19
The Border as a Space of Exchange in the 18th Century
Commissioners’ Networks and Joseph Hueber’s Architectural 
Workshop in Croatia and Slovenia
Dubravka Botica
Prof. Dubravka Botica, PhD, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Humanities and Social Studies, Department 
of Art History, Ivana Lučića 3, 10 000 Zagreb, dbotica@m.ffzg.hr, ORCID ID: 0000-0001-7698-0904
Izvleček
Meja kot prostor izmenjave v 18. stoletju
Naročniške mreže in stavbarska delavnica Jožefa Hueberja na Hrvaškem in v Sloveniji
1.01 Pregledni znanstveni članek
V srednji Evropi meje niso trdne ovire, ampak so precej fluidne. Gre za tesno povezan kulturni prostor intenzivne 
izmenjave, v katerem umetniško ustvarjanje oblikujejo gosto prepleteni medsebojni stiki in vplivi med posameznimi 
državami in regijami. To je še posebej vidno v dejavnostih velikih arhitekturnih, slikarskih in kiparskih delavnic v 
18. stoletju, ki so imele široko mrežo sodelavcev po celotnem območju. Ključno vlogo pri hitrem in daljnosežnem 
prenosu umetniških rešitev so imeli tako cerkveni kot posvetni naročniki umetniških del, ki so bili močno povezani z 
gosto mrežo stikov, ki se je pletla tudi preko (danes nacionalnih) meja. V članku so na primeru arhitekturne delavnice 
Jožefa Hueberja iz Gradca (1715–1787), ki je delovala na območju dežele Štajerske v današnji Avstriji in Sloveniji ter 
v severozahodni Hrvaški, raziskane metode mreženja in obseg dela delavnice, kar je omogočilo rekonstrukcijo stikov 
med naročniki iz vrst štajerskega, madžarskega in hrvaškega plemstva.
Ključne besede: srednja Evropa, Štajerska, Slovenija, Hrvaška, baročna arhitektura, meje, stavbarske delavnice, Jožef 
Hueber, umetnostni naročniki, plemstvo
Abstract
The Border as a Space of Exchange in the 18th Century
Commissioners’ Networks and Joseph Hueber’s Architectural Workshop in Croatia and Slovenia
1.01 Review scientific article
In Central Europe, borders are not solid barriers but are rather fluid. Central Europe is a deeply connected cultural 
space of intensive exchange (M. Csáky) in which artistic production is shaped by densely intertwined mutual contacts 
and influences between individual countries and regions. This is particularly visible in the activities of large architec-
tural, painting and sculptural workshops in the 18th century, which had a wide network of collaborators throughout 
the area. A key role in the rapid and far-reaching transfer of artistic solutions was played by the commissioners of 
artworks, both ecclesiastical and secular, strongly connected by a dense network of contacts that did not stop at (today’s 
national) borders. This paper studies the example of the activities of the architectural workshop of Joseph Hueber from 
Graz (1715–1787) in historical Styria, present-day Austria, and Lower Styria (present-day Slovenia) and northwestern 
Croatia to explore the method and scope of the workshop’s work, as well as the reconstruction of contacts between 
commissioners from the ranks of the Styrian, Hungarian and Croatian nobility.
Keywords: Central Europe, Styria, Slovenia, Croatia, Baroque architecture, borders, building workshops, Joseph 
Hueber, art patronage, the nobility
ACTA HISTORIAE ARTIS SLOVENICA 30|1 · 2025, 19–37DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/ahas.30.1.02
20
DubRAVkA bOTICA
In researching the art of the Central European region, one cannot avoid touching upon the topic of 
borders, not in the least because of the very fact that they have changed throughout history and the 
current political map of this part of Europe differs significantly from the period that is the subject 
of this paper, the 18th century. Today’s Croatia and Slovenia were part of the Habsburg Monarchy in 
the 18th century, of the Austrian Monarchy from 1806 until 1867, and from then on, of the Austro-
Hungarian Monarchy until its dissolution in 1918. The Monarchy was divided into the Habsburg 
hereditary lands, one of the largest of which was historical Styria, the southern part of which belonged 
after 1918 to Slovenia and the northern part to Austria and the Hungarian Kingdom, which included 
Banska Hrvatska (Central and Northwestern Croatia). A significant part of the border between 
Slovenia and Croatia was and remains the river Sutla (Croatian) or Sotla (Slovene), which did not 
change during the centuries of turbulence and the redrawing of borders in Europe. The artistic 
and cultural development of Central European countries did not stop at the borders within the 
Monarchy. On the contrary, an artistic and cultural circle was formed that crossed borders and, as 
the historian of Central Europe Moritz Csáky has noted, it was a closely interconnected cultural space 
of intensive exchange.1 Artistic production was shaped by the densely intertwined mutual contacts 
and influences between individual countries and regions. In recent scholarship on this space, the 
focus has been on the intertwined relationships and influences as well as cross-border connections.
Strongly connected artistic production in the southeastern part of Central Europe also took place 
in the late Middle Ages. It was then that this kind of artistic development reached its peak, which 
was then disrupted and stopped by the Reformation, religious wars and Ottoman incursions. These 
connections were never completely severed, though their intensity decreased due to reduced artistic 
production. They were re-established in the 18th century, when there was a remarkable increase in all 
fields of artistic activity, a period of Bauboom and Aufbruchstimmung, as described by the Austrian 
historian Harald Heppner, after the great territorial expansion of the Monarchy and the movement 
of its external border further east into former Ottoman territory.2 In the cross-border rich artistic 
production of the 18th century, an important role was played by the commissioners, who often con-
tributed to the development and diffusion of stylistic and design solutions throughout the region. 
Foremost among the commissioners were the church orders, whose provinces did not coincide with 
state borders. The orders often engaged their “own” artists for commissions, which were realized 
in different places, thus creating a network of influence and diffusion of design solutions.3 Secular 
commissioners also played a major role, especially the high nobility, who had estates in all parts of 
the Monarchy and were strongly interconnected through family and professional ties and contacts. 
