Francesco Mazzaferro. Fortune and Legacy of Max Klinger in the XX century. Part Two

CLICK HERE FOR ITALIAN VERSION

Francesco Mazzaferro

Fortune and Legacy of Max Klinger in the XX Century

Part Two


[Original version: February 2015 - New Version: April 2019]

Fig. 3) Original postcard of the IX Exhibition of the Vienna Secession (1901), The room dedicated to Max Klinger.
Source: http://secession.nyarc.org/omeka/items/show/19

Go back to Part One

Opposing cliffs were growing around Klinger, along precise ideological diaphragms. In 1891, he had tried, with Painting and drawing, to cope with different needs, providing a common aesthetic framework to both lovers of form and content, to the French naturalists and neo-German idealists. He did it, by looking at total art and at the return to classical art as a sublimation of the conflicts of the previous decades. That compromise had been accepted with enthusiasm in the early years of the new century, and had deeply influenced German art. Now new fractures were opening, and indeed perhaps unbridgeable contrasts and seemingly ultimate clashes would soon emerge. Yet, a century later, the new splits that opened in those years now deserve to be examined with new eyes, and not to be longer seen as the result of incompatible options. Those opposing worlds had actually common roots. But the parable of Klinger was anyway declining.

The birth of expressionism in the shadow of Klinger

One of the best friends of Klinger and biggest fans of his Raumkunst (space art) was Fritz Schumacher (1869-1947), professor of interior architecture (Raumkunstlehre) in Dresden since 1901, at the time a convinced follower of the Jugendstil and later on one of the main rationalist architects in the Weimar Republic. As written by Aya Soika in the catalogue of the 2007 Leipzig exhibition, Schumacher, who wrote an essay on the “Decorative element in Max Klinger” [26] in 1902, was a dynamic and innovative professor, who attracted among the young students the most eager ones to grapple with modernity: among them Ernst Ludwig Kirchner, Erich Deckel, Fritz Bley and Karl Schmidt-Rottluff, namely the four founders of the Bridge (Brücke), i.e. the inventors of Expressionism, who met indeed on the university banks of Schumacher in 1902. Therefore, at the origin of Expressionism, there were the same secessionist circles which Klinger attended.

The Bridge was created in Dresden in 1905, in a period when all the young artists (the expression junge Künstler in German has a double meaning: it means both 'young artists' as well as 'modern art artists') were obliged - for better or evil - to confront themselves with Painting and drawing. It is unlikely that - at least – they did not have in their hands the 1903 Thieme edition (which was later republished in 1907, 1910 and 1913). Aya Soika is indeed certain that Max Pechstein - who entered The Bridge in 1906 - had read the text of Klinger [27].

From the theses contained in the pamphlet the Klinger young expressionists drew four lessons, although they never recognized them. First: the centrality of graphic art as the most expressive art, which allows the artist to narrate in poetic form 'the dark half of the world', to use the words of Klinger, which the expressionists absorbed, but never used. Please remember that the Manifesto of the Bridge was published in 1906 in the form of a wood engraving. Second: the centrality of the nude, one of the key features of the Bridge. Third, the relationship between painting and space, the Raumkunst, with attempts to create friezes and frescoes. Just refer to what Kirchner wrote in the "Chronicle of the Bridge" (a short text about the history of the group, which he wrote in 1913, when the group had already been dissolved) on the attempt to "harmonize the environment with the new painting" [28]). Fourth, the reference to the same art sources of the past: the German Renaissance art (in particular Dürer and other engravers from southern Germany), Rembrandt and Goya.

Klinger and the young German artists of the early twentieth century: first of all a gentleman

Klinger was a refined man, a true gentleman, and often enjoyed great personal prestige even among those who had very different ideas. Over the years, he was able to stand valuations that became gradually more and more pungent. The art critic Karl Scheffler (1869-1951), an exceptional witness of those years, editor of the magazine "The Art and Artists" (Kunst und Künstler), so writes about the young artists living in Berlin and their approach to Klinger, speaking in the second edition of his book "Talents" (published by Paul Cassirer in 1919):

