Max Klinger
Malerei und Zeichnung (Painting and Drawing)
Part Two: Two Separate Genres of Visual Art
(Review by Francesco Mazzaferro)
[Original version: January 2015 - New Version: April 2019]
Go back to Part One
 |
| Fig. 11) The seventh edition of Drawing and painting, included in the very famous series of Insel Bücherei in 1919 in Berlin |
The writing
Painting and Drawing has a peculiar
story. Published in 1891, it was reprinted several times - as already mentioned
– in the early twentieth century. However, going carefully through the very
complete bibliography on Klinger published in 2008 [42], I discovered that the
writing – although very popular - was not specifically studied by scholarship.
Several monographs on Klinger were published and some of them included a few pages
of the pamphlet. However, a specifically addressed analysis on the text was
lacking, with one exception: a successful essay in 1917 by the poet Ferdinand
Avenarius – director of Der Kunstwart,
a magazine on art, music and literature - entitled "Klinger as a poet" [43] (mainly in the sense of creator) which
was however still at the border between critical analysis and eulogy of artist.
In that essay Klinger is cited, once again - the last time, perhaps -, as the
major artist of his time.
Critical scholars have dedicated specific attention
to the pamphlet only in recent decades. In Germany, one may quote (after the
excellent introduction by Annaliese Hübscher to the edition published by Reclam
Leipzig in 1985 [44]) an essay by Felix Billeter [45] in 1998, documenting the
genesis of the writing in great philological detail (with interesting photos of
the original manuscripts), and a recent contribution by Evelina Juntunen, who
interprets the series of etchings entitled "The Tent" in the light of
the text [46].
In the same
years, two British scholars have devoted significant writings to Painting and Drawing: Marsha Morton
(1995) [47], who discusses in detail the philosophical-literary reasons of the
text, and Elizabeth Pendleton Streicher [48] (1996), showing great interest in
describing the relationship of the work with the culture of the time and to
assess the reception of its contents. In Italy Painting and Drawing has been studied by Michele Dantini in 1998,
in an essay entitled "A comparison between the arts"; moreover, ample
space to the text of Klinger was devoted in the catalogue of the retrospective
dedicated to the artist, held in Ferrara in 1996. Dantini puts the pamphlet by
Klinger in relation to other theoretical works devoted to graphic art, edited
in France since the middle of the nineteenth century; this is an important
opportunity to analyse the links between French and German art.
Painting and drawing: naturalism and neo-idealism
The text is a
pamphlet of 46 pages, in the 1891 edition. A short and well-structured text,
which can be easily read [49]. A writing that was not drafted to be a treaty,
but as text supporting a specific thesis, which fits into the aesthetic
discussion of those decades. It aims in particular at showing that, since the
invention of printing, each artist had the possibility of going along two
alternative paths for art creation: painting and drawing. This allowed artists
to present themselves to the public in two versions: pictorial naturalism and
graphical neo-idealism. Painting and drawing are in fact both complete art
forms, which have different characteristics, merits and drawbacks, and therefore
allow the artist to pursue different goals: painting celebrates the beauty of
nature, while drawing allows the artist to highlight his subjective view of the
world (Weltanschauung), including his
most intense feelings. The discovery of printing, and therefore the possibility
of reproducing and disseminating any graphical work, however, has resulted in
the disappearance of any hope of returning to Gesamtkunst (i.e. total art), until new technological means are
found. The dichotomy between painting and drawing is objective, because it is
technological: painting is dominated by the colour, drawing by black and white.
Only the future discovery of new materials eliminating this difference will
lead to recovery in the future of Gesamtkunst.
The genesis of Painting and Drawing
The first
references to this thesis already appeared in the Journal of Klinger, published
in 1925 by Hildegard Heyne [50]. To the "Relationship between painting and
drawing" are devoted four pages dated November 1883 [51]: we are in the
first phase of the stay in Paris, which began in summer 1883 and was due to
finish three years later [52]. As written by Michele Dantini, upon his transfer
from Berlin to Paris, the young Klinger - which had already produced six themed
series of etchings and prepared many drawings for the later ones – intended
to extend his art creation from drawing to painting. "In the summer of
1883, when he decided to leave Berlin for Paris, it is painting that attracted
him to the French capital, and in particular the possibility to freely exercise
the study of the nude en plein air.
