CLICK HERE FOR ITALIAN VERSION
German Artists' Writings in the XX Century - 13
Max Liebermann
Briefe [Letters]
Collected, annotated and edited by Ernst Braun
Volume Three (1902-1906)
2013, 651 pages, Baden-Baden, Deutscher Wissenschaftlicher-Verlag (DWV)
Review by Francesco Mazzaferro - Part Two
[Original Version: March 2017 - New Version: April 2019]
 |
Fig. 2) The catalogue of the German exhibition of St. Louis in 1904. The text offered visitors a description of the German Empire from all points of view. Source: https://archive.org/details/officialcatalogu00loui_0
|
The first secession
from the Secession (1902)
Created in 1898, the Berlin Secession underwent
a first splitting (many more followed) on February 20, 1902, with sixteen
artists leaving the association. The dissidents were led by Otto Engel
(1866-1949) and Oskar Frenzel (1855-1915) [92]. Frenzel and Engel were members of the Secession
Board, which lose two of its eight components. It was a dangerous time for
Lieberman, in a phase in which he was explicitly subject to direct attacks from
Emperor William II. The reasons of the sixteen were published on the monthly Kunst für Alle [93] on March 15. Thanks to Ernst Braun, curator of Lieberman's correspondence,
the text was reproduced as an attachment to the third volume of the Letters: the signatories complained the
break of the previous commitments, by which every artistic direction should be
equally represented, and the lacking support for local artists. “Giving too much weight to the art of a
certain route and attracting excessively foreign artists, the Secession did not
sufficiently support the interests of its ordinary members and of German art” [94]. It followed much criticism directed to the
conflict of commercial interests, which saw the Secession secretary, Paul Cassirer, also operating as owner of the Cassirer Gallery, i.e. one of the most
important private art galleries in Berlin (this was a real problem, which
created Liebermann too troubles for years; in fact, Cassirer owned the
exclusive rights for the commercialization of any new artwork of the Berlin
painter, and imposed very expensive brokerage fees [95]). Indirectly, however,
criticism was also directed against Liebermann in person, since he was the one who
had opened the door to foreign artists; the President of the Secession was
reproached in those months a tyrannical attitude (see also Franz Jüttner’s
caricature published in a satirical monthly the same year).
In aesthetic terms, the sixteen dissenting artists
(none of whom - including Frenzel and Engel - never rose to particular
celebrity) considered the modernist orientation of the Secession as excessive.
As explained by Paret [96], the exit of the conservative wing out of the Board
created, however, the space to integrate new reformist elements (Slevogt and
Corinth, just arrived from Munich), allowing the Secession to accentuate differences from academic art.
If the first fracture had no disastrous effects
for the Secession, it was also because the representatives of the academic
world in line with the imperial house were not able to seize the chance. The
sixteen were ready to integrate back into the Verein Berliner Künstler (the association of artists linked the
academy), but they applied for a separate recognition as a separate group by official
academic authorities. They wanted to get a formal guarantee that they would not
be subjected to the same normal academic jury as all others for the choice of
the pictures, as they were afraid to be fully ignored. They also requested to
be able to participate in exhibitions held at the Crystal Palace in Berlin in a
separate room, to make visible their distinct existence [97]. Although the
Ministry of Interior accepted their terms (though possibly only in order to
weaken the Secession [98]), the director of the Academia, Anton von Werner,
refused all their demands. The group came out irreparably weakened, having no
autonomous capacity to cater to the preparation of its own exposure. Ironically
- as Liebermann wrote both to the art critic Julius Elias [99] and the fellow painter Leopold von
Kalckreuth
[100] in
March 1902 - the Secession was saved by the obtuseness of its historical enemy.
In his correspondence, the painter made a brief
reference to these events to his friend and fellow Dutchman Jan Veith
[101]. Then, writing to
Leopold von Kalckreuth about the sixteen, he stated: “They were people who, at least in part, felt close to the Luitpold
Group in Munich. Of course, we are sorting out strengthened by their decision
to move away, because now we are all aligned along the same position. On the
other side, our exhibitions have naturally become more difficult, and therefore
we need, now more than ever, the support of all those who pursue our goals”
[102]. The Luitpold Group was a group of painters - mostly landscape painters -
which in 1896 set up an independent association in Munich, as an alternative to
both the academic painters and the Munich Secession, with an intermediate
orientation between the two. In sum, the same happened also in Berlin in 1902. In
a letter to the critic Hans Rosenhagen, Liebermann repeated after a few time that the departure
of the sixteen artists left the group more cohesive [103].