Noble families often engaged the same artists to carry out commissions in various parts of Central 
Europe. This was the case, for example, with the architect Johann Bernhard Fischer von Erlach, 
who was responsible for the construction (1687–1695) of the castle in Vranov nad Dyjí (German: 
Frain) in the present-day Czech Republic for the Counts of Althann (1687–1695). His son Joseph 
Emmanuel Fischer von Erlach also executed a project for the family’s Vienna palace (1732). The 
best-known example of this practice is the works of the architect Johann Lukas von Hildebrandt 
1 Csáky, Das Gedächtnis, 19.
2 Heppner, “‘Bauboom’ und ‘Aufbruchsstimmung’,” 7–8.
3 An example of this practice is the work of the Franciscan sculpture workshop in the 18th century, with artists 
Dionizije Hoffer and Ivo Schweiger, whose works are in Croatia and Carniola (Slovenia). See Baričević, “Barokno 
kiparstvo,” 226–27.
21
THE BORDER AS A SPACE OF EXCHANGE IN THE 18TH CENTURY
for Prince Eugene of Savoy. Hildebrandt designed several palaces and manors for the prince, not 
only in Vienna, where he was architect of the Belvedere palace (Lower Belvedere 1714–1716, Upper 
Belvedere 1721–1723) and Winterpalais in Himmelpfortgasse 8 (1695–1698), but also Schloss Hof 
(1729) in Lower Austria and Savoy Castle in Ráckeve, Hungary (1701–1722). The widespread practice 
of engaging architects and builders for commissions in what were once very distant places signifi-
cantly shaped architectural development and contributed to the creation of a densely intertwined 
network of influences, representing one of the most important models for the spreading of stylistic 
elements of the Central European Baroque. Another example of this phenomenon in southeastern 
Central Europe is the work of the architectural workshop of Joseph Hueber from Graz. 
Before analysing the activities of Hueber’s workshop, it is necessary to look briefly at the history 
of research on this topic. Recent scholarship on Central European cultural history has emphasized 
the similarities that connect this heterogeneous, pluricultural area instead of emphasizing the differ-
ences. As was established by the writer Hugo von Hofmannsthal at the beginning of the 20th century, 
borders between countries are not obstacles, but are fluid, fließende Grenzen, where national identities 
do not play a key role.4 However, art historical research in this area has tended to go in the opposite 
direction. From the very beginnings of the discipline of art history in the 19th century, the focus of 
research has been on establishing a corpus of national works of art, as was the case in the begin-
nings of Croatian art history.5 The establishment of a corpus of national art was also one of the key 
factors in the nation-building processes that took place during the 19th century in Central Europe. 
The establishment of differences and demarcations from other nations, particularly from neighbour-
ing and similar ones, was strongly present in all spheres of activity in this part of Europe,6 both in 
the political domain and in scholarly discourse, especially in the humanities. This process did not 
take place only at the time of the founding of new states after the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian 
Monarchy but was a defining factor throughout almost the entire 20th century. The Cold War division 
of Europe reinforced the importance of borders and demarcations, and the Iron Curtain between the 
two worlds was drawn precisely through Central Europe. Such social and political circumstances 
to a certain extent forced the development of humanities and social sciences into pre-determined 
national boundaries. In the historical sciences, the issue of nationhood remained both present and 
prominent; art history was focused on national artists and domaći majstori (local masters) formed 
a dominant narrative in Croatian art history throughout the second half of the 20th century.7 
Within this framework of art historical research, the artistic production of large workshops in 
painting, sculpture and architecture, such as those that operated in Central Europe, has remained 
only partially explored and their importance has largely been unrecognized. At the end of the 20th 
century, the social and political context changed and so did the direction of art-historical research. 
With the end of the Cold War divisions, a political context somewhat comparable to earlier periods 
4 Feichtinger and Uhl, “Stichwort Habsburg Zentraleuropa,” 15.
5 “Razumijevajući kulturu i znanost kao društvene sektore od nacionalnog značaja odnosno važna ideološka 
sredstva u oblikovanju nacionalne svijesti, Kukuljević je vlastitim organizacijskim i znanstvenim radom postavio 
institucionalne temelje historiografskih znanosti u cjelini, uključujući i sferu interesa koji se podudara s područ-
jem moderne discipline povijesti umjetnosti.” Cited after Mance, Zèrcalo naroda, 14.
6 Born, Janatková, and Labuda, Die Kunsthistoriographien, 12.
7 Domestic masters, or artists with Slavic surnames, were established as an important topic by Cvito Fisković in 
his book Naši graditelji i kipari XV. i XVI. stoljeća u Dubrovniku (1947), and its influence and emphasis on the 
importance of the work of domestic artists remained influential in the following decades.
22
DubRAVkA bOTICA
was reestablished. The fall of the Berlin Wall gave a new lease of life to Central Europe, which had 
been divided during the Cold War, and sparked a (new) wave of research interest in the region. This is 
reflected in numerous cross-border projects and initiatives, among which we can highlight a series of 
exhibitions held in 1993, which was declared the Year of the Central European Baroque by the Central 
European Initiative.8 The exhibition From Everyday Life to Holidays: Baroque in Croatia was held at 
the Zagreb Museum of Arts and Crafts, and a catalogue with the same title was also published.9 In 
the same year, the Kunsthistorisches Jahrbuch Graz was dedicated to the theme “Baroque – regional, 
international.”10 The newly awakened interest in the themes of the Central European Baroque and 
mutual connections and influences was focused primarily on the area of present-day Austria, the 
Czech Republic and Slovakia, as was the case, for example, with the edited volume in honour of the 
great researcher of Baroque architecture Hellmut Lorenz, Barock in Mitteleuropa.11 The southeastern 
part of Central Europe has only recently become a focus of interest in the context of mutual influ-
ences, intertwined connections and cross-border activities. For example, an international research 
and exhibition project on the activities of the various Straub family members and their workshop of 
sculptors in a large area from Bavaria to Croatia has recently been completed.12 There has also been 
a new interest in artistic centres and their role as Umschlagplätze, places of contact and exchange. 
Not only capitals and major cities, but also regional centres such as Graz are increasingly being 
explored. Several works have been published on the role of Graz as an artistic centre for the entire 
southeastern Central Europe. Among them, the edited volume Wie südosteuropäisch ist Graz13 and 
the paper by Gottfried Biedermann on artists’ mobility in this area stand out.14
Building workshops in the southeastern part of Central Europe: Joseph Hueber’s workshop in Graz
As previously noted, neither the present nor the historical borders in this area were an impassible 
barrier but in fact represented a space of permanent mutual exchange on both sides.15 This is espe-
cially true for the activities of large art workshops that were engaged primarily in architectural and 
sculptural work. The organization of work and the division of tasks in the workshops enabled them 
to be active over a large area. They had a large number of collaborators who were extremely mobile 
and, depending on the commissions, worked throughout the entire area of southeastern Central 
Europe. An example of this particular practice will be discussed below in the case of the architec-
tural workshop of Joseph Hueber from Graz. Therefore, the approach to researching the art of this 
8 At the instigation of the Central European Initiative, eleven exhibitions on Baroque art were organized during 
1993 and held in Austria, the Czech Republic, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. See Šulc, “Nagrada 
grada Zagreba,” 112.