The Treaty which he is about to write will not establish then drawing, etching
or engraving as its exclusive scope of action; on the contrary, it will
summarize experiences and beliefs, display knowledge and familiarity, and will surely
re-launch Klinger as master of graphic, but only in preparation to something
more." [53]
Hildegard Heyne has analysed the archive of
Klinger in Naumburg and Leipzig [54] and found a notebook that includes a first
draft of Painting and Drawing dating
back to 1885 [55], an undated intermediate version and the handwritten text
drafted in Rome in 1890, coinciding with the first edition of 1891. So the
theoretical reflection of Klinger began in 1883 (Paris pages of the Journal),
was crystallized in 1885, had intermediate stages and ended in Rome, where
Klinger had moved because attracted by the ancient art, but above all by the
desire to expand his art to sculpture [57]. Some of his most important
paintings, rich in quotations from Renaissance, date back to the Roman period (The blue hour; Pietà; Crucifixion); the same
applies to the series of etchings titled "Fantasia on Brahms”. The Blue Hour (a symbolist interpretation of
melancholy, inspired from French impressionism) is considered by many to be the
most successful of all his paintings.
The reasons for a reflection on painting and drawing
It is Marsha Morton, in her already
mentioned essay [58], to explain the reasons for the reflection of Klinger.
There are at least three of them. One is the justification of his artistic
work, the second the state of graphic art in Germany until that moment and the
third the German debate on aesthetics at his time.
First: Klinger
wishes to broaden his area of interest from graphics to painting and sculpture;
at the same time, he is worried that his audience (especially the admirers of
his etchings) can have remained puzzled by his first attempts, starting with
the frescoes that he has already performed at Villa Albers years before. The
public might not have been sufficiently alerted, in his opinion, that drawing
and painting have necessarily different characteristics. About this he had
already written a long letter just to Albers, in February 1885. [59]
Second: the artist is concerned about the
state of knowledge on graphic art in Germany (both by artists and art critics
as well as by the public). In his view, the level of such knowledge is much
lower than in France, England and Belgium [60]. According to Klinger, the lack
of precise aesthetic criteria of differentiation between painting and drawing
is one of the main reasons for the crisis of German art in 1800: he is however
not convinced at all that there is a relentless decline of the creative German
spirit. In fact, he is sure that something should be done to correct that
mistake.
 |
| Fig. 12) The eight edition, curated by Anneliese Hübscher and published by Reclam in 1985 in Leipzig |
Here is what Klinger wrote on this [61]:
“Sad to day, in the middle of this century German art made an attempt to apply
the aesthetics of drawings to painting. This in turn can be held largely
responsible for lack of formal awareness of the public today, which still has a
certain penchant for this ‘tradition’. That in itself could only have been
attempted by a nation with such a profound inclination as ours towards
poeticising. [Note of the editor: Klinger assigns to drawing the same evocative
features as poetry, and to painting that of representing nature].” [62] And
then he continues, just below: “Light, colour and form are absolutely the only
ground from which any picture, any decorative interior should spring. Giving up
anything of this, amounts to giving up everything. And the ensuing works are
generally nothing more than abstractions, which will fill the artist with
consternation rather than admiration. It is nonsense to cry ‘If Cornelius had
been able to paint…’.This is a premise that does not tally with what survives
of his work. Were that the case, he would never have made cartoons, but would
have composed and created quite differently. Colour has to be as carefully
thought out and worked out, in advance, as form, and simply adding colour to
his works would achieve as little, for instance, as the insipid colour
combination of Kaulbach. Cornelius concentrated his talents on rhythm and
imagination, and the undeniable power of his technique would only have been
diminished by colour and modelling. I would like to propose that Cornelius’
cartoons for the Camposanto pictures [note of the editor: the cemetery of
Berlin. Cornelius worked for twenty years, from 1844 to 1863, at a monumental
fresco cycle there, of which, however, he was able to produce only cartoons,
never starting the fresco] should be reproduced exactly as they are drawn, but
on a smaller scale, possibly 40 by 60 centimeters”. [63]
Third: the era of Klinger is marked by a
heated debate between naturalism and neo-idealism [64]. Klinger seems to seek for
a synthesis between the two positions. He assigns to painting the task to
imitate nature, and therefore takes the same position as naturalists and
impressionists. He adheres instead to the reasons of neo-idealism for graphics,
assigning to it the task of a deep reflection on the ultimate meaning of
reality.