Open war against the Munich
Secession (1902-1903)
Between 1902 and 1903, the relations with the Munich
Secession, which already had deteriorated previously, now turned into
an open conflict. In the early years of the Berlin Secession, all the different
Secessionist groups in German cities (Munich, Dusseldorf, Weimar, Dresden,
Karlsruhe) had used to take part in the Berlin exhibitions. This facilitated
the task of their Berlin colleagues, who aimed to offer the public visiting the
premises on Kantstrasse a critical mass of good quality works with a common art
orientation. The Munich-painters believed, however, that the Berliners wanted
to put them in a bad light; they thought their Berlin colleagues were in fact feeding
the growing controversy in art magazines about the decline of Munich as
artistic centre (the art critic Hans Rosenhagen was the biggest supporter of
this thesis). When Slevogt and Corinth moved to Berlin, the other Munich
secessionists believed it was the result of an intrigue of Liebermann and broke
any relationship with him. As a result, the Munich Secession refused to send their
works to Berlin for the fifth exhibition of summer 1902, hoping to undermine
the Berlin group itself and to regain supremacy in Germany.
Liebermann protested against that rejection with
one of them, Hugo von Habermann (1849-1929) [104]. Then he wrote to Kalckreuth (who, as a
painter from Stuttgart, came from a historically neutral region in the fight
between Munich and Berlin), exhaustively complaining about the Munich painters,
and explaining that also the Berliners had decided, from now on, to
reciprocally refuse any collaboration [105]. The letter to Kalckreuth gave an entirely
parochial interpretation of this 'war between brothers': “in art as in politics: Bavaria does not want to accept the Prussian
stamps” [106]. In fact, Liebermann’s assessment of the weaknesses of the Munich
secession was both political and aesthetic: "Munich is doomed. The Munich artists - even those in the Secession –
he wrote to the Viennese writer Franz Servaes on 12 November 1902 - have become part of the official world and
that in the long run does not marry with art” [107].
As befits any rivalry, there was plenty of unnecessary
teasing. In parallel to the Munich Secession and the Luitpold group, also a
third group was formed in the Bavarian capital, with the curious name "The
Plate" (Die Scholle). These were
artists who had their own separate existence as a group between 1899 and 1911,
gathering around Fritz Erler (1868-1940), who later on became a war artist in
the First World War and finally Adolf Hitler’s official portrait painter after
1933. As a symbolist group, the "Plate" placed itself to the left of Munich
Secession in the political geography of Bavarian painting in those times (and
thus had more pronounced modernistic characteristics than the Berlin Secession).
However, Liebermann decided to exhibit the paintings of their members in March
1903 [108] (once Liebermann
made peace again with the secessionists in Munich, their participation become a
nuisance to him [109] and he got rid of them). This is not all. The Berlin Secession also
welcomed Kandinsky, who - with his Phalanx
group, also active in Munich - was now one of the leading vanguard artists. In
short: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
A moment of confusion
(1903)
Quite remarkably, in August 1903, i.e. at the
end of the seventh exhibition, Liebermann considered the idea of dissolving the
Secession. What happened? In 1903 Arthur Kampf (1864-1950) became president of
the Great Berlin Art Exhibition (Große
Berliner Kunstausstellung), the official exhibition of academic painters to
which the Secession opposed. Kampf suddenly showed signs of openness: as
explained by Peter Paret, he made use of his prerogative as chairman to invite
directly French artists (and therefore without them having to go through the
jury) and said he would admit also works by secessionists artists to a German
art exhibition, planned in Chicago [110]. For a few months it seemed that
things were really going to change in the official Berlin, until the Emperor
himself intervened in person and stopped any openings.
