In the following I would like to munch on in case of 1892, one of the reason for the foundation the Berlin Secession
was. This case has been described many times, in my opinion, but far too one-sided. Shaded
I have the whole thing with pictures of both Pages, not to swim only in the dry. Unfortunately, I can show because the 70-year lock limit any pictures of Munch, but want a deadline for his expressionist as anything, and are shown in museums seriously noteworthy as special. As a progress of the painting under the primacy of aesthetics
on how to say the hollow phrases.
Unknown artist
Following a recommendation of the painter Adelsteen Normann the Association of Berlin Artists invited his Norwegian countryman Edvard Munch
to Berlin, perhaps by another Scandinavian artists the chance to rise in Germany to give.
Adelsteen Normann - fishing port in northern Norway (1880) So, as Norman himself, Hans Dahl, Adolph Tidemand
and others was permitted.
A dolph Tidemand Mandel - The devotion of the Haugianer (1848) oil on canvas (143 x 181 cm)
Munch's paintings were almost all members of the association is unknown and they trusted fully on the advice of their colleagues. They wanted the Berlin offer something special, something new. However, what exactly they came to know, Normann none other than exactly the same.
Hans Dahl - In anticipation of his return hope
The show courted its transcription Ibsen shear moods with social and psychological depth of a brilliant Norwegian painter. This suggests a initime, realistic imagery in the way of emerging in the 90s naturalism or symbolism, coupled with Scandinavian influences. Leon Lhermitte , Jules Bastien-Lepage , Fernand Khnopf or Anders Zorn
come to mind. This sometimes painted with the broad brush of the Impressionists, but always masterful in the academic Tradition with fine details and skillful composition.
Anders Zorn - lapping of the waves (1887) Watercolour (254 x 167.64 cm)
reality
The tension was high. But when opened the show with 55 paintings, took a blow a train of indignation by the Berlin print media and the Association of Berlin friends. And so it came as no surprise that after the first of the planned two weeks, the exhibition was closed.
Paul Adolf lake house - lighthouse with rotating beam (1913) oil on canvas (49 x 45.5 cm)
Why?
Why was the rejection of large? Was this really unjustified? What is the role played by Anton Werner here? And the artistic freedom was in danger? These are questions that come to mind.
Judgement 1 Instance
The official history will find an answer. The great revolutionary novelty of the Norwegian painter was misunderstood and Anton von Werner was the bogeyman, the all-threading. This is the Wikipedia article on Munch, on the history page
of the Association of Berlin Artists and read in many other places in this sense.
Ernst Ludwig Kirchner - Tavern (1909) oil on canvas (71.8 x 81.3 cm)
Revised Judgement
the world would be nice if it were always that easy. But the coin has a downside and that I would like to explain in more detail.
content
The special feature of the newer paintings Munch's (been so represented by with his more recent works, The Kiss , melancholy, despair , Vision
) was his fixation on the melancholy, lonely , lost side of the people. His Pictures offered no hope, which was unusual for this time.
Fernand Khnopff - The recluse (I lock my door upon myself) (1891) oil on canvas (72 x 140 cm)
This textual component but played in the rejection Munch, as far as I understand that the quotes, no real role.
form
The reason for the rejection was much more in the nature of the technical implementation. And this was for its time simply laughable. This should paintings that were to last more than a simple, clumsily painted studies, as masterful works the public are advertised.
Marianne von Werefkin - Autumn (school) (1907) The moving van is packed, the fünfunfünfzig studies of the Norwegian's are charged ( Quote Frankfurter Zeitung) This was an insult to the great artists the past and present, that differed in their skills from the normal contemporaries. A Raphael, Caravaggio , Rubens, Rembrandt or Tiepolo
Great art is not considered because of their thematic content (mostly religious pictures, announcements or Allegories, the precise meaning of the modern viewer does not really affect or more known directly), but because of their technical brilliance and their abilities, which set them apart from their contemporaries.
This should now all of a sudden no longer be of interest?
Jules Bastien-Lepage - Joan Of Arc (1882) oil on canvas (254 x 279 cm)
No, this idea was absurd. Maybe not for the ears of modern art, let him grow up with the idea that all art and every artist is and the expressionism (my views here
) the highest represents the feelings.
This nonsense, however, was not widespread at that time and makes the reaction more understandable.