Naturalism and neo-idealism in Germany
It is important to know that in the
aesthetic debate of the nineteenth century in Germany, as Marsha Morton
explains, there was a significant gap between naturalists and realists. The former
reproduced the nature telle-quelle,
in its appearance, without any elements of idealization; following the teaching
of Wilhelm Leibl, they focused their attention on scenes of rural and urban
life, that was not immune from displaying even the ugliness of nature (but also
social issues). The latter, instead, painted reality as they thought it should
ideally be and therefore they idealized it (also in the sense of a politically
correct representation of historical events, as in the case of the Historienmaler, the painters of
history). At the same time, the neo-idealists assigned a fundamental role in
the pictorial narrative to fantasy, poetry and emotion. German realism (it may
seem strange to those who come from an Italian perspective) joined then
neo-idealism and opposed both naturalism and impressionism. In fact, the
realists in Germany defined impressionism as unimaginative and not poetic; they
criticized its spiritual flattening and the absence of any deep feeling.
The pursuit of beauty and nature
(naturalism) is assigned by Klinger to painting. The expression of imagination
and feeling (neo-idealism) becomes instead the area of expertise of drawing, and
not any longer of painting. These may seem pedantic discussions, but reflect
cultural debates that were of great importance in the artistic culture of
Germany, during the whole period of activity of Klinger: the contrast between
form and content as the central point of the philosophy of art, and also of the
same art literature. Think of the essay by the sculptor Adolf von Hildebrand on
"The problem of form in the fine arts" (Das Problem der Form in der Kunst bildenden) of 1893 and to the
article "On the problem of the form" by Wassily Kandinsky, published
in the almanac of the Blue Rider in
1912 [65].
In terms of the philosophy of art, on the
one hand there were all those who Marsha Morton defines as 'scientific
formalists': Herbart and Fiedler "used scientific methods to establish
that aesthetics was the study of the relations of lines, planes, tones, and
colours" [66]. They were opposed by all those who - starting from the
tradition of Hegel - believed instead in a conceptual understanding, and not a
perceptive one, of art, based on both the associative phenomenon and on
empathy, and therefore on the role of symbols, mythology and fantasy [67].
The idea of Klinger to define the
relationship between painting and drawing is therefore also an attempt to find
a formula that allows the orderly coexistence of different schools of
aesthetics in the German world, with a priority given to form and narrative for
painting and contents and poetry for drawing. Marsha Morton sees this
compromise also as a direct result of the thinking of Arthur Schopenhauer,
Klinger’s favourite philosopher, and his vision of the world as a dialectical
relationship between the will (the drawing) and the representation (painting).