"How the relationship of our best artists is vis-à-vis the now sixty year old Klinger, one could observe in the spring of 1909, when (at a time when the Berlin Secession was not yet divided [editor's note: in 1910 Liebermann and Cassirer on the one hand and the expressionists on the other hand broke their relations; it was Emil Nolde to cause the rupture, with a letter of protest he addressed precisely to Scheffler]) the monument of Brahms was shown for the first time, during an exhibition of all the works of Klinger. The night before the inauguration, the Secession had hosted a dinner in honour of the artist, in the upper premises of their headquarters. During dinner there were speeches in praise of Klinger, toasts and other statements of high esteem. After dinner, however, while Klinger was still spending some time with the leaders of the Secession, small groups of artists and connoisseurs began to enter one after the other, without interruption, surrounded the marble and commented in a very hostile mood. Occasionally, one could hear the word 'Kitsch' being whispered in the hall. Both things – criticism downstairs and the celebrations upstairs - were to be understood in a completely sincere way; they both took place in parallel, and the artists did not perceive any contradiction. (...) And it always happens like this (...) to Klinger, when artists and connoisseurs argue over him. They may not give great consideration to the sculptor or the painter, and give only relative importance to the engraver; they may define his drawings as academic and cold, consider the forms of his sculptures as not plastic and without the right taste for form, and rebuke his imagination because of a literary-philosophical direction. But they are always ready at any moment to mention Klinger as one of the most honourable members of the German community of artists (deutsche Künstlerschaft). The individual works are more or less harshly rejected, the person of their creator, who stands behind them, is instead treated with the utmost respect." [29]

And, in fact, all the young artists who met him described his extreme kindness and helpfulness, but at the same time addressed even harsh criticism against his art.

It is the case of Paula Modersohn Becker (1876-1907), one of the most tragic figures in German art of the XX century (she died of an embolism, only a few days after having delivered her daughter, at only 31 years). From Paris, Paula brought in Germany, in the art colony of Worpswede, Cezanne’s style. Accompanied by her aunt and sister, just at twenty-two years she visited Klinger in Leipzig, in April 1898, at the father’s suggestion. Of her remains - despite the early death - a very comprehensive collection of letters. Here is what she wrote about the meeting with Klinger, in a letter to the mother dated November 3, 1900, almost three years after the event.

"Otto [note of the editor: Paula’s husband of Paula] met Klinger at [Gustav] Pauli’s house. There is really something magnificent in the Invincibility of his personality. He is one of those sovereigns, and moreover benevolent ones! If I think of that look, which he gave me three years ago when we parted; I was so completely immature, really so totally immature and so unproductive. And his look was as if he gently caressed my hair." [30]

And yet, Modersohn Becker is not entirely convinced of the art of Klinger, as she wrote to his father, on February 8, 1900:

"For my taste he [editor's note: Klinger] is too much under the influence of the ancients. It is through the objective eye of the ancients that he looks at the world today. And before, he was so subjective and even more specifically Klinger. And antiquity leaves me cold. (...) Antiquity oppresses me in its glacial objectivity. One cannot grasp its personality." [31]

And yet, Paula wrote an entire letter on the subject to Rainer Maria Rilke (of whom she was a great friend) on December 1, 1900, confiding in him a day before receiving a visit from Klinger in Worpswede. She explained him that she had been enchanted by the artist, she had cried secretly with emotion at the time of leaving, but then concluded: "Since then, Klinger was more and more distant with each passing day. Rodin was born. And I saw the flaws of the former one.” [32]

The same relationship of respect for the person, but of disapproval for his art characterised Max Beckmann (1884-1950). Beckmann benefited from the generosity of Klinger, since he was one of the first scholars in the Villa Romana, in the winter between 1906 and 1907.

The painting that earned him winning a scholarship for Villa Romana, and received great interest in the exhibition of the German artist (Deutscher Künstlerbund) in Weimar, was Young men at the sea, an image which coupled quotes of von Marées, Cezanne and Hodler to one of Klinger. [33] Klinger liked the study of the nude and the horizontal composition, almost a frieze, which reminded many of his works [34]. A few themes typical of Klinger (which also Munch adopted), such as the death of a mother, are also found in another picture of the young Beckmann, entitled A great death scene, of 1906.

