Control over the cultural life in Czechoslovakia after the Communist revolution in 1948 was exerted thoroughly and swiftly. Art societies were dissolved, private business related to art and its distribution were eliminated and a system of unified unions under the leadership of communists was introduced.  Cultural operations along with the cultural policy (origin of key institutions – national gallery, art academy, Fine Art Union, etc.) were also re-organized and continued in this form virtually until 1989.

The monopoly of the state, which became the exclusive commissioning party, implementer and collector, ensured an official distribution channel pragmatically created between state enterprises that organized the sale of new art and institutions that purchased it  (commissioners’ offices, ministries, the military, agricultural coops, factories, etc.). The producers (artist), distributors (enterprises Tvar, Dielo, and the Union) as well as consumers (organizations formulating the commissions) were the state. Naturally, demand was not controlled by the market but by coincidences based on non-economic factors such as the ratio of the involvement and membership in the Party or the extent of the adaptation of the production to the canon. 

The last traces of original “classical” collecting almost disappeared under these conditions. The new oligarchy formed upon the change of the regime brought along their own group of protégé artists - their (official socialist realist) art of course did not provide any collecting challenge. Traditional collectors voluntarily and consciously positioned themselves on the margin of society and collecting itself went into hibernation. Its core was constituted by two, at first sight incompatible groups – collectors for whom collecting represented an escape from reality and one of the few possibilities for personal development and a group of merchants – dealers who saw an opportunity to make money. Gradually, a united community was formed.  It was comprised of enthusiasts, collectors – specialists, traffickers and dealers who knew each other, respected each other, did business and thus fulfilled the limited possibilities of collecting under the new conditions. Their interest was naturally oriented towards the past – antiquities and works of arts and crafts. In addition to the understandable nostalgia, the program focus was supported by an abundance of antiquities from abandoned manor houses and churches that were readily available through unofficial channels.  

Socialism operated in parallel yet often overlapping worlds of an official and unofficial nature, which on the outside were mutually exclusive. Several activities related to art, its sale and thus also with collecting can be situated at the intersection of these two universes.  This significant porousness was especially enabled by the fact that artwork was not at the front line of the negation of private property.  Since art ownership was not publically visible, it was not a controllable sign of class membership. This form of ownership was not productive ownership, it was personal.  It served exclusively for personal consumption and was situated in the intimate confines of the home. Due to the state controlled distribution channel, the value of artwork was artificial, not monetary. Since there was no possibility for free market exchange, the financial value of an object could not be realistically established.  On the contrary, prices were artificially manipulated; sometimes undervalued and at other times overvalued, according to the needs of the state. Artwork was practically worthless, with no value or price, but at the same time it was invaluable. (Bourdieu, 2010, p. 114) 

Along with the complete regrouping of power and control of business channels the state also began to build relations with a new target group - the working class, and gradually adapted the forms of sale and the nature of supply to them. Numerous exhibitions were organized in factories and agricultural coops throughout Slovakia, some of them even under the auspices of the Slovak National Gallery. Dielo, a separate state enterprise responsible for the sale of art that was established in 1956; its main role was to deepen relations with the new consumer. Artwork was supposed to be affordable and accessible to the widest possible layers of workers, and the creation of a network of state operated shops throughout Slovakia as well as the introduction of buying on installment in 1956 corresponded with this. The idea of including a Dielo shop in the architectural plan for every new housing development was even raised in the 1970s. 

Several targeted marketing measures confirmed that customers/purchasers/collectors did not disappear in the new regime, but that their financial possibilities were as limited as their requirements of art. That was also why a “large quantity of small works of small formats, accessible form, with optimistic and poetic themes” (Wiso, 1955) were required for the state shop. Thanks to these steps, the purchase of artwork (in Dielo shop) became a common practice for a significant portion of the population. The state had succeeded in stimulating a specific form of public collecting – however it was collective and regulated collecting which did not permit any form of individualism and corresponded with the gradual extinction of freedom of the individual and his/her private, anonymous lifestyle. This collecting was based on affordable artwork of marginal significance – non-controversial academic art, graphic work and reproductions of the “Golden Collection of Czechoslovak Art” were produced in high volume.  Through this art, uniformity and collectiveness which were manifested at all levels of social life penetrated deep to the intimate (residential) sphere of the “new” man. The fundamental influence of the totalitarian apparatus on the taste of the majority was a secondary consequence of this commercial strategy. It was markedly deformed over years and we can still feel it today.  

