly used in monuments of this kind. It is also characterised by a great sculptural skill in the elaboration of details and, above all, a boldness of conception, which tries to represent the essence of A. Mickiewicz's work. Mickiewicz.

However, this does not mean that the design is flawless and that a number of very serious reservations should not be made about it. S. Szukalski's design depicts Mickiewicz naked, sitting on some kind of plinth of bizarre, restlessly cut shapes, with his head surrounded by wings, bent in a painful spasm of creative ecstasy. From the bard's feet, to his right, a rainbow is outlined, passing over his knees and disappearing to his left.

On the rainbow, to the poet's left, sits an eagle which, having extended its head under the poet's left hand, drinks voraciously from the poet's palm the blood flowing from the deep wound outlined on the bard's left breast, in the vicinity of his heart.An extraordinary concept, much to be said - but unfortunately the execution leaves much to be desired. Instead of expressing his idea in large, calm, yet bold forms, the author of this project fragmented both the base of the monument and the figure itself into a series of small details - executed with great skill - in the figure of the poet he emphasised the muscles in an exaggerated manner, so that he completely lost the impression of monumentality, which such a monument should have, and turned his project into a small, very interesting sculpture.

Moreover, the author of the project, whose exotic form is quite clearly inspired by Indochinese art, completely disregarded the empire-like character of the municipal building - a typical classicist edifice with six large free-standing columns on the façade and a tympanum supported by them - against which the monument is to stand.

As a result, in spite of its great artistic merits, especially when compared with the other designs submitted for the competition, it is not a design for a monument to Mickiewicz that would fully and truly meet all the legitimate requirements that must and should be placed on such a task.

However, if the design of S. Szukalski's design arouses such serious reservations in us, then the second prize-winning design by Filaret, Rafał Jakimowicz from Vilnius, frightens us with its triviality, as a result of which it should not have been included in the classification of competition entries. Mickiewicz is depicted on a pegasus which, with the tips of its wings, tries to bounce off the ground. The allegory in itself is sufficiently discredited, and the figure of Mickiewicz - weakly seated on the pegasus and disappearing between its wings - would play a negligible role in the monument: from the front it would disappear behind the huge head of the pegasus (see the monument to Jagiełło in Krakow), while at the back we would only see a large triangle, whose base would be formed by both wings of the pegasus, and the apex - its head with the bard's head barely visible on it.

The third prize was awarded to Mieczysław Lubelski from Warsaw for his design under the emblem Gustaw-Konrad. The relationship of the figure to the pedestal was harmonious, the relationship to the pedestal logical, and the silhouette peaceful.

Of the unranked designs, the project under the emblem "Dusk and Dawn" stands out and deserves more attention. It is characterised by an extraordinary originality of concept and execution, and represents serious artistic value. Although the author did not avoid certain formal errors - above all a fundamental misunderstanding of the statics of the entire composition - he showed great boldness of invention and a fresh approach to the issue of the monument. Despite blurring the expression of the Mickiewiczian idea in a wealth of detail, this work is a rare example of creative individuality and a bold attempt to express a deeper content beyond the traditional canon of allegory.

Against the background of the general mediocrity of most of the projects, this particular sketch, not devoid of errors but rich in authorial vision, stands out as one of the few works in which one feels an authentic search for a new form and an attempt to bring out the symbolic meaning of the Bard's work. It certainly deserved a distinction or even a special mention in the jury minutes, not only for its artistic values, but also for its formal courage.

Of the projects that were not awarded a mention, the one that stands out and deserves more attention is the one under the emblem "Dusk and Dawn". It is characterised by an extraordinary originality of concept and execution, and presents serious artistic values. Although the author did not avoid certain formal errors - above all a fundamental misunderstanding of the statics of the entire composition - he showed great boldness of invention and a fresh perspective on the issue of the monument. Despite blurring the expression of the Mickiewiczian idea in a wealth of detail, this work is a rare example of creative individuality and a bold attempt to express a deeper content beyond the traditional canon of allegory.

Against the background of the general mediocrity of most of the projects, this particular sketch, not devoid of errors but rich in authorial vision, stands out as one of the few works in which one feels a genuine search for a new form and an attempt to bring out the symbolic meaning of the Bard's work. It certainly deserved a mention, or even a special mention in the minutes of the competition jury, not only for its artistic values, but also for its formal courage.It would, however, be very painful if this unsuccessful competition alienated Vilnius from the noble and by all means commendable resolve to honour our bard.

The project of the Mickiewicz monument is a very difficult task that cannot be solved quickly. And that is why this competition should be regarded as a preliminary competition. Now, several sculptors should be invited by name and a closer competition should be made on the basis of conditions, skilfully, newly developed. We firmly believe that this is the only way to arrive at a happy solution to this very difficult issue, and our hope is justified by the research and glimpses that can be seen in several (awarded and unawarded) projects submitted to this competition.