Visual Culture of the Representation of the Ruler in the Cities of the Habsburg Empire

In the framework of this project the visual culture of the Habsburgs representation of power in the most important cities of the Austrian hereditary lands, the lands of the Bohemian Crown and of the Kingdom of Hungary is to be examined. It begins in 1526 with the assumption of power in the Bohemian lands and in Hungary by the House of Habsburg in the person of Ferdinand I and ends with the death of Emperor Joseph I in 1711. The cities in which the Habsburgs resided (Prague, Vienna, Innsbruck, Graz, Preßburg) and other important cities from the circle of free royal cities of Hungary and free cities of the Bohemian Crown are understood as public spaces in which the representation strategies of the ruling house were communicated symbolically. Urban space is seen as communication space in which the respective Habsburg (as emperor, king or sovereign) enters into competition symbolically, but also in a manifestly visual way, with the municipality, the nobility and the church. The symbolic visualization of real power or the claim to power is to be examined where it was expressed in artworks and buildings in the public spaces of the cities selected: in the Landhäuser of the Estates, the town halls of the burghers, in monuments to rulers in the cities and in ephemeral architecture such as the triumphal arches erected on the occasion of the entry of the ruler, which temporarily constituted very specific power spaces. Lastly, sacred spaces as Habsburg representation spaces are also an important area to be examined, as in a Counter Reformation campaign launched by the Habsburgs many new churches were built and several new religious orders introduced, particularly in Vienna and Prague. In terms of methodology the project is based on historical spatial research and aspects of media theory. That is to say on the one hand it uses the heterogeneous definitions of space of historical research such as art history, while on the other it views the objects examined as media that convey messages whose addressors or addressees must be identified in each individual case. The general view taken of the entire area ruled by Habsburgs is important and aims at discovering the differences and connections between the Austrian, Bohemian and Hungarian Habsburg culture of representation.

The general academic concept was oriented towards the visual culture of Habsburg representation and the attempt to define it in urban space. Various considerations had made it probable that during the period in question there was hardly any act of representation of power conveyed in works of art that was initiated and commissioned solely and exclusively by representatives of the House of Habsburg. This is particularly true in the context of the fact that the three Habsburg spheres of power under investigation are extremely different in terms of political conditions: Austrian hereditary lands, the Kingdom of Bohemia and the Kingdom of Hungary. This political context suggested that it was probably possible to communicate the symbolic content of such works of art within the respective spheres of power. However, it may have been much more difficult - so the assumption was - to make it binding for the entire, heterogeneous territory of power. The development and creation of works of art always seems to have been in the hands of several participants, always seems to have been - from the point of view of communication - a balancing of several, possibly even conflicting, interests. The creation of the work of art was, according to the basic assumption of the project, based on a communication process between several communicators and their interests, running in many directions. The attempt to verify or falsify this thesis should help to clarify the mechanisms of artistic representation in the House of Habsburg between 1526 and 1711. The project aimed at highlighting the differences between the Austrian, Bohemian and Hungarian specifics by juxtaposition. At the same time, however, it also sought to fathom the existence of liabilities and overriding criteria of a common Habsburg culture of visual representation. The question of the actual personal contribution of Habsburg rulers to the creation of works of art serving their own or the dynastic representation was very difficult to answer by the project work and only in a few cases could it be answered unambiguously. Definite expressions of will could not be reliably deduced from the sources! Rather, the overall picture was one of a complex and not always easy to resolve: Representation through works of art in public (urban) space was handled by several groups of actors as an offensive political instrument. The other question, that of the characteristics of representational art in urban spaces in Bohemia, Hungary and Austria, has largely confirmed the assumption made as the initial thesis: The very different access rights of the Habsburgs in the three areas of power, which were determined by the political conditions, had a major influence on dynastic presence that could be conveyed through the works of art.