The purpose of painting
In the analysis of the purposes of painting
and drawing, Klinger establishes a direct link between technical instruments
and aesthetic purposes. The world of painting is that of the representation of
nature (the purpose) through shapes and colours (the technical vehicle) and –
by these means – the pursuit of beauty and harmony. "Its purpose is to
express the coloured, bodily world in an harmonious manner; even the expression
of force and passion must be subordinated to this harmony." [68]
The task of the artist is that of a pure creation, regardless of content: “Generating its effect entirely of its own accord, independent of space and surroundings, the appeal of the picture derives exclusively from the deployment and mastery of its wonderfully malleable material and contents, embracing the whole of the visible world and portraying it in all its manifestations with clarity and depth.” [69] And further on: “The magic of the picture lies in its ability to embrace and to see, to explore and relate to all that is seen – forms both living or dead – and in its ability to emulate the universe with its marvellous interplay of relationships.” [70]
Painting is therefore pure image, to some
extent according to the logic of art for
art: “That a real work of art seeks only to render flesh as flesh, light as
light, is much too simple to be immediately understood. A perfectly painted
human body in repose, with the light gliding over it, in whatever way, and
which is only intended to express calm, no play od emotions of any kind, is in
itself a picture, a work of art. For the artist the ‘idea’ is to develop forms
appropriate to the position of the body, its relationship to the space, its colour
combinations, and it is of no consequence at all to him whether this is
Endymion or Peter. The idea is enough for the artist, and it is enough! But our taste nowadays first
demands to know for sure if this might not be Endymion.” [75] Klinger sees with
concern the attempt of modern painting to deviate from tasks exclusively
related to the composition of artistic forms, and instead of devoting
themselves to the promotion of messages, to the narrative of events: “Modern
art is permeated by this novelistic urge, which seems completely to have
swamped the natural form in repose. It takes an immense effort on the part of
the artist to work his way out of the floods and to arrive at a simple,
artistic view and, instead of seeking art in adventure, to seek it instead in
Man and in Nature.” [76]
Therefore, painting is absolute joy. “If we
consider the language of painting, it seems to us the most perfect expression
of the joy of life. It loves beauty for its own sake and strives for beauty
even in the ugliness of the mundane of the depths of tragedy. And when it
touches us, it does so by all that is charming, by the harmony of forms and
colours, even though there may be contrast. Painting is the glorification, the
triumph of the world. And it has to be so.” [77]
The purpose of drawing
Beauty and joy cannot exhaust the creative
experience of the artist. "To feel what he sees and to pass on what he
feels is the crux of the artist’s life. But is this to say that the powerful
impressions (…) with which the dark side of life inundates him, should be
silenced, although he, too, seeks help in the face of these? The terrible
contrast between the beauty that he seeks, sees, feels and the awfulness of
existence – which often comes screaming towards him – has to give rise to
pictures, just like those that come to the poet and the musician from their own
experience of life. If these pictures are not to be lost, there must be another
art to complement painting and sculpture, an art without the calm presence of a
plastic form that would come between these pictures and the beholder as it does
in painting and sculpture. This art is drawing” [78].
-
It gives the imagination free
reign to add colour to the representation;
-
It can handle forms that are
not part of the main point – even the main point itself – with such freedom
that again the imagination is called into play;
-
It can isolate the subject of
the representation such that the imagination must create the space around it;
-
And it can utilize these means
either singly or together, without the resulting drawing suffering in the
slightest in terms of its artistic value or perfection.” [81]
“The stylus has a much narrower light-dark
range than the palette. The latter has greater succulence and power in its dark
tones and more energy in its light tones, which are heightened yet further by
the contrasting effects of warm and cold tones and by colour combinations. But
although the palette has the advantage of intensity and colour, the stylus makes up for
this with its unlimited capacity to represent light and shade. It can portray
direct light and direct darkness – sun, nighttime – whereas painting can only
portray reflections and contrasting shadows. The ring, for instance, that
stands for the sun in a drawing is quite sufficient to convey to us its nature
and effect, just as nightmare, too, can be expressed in a few allusions, with a
minimum of contours and tonal indications. This arises from the poetic nature
of drawing mentioned earlier, for drawing does not so much depict the
appearance of things, in the interplay of things, in the interplay of their
visible forms and the ensuing relationship and effects, as convey to the
beholder the ideas that are intrinsic to them” [82]
Drawing is the world of poetic license,
that it is constitutive of poetry. “And the visible corporeal world can be
treated with such poetic license by virtue of the freedom e have already
mentioned, which allow motifs to be portrayed as phenomena rather than bodies.”