9 Maleković, Od svagdana do blagdana.
10 Pochat and Wagner, Barock – regional, international.
11 See the introduction in Weigl and Engel, Barock in Mitteleuropa, 13: “Mit dem Ende des Kalten Krieges sind 
jedenfalls die entscheidenden Voraussetzungen geschaffen, daß der im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert so wichtige 
Kunst- und Kulturtransfer nun in einem überregionalen Forschungstransfer seinen Niederschlag finden kann.” 
12 See TrArS – Tracing the Art.
13 Tischler-Hofer, Wie südosteuropäisch ist Graz.
14 Biedermann, “Mobilität von Künstlern,” 17–37.
15 Bhabha, Die Verortung der Kultur. 
23
THE BORDER AS A SPACE OF EXCHANGE IN THE 18TH CENTURY
area must necessarily go beyond the boundaries of national narratives and national art history and 
focus on the broader context. 
Large building workshops have been operating in Central Europe since the late Middle Ages, 
when builders from northern Italy began to arrive. This process intensified particularly during the 
construction of fortresses in the 16th century, when northern Italian builders were in great demand 
and worked in areas exposed to Ottoman attacks, including Banska Hrvatska.16 The military engineer 
Domenico dell’Allio (1515–1563) is the most widely known among them.17 His oeuvre ranged from 
the construction of the Landhaus in Graz (from 1555) to the Old Town of Varaždin (after 1544) and 
the fortress in Koprivnica, where he in fact died. During the second half of the 16th century—par-
ticularly between 1564 and 1619, when Graz served as the Residenzstadt of Inner Austria—the city 
emerged as the most important artistic centre in the region, becoming a meeting point for artists, 
especially architects, from diverse backgrounds.18 During the 18th-century building boom, there 
was a remarkable increase in construction activity due to the favourable conditions and shift of the 
border further east. As Graz maintained its role as an artistic centre, architectural production peaked 
between about 1735 and about 1760. This period is described in the literature as the spätbarocke Blüte 
or “late Baroque flourishing” in the case of Styrian architecture,19 but it can also be applied to other 
countries. The key role in this process was played by large building workshops, which, due to high 
demand and thanks to their many collaborators, were able to realize commissions throughout the 
region. They often used workshop templates and drawings, which, along with the great mobility of 
builders, contributed to the rapid spread of individual motifs throughout the region and the creation 
of the region’s recognizable characteristic late Baroque architectural style. This is especially evident 
in the similar architectural designs and variations on window frames and decorative motifs.
During the heyday of late Baroque architecture, the most important building workshop in Graz 
was led by Joseph Hueber (1715–1787). Born in Vienna and having learned the trade at his father’s 
workshop and after Wanderjahre in Bohemia and Saxony, he came to Graz in 1739. He took over 
the well-established workshop of Joseph Carlone and married his widow. He quickly established 
himself as the leading builder in Graz and far surpassed the competing workshop of Stengga. As 
early as in April 1740, he became the city builder, soon also the provincial builder and, after the 
death of the head of another large workshop, that of Johann Georg Stengg in 1753, he also became 
the Mauerermeister der k. k. Administration and Hofbaumeister (Magistrate Architect and Court 
Architect) in Graz.20 Hueber thus became the leading architect in Styria precisely at the time of the 
greatest boom in construction. In the record of his second marriage with Anna Maria Mennhardt 
on February 25, 1767, he is described as der wohl Edl und Kunstreiche Herr Joseph Hoffbaumeister 
(the most noble and skillfull Court Architect).21 His status is also confirmed by the inventory of the 
house on the banks of the Mura River in Graz where he lived. From the number and functions of 
the rooms in his house, we can deduce that it was a small city palace and not an average town house: 
16 Heppner, “Die Steiermark,” 219–21.
17 For more on architect, list and map of works, see “Domenico dell’Allio.” 
18 Biedermann, “Mobilität von Künstlern,” 18.
19 Brucher, “Die barocke Baukunst,” 122.
20 Kohlbach, Steirische Baumeister, 227–28.
21 Steiermärkisches Landesarchiv, Graz (StLA), Neue Galerie am Joanneum, 12/35, K. 12, H. 35, Joseph Hueber 
Notizen, Stadtpfarrmatrikel.
24
DubRAVkA bOTICA
Zeichnungszimmer, Nebenzimmer, Großes Tafelzimmer, Saal im zweiten Stock, Schlafzimmer, Neben-
zimmer, Küchen, Zimmer zur ebener Erde, Sohnes Zimmer, Muhrzimmer, Bad.22 Hueber’s success 
is also evidenced by the extraordinary details in his will of the large sums he lent at interest to the 
nobility. Among his debtors who signed Schuldbriefen, mit 4% Zinsen (a promissory note with 4% 
interest) are listed the names of members of most prominent aristocratic families such as Attems 
(including Ferdinand Count Attems), Herberstein, Inzaghi and others.23 
Hueber’s work and biographical data have been thoroughly researched. In addition to Rochus 
Kohlbach’s chapter in the seminal study Steirische Baumeister: Tausendundeins Werkmann (1961), 
his oeuvre has been explored in three doctoral dissertations: first by Hans Reuther (1946),24 a couple 
of years later by Walter Koschatzky (1951)25 and finally by Gunther Prisching (1994).26 These authors 
provide numerous biographical data, lists and analyses of his works, but the focus of the former 
two dissertations is on the Austrian part of Styria, while the third and last one comprises, to a great 
extent, works from lower Styria, today’s Slovenia. Slovenian art historians’ research on this topic 
history is primarily focused on Hueber’s activity for the Attems Family.27
Hueber’s oeuvre is exceptionally rich. He created important works in sacral architecture, the 
most important of which include the facade of the Mariahilf church in Graz (1744) and the church 
of St. Veit in St. Veit in Vogau (from 1748). His church in Weizberg (from 1755) is considered the 
peak of the late Baroque period in Styria. He is also the builder of, amongst many others, the 
monumental library of the monastery in Admont (1764). The builder was especially sought after in 
the highest circles of the Styrian nobility. Thanks to the title “Hofbaumeister”, doors and access to 
the most elite clients opened for him. He worked for the Prince of Eggenberg as well as the Counts 
Herberstein and Attems. By rebuilding Eggenberg Palace (Schloss Eggenberg, 1754),28 he became 
associated with the two most important noble families of Styria: Eggenberg and Herberstein. In Graz, 
he designed the city palaces of Eggenberg-Herberstein (1754), Dietrichstein (1760s), Inzaghi (1770s), 
numerous city houses, the Knights’ Hall in the Landhaus, the Theatre of the Styrian Estates (1774) 
and the library in the Jesuit complex (1778–1781).29 In southern Styria, he worked on castles and 
manors in Slovenska Bistrica, Štatenberg,30 Gornja Radgona, Hrastovec (from 1738, commissioned 
by the Herberstein family), Turnišče (1763), Novo Celje (1762)31 and Gornja Radgona. One of the 
most significant commissions was the rebuilding of the manor in Dornava near Ptuj (1753–1755) 