Art in a “non-market” society also functioned as an alternative currency, compensation for services or the equivalent of bribe – it was through this barter system that numerous collections of physicians, civil servants, and lawyers were built– and understandably hidden from the public eye. Many collections were also formed in a cultural milieu – architects, writers, art historians, directors or unofficial artists themselves received, occasionally purchased and exchanged the works of their colleagues and friends.  These collections represented sporadic purchases rather than conscious conceptual activity, and moreover, all of them were founded and developed independently, without public presentation or social prestige.  In many cases, it was a form of social assistance rather than concentrated collecting. Only recently, along with the development of the domestic art trade, these heretofore unknown collection corpuses of significant figures of Slovak culture, science and politics have begun to appear on the market, but at the request of heirs, they remain in anonymity. 

Representatives of unofficial art who could not sell their art through official distribution channels made direct contact with collectors/parties interested in purchasing through studio sales. Although it was illegal to sell works that were not approved by commissions and accepted in the official network of shops, there was no criminal sanction to consistently control this practice. Even the most important representatives of our alternative scene did not acquire the relevant market at home for their work; it was only recognized by a very narrow, non-public group of well-oriented interested parties and supporters.  Several apartment exhibitions and activities were concentrated around gallery practice – in real commercial (Jozef Jankovič), confrontational (Peter Bartoš a Július Koller, Otis Laubert), as well as purely utopian, fictitious forms (Július Koller). However, these isolated attempts did not have any essential effect on the development of “unofficial” collecting.  

With respect to the scene before 1989, there were scarce few individual activities which entered the general awareness and in which the figure of a collector affected our historical or cultural framework.  The collection of Ernest Zmeták (1909-2002) artist, art lover and connoisseur, was the only relevant example of a collection which underwent the common western trajectory from private to public. In 1979, Zmeták generously dedicated part of his collection, predominantly the works of old European art, to the gallery in Nové Zámky⁹. In the introductory catalogue published in 1986, he stated  that he wanted to promote the good art of others and thus to express his appreciation to his hometown ... where for the first time he encountered the term collector. While reminiscing about his early youth when Imrich Farkas, a local pharmacist and respected collector, unexpectedly supported him by purchasing his work at the beginning of his career, he also mentioned the fact that after World War II, when he returned to his bombarded hometown, not a trace was left of the Farkas collection. Perhaps this experience along with his knowledge the fate of the former large collection from our territory led him to such an unprecedented act – the donation of one’s own property, the efforts of one’s life to the socialist state.  Whatever his motive, Zmeták’s donation brought back to life the aforementioned phenomenon and with his philanthropic act he marked the importance of patronage and collecting in this territory.   

His donation represented only a fragment of his extensive collection which, in addition to old European art of the 16th to 20th century, contained Hungarian interwar Modernism, arts and crafts and old European graphic work. Although the existence of this collection was known even before its donation, no comprehensive catalogue or expert evaluation of this collection has been published. The only relevant contribution is Július Barczi’s study entitled, Pod značkou E. Z. zberateľ-znalec-mecén, which in 2011 was included in the catalogue on the occasion of the Slovak National Gallery’s monographic exhibition. It represented the first acknowledgement of Zmeták equally as a painter and collector; in fact, a separate floor was dedicated to his collecting activities. After 1989, Zmeták inspired and boosted the “careers” of several significant Slovak collectors.  In the eyes of many beginning collectors as well as gallery and market experts he was one of the few connoisseurs in our space, and he became an unquestioned authority in examining the authenticity of works.   

9 The transfer of the collection of sculptor Vojtech Löffler (1906-1990) to the public Museum of Vojtech Löffler in Košice is the only parallel. This permanent exposition features the works of the artist and part of his collection of self-portraits.