Again we must distinguish between the respect for Klinger as a person and the judgment on his work. Minna Beckmann-Tube (Max's wife) recalled in her memoirs the visit that the couple had made to Klinger, in his home in Leipzig in autumn 1906, just before leaving for Florence, to thank him for the scholarship. On the way back to Berlin "in Max’s face there was something radiant, and maybe - in that desolate railway station - he lived the sunniest moment of his life." [35] Commenting instead on the monument of Brahms in 1908, Max Beckmann wrote: "Lousy, absolutely intolerable in every sense. For the rest, of course, the personality of Klinger cannot be ignored. Yet, his own is not art." [36]

Another young artist who expressed great respect for the personality of Klinger was Oskar Kokoschka (1886-1980), although the style of the latter was absolutely remote from the former. In 1916 he wrote to his sister, telling about a meeting which happened on November 12: "Just think, I have been a long night in the house of the great and venerable Max Klinger in Leipzig. When I got to the house, his butler told me that Klinger was waiting for me. And immediately he met me at the door. I had the impression that the old Goethe left the room. So old and so young and so attractive. (...) He listened always so kindly and always laughed with so much pleasure, when I opened my heart to him, something I was able to do so easily with him. We emptied two bottles of red wine (...) He still wanted to have dinner with me. But I had to leave, because I felt the need to hurry on the road, such was the impression I had. He accompanied me to the door in the night, and gave me a  so extraordinarily warmly goodbye. I whispered in his ear: 'I have never had such a respect for a person like you' and then I ran away." [37] To Klinger Kokoschka gave a copy of his graphic cycle on the Bach cantata "Oh eternity, word of thunder”, with a personal dedication. That year, Kokoschka had published the graphic series "Chained Columbus", composed in 1913: it was an allegorical series, because the chained Columbus is actually Kokoschka himself, tied with chains of love by Alma Mahler, the not-inconsolable widow of the great musician.

Karl Hofer, in his correspondence with the German philosopher Leopold Ziegler, wrote on March 4, 1901 that he had received financial support from Klinger [38], but shortly after he complained of the "crap" of Leibl, Thoma and Klinger on display at the museum in Mannheim [39].

Finally, also Max Pechstein was able to experience the kindness of Klinger. In a letter of August 30, 1913, cited by Aya Soika [40], the painter thanked him with great deference for having been allowed to stay at the Villa Romana for two months, along with his best friend, the painter Alexander Gerbig, who had won the scholarship in 1912. One year earlier, however, Pechstein had defined Klinger’s art as completely devoid of taste, although his graphics of the years of the Bridge was still characterised by a symbolist and conceptual taste, under Klinger’s influence. Actually, the latter had been confronted with a fait accompli, and writing to his friend Kalckreuth, wrote: "P.S.: Yesterday, Max Pechstein sent me a letter from the Villa Romana, where he had been a guest for two months, without me having any clue of it. Listen, I was pleased nevertheless. Pechstein’s calligraphy is a broomstick, like his painting. But he wrote to me on Italian primitives and the landscape. And I feel that his stay is having effects." [41] We have already noted in another post that the permanence of Pechstein in Italy led to a more serene and in some ways more Italian style.

Fig. 4) The cover of a special issue of the magazine Jugend dedicated to Max Klinger, on the occasion of his sixty years (1917)

The followers among the young artists: Käthe Kollwitz, Alfred Kubin and Georg Kolbe

There were three young artists who recognized openly Klinger as their master, and (while varying radically his style) were inspired in particular by his graphics. They were Käthe Kollwitz, Alfred Kubin and Georg Kolbe.

Ms Kollwitz held one of the funeral orations at the funeral of Klinger, on July 8, 1920. She spoke (in addition to a long list of other speakers [42]) on behalf of the Free secession, i.e. of one of the three groups of painters that had been established after the collapse of the first Berlin Secession in 1910. After that year, in the political geography of the secessionist painters in Berlin, a tripartite division had arisen, with many vicissitudes and fortunes. On an avant-garde position (and on the 'progressive' wing) was the New Secession, led first by Max Pechstein and gathering most of the Expressionists; with a markedly 'conservative' position, under the guidance of Lovis Corinth, there was a small group that was called not by chance the "Trunk Secession" (Rumpf-Secession). The Free secession was therefore the 'centrist' group, and included most of the original group of German Impressionists (including Liebermann). It was to this centrist group that Klinger had continued to participate, albeit remotely, from Leipzig. And Käthe Kollwitz (although she would later become an artist of marked socialist preferences) delivered the last respects just of this association. It must be said that in her diary [43] she voiced her surprise in observing how few were the 'Young Artists' present at that funeral.