22 StLA, Neue Galerie am Joanneum, 12/35, K. 12, H. 35, Joseph Hueber Notizen.
23 Kohlbach, Steirische Baumeister, 234.
24 Reuther, “Des steirischen Baumeisters.”
25 Koschatzky, “Leben, Werk und Stil.”
26 Prisching, “Joseph Hueber.”
27 Cf. Weigl, “Dvorec Dornava;” Komić Marn, “Pozabljena gradbena faza.”
28 The reconstruction began after the marriage of Maria Eleonora Eggenberg and Count Johann Leopold Herber-
stein. Hueber designed the monumental entrance and the chapel, as well as the garden pavilion. Koschatzky, 
“Leben, Werk und Stil,” 121–28.
29 Hueber built buildings and barracks for the military, as well as a library, a mill and farm buildings for the 
Admont monastery. For a complete list of his works see Kohlbach, Steierische Baumeister, 231–32; Prisching, 
“Joseph Hueber.”
30 Tischler-Hofer, “Steierischer Bauherr,” 61–88.
31 Hueber was entrusted with the design of the new portal at Novo Celje Manor for the Counts of Gaisruck. For the 
history of works at Novo Celje and other artists employed, see Weigl, “Zidava in opremljanje,” 75–79; Vidmar, 
Novo Celje, 207, 209–10, 249–50.
25
THE BORDER AS A SPACE OF EXCHANGE IN THE 18TH CENTURY
1. Dornava, Attems Manor (© ZRC SAZU, UIFS; photo: Andrej Furlan)
2. Dornava, Attems Manor, garden façade (photo: Dubravka Botica)
26
DubRAVkA bOTICA
for the Attems family (figs. 1–2).32 Hueber is also documented to have worked in Croatia, where he 
rebuilt the castle in Ludbreg (1746–1749) for the Counts Batthyány.33 In Varaždin, the influence of 
Hueber’s workshop and the similarity of the city’s architecture to his works have been recognized 
in the church of St. Nicholas34 and the Petković Palace.35 His influence is also visible in the mid-18th-
century Zagreb churches in Dolac and Ksaver.36 Recently, I have suggested that the most important 
Baroque palace in Zagreb, the palace of Count Vojković and today the Croatian Historical Museum, 
was also an product of his workshop.37 
Commissioners’ networks
Hueber was a favourite architect of the nobility of southeastern Central Europe and his workshop’s 
activity extended over the exceptionally large territory of historical Styrian and Banal Croatia. He 
was in demand because he skilfully adapted new solutions and current trends to the needs of his 
clients and because he knew how to adapt older residences to the new needs and lifestyle of the 
“gallant century” by designing new monumental staircases and portals. He decorated facades with 
a network of pilasters and cornices or beams and created focal points primarily with prominent 
portals and richly decorated window frames. In this way, he gave not only new but also, and especially, 
older buildings a contemporary look that matched the status and wishes of the commissioners.38 
The reasons for his engagement were certainly his good organizational skills and speed of project 
execution, which earned him wealth and reputation. A significant number of commissions, often 
over long distances, could be realized owing to the size of his workshop with its numerous collabo-
rators. Hueber’s workshop was, indeed, by far the largest in Graz. His competitors complained that 
in 1761 he received all the commissions and had more collaborators than the three other workshops 
combined.39 In his reply, which came a few days later, Hueber confidently stated that he was more 
qualified than the others, that the clients were free to choose the architects themselves, and he was 
paid according to the size of the project. He added, most importantly, that he had gained the trust 
of his clientele, that is to say the commissioners.40 His reputation and successfully executed projects 
for the highest circles opened doors for him as well as access to clients far beyond Graz. Some of 
Hueber’s many collaborators of were capable of independently executing projects. Following their 
32 For the list of works in Slovenia, see Weigl, “Dvorec Dornava,” 41–58; Komić Marn, “Pozabljena gradbena faza,” 61.
33 A new wing was added, comprising a staircase, a chapel and ceremonial hall, and a new facade was constructed. 
Horvat-Levaj, “Utvrde i dvorci,” 92–93. 
34 Botica and Domšić, “Župna crkva,” 34–37.
35 Puhmajer, Barokne palače, 171.
36 Botica, “Župna crkva sv. Marije,” 61–62.
37 Botica, “Na ukras i diku grada.” The attribution is based on comparative analysis and contacts of the commis-
sioner. See below.
38 Botica, “Josef Hueber,” 96.
39 “Auch wir drei übrigen Meister werden zu keiner derselben geholt, Mitmeister Hueber hat sie alle an sich gebracht. 
Er hat mehr Gesellen als wir alle drei zusammen.” Cited after Prisching, “Joseph Hueber,” 357.
40 Joseph Hueber’s reply: “Hofkammer, K. K. Ministerial-Administration, Kriegsstellen, Landschaft und Magistrat 
wählen ihre Meister nach freier Willkur zur Fertigung der Risse und Gebäude. Auch ich werde ‘condigne’ und 
nach Proportion meiner Bemühungen besoldet. Hauptsache ist, daß man beim Publico Vertrauen findet. Ich 
habe mich eben vor anderen in meiner Profession qualifiziert.” Cited after Prisching, “Joseph Hueber,” 357–58.
27
THE BORDER AS A SPACE OF EXCHANGE IN THE 18TH CENTURY
collaboration with Hueber, these builders often adopted certain design elements in their subsequent 
works. This is particularly evident in buildings in Varaždin, Croatia, where the influence of Hueber’s 
motifs suggests either direct consultation or the transmission of his stylistic vocabulary through 
former collaborators.