Liebermann was in the Dutch Scheveningen,
for the usual summer holidays in the Netherlands, lasting three months on that
year, and could not observe these events in person. Therefore, he sent a letter to
Hugo von Tschudi, friend and director of the Nationalgalerie in Berlin, to ask
him if, in his opinion, the time had come to conclude a ceasefire and seek a
honourable understanding with the most advanced elements of the Academy,
offering the dissolution of the Secession as a bargaining chip. The letter
revealed his contrasting feelings: “I am
addressing you – he wrote on August 20 -
in an emergency situation for the Secession, because I think that you can judge
the situation better. Do we need to dissolve the Secession or not? Or rather, is
the Secession still needed? In fact, after the Kampf case it would seem
that there can be no doubt, but unfortunately people like Kampf are difficult
to shake, and always tend to take the governmental position and on that
side there is nothing to expect. You will say that, until now, we managed without
their help and thus we can continue like this. But much has changed. The
Landeskunst Austellung [editorial note: the exhibition of academic painters
in Berlin] has learned a lot from us. It
has awakened from its lethargy. From our side, instead of growing we lost Munich,
Leistikow is increasingly ill [editorial note: he had a very severe syphilis
infection] and Hoffmann and Tuaillon
moved to Weimar. As for me, I'm tired of fighting, and increasingly taken by my
artworks; and I do not see new talents to rely on. It seems to me, therefore, the
time may have come to dissolve the Secession. And then, what? Shall we go back in
the golden castle of the academic exhibition? If you think about the fate of
the 16 secessionists who left us last year, or rather to their decline, it may
well anticipate what would happen to others. If we dissolved us, we would have
done all our work of the past five years for the king of Prussia”
[111].
Tschudi responded with two answer letters,
which are however lost. What is certain is that, after a week, Liebermann’s new
letter of August 28 had an entirely different tone: “I am thanking you for your two letters. If anything could ever help me hold
my position, it was your messages. You are quite right: the Secession is needed
right now” [112].
The foundation of the
"League of German artists" (Deutscher
Künstlerbund) in 1904
The same letter to Tschudi on August 28, 1903
referred to an event that definitely changed Liebermann’s views, bringing him
back to the battlefield. The 1904 Universal Exposition (following the one of
Paris with the Eiffel Tower) was due in St. Louis in the United States. Already
in 1901, the US government had urged the German authorities to set up a
national pavilion, presenting the Americans all aspects of the country
(industry, trade, society, art). Paret explained, after much hesitation due to
the costs for the public budget, the German government decided to contribute to
the exhibition. It also committed to send a collection to the art exhibition, which
was due to provide an overview of the entire contemporary German art production
[113]. The United States was a
huge market, dominated by French art and unexplored by artists from Germany, at
a time where new museums were created in all important towns and affluent
private collectors were willing to purchase art from Europe. To be present there
was important both from a commercial point of view and in terms of cultural identity.
The government commissioner Theodor Lewald (1860-1947) decided therefore for a
representation, which would involve all artistic currents of the moment and also
included the Secessions [114]. To demonstrate his organizational capacity, it
can be added that Lewald organized, thirty years later, the 1936 Berlin
Olympics.
Mid-1903 it seemed that the organization of a
unified presence was a done deal [115], so much so that contemporary art experts
of that time spoke of the new Committee selecting works to be sent to St. Louis, as
a Kunstparlament, an "art
Parliament” [116]. The
Committee brought together representatives of associations of artists and
museum directors from all over Germany (including Tschudi, Lichtwark and
Pauli). Then the Emperor intervened again, depriving the "Art Parliament" of any prerogative and entrusting the decision on the composition
of the German exhibition to the Kunstgenossenschaft,
the "Art Guild", or the association of academic painters. We were in
the July 1903 [117].
In a letter to Tschudi on August 28, 1903,
Liebermann wanted to have nothing to do anymore with the official art
representatives: “For German Secessions,
it would have now come the right time to declare: either we exhibit nothing, or
we do it as a separate group. Unfortunately Munich does not take a position
with us, because of the rivalry with Berlin, and Anton von Werner will be the
odd man who enjoys among us” [118]. To avoid this, there is need of "a joint action of all German secessions,
including Vienna" [119].