Here is what Ms Kollwith said:

"The Free Secession, of which Max Klinger was an honorary member for many years, sends through me a final farewell. In this moment, however, I would also like to express my thanks to the late master in a personal capacity. It is difficult to express in words what Max Klinger was for me in my youth. It was really a great event, when I saw the etchings of Klinger. And as for me, the same also happened to thousands of others. We young artists rushed in the cabinets of graphics in Munich and Berlin to watch the etchings of Klinger. What overwhelmed us, what we loved in these sheets, was not the technical perfection. The incredible vital impulse and the energy of the expression, this was what conquered us. We knew it: Max Klinger does not remain at the surface of things, but he plunges into the dark depth of life. These sheets seethe and thunder, like in the one of the Phantasy on Brahms, where a monstrous music echoes. He triggered all shades of life, captured all violent and sad aspects of it and showed them to us. For this we thank you, Max Klinger."  [44]

In her diaries [45], Ms Kollwitz tells us she read Painting and drawing in the years when she attended the academy of Munich. Still at seventeen, she had admired the series graphic "A Life" in Berlin in 1884, after his brother had told her of his friend Klinger. Later on, the reading of the pamphlet had convinced her to have a talent for drawing, and not for painting. With her own cycle of lithographs, she won a scholarship to the Villa Romana in 1907. Ms Kollowitz had open socialist sympathies; in 1919, she was appointed (first woman ever) Professor of the Academy of Fine Arts in Berlin. Upon arrival of the power of the Nazis, she was expelled from the Academy, and since 1936 the exhibition of her work was banned by the Nazis.

Even stronger was the influence of Klinger on Alfred Kubin, as the latter wrote in his memoirs. These are painful pages, in which the author tells of a phase of his life marked by illness and deep psychological distress. We are in 1899: 

"I had then a close friend, of whom I need to speak here; he was a very intelligent musician (...). One day, he came to my bedside, during the days of my disease, and saw my latest designs. They reminded him in some respects the designs by Klinger, of whom he recommended me to follow the example. Once healed, I went in search of the cabinet of etchings and discovered the series of etchings called The discovery of a glove. I trembled with joy. Was offered to my eyes was absolutely new an art, a field opened to me where the virtual worlds of the senses could be glimpsed. Ahead of those drawings I made a solemn vow to consecrate my life to create something similar. With overflowing heart, I went into town and entered into a music club in the evening, because I was looking for an indifferent and at the same time noisy environment, to compensate for the increasingly violent feeling that oppressed me. Then there was a strange and to me decisive physical phenomenon, which still I cannot understand, although I have long reflected on it. While the orchestra began to play, everything that was around me seemed increasingly clear and distinct, as in a different light. On the faces of the spectators in the hall appeared all of a sudden curious signs that sometimes had the appearance of beasts and sometimes men. Now released from their sources, all sounds were strangely bizarre. In me sounded like a sarcastic tongue, made of moans and whispers, a language common to all beings, a language I could not understand but that seemed to have a hidden, completely phantasmagorical meaning. I felt sad, although a strange feeling of wellbeing permeated me, and I thought at the drawings of Klinger again, as I reflected on the way in which I would have worked as from that moment. And then, all of a sudden, I was assaulted by the vision of a stream of drawings in black and white."  [46]

Perhaps it was Kubin (a subject of the Austro-Hungarian Empire) who realized fully the fundamental idea of Drawing and Painting, which defines graphic art as the representation of the 'dark half of the world', although it is not certain he ever physically met Klinger [47]. Even Klinger’s concept of space (both typical of his etchings as well as his artistic work in general) seems to have been transmitted to Kubin (and later on to de Chirico). Therefore, even if perhaps they never met, it was a strong elective affinity (Wahlverwandschaft), to use the lexicon of Goethe. Nevertheless, it is interesting to read how the main art critic of Kubin during the Weimar Republic, Ernst Willy Bredt, differed between the visions of Kubin, which he called in a positive sense as "Germanic", and those of Klinger, too much impregnated in his opinion of classicism and therefore insufficient. "Klinger’s creations are artistically second hand. They are too much thought, too spherical, too secret, too constructed, too obtained from nature. (...) Kubin is native in the original Germanic world of dreams and of everything that horrifies. Klinger was instead always the Nordic traveller through Hellas, but (already measured only on the basis of his centaurs) he also did not sufficiently identify himself with this world of the gods." [48] The article by Bredt (which does not mention the memories of Kubin and his admiration for Klinger) documents the emergence of a nationalist and indeed veritably racist reading of history of art (the long discussion to reassure the reader that the surname Kubin is not of Slavic origin, at the beginning of the article, proves it), of which in this case Klinger and his classicism, considered by Bredt as being stranger to German art, were the victim. If Kubin was here seen as a champion of German nationalism, others instead will interpret him as the follower of the symbolists Félicien Rops (1833 -1898) and Odilon Redon (1840-1916) and of Freud. And that caused him the inclusion in the list of authors producing so-called degenerate art by the Nazis in 1937.