Another reason for the dissemination of characteristic elements of Hueber’s architecture –such 
as façades with accentuated central projections, large centralized or domed bays and pillars with 
curved edges with richly articulated entablatures – may lie in his role as an adviser or as the author 
of initial design concepts. Hueber’s degree of involvement in individual projects, many of which 
were traditionally attributed to him as the sole author in earlier scholarship, appears to have varied. 
This is exemplified by two projects executed by other architects in which Hueber was nonetheless 
involved during the planning phase: the church in Gornji Grad (Oberburg), Lower Styria, and 
the Palais Thinnfeld in Deutschfeistritz. In the case of Gornji Grad, documents confirm Hueber’s 
involvement in the planning of a monumental new church commissioned by Count Prince-Bishop 
Ernest Amadeus Attems (Graz, 1694 – Vienna, 1757), brother of the owner of Dornava. After the 
renovation of the episcopal residence in 1752, construction of the new church commenced. In 1755, 
Attems referred to Hueber as the architect, although other documents cite Mathias Persky from 
Ljubljana as the builder of the church.41 Recent research on Tinnfeld Castle in Deutschfeistritz has 
shed new light on its construction, which began in 1761 (or possibly 1762). Hueber was involved in 
the planning process, preparing cost estimates, a site plan between 1758 and 1760 and the initial 
floor plan. However, the patron was dissatisfied with the proposal, favouring his own ideas and taste, 
shaped by his own frequent travels and influenced in particular by the architecture of North Italian 
villas, which served as key models.42 
Various practices and processes of architectural design in Hueber’s oeuvre can be observed, 
ranging from consultation to full project leadership. This phenomenon helps explain the widespread 
presence of characteristic Hueber motifs across architectural works throughout the region. The 
engagement of foreign architects and their relationship to local builders’ guilds was also an impor-
tant factor in the process of architectural design and execution. This insufficiently researched topic 
was opened by Helena Seražin in her research on the Gorizia and Gradisca region.43 While patrons 
often consulted individual architects during the design process, the actual execution was frequently 
carried out by local craftsmen and builders. 
It is an interesting question how Hueber and his clients would come into contact over such 
great distances and in such different environments. The answers lie in the archives of noble families. 
Hueber himself points out that he gained Vertrauen, the trust of the client, through his work and 
expanded his circle of clients through recommendations. However, the state of research into family 
aristocratic archives varies greatly in the countries of Central Europe and is an obstacle to establishing 
41 Documents mention architect Mathias Persky as early as 1749; the episcopal residence was completed in 1751 
and the church was constructed between 1752 and 1759. Cf. Lavrič, “Načrt graškega arhitekta,” 151–66; Sapač, 
“Baročni arhitekti,” 256–57. In 1755, Bishop Attems referred to Joseph Hueber in the context of the church’s 
construction. Although Attems was Bishop of Ljubljana, Gornji Grad is located in Styria, where members of the 
Attems family had previously engaged Hueber, which is the likely reason for his consultation in the planning of 
the new church. Both architects, Persky and Hueber, are featured as architects involved in the church in Gornji 
grad in the recent exhibition Baroque in Slovenia: Architecture and Applied Arts, held at the National Museum 
of Slovenia, 12 June–9 November 2025.
42 Breser, “Das Hammerherrenhaus,” 59–63.
43 Seražin, “Goriške in Gradiščanske,” 399–400. 
28
DubRAVkA bOTICA
Hueber’s connections, as well as those of other large workshops in this period. The state of research 
into aristocratic archives in Croatia, especially in the continental part, is only in its beginnings. Until 
a few decades ago, the role of the client, especially the nobility, was a completely neglected topic in 
the art history of the early modern period in Croatia, as it was in other countries of Central and 
Eastern Europe. With the changes in social and political circumstances at the end of the 20th century, 
this topic has started to come to the fore, but family archives are still largely unexplored.44 In the 
Austrian archives, material on the great noble families is well organised and researched. However, 
the emphasis is exclusively on the material relating to present-day Austrian territory or, often, only a 
specific region (e.g. Styria). Thus, Hueber’s patrons from the ranks of the Styrian nobility have been 
studied in detail and his oeuvre in the Styrian region has been established. However, the research 
has not included a very important piece of information: his work for the Batthyány family, which 
has remained completely unknown in the Austrian literature, although information about it was 
published by Mária G. Aggházy in 1967 in German.45 Based on archival letters from the Batthyány 
family in Burgenland, who were in close contact with the Herbersteins, Hueber’s activities for this 
noble family can also be established, as payments to Hueber in 1744 for a new staircase and vaults 
to Zsigmond (Sigismund) Batthyány are mentioned.46 
44 On the problems and limitations of researching Baroque art during the communist era in Central and Eastern 
Europe, see the research project at Humboldt Universität Berlin, Asymmetrische Kunstgeschichte? Erforschung 
und Vermittlung prekärer Denkmälerbestände im Kalten Krieg (2013-2015), and the 2015 conference proceedings 
with the same title. Cf. Asymmetrische Kunstgeschichte?; Pluhařova-Grigienė, “Vorwort.” For research on Baroque 
in Croatia in the 20th century, see Botica, “Povijest istraživanja,” 117–22.
45 Aggházy, “Steirische Beziehungen,” 330–31.
46 Mirković, “Graditeljstvo, slikarstvo i kiparstvo,” 155–58.
3. Ludbreg, Batthyány Manor, portal (© Institute of Art History, Zagreb; IPU-F-30183_PM)
29
THE BORDER AS A SPACE OF EXCHANGE IN THE 18TH CENTURY
4. Vienna, Batthyány-Strattmann Palace, portal (© ZRC SAZU, UIFS; photo: Andrej Furlan)
30
DubRAVkA bOTICA
Marija Mirković recognized Hueber’s involvement in Ludbreg in this material, and she con-
firmed Hueber’s hand in the rebuilding of castle in Ludbreg on the basis of a stylistic and compara-
tive analysis and published her study in 1984. The commissioner of the conversion of the fortress 
into a castle was Countess Eleonora Batthyány-Strattmann together with her sons and heirs. When 
this project and other family properties are analysed comparatively, an interesting similarity can 
be discerned between the new portal in Ludbreg (fig. 3) and the portal of the Batthyány-Strattmann 
Palace in Bankgasse (Herrengasse) in Vienna (fig. 4). The Batthyány-Strattmann Palace is the work of 
Johann Bernhard Fischer von Erlach and was owned by Countess Eleonora Batthyány-Strattmann. 