[85]
But Klinger goes beyond the poetic, to
discuss the horrible (Unschönes):
“Given such ideas and licence, drawing also has a different relationship with
the unsightly and the abhorrent than do other arts. The visual arts [bildende Künste] are predicated on
defeated unsightliness; the spoken arts [die
redenden Künste] have yet to defeat unsightliness.” [86]
Drawing provides artists with the
greatest freedom: “The wealth of the raw material that goes into drawings – the
same material on which religions are based, for which nations annihilate each
other, which we so gladly ignore, and which the human spirit therefore seeks to
conceal using anything at its disposal from the naives of simple-mindedness to
the most grotesque outrageousness, a material kept in constant ferment by
egoism and self-sacrifice – such wealth suggests that ideas and images shower
upon the artist in abundance. (…) The most powerful emotions can be compressed
into the most confined of spaces, the most contradictory emotions come thick
and fast. (…) They may be of epic dimensions, they may take on a dramatic
intensity, they may regard us with dry irony; mere shadows, they even embrace
the monstrous without causing offence.” [87]
It remains still to identify the reasons
why drawing acquired the dignity of artistic genre only after the discovery of
the press: “Success does not match the effort involved. Moreover, in the epoch
that strove for splendour, drawings – unostentatious and barely accessible in
the hands of a few individuals – had little appeal for artists. The material
itself had little to do with the love of colour of those days. And in any case
there were rich opportunities for artists to give vent to their imaginations on
the walls of dwelling houses, churches, palaces. (…) The invention of printing
altered the situation. The possibility of producing multiple copies removed the
disparity between effort and success. The work no longer disappeared into a
library but, in its multiplicity, could expect the same chorus of appreciation
as any wall painting. The stylus – more powerful, richer in tone yet with all
the delicacy of hand-drawing – offered the individual as great an opportunity
to develop an independent mode of expression as any painting could do. Woodcuts
and engravings – and later on etchings and lithographs – opened up to the
artist’s initiative and invention a field that was infinitely varied, promising
and surprising.” [88]
Why the separation between painting and drawing is absolutely required
In Klinger’s thinking, the technical factor
is really central. To different techniques must correspond equivalently different
artistic purposes: “every material has its own spirit (Geist) and its own poetry which derive from its appearance and its
amenability, and which – in the hands of the artist – reinforce the character
of the composition and are themselves irreplaceable.” [89] And again: “The direction of our
discussion could be summed up as follows: a motif, which can be rendered as a
drawing in a wholly artistic manner can, for aesthetic reasons, be impossible
to render as a painting – insofar as the painting is to be judged as a picture." [90]
“All masters of drawing develop in their
works a conspicuous streak of irony, satire and caricature. They delight in
pointing out weaknesses – anything sharp, harsh or bad. The basic tenor of
almost all their work is: The world should not be like this! So they criticise
with their stylus. The difference between the painter and the graphic artist
could not be described more pointedly. The former creates forms, expression and
colour in a purely objective manner. He does not really criticise; he prefers
to beautify. This is also a critique, but not a negative one, and it tells us,
‘This is how things should be!’ or ‘This is how things are!’ For in his mind’s
eye he sees a spiritual, all but physically attainable primal image of beauty
that he recognises. The graphic artist, in contrast, is confronted by the
eternally unfilled gap between desire and ability, between yearning and
achievement, and he has no choice but to come to term, on a personal level,
with a world of irreconcilable forces.” [93]
End of Part Two
Go to Part Three
NOTES
[42] Max
Klinger. Wege zur Neubewertung. Schriften
des Freundeskreises Max Klinger e.V. Band 1 (Paths towards a revaluation. Writings of the circle of the association of the friends of Max
Klinger. Tome 1), edited by Pavla Langer, Zita Á. Pataki and Thomas Pöpper,
Leipzig, Zöllner, Plöttner Verlag, 2008
[43] Avenarius, Ferdinand, Max Klinger als Poet. Mit
einem Brief Klingers Max und einem Beitrag von Hans W. Singer (Max Klinger as a poet. With a letter by Max Klinger and a contribution by Hans W. Singer).