Georg Kolbe (1877-1947), the famous sculptor, but also a drawer and painter in the first phase of his art production, was a great friend of Otto Greiner, with whom he shared an interest for Klinger. Kolbe and Greiner first met in Rome, where Kolbe lived between 1898 and 1901. On his return to Germany, he met Klinger in Leipzig. The master did not fail to support him financially. In 1905 he was one of the first winners of the scholarship for the Villa Romana in Florence. In the collection of the writings of Georg Kolbe [49] two texts seem particularly relevant for our purposes: one is a 1920 article titled "Plastic and design" (Plastik und Zeichnung) and the other (1937) is "Max Klinger in his eightieth birthday" (Max Klinger zu seinem 80. Geburtstag). 

The first writing applied to sculpture the same intellectual categories of Painting and drawing: "Plastic is awareness, the knowledge to exist - not the representation. Plastic does not let itself to be drawn or prepared through drawings, because plastic is the primary; at most it let itself to be 'portrayed'. But you can, on the other hand, draw in a plastic mood, and the sculptor will always give something of the soul of plastic in his designs (...) For the sculptor the design is a special language, a language that can live alongside his work, but that has nothing in common with the essence of his means of plastic expression. (...) In conclusion: Plastic and design - two arts - two languages - two worlds." [50]

The second paper is a heartfelt memory of Klinger:

"Max Klinger was different from all the artists of his time. In reality, he was not a painter or a sculptor, but rather a designer. Indeed, he was primarily a thinker, despite his rare ability to give a shape to images. He drew from his own ideas (obsessed by his fantasies) as a creator who must make his world visible and uses a form of expression of his own for this purpose. To us young artists, Max Klinger seemed like a man who opens the curtains. Then, when I met him [note of the editor: in Leipzig, in 1901], I found a very mild person, always caring, not a man who sought power, but a man who understands and is knowledgeable. Outside of our circle, though, others – who thought it was their duty to experiment every challenge - wanted to become our masters in our young apprentices. To this end, the 'Prophet' had to be scaled down, also in the interest of speculators in the art market, which had conquered the brand of Impressionism. And indeed Max Klinger was the first great connoisseur and admirer of the French impressionists, and certainly not one of their followers. (...)" [51]

Politically, Kolbe was initially clearly on internationalist positions, as evidenced by many of his writings of the 20's, all of an anti-nationalist concept. However, at the arrival of Nationalsocialism, he did an turnaround: he was even enlisted among the signatories of a pro-Hitler manifesto of the exponents of German culture, when the Germans were called to confirm with a referendum Adolf Hitler’s acquisition of full powers in 1933 (from then on, Hitler was no longer the chancellor, but the Führer).

Klinger and the young German artists of the early XX century: the reasons for disagreement

If Klinger behaved like a gentleman with the young artists, however, he was not ready to accept their art, which he considered a real disgrace. However, unlike others (think for example to what Liebermann and Corinth had done, expelling Nolde from Berlin Secession), he never really tried the institutional clash with them. In 1919 (a terrible year for Germany, after the military defeat in 1918) Klinger sent two letters devoted to modern art: the first one, on June 24, is addressed to the sculptor Georg Wrba (1872 -1939); the second one (of 21 August) was sent to the painter Leopold von Kalckreuth (1855-1928). Here are some excerpts:

"Dear Wrba! 

(...) Kokoschka: †††. [Note of the editor: the three crosses indicate disapproval]. With horror I was today at our association of artists [note of the editor: Kunstverein]. 50% of our young artists at our annual exhibition of Leipzig are captured by the same fever. And 100% are obsessed by the identical madness of colours, shapes and lights. I said to myself, today: Thank God, I do not have to live in this time. In fact, our world, as it has been until now, will certainly continue to exist like this until my demise to a better life. Of what will happen next, I do not care. (...)
M.Klinger." [52]

"Dear Kalckreuth!