The similarities in the composition, the shape of the pilasters and the balcony railing above the 
portal reflect the wishes of the commissioner and the visible emphasis of the connections between 
5. Johann Eyther: Vojković Palace in Zagreb, plan, 1801 (source: Dobronić, “Palača,” 24)
31
THE BORDER AS A SPACE OF EXCHANGE IN THE 18TH CENTURY
the family properties as a recognizable sign of ownership.47 Such practices contributed to the rapid 
spread of design choices and decorative templates and created intertwined connections and influ-
ences in artistic production in Central Europe. The fact that Hueber worked for Batthyány changes 
Hueber’s established image as the most important provincial architect. The area of his work and 
his clients were not only from Styria, but also from the Kingdom of Hungary, that is, Croatia. The 
imitation of a Viennese model also shows a good knowledge of contemporary architecture. 
The above-outlined dense network of contacts among the nobility may also provide an answer to 
the question of whether Hueber, or rather his workshop, could have been engaged in the building of 
the Vojković Palace in Zagreb in 1764. (figs. 5–7) The commissioner of the most important Baroque 
palace in Zagreb, Count Sigismund Vojković, rose to great heights on the social ladder of his time. 
Through marriages and family ties, he was connected to the most important families in the country, 
such as the Rauch, Drašković, and Oršić families. He also established important contacts during 
his successful military career, during which he served as the commander of the guard in Petrinja 
in 1756 and lieutenant colonel of a cavalry regiment, and, in 1762, as a colonel. He distinguished 
himself in the Seven Years’ War, and in May 1763, Empress Maria Theresa granted him the title of 
count, changing his name to Illustrissimus dominus comes Sigismundus a Vojkffy. After acquiring 
the title, he became a citizen of Zagreb and held important positions in civil administration bodies. 
47 Botica, “Josef Hueber,” 99–100.
6. Johann Eyther: Vojković Palace in Zagreb, facade, 1801 (source: Dobronić, “Palača,” 27)
32
DubRAVkA bOTICA
7. Zagreb, Vojković Palace (© Croatian History Museum; photo: Petar Puhmajer)
33
THE BORDER AS A SPACE OF EXCHANGE IN THE 18TH CENTURY
He proclaimed his new position and his status in society by building a palace in the city in 1764.48 In 
order to better understand the context in which this palace was commissioned and constructed, it is 
important to note that in 1750 Vojković served as a captain in the Ban’s cavalry with Count Adam 
Venceslav Batthyány-Strattmann (1722–1787), who later served as the Ban’s governor (1753–1756). 
As mentioned, the Batthyány-Strattmann family had engaged Hueber to remodel the castle in 
Ludbreg a decade earlier. We can assume that the newly minted Count Vojkffy turned to a well-
known person with experience in building or remodelling castles and received a recommendation 
for an architect who knew and could design desirable contemporary residential architecture in a 
manner appropriate to the client’s wishes and status. The engagement of a builder of such a rank 
also confirms the client’s status. For Count Vojkffy, it was important to stand out in the city, the 
new centre of the aristocracy, as is clearly evidenced by the oversized sabre motif on his coat of arms 
on the gable of the central part of the palace. In a comparative analysis of the Vojkffy Palace and 
Hueber’s works –particularly Dornava Manor – striking affinities become apparent. Most notable 
are the shared principles of spatial organization: a central vestibule articulated by symmetrically 
placed staircases, with corresponding balustrades and niches along the ascent. The treatment of the 
fenestration likewise reveals parallels, as the window frames of the lateral wings of Dornava Manor 
correspond to those on the façade of the Zagreb palace (figs. 7–8). The design of the portal further 
underscores this kinship. Even within the decorative vocabulary, the connection is unmistakable: 
the monumental vases flanking the entrance to Dornava Manor find their counterpart in those 
48 For biography of Count Vojković (Vojkffy) see Dobronić, “Palača Hrvatskog povijesnog muzeja,” 4–10; Janković, 
“Plemićka obitelj,” 89–134.
8. Dornava, Attems Manor, side wing, window (photo: Dubravka Botica)
34
DubRAVkA bOTICA
crowning the façade of the Zagreb palace. An interesting novelty in the Zagreb palace is the refer-
ence to an element of contemporary Viennese architecture, which we also encounter in the portal 
in Ludbreg. On the first floor of the central part of the Zagreb palace, we find Hildebrand’s Herm 
pilasters with recessed lambrequins taken from the side gate of Lower Belvedere Manor and the 
facade of the Daun Kinsky Palace. 
In the wider area of southeastern Central Europe, only a builder from the Hueber circle could 
have realized this commission, combining new modern spatial solutions, including a monumental 
staircase and emphasized plastic elements, as well as the references to contemporary Styrian and 
Viennese architecture. The Vojković Palace once again confirms that borders between countries 
were not an obstacle to the spreading of artistic innovations in the 18th century. As I have outlined 
above, the relations between builders and the nobility were interconnected by a densely woven 
network of private and official relationships, which significantly contributed to this diffusion of 
artistic styles. These connections were one of the most important models of cultural and artistic 
transfer, a means of diffusion of new ideas and artistic innovations in the Central European space. 
In researching them, it is necessary to cross today’s borders, as demonstrated by the analysis of the 
work of Joseph Hueber’s architectural workshop.
This work was supported by the Croatian Science Foundation under the project Patterns of Patronage: Com-
missioners, Artists and Public in Zagreb in 17th and long 18th century (IP-2022-10-3190). It is based on a paper 
presented at the conference Umetnost in meje (Posavski muzej Brežice, 8–10 October 2024). The data underly-
ing this article are available in the article and in its online supplementary material.
Bibliography
Aggházy, Mária G. “Steirische Beziehungen der ungarländischen Barockkunst.” Acta Historiae 
Artium Hungarium 13, no. 4 (1967): 313–52.
Asymmetrische Kunstgeschichte? Erforschung und Vermittlung prekärer Denkmälerbestände im 
Kalten Krieg. Accessed January 20, 2025, https://fis.hu-berlin.de/converis/portal/detail/Project
/401474931?auxfun=&lang=en_GB.
Baričević, Doris. “Barokno kiparstvo.” In Mir i dobro: Umjetničko i kulturno naslijeđe Hrvatske 
franjevačke provincije sv. Ćirila i Metoda, edited by Marija Mirković and Franjo Emanuel 
Hoško, 219–38. Zagreb: Klovićevi dvori, 2000. 