Clear conditions in the kitchen
Maybe it helps to clarify the facts again on neutral ground.
Nobody would be surprised by the following:
A respected restaurant invites guest chefs for two weeks to allow its customers a glimpse into the cooking pots of other countries. One of these chefs was a blank slate, but had been invited on the basis of a recommendation of a friend. His arrival was advertised with high words of praise in the newspaper.
They looked forward to the new flavor fireworks and the crowd was great. Everyone wanted to taste again.
saw, however, as the first guests filled their plates, was the surprise big.
This man cooked very differently than we did this. Everything was raw, not cooked anything, grilled or spiced. With the exception of a revolutionary. Sand was added as a special taste everything. This was down to earth, cheap, novel and feasible for each. No one has tasted it
and therefore there was a strong kick in the ass. This cook was an insult to every kitchen and he could no longer be tolerated. If cook so quickly and easily would be why was then these long-trained and hard working chefs. Then everyone would be a master chef.
Paul Gauguin - Poor Fischer (1896) 
Léon Lhermitte - pay of the pickers (1882) oil on canvas (215 x 272 cm)
Sun came to a vote in the restaurant over whether the cooking should give his full, previously promised two weeks, or if he flies in a great arc from the kitchen. The majority was for it to learn from the mistakes of the invitation and to fire this amateurish pseudo chef, before the reputation of the restaurant and the cook took the world more harm. And so it happened.
Fortunately, in my view. Because if it would be in our kitchens as bad as for our museums with their amateurish abstract expressionist and incompetents works that have only because of their signature meaning, then our stomachs had to laugh about.
Anton von Werner's role
By Werner saw the pictures, as it should be different, but contempt for art and true artists.
Otto Mueller - a boy with two standing and one sitting nude 
Anton von Werner - The unveiling of the monument to Richard Wagner on October 1, 1903 (1908)
neck with Adolph Menzel oil on canvas (230 x 280 cm)
But he was not alone on a narrow front. The closure was not a singular act, but it was decided after a heated debate by a wide vote in the association. 120 against 105 votes for the variant of direct closure, which was requested by Professor Eschke
. So do not
Anton von Werner alone, but 120 members of the Association of Berlin Artists voted for the direct end. Anton von Werner as chairman and ardent advocate of real art here was of course in a prominent location and is therefore well-regarded and over again as the sole culprit.
Or, as I would put it, as indomitable fighter for the centuries-old tradition of the great painting.
quotes
The votes for the continuation of the exhibition, incidentally, were not connected with the enthusiasm for the art itself but with the faith, must keep his word. In a written
of 48 local artists including circulars can read the following:
... and therefore we condemn without the expressed in the images Munchen'schen art direction to do any comment on the closure the exhibition as a contrary to the usual decorum measure.
The images themselves were strong stuff for sympathetic contemporaries
our eyes so unusual that one at first glance hardly in this colorful shades of pink and green color patches
rightly refers There was a critic like Adolf Rosenberg even easier. He said:
About Munch'schen pictures ... is not a word to continue to lose because they have nothing to do with art artistic freedom in danger?
And since we are past directly on the question of whether such a decision is not the artistic freedom was violated's heaviest?
In my opinion no, because the works of Munch's due to lack of skills have little to do with art.
Here is violated anything, here is the sheet-anchor had been thrown. When at a conference, a mathematician-Hochstabler occurs that can not even count to 10, there would be zero excitement when you can turn off this tone.
Egon Schiele - Newborn (1910) But in the art world is now required tolerance. For without this garbage that is in our modern museums would not have to explain.
The amateurish realist of our time, copies of the simplest nachzumalenden Munch (Image Search on the Web provides for plenty of examples), ask yourself what this has actually Munch and the other younger artists in the museums that I have not, except that they came first? My answer is happiness. Otherwise, nothing.
Hermann Stenner - Green woman with a yellow hat I (1913) oil on cardboard (42.5 x 38 cm)
A masterpiece Vibert, Rembrandt or Werner
, to name a few examples, will never be able to copy a layman, because they do lack any ability. Therefore, these three previously mentioned large Artist, Munch does not. The Fortune Teller
to paint oil on canvas (68.6 x 101.6 cm)
To the dark side of man and mankind, one must not his skill - as Munch and Picasso, store. But for another time ... more 
CHTMLXC
0 comments:
Post a Comment