I am sending you an article by [editor's note Woldemar von] Seidlitz on '' Modern Art ". I am bringing you his warmest greetings; he kindly asks you, after reading it, to send it back to his address (...) The occasion for the article were: (i) the appointment of Kokoschka at the Dresden Academy, against which both he and I took stance, however without any result; (ii) some statements for the letter that I sent him (...). I would like to tell you what I have already written to Seidlitz: (...) as I experienced these expressionist painters, there is nothing one can do in order to change them. It is an only half conscious fanaticism, and above all a fanaticism which does not want to be subject to any sermon (the term is inaccurate: one should say discussion). (...)
Your MK" [53]

A very clear-cut judgment. Many of the young artists were not less sharp with Klinger. One of the most critical ones was perhaps Paul Klee. In December 1905, he expressed a negative opinion on Painting and drawing, with a record he took in his notebooks in Bern: "I read: Meier-Graefe's case Böcklin, Manet and his circle. Baudelaire: The Flowers of Evil. (...) Klinger: Painting and drawing, really of dubious value. As if beauty were only permissible in art! The beauty that is perhaps not to be separated from the art does not refer to the object, but to the representation of the image. In this way - and not in another way - art can overcome the ugly, without being able to do without him." [54]

The simultaneous reference in the diaries to the previously mentioned book by Meier-Graefe (which cast doubt on the artistic value of German symbolism) and to the pamphlet by Klinger (and Klee’s negative evaluation on it) is significant. Moreover, the young Klee, only eighteen old, had written on one of his teachers at the academy, on November 23, 1898: "He wants to make a Klinger of me I think it would be a curse." [55] And then, on May 1, 1902: "The Beethoven by Klinger is a scandal. I hate this brutal careerist, today more than ever. However, he suits perfectly to the hollow Viennese Secession. Words are not enough to express my disapproval." [56] Nonetheless, both catalogues of the exhibitions held for the birth of 150^th anniversary from the birth of Klinger (in Karlsruhe and Leipzig) show important quotes from Klinger’s art in the graphics of the young Klee.

One of the founders of The Bridge (Brücke), the painter and engraver Erich Heckel (1883-1970), in a letter to the art historian Christian Töwe cited by Aya Soika [57], describes in 1945 the work of Klinger as absolutely 'incompatible' with his own style and speaks of total "strangeness towards the refinement of his graphic technique, the literary element in many of his works and the naturalism of his representation." This drastic judgment of incompatibility of those times has to be reconsidered today. Klinger and The Bridge were surely pursuing the same style. However, they interpreted perhaps a different but contiguous poetic.

The twenty-year old Klinger who had conquered Berlin in the early eighties of the 1800s with his art graphics, deprived of any respect for the rigid conventions of Wilhelmine Germany, was not actually very different from the "wild youth” of 1905, like Ernst Ludwig Kirchner, Erich Heckel, Karl Schmidt-Rottluff and Max Pechstein. Both one and the others had the same passion for transgression and nudity and seized the centrality of graphic art as a form of protest and expression of the most extreme feelings, of pessimism and tragedy. Today it is recognized that, without Klinger, the rebirth of graphic art in Germany (made possible by the evolution of technology) might have followed very different paths.

A theme that certainly divided them was the representation of the body. The intent was the same: to put the naked body at the centre of art and ensure that the strongest feelings derived from its representation. But the ways were different: the naked body was curved according to classic style by Klinger, it was deformed according to primitive styles by the latter. In both cases, the goals were, however, excitement, frenzy and stimulus. In some respects, that of Klinger was also expressionism, albeit a completely dreamlike one; written over the top, but formally within a classical framework. Expressionists tended instead to the minimalism of the sign, as a form of rupture of any classical writing and an existential re-discussion of the whole balance between form and colour. In Klinger, the excitement was through the dream (or nightmare), and was not part of reality. For the expressionists, it was the reality (not the dream) and its deformation to create the creative excitement. Perhaps this explains why Klinger delighted metaphysical painters like de Chirico and the Surrealists much more than the expressionists. It also explains the importance of Klinger in the painting of the German Democratic Republic (DDR), and in particular the “Leipzig school” (see the painting 'Colossus II' by Wolfgang Mattheuer).