Bhabha, Homi K. Die Verortung der Kultur. Stuttgart: Stauffenburg Verlag, 2000.
Biedermann, Gottfried. “Mobilität von Künstlern am Beispiel von Graz.” Historisches Jahrbuch der 
Stadt Graz 51 (2021): 17–37.
Born, Robert, Alena Janatková and Adam S. Labuda, eds. “Vorwort des Herausgebers.” In Die 
Kunsthistoriographien in Ostmitteleuropa und der nationale Diskurs: Humboldt-Schriften zur 
Kunst- und Bildgeschichte. Vol. 1. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 2004. 
Botica, Dubravka, and Lana Domšić. “Župna crkva sv. Nikole u Varaždinu: Prilog sakralnoj 
arhitekturi kasnobaroknog razdoblja u sjeverozapadnoj Hrvatskoj.” Peristil 51 (2008): 29–40.
Botica, Dubravka. “Povijest istraživanja umjetnosti baroka u 20. stoljeću.” In Zbornik 4. kongresa 
hrvatskih povjesničara umjetnosti, Institucije povijesti umjetnosti, edited by Ivana Mance, 
Martina Petrinović and Tanja Trška, 117–22. Zagreb: Društvo povjesničara umjetnosti 
Hrvatske; Institut za povijest umjetnosti, 2019.
35
THE BORDER AS A SPACE OF EXCHANGE IN THE 18TH CENTURY
Botica, Dubravka. “Župna crkva sv. Marije na Dolcu i župna crkva sv. Franje Ksaverskog: Novi 
prijedlozi za istraživanje korpusa sakralne arhitekture 18. stoljeća u Zagrebu i okolici.” Radovi 
Instituta za povijest umjetnosti 44, no. 2 (2020): 53–66. 
Botica, Dubravka. “Josef Hueber (*1715, Wien - †1787, Graz): Ein Architekt zwischen Graz und 
Warasdin.” In Wie südosteuropäisch ist Graz? 50 Jahre Südosteuropäische Geschichte und 150 
Jahre Slawistik an der Universität Graz, edited by Ulrike Tischler-Hofer, 89–102. Graz: Leykam 
Verlag, 2021.
Botica, Dubravka. “‘Na ukras i diku grada’: Palača Vojković-Oršić-Rauch u lokalnom i 
regionalnom kontekstu.” In Palača Vojković-Oršić-Rauch u Zagrebu, edited by Petar Puhmajer. 
Zagreb: Hrvatski restauratorski zavod, 2025 (forthcoming).
Breser, Christoph. “Das Hammerherrenhaus in Deutschfeistritz – Schloss Thinnfeld: Zwischen 
Plan und Wirklichkeit.” In Schloss Thinnfeld: Ein Gesamtkunstwerk des 18. Jahrhunderts, 
edited by Eva Klein et al., 41–71. Graz: Grazer Universitätsverlag; Leykam; Karl-Franzens-
Universität Graz, 2015.
Brucher, Günter. Barockarchitektur in Österreich. Köln: DuMont Verlag, 1983.
Brucher, Günter. “Die barocke Baukunst in der Steiermark.” In Lust und Leid: Barocke Kunst 
– Barocker Alltag, edited by Ileane Schwarzkogler, 117–125. Graz-Trautenfels: Verlag für 
Sammler, 1992.
Csáky, Moritz. Das Gedächtnis der Städte: Kulturelle Verflechtungen - Wien und die urbanen Milieus 
in Zentraleuropa. Wien: Böhlau Verlag, 2010.
Dobronić, Lelja. Palača Hrvatskog povijesnog muzeja 1764–2004. Zagreb: Hrvatski povijesni muzej, 
2004.
“Domenico dell’Allio.” Artisti ticinesi in Europa dal XIII al XIX secolo. Accessed July 14, 2025, 
https://artistiticinesi-ineuropa.ch/deu/dell-allio-d-deu.html.
Feichtinger, Johannes, and Heidemarie Uhl. “Stichwort Habsburg Zentraleuropa: 
Ein kulturwissenschaftliches Untersuchungsfeld.” In Habsburg neu denken: 
30 kulturwissenschaftliche Stichworte, edited by Johannes Feichtinger and Heidemarie Uhl, 
9–18. Wien: Böhlau Verlag, 2016. 
Fisković, Cvito. Naši graditelji i kipari XV. i XVI. stoljeća u Dubrovniku. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 
1947.
Heppner, Harald. “Die Steiermark und die Militärgrenze in Kroatien.” In 800 Jahre Steiermark und 
Österreich 1192–1992: Der Beitrag der Steiermark zu Österreichs Größe, edited by Othmar 
Pickl and Robert F. Hausmann, 219–21. Graz: Historische Landeskomm. f. Steiermark, 1992.
Heppner, Harald. “‘Bauboom’ und ‘Aufbruchsstimmung’: Schlagworte oder Schlüsselbegriffe zum 
Verständnis des 18. Jahrhunderts.” Das achtzehnte Jahrhundert und Österreich: Jahrbuch der 
Österreichischen Gesellschaft zur Erforschung des 18. Jahrhunderts 11 (1996): 7–12. 
Horvat-Levaj, Katarina. “Utvrde i dvorci.” In Ludbreška Podravina: Umjetnička topografija 
Hrvatske, edited by Katarina Horvat-Levaj and Ivanka Reberski, 91–101. Zagreb: Institut za 
povijest umjetnosti, 1997.
Janković, Valentina. “Plemićka obitelj Vojković-Vojkffy i društveno-kulturni život Zagreba i 
okolice u 18. stoljeću.” PhD diss., University of Zagreb, 2013.
Kohlbach, Rochus. Steirische Baumeister: Tausendundeins Werkmann. Graz: Domverlag, 1961.
Komić Marn, Renata. “Pozabljena gradbena faza Attemsovega dvorca v Dornavi.” In Arhitekturna 
zgodovina. Vol. 2, edited by Renata Novak Klemenčič and Martina Malešič, 63–75. Ljubljana: 
Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete, 2014.
Koschatzky, Walter. “Leben, Werk und Stil des Barockbaumeisters Josef Hueber.” PhD diss., 
University of Graz, 1951.
36
DubRAVkA bOTICA
Lavrič, Ana. “Načrt graškega arhitekta Josepha Hueberja za škofovsko cerkev v Gornjem Gradu.” 
Acta historiae artis Slovenica 5 (2000): 151–66.
Maleković, Vladimir, ed. Od svagdana do blagdana – Barok u Hrvatskoj. Zagreb: Muzej za 
umjetnost i obrt, 1993.