Published by the magazine Kunstwart, Edition of war, Munich, Callwey, 1918
[44] Klinger, Max - Malerei
und Zeichnung: Tagebuchaufzeichnungen und Briefe. (Painting
and Drawing, Journal and Letters), edited by Annaliese Hübscher, Leipzig,
Philipp Reclam jun., 1985
[45] Billeter, Felix - “Max Klingers Schrift 'Malerei und Zeichnung'. Ein Blick auf ihre
Entstehungsgeschichte“ (The writing by Max Klinger ‚Painting and Drawing’,
A view on the history of its genesis), in Festschrift für Christian Lenz. Von
Duccio bis Beckmann, Verlag Blick in die Welt, 1998, pp. 65-83.
[46] Juntunen, Evelina – Genuin grafisches Schaffen – Malerei und Zeichnung (1891) und Klingers Zelt (A genuine graphical
creation, Painting and Drawing (1891)
and the Tent by Max Klinger) n “Wege zur Neubewertung“ 2008 (quoted)
[47] Morton, Marsha – “Malerei und Zeichnung”: The
History and Context of Max Klinger’s Guide to the Arts, in: Zeitschrift fü
Kunstgeschichte, Year 85, Vol. IV (1995), pp. 542-569.
See also: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1482810?sid=21105552302593&uid=3737864&uid=2478518977&uid=2134&uid=3&uid=2&uid=60&uid=2478518987&uid=70
[48] Pendleton Streicher, Elizabeth -
Max Klinger's Malerei und Zeichnung: The Critical Reception of the Prints and
Their Text, in: Studies in the History of Art, Vol. 53, Symposium Papers XXXI:
Imagining Modern German Culture: 1889–1910 (1996), pp. 228-249. See: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/42622157?sid=21105582739343&uid=3737864&uid=70&uid=2134&uid=4&uid=2
[49] Ms Pendleton Streicher wrote
instead that the text style, in her opinion, is too informal, typical of conversations,
almost absently written and somewhat repetitive. She attributed the reason to
the fact that Klinger had begun to fill the text starting from the pages of the
diary of 1883 and the letters of the following years. She adds "In its aphoristic
style, Malerei und Zeichnung is rooted
in a long tradition of writing in German aesthetics and philosophy, which culminated
in his own day in the publications of Friedrich Nietzsche. Nonetheless, Malerei und Zeichnung is simply and
symmetrically organized. "Pendleton Streicher, Elizabeth- Max Klinger's
Malerei und Zeichnung: (quoted), p. 233
[50] Klinger, Max – Gedanken und Bilder aus der Werkstatt des
werdenden Meisters (Thoughts and pictures from the workshop of the master
in his education years), edited by H Heyne, Leipzig, Koehler & Amelang,
1925, p. 115.
[51] Klinger, Max – Gedanken
und Bilder … (quoted), pp.16-20.
[52] Marsha Morton also cites a letter
of February 23, 1883, therefore before the stay in Paris. See Morton, Marsha -
"Malerei und Zeichnung"
(quoted), p. 543.
.
[53] Dantini Michele – Un paragone tra le arti (A comparison
between arts), in: Klinger, Max - Painting and drawing, edited by Michele
Dantini with an essay by Giorgio de Chirico, Milan, Nike, 1988, p. 129. The
quote is on page 53.
[54] For a description of the Klinger
fund and the files on Painting and
Drawing maintained in the archive of Lipsia, see
[55] The correspondence contains a
three-page letter to Albers (for whose villa in Berlin Klinger composed an
important cycle of frescoes) devoted entirely to the subject of the
relationship between painting and drawing, dated Paris, February 24, 1885. See: Briefe
von Max Klinger aus den Jahren 1874 bis 1919 (quoted), pages 64-66. In the diary of Klinger there are references to "painting and
drawing," March 22, 1885. See: Klinger, Max - Gedanken und Bilder ... (quoted), p. 38.
[56] Klinger, Max – Gedanken
und Bilder … (quoted), pp.103-104.