The influence on de Chirico

In the laudation of 1920, de Chirico describes Klinger as the inspiration source of his metaphysical art. He writes on the painting The walk:

"Another profound painting of Klinger is the one entitled: The walk. In front of a low and long wall made of tiles, you see some men who walk in the sun, while their shadows are looming on the ground and go up on the wall. The horizon is empty. That wall looks like marking the limits of the world; it seems as if behind it there should be nothing. The sense of boredom and infinite dismay, that ‘I do not know what’ of a question that arises from the horizon line, propagates across the image: in the figures, in the land, in the shadows and into the light." [58]

The recall of metaphysical art is even stronger when de Chirico refers to graphics:

"It is a dream and at the same time it is a reality: to the viewer looks like an already seen scene, without being able to remember, when or where. (...) Depth and metaphysical sense. (...) Klinger adds to modern-romantic sense the fantasy of a dreamer and storyteller, dark and infinitely metaphysical." [59]

Max Ernst and the surrealists

In 1960, the American-French novelist, poet and translator Édouard Roditi (1910 -1992) interviewed Max Ernst (1891 -1976), along with other artists (Victor Brauner, Carlo Carrà, Marc Chagall and Léonor Fini) on the principles of art [60]. And Max Ernst said, "Max Klinger, this important German artist of the end of the century, a realist and symbolist, provided me for the first time the inspiration for the style of my collages, particularly in his prints, which had often nightmares as a theme." [61]

Ernst was born in 1891, the year of the publication of Painting and drawing. In 1912, only at twenty-one, had written an article on the role of fatal women in art; here he had said that the Salomé of Max Klinger had the same artistic essence of Wedekind's Lulu, of Hedda Gabler by Ibsen and even the Mona Lisa by Leonardo [62]. Klinger is not mentioned in any other text of Ernst, whereas already in 1919 there are important references to Giorgio de Chirico, the inspirer of the collages that are published by Ernst since 1920.

Through Ernst and de Chirico, Max Klinger had an indirect effect on the other Surrealists and particularly on Salvator Dali (1904-1989), who (already in the 50's) owned the complete graphical collection of Klinger.

End of Part Two
Go to Part Three

NOTES

[26] The essay is published in: Schumacher, Fritz – Im Kampfe um die Kunst. Beiträge zu architektonischen Zeitfragen (A fight for art. Contribution to architectonic contemporary questions), J.H.E. Heitz, Strasburg, 1902. See 

https://archive.org/stream/imkampfeumdiekun00schu#page/102/mode/2up

[27] Soika, Aya – Ein ungeliebtes Vorbild (quoted), p. 71

[28] Chronicle of the art group “Brücke”, 1913. The italian integral text is taken from: Apollonio, Umbro, “Die Brücke” e la cultura dell’espressionismo (“Die Brücke”and the culture of expressionism), Alfieri Editore, Venice, 1952 (quotation at page 40)

[29] Scheffler, Karl - Talente (Talents), Berlin, 1921 (second edition), pp. 41-42

[30] Paula Modersohn-Becker in Briefen und Tagebüchern (Paula Modersohn-Becker in letters and diaries), edited by Günter Busch and Liselotte von Reinken. Reviewed and enlarged version edited by Wolfgang Werner on behalf of the Paula Modersohn-Becker foundation, S. Fischer, Frankfurt am Main, 2007, 797 pages. Quotation at page 280.

[31] Paula Modersohn-Becker in Briefen und Tagebüchern (quoted) p. 230.

[32] Paula Modersohn-Becker in Briefen und Tagebüchern (quoted) p. 286.

[33] Eine Liebe: Max Klinger und die Folgen (One love – Max Klinger and the follow-up), catalogue edited by Hans-Werner Schmidt and Hubertus Gaẞner, Museum of Fine Arts of Leipzig, 11 March – 24 June 2007; Hamburg Kunsthalle, 11 October 2007 – 13 January 2008, Christof Kerber publisher, Bielefeld – Leipzig, 2007, 352 pages. See page 260

[34] Eine Liebe: Max Klinger und die Folgen … (quoted). See page 37.

[35] Max Beckmann frühe Tagebücher 1903/04 und 1912/13 (The early diaries of Max Beckmann 1903/1904 and 1912/1913), Munich, Piper Verlag, 1985, p. 172

[36] Beckmann, Max – Leben in Berlin. Tagebuch 1908-1909 (Life in Berlin, 1908-1909), Munich, Piper Verlag, 1984, page 22 (9 January 1908)

[37] Max Klinger, Die druckgraphischen Folgen (The graphical series), Catalogue of the exhibition at the Staatliche Kunsthalle in Karlsruhe, 27 January – 9 April 2007, Braus Edition, Heidelberg 2007, 184 pages. Quotation at page 161.

[38] Leopold Ziegler, Karl Hofer: Briefwechsel 1897-1954 (Leopold Ziegler, Karl Hofer: Correspondence 1897-1954), Würzburg, Königshausen u. Neumann, 2004, 162 pages. The quotation is at page 24.