Mance, Ivana. Zèrcalo naroda: Ivan Kukuljević Sakcinski; Povijest umjetnosti i politika. Zagreb: 
Institut za povijest umjetnosti, 2012.
Mirković, Marija. “Graditeljstvo, slikarstvo i kiparstvo Ludbrega i okolice.” In Ludbreg, edited by 
Vlado Mađarić, 155–58. Ludbreg: Skupština općine, 1984.
Pluhařova-Grigienė, Eva. “Vorwort zum Special Issue, Prekare Vergangenheit? Barockforschung 
im ostlichen Mitteleuropa unter den Bedingungen des Sozialismus.” RIHA Journal 0211-0217. 
Accessed February 17, 2025, https://doi.org/10.11588/riha.2019.1.70039.
Pochat, Götz, and Briggite Wagner. Barock – regional, international. Graz: Akademische Druck- u. 
Verlagsanst., 1993.
Prisching, Gunther. “Joseph Hueber, spätbarocker Hofbaumeister in Graz.” PhD diss., University of 
Graz, 1994. 
Puhmajer, Petar. Barokne palače u Varaždinu. Zagreb: Art Tresor; Institut za povijest umjetnosti, 
2022.
Reuther, Hans. “Des steirischen Baumeisters Joseph Huebers Weizbergkirche und die verwandten 
theatralisch-dekorativen Raumwirkungen im Sakralbau des süddeutschen Spätbarocks.” PhD 
diss., University of Erlangen, 1946.
Sapač, Igor. “Biografije arhitektov 18. stoletja na Slovenskem.” In Arhitektura 18. stoletja na 
Slovenskem: Obdobje zrelega baroka, edited by Igor Sapač, 231–70. Ljubljana: Arhitekturni 
muzej Ljubljana, 2007.
Seražin, Helena. “Goriške in Gradiščanske stavbarske delavnice v 18. stoletju.” In Vita artis 
perennis: Ob osemdesetletnici akademika Emilijana Cevca, edited by Alenka Klemenc et al., 
387–402. Ljubljana: ZRC SAZU, 2000.
Šulc, Branka. “Nagrada grada Zagreba Muzeju za umjetnost i obrt za izložbu ‘Od svagdana do 
blagdana - barok u Hrvatskoj’,” Informatica museologica 26, no. 1–4 (1995): 112.
Tischler-Hofer, Ulrike, ed. Wie südosteuropäisch ist Graz? 50 Jahre Südosteuropäische Geschichte 
und 150 Jahre Slawistik an der Universität Graz. Graz: Leykam Verlag, 2021.
Tischler Hofer, Ulrike. “Steierischer Bauherr und Mäzen im 18. Jahrhundert: Ignaz Maria I. 
von Attems (*1652, Laibach - †1732, Graz).” In Wie südosteuropäisch ist Graz? 50 Jahre 
Südosteuropäische Geschichte und 150 Jahre Slawistik an der Universität Graz, edited by Ulrike 
Tischler-Hofer, 61–88. Graz: Leykam Verlag, 2021. 
TrArS – Tracing the Art of the Straub Family. Accessed January 20, 2025, https://www.trars.eu/.
Vidmar, Polona. Novo Celje: Lastniki, arhitektura in oprema najlepšega dvorca v Savinjski dolini, 
edited by Renata Komić Marn. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, 2024.
Weigl, Igor. “Dvorec Dornava in druge arhitekture Jožefa Hueberja na slovenskem Štajerskem.” 
Dornava – Vrišerjev zbornik, edited by Marjeta Ciglenečki, 41–58. Ljubljana: Slovensko 
umetnostnozgodovinsko društvo, 2003.
Weigl, Igor. “Zidava in opremljanje dvorca Novo Celje sredi 18. stoletja.” Varstvo spomenikov 40 
(2003): 73–102.
Weigl, Huberta-Alexandra, and Martin Engel, eds. Barock in Mitteleuropa: Werke, Phänomene, 
Analysen. Wien-Köln-Weimar: Böhlau 2007.
37
THE BORDER AS A SPACE OF EXCHANGE IN THE 18TH CENTURY
Meja kot prostor izmenjave v 18. stoletju
Naročniške mreže in stavbarska delavnica Jožefa Hueberja na Hrvaškem in v Sloveniji
Povzetek
V srednjeevropskem prostoru in kulturnem krogu meje niso trdne ovire, temveč so fluidne, so fließende 
Grenzen, kot je na začetku 20. stoletja ugotovil pisatelj Hugo von Hofmannsthal. Meje predstavljajo 
močno povezan kulturni prostor intenzivne izmenjave (Moritz Csáky), v katerem umetnostno produk-
cijo oblikujejo gosto prepleteni medsebojni stiki in vplivi med posameznimi državami in regijami. To 
je še posebej vidno v intenzivni produkciji velikih arhitekturnih, slikarskih in kiparskih delavnic 18. 
stoletja na območju Štajerske in severozahodne Hrvaške v obdobju od tridesetih let 17. stoletja do okoli 
leta 1760, v času razcveta arhitekture. V članku je obravnavana dejavnost stavbarskih delavnic v regiji 
na primeru delavnice Jožefa Hueberja (1715–1787) iz Gradca. Razvejana mreža številnih sodelavcev 
je delavnici zagotovila prisotnost v celotnem jugovzhodnem delu srednje Evrope, na Štajerskem in v 
banski Hrvaški. To je še posebej vidno pri uporabi sorodnih tlorisnih tipov in okrasnih motivov ter 
okvirjev v arhitekturi tega prostora. Pri hitrem prenosu likovnih rešitev in velikem območju delovanja 
arhitekturnih delavnic so ključno vlogo odigrali naročniki, tako cerkveni kot plemiški, trdno povezani 
z gosto mrežo stikov, ki je (današnje) meje ne zamejujejo. V članku je analizirana mreža stikov med 
naročniki delavnice stavbnega mojstra Jožefa Hueberja, ki ga je štajersko, ogrsko in hrvaško plemstvo 
zelo cenilo kot graditelja reprezentativnih družinskih rezidenc. Primer vezi med družinama Batthyány 
in Herberstein na eni strani ter Batthyány-Strattmann in Vojković (Vojkffy) na drugi razkriva povezave 
med plemiškimi družinami, ki so naročale arhitekturna dela pri Hueberju in v njegovi delavnici ter 
tako prispevale k čezmejnemu širjenju območja njegovega delovanja.