channel to appear. Nor was it stressed enough that in the wake of constructivism Kassák was in favour of, the long-term destructive-creative liberation of artistic energies went on in the West, thanks mainly to surrealism whose inventive zeal, together with that of dadaism, broke to the surface again in the sixties, but these movements were alien to him both personally and ideologically.
Obviously, the latent or patent denunciation of hypocritical phenomena by surrealism was intolerable or inadmissible for totalitarian regimes. Although there were attempts in the post-1945 years to domesticate surrealism in Hungary both in the field of art history and via the groups of the "European School" and the "Gallery to the 4 Corners of the World", they were veiled over for a long time to come by the art policies of the '50s and '60s. In addition to that, any ("pro-" or "anti"-art) experiment in the West over the sixties that drew on the liberating force and outlook of dadaism or surrealism initially or temporarily encountered stout resistance for a long time here, whether it was called art brut, nouveau realism or neodada. The Hungarian reports, all striking a false key for a start, were written to abuse or brand them. It is part of the whole story that with the passing of the time, western art historiography adopted a more sceptical and lower-key stance in assessing the endeavours sprouting from dadaism/surrealism; the French Skira book concerned with the

Ottó Mezei: László Szlávics, the artist-artisan