[39] Leopold Ziegler, Karl Hofer: Briefwechsel 1897-1954 (quoted) See page 93.

[40] Soika, Aya – Ein ungeliebtes Vorbild (citato), p. 71

[41] The letter is quoted in: Kuhn Philipp, Die Villa Romana von ihrer Gründung bis zum Ausbruch des ersten Weltkrieges (The Villa Romana from its foundation up to the beginning of the First World War), in: http://www.villaromana.org/upload/Texte/Archivtext2.pdf

[42] The funeral of Max Klinger is described in very great detail on the website of the museum of Naumburg (http://www.mv-naumburg.de/klingers-grab).

[43] Kollowitz, Käthe – Die Tagebücher 1908-1943 (The diaries 1908-1943), BTB Verlag, Munich, 2012, 957 pages. The quotation is at page 476

[44] Kollowitz, Käthe – Die Tagebücher (quoted). See page 866.

[45] Kollowitz, Käthe – Die Tagebücher (quoted). "I could not move forward on the colour. I read by chance the brochure "Painting and drawing" by Max Klinger. Then I realized: I was not a painter "(p. 739). (…) Still seventeen, I had already admired the collection "A Life", albeit poorly exposed, in Berlin in 1884, after my brother had spoken of his friend Klinger (p 737)."

[46] Kubin, Alfred, Ma vie (My life - French translation of the original Aus meinem Leben), Paris, Editions Allia (pp.40-42).

[47] In a 1904 letter to a friend, Kubin announces a future visit to Klinger in Leipzig, but it is unclear if such a meeting has never materialized. See Hoberg, Annegret – Max Klinger und Alfred Kubin (Max Klinger and Alfred Kubin), in Eine Liebe: Max Klinger und die Folgen (quoted) p. 60.

[48] Hoberg, Annegret – Max Klinger und Alfred Kubin (quoted) p. 61. The work by Ernst Bredt is the article "Von Kubin, Bosch und Klinger", published in “Die Kunst für Alle“, July 1923, page 293-304. See: http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/kfa1922_1923/0310.

[49] Kolbe, Georg – Auf wegen der Kunst. Schriften – Skizzen – Plastiken (On account of the art. Fonts - sketches – sculptures), with 90 pictures. Introduction by Ivo Beucker, Verlag Konrad Lemmer, Berlin Zehlendorf, 1949.

[50] Kolbe, Georg – Auf wegen der Kunst. (quoted), pp. 10-12.

[51] Kolbe, Georg – Auf wegen der Kunst. (quoted), pp. 35-36.

[52] Briefe von Max Klinger aus den Jahren 1874 bis 1919 (Letters by Max Klinger from 1874 to 1919), edited by Hans Wolfgang Singer, Leipzig, Verlag E. A. Seemann, 1924, pp. 232. The letter - addressed to the sculptor Georg Wrba - has the number 173 and is reproduced on pages 228-229.

[53] Briefe von Max Klinger aus den Jahren 1874 bis 1919 (quoted). The letter – addressed to the painter Leopold von Kalckreuth – has the number 172 and is reproduced at pages 227-228.

[54] Klee Paul, Tagebücher 1898-1918 (Diaries 1898-1918), new critical edition by the Klee Foundation, under the direction of Wolfgang Kersten, Verlag Gerd Hatje and Verlag Artur Niggli, 1988, p. 230.

[55] Max Klinger, Die druckgraphischen Folgen (quoted), p.159.

[56] Max Klinger, Die druckgraphischen Folgen (quoted), p.159.

[57] Soika, Aya – Ein ungeliebtes Vorbild (quoted), p. 71.

[58] De Chirico, Giorgio – Max Klinger, in: Klinger, Max – Pittura e disegno (Painting and Drawing), edited by Michele Dantini with an essay by Giorgio de Chirico, Milano, Nike, 1988, p. 129. Quotation at page 103.

[59] De Chirico, Giorgio – Max Klinger (quoted) See pages 98 and 100.

[60] Roditi, Edouard - Dialogues on Art, Londra, Secker & Warburg, 1960.

[61] Pech, Jürgen – Max Klinger, Max Ernst und die Prismatisierung der Wahrnehmung (Max Klinger, Max Ernst and the Prismatisation of perception), in Eine Liebe: Max Klinger und die Folgen … (quoted), pages 45-48.

[62] Ernst, Max – Hedda Gabler, in: Bonner Volksmund, Nr. 97, Year 7, 4 December 1912.