[57] Pastor, Willy –Max Klinger, with a drawing in the cover
page by the author, Berlin, Amsler & Ruthardt, 1918 The chapter on the stay
in Rome is from page 120 to page 150.
[58] Morton, Marsha – “Malerei und Zeichnung”(quoted)
[59] See: Briefe
von Max Klinger aus den Jahren 1874 bis 1919 (quoted), page 64-66.
[60] Here is what Klinger writes in
this regard, during the visit to the Triennial exhibition of Paris in 1883:
"Here I would like to refer to an almost disappeared technique, which
unfortunately is no longer applied in Germany. It is painting-engraving. It is
different, here [note of the editor: in Paris] as well as in London. Each show
brings rich contributions of this branch of art. With the indifference of our artists,
publishers and of the public (two out of three do not have any idea), a lot
should happen before etching may have the same fortune with us. See French,
British, Belgian publications which are not intended for mass consumption. If
there are illustrations in those publications (it happens to be the case in a
publication every two), they are etchings.” Klinger, Max - Gedanken und Bilder
... (quoted), p. 29
[61] All English translations are from
Fiona Elliot and Christopher Croft. Klinger, Max - Painting and drawing,
Birmingham, Ikon, 2005.
[62] Klinger, Max - Painting and
drawing … (quoted) (p. 27)
[63] Klinger, Max - Painting and
drawing … (quoted) (p. 27)
[64] See the essay of Max Deri on
Naturalism, idealism and Expressionism, published in Leipzig in 1920 (https://archive.org/details/naturalismusidea00deri)
[65] For an English version, see: The
Blaue Reiter Almanac , by Klaus Lankheit, Wassily Kandinsky and Franz Marc, MFA
Publications, 2005
[66] Morton, Marsha – “Malerei und Zeichnung”(quoted),
p. 556
[67] Morton, Marsha – “Malerei und Zeichnung”(quoted),
p. 556
[68] Klinger, Max - Painting and
drawing … (quoted) (p.13)
[69] Klinger, Max - Painting and
drawing … (quoted) (p.13)
[70] Klinger, Max - Painting and
drawing … (quoted) (p.13)
[71] Klinger, Max - Painting and
drawing … (quoted) (p.14
[72] Klinger, Max - Painting and
drawing … (quoted) (p.17)
[73] Klinger, Max - Painting and
drawing … (quoted) (p.17)
[74] Klinger, Max - Painting and
drawing … (quoted) (p.17)
[75] Klinger, Max - Painting and
drawing … (quoted) (p.18)
[76] Klinger, Max - Painting and
drawing … (quoted) (pp 18-19)
[77] Klinger, Max - Painting and
drawing … (quoted) (p.19)
[78] Klinger, Max - Painting and
drawing … (quoted) (p.19)
[79] Klinger, Max – Painting and drawing
… (quoted) (p. 23)
[80] Klinger, Max - Painting and
drawing … (quoted) (p. 21)
[81] Klinger, Max - Painting and
drawing … (quoted) (pp. 20-21)
[82] Klinger, Max - Painting and
drawing … (quoted) (p. 24)
[83] Klinger, Max - Painting and
drawing … (quoted) (p. 11)
[84] Klinger, Max - Painting and
drawing … (quoted) (p. 21)
[85] Klinger, Max - Painting and
drawing … (quoted) (p. 21)
[86] Klinger, Max - Painting and
drawing … (quoted) (p. 21)
[87] Klinger, Max - Painting and
drawing … (quoted) (p. 22)
[88] Klinger, Max - Painting and
drawing … (quoted) (pp. 30-31)
[89] Klinger, Max - Painting and
drawing … (quoted) (p. 12)
[90] Klinger, Max - Painting and
drawing … (quoted) (p. 13)
[91] Klinger, Max - Painting and drawing …
(quoted) (p. 23)
[92] Klinger, Max - Painting and
drawing … (quoted) (pp. 28-29)
[93] Klinger, Max - Painting and
drawing … (quoted) (p. 29)
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento