The Cooperation of Ernő Foerk and Gyula Sándy

Péter Bodó

doi:10.2478/jbe-2019-0009

Abstract

Ernő Foerk and Gyula Sándy made common plans for several competitions. This study intends to show their successful cooperation as well as some of their realized buildings and awarded plans. The buildings and plans are shortly described and analyzed from the aspect of style. At the end of the study all of their common works are listed chronologically.

References

[1] Foerk was nominated teacher in 1898 and Sándy in 1899 by the Minister of Trade. Építő Ipar 22 (1898) No. 36. pp. 229. és Építő Ipar 23 (1899) No. 37. pp. 276.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[2] Kolbenheyer Gyula (ed.), A Budapesti M. Kir. Állami Felső Építő Ipariskola értesítője az 1899/1900. iskolai évről, Budapest. 1900. pp. 26.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[3] Gyula Sándy, Hogyan lettem és hogyan voltam én templom-építő, -tervező és művezető építész? Lapis Angularis VI. Források a Magyar Építészeti Múzeum gyűjteményéből, Budapest: Magyar Építészeti Múzeum. 2005. pp. 205.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[4] János Bobula mentioned that it seemed Foerk and Sándy had made a commercial appointment because they work even in small plans together which they could have done separately. Bobula’s evoking cause for it must have been the plans of the tower of the Lutheran church in Brezno that were exhibited on the Spring Show in the Art Hall in 1904. Bobula later affirms that he regards both of them as talented artist but he thinks such cooperation deprives the artwork of individuality. János Bobula, Tavaszi tárlat a Műcsarnokban. In: Budapesti Építészeti Szemle 13 (1904), 7. szám, 94.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[5] András Hadik: Foerk Ernőről és a Magyar Építészeti Múzeumban lévő dokumentumanyagáról. Lapis Angularis II. Források a Magyar Építészeti Múzeum gyűjteményéből, Budapest: Magyar Építészeti Múzeum. 1998. pp. 14.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[6] Építő Ipar 27 (1903) No. 15. pp. 95.10.1177/001452460301500212
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[7] Építő Ipar 27 (1903) No. 15. pp. 95.10.1111/j.1365-2133.1903.tb16483.x
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[8] Postamúzeum, In. No.: D22-401.0, D22-401.1, D22-401.2
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[9] Sándy 2005. pp. 211.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[10] Magyar Építészeti Múzeum és Műemlékvédelmi Dokumentációs Központ (further MÉM MDK), Ernő Foerk legacy, Inv. No.: 69.024.346.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[11] MÉM MDK, Ernő Foerk legacy, Inv. No.: 69.024.347.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[12] Magyar Pályázatok 1 (1903) No. 11. pp. 29-30.10.1136/bmj.1.2192.29
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[13] MÉM MDK, Ernő Foerk legacy, Inv. No.: 69.024.432.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[14] Sándy 2005. pp. 212.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[15] Sándy 2005. pp. 214.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[16] MÉM MDK. Ernő Foerk legacy, Inv. No.: 69.024.380
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[17] Sándy 2005. pp. 214.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[18] Sándy 2005. pp. 88.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[19] Magyar Mérnök és Építész Egylet Közlönye 39 (1905). No. 12. pp. 501.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[20] And Mrs. Tüköry knew it very well.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[21] Sándy 2005. pp. 88-89.10.1177/019263650508964507
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[22] MÉM MDK. Gyula Sándy legacy. Inv. No.: 2002.10.10.3.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[23] Sándy 2005. pp. 89. And MÉM MDK Ernő Foerk legacy, Inv. No.: 91.09.5.1.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[24] Sándy 2005. pp. 89.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[25] The first prize was not awarded to anyone because there were not any really proper plans. Magyar Pályázatok 4 (1906) No. 10. pp. 4.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[26] Építő Ipar 28 (1904) No. 33. pp. 239.10.3406/roma.1904.5343
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[27] Magyar Pályázatok 4 (1906) No. 10 .pp. 18-19. The jury remonstrated that this plan does not satisfy all the presciptions of the programme. Magyar Pályázatok 4 (1906) No. 10. pp. 26.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[28] However the common plan of the Viennese achitects Ernst Lindner – Theodor Schreier was also awarded with second prize. Sándy 2005. pp. 207.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[29] MÉM MDK. Ernő Foerk legacy. Inv. No.: 69.462.1; Photo Storage 70.410 fot. sz.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[30] Magyar Mérnök- és Építész Egylet Közlönye. 39 (1905) No. 2. pp. 34.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[31] Magyar Mérnök és Építész Egylet Közlönye 41 (1907) No. XI-XII. pp. 301.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[32] Építő Ipar 31 (1907) No. 17. pp. 161.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[33] Építő Ipar 31 (1907) No. 17. pp. 163.10.1016/S0016-0032(07)90195-7
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[34] Magyar Mérnök és Építész Egylet Közlönye 41 (1907) No. XI-XII. pp. 306.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[35] Sándy 2005. pp. 112.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[36] MÉM MDK. Gyula Sándy legacy, Inv. No.: 2002.10.11.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[37] Foerk was Steindl’s assisstant for several years. András Hadik 1998. pp. 13.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
[38] The performance was held on 1st April 1935. MÉM MDK. Gyula Sándy documents, box No. 3, folder No.78.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

The Cooperation of Ernő Foerk and Gyula Sándy

Abstract

Paradigm

My account