The result was the initiative that led to the
establishment of the League of German artists, the Deutscher Kuenstlerbund, based in Weimar. The Kuenstlerbund was founded as an irreconcilable rival of the “Art
Guild” (Kunstgenossenschaft). The
mechanism was simple. First, it was created a sort of 'cartel' of all German Secessions. Second, all of them committed contractually to show a united image
of Secessionist German art outside the country. Third, new binding common rules
were defined for the exhibitions within Germany. With the birth of the League, one would think that Liebermann
put into practice - in the art world - the same trends occurring in those years
in the German manufacturing sector: economic regulation (by means of an increasingly
intrusive administrative law) and grouping of large companies in industrial
cartels, based on agreements restricting competition. These mechanisms of
institutionalization of the German society spread from the mode of production
into politics, science and art, and characterized both the conservative as well
as the progressive halves of population (think of the trade unions and the
Social Democratic Party). The supporting sociological processes would be
studied by Max Weber fifteen years later, in two conferences held at the
University of Munich for the cycle "Geistige
Arbeit als Beruf" (The spiritual work as a vocation). They were "Science
as a Vocation" (1917) and "Politics as a Vocation" (1919), two
of his most famous texts.
On October 11, Liebermann explained his project
to Leopold van Kalckreuth, who eventually became the first president of the League. “I would like to expose here a plan about which we - Leistikow, von
Hoffmann, Tuaillon and I - are thinking for some time. You will agree with us
that the events of recent years - I only remember the preparations for the
exhibition of St. Louis - have shown that the condition of our art urgently
needs support. We are of the opinion that the regulation of artistic questions
should be a matter for the artists, and particularly for the artists only.
But that self-regulation can only come if all independent artists are
associated in a pact. This agreement of all the autonomous elements should
include: (i) joint performances in different capitals of Germany and abroad;
(ii) the creation of a gallery, that associates the most significant works of
contemporary art production and the costs of which can be covered by revenues
of the exhibitions and the generous donations from benefactors."
“Obviously
such an association could be created only on the broadest basis: without any
consideration about the direction of the individual artist, there should be
place for anyone who pursues his objective with the necessary talent, i.e. for
any artist. To date we have revealed our plan only to Klinger and Kampf, who
said they were in complete agreement. We are writing to you with the request to
be part of a committee that would be composed of Uhde, Stuck, Habermann, Thoma,
Hildebrandt, Kuehl, Trübner, Lenbach, Mackesen, Zügel, Vinnen and who would be joined
by Count Kessler, Lichtwark, Wölfflin and von Tschudi” [120]. It must be said that several of them
(for example, Thoma, Kampf and von Tschudi) did not adhere.
The battle plan was ready, and foresaw a union
of artists and art critics, from Berlin, Dresden, Düsseldorf, Leipzig, Hamburg,
Stuttgart, Karlsruhe and the artists' colony of Worpswede.
It soon became clear that it was a real war. On
November 1, Liebermann wrote once gain to von Kalckreuth, asking him to
withdraw his participation from the German pavilion at the Universal Exhibition
in St. Louis. All future members of the League should refuse their presence. He
updated him about new developments: among the most famous painters of the time,
Thoma was not willing to adhere to the League, while Stuck decided not only to
participate but to be present at the inaugural meeting of Weimar [121]. Liebermann announced to Lichtwark
that the act of foundation was planned on December 15, 1903. The common
exhibition gallery of the League was due to be located in Weimar, as the
geographical centre of united Germany (in those time borders) and the symbol of
the German culture of classical matrix (since the era of Goethe and Schiller),
but also as a result of reciprocal vetoes, "Munich would not accept Dresden or Berlin, Berlin would not be in favour
of Munich” [122].
And, always writing to Lichtwark, he commented: “The members of the German secessions form the trunk; only they can establish
a powerful cooperative. But we would like a wider base. In other words, we want
to attract the artists that belong to us from an artistic point of view, but
which have not been part of Secessions. We have to fight two fronts: on the
right and on the left” [123].
The first exhibition of the Deutscher Künstlerbund was held in Munich,
from June to October 1904, to coincide with the tenth exhibition of the Munich Secession.
In fact, the Weimar Gallery held only minor exhibitions. The Bavarian capital was
chosen in preference to Dresden and Düsseldorf, especially based on the larger
space offered in Munich for the painters from the rest of Germany [124]. The second exhibition was instead
held in Berlin as of June 1905, together with the tenth exhibition of the
Berlin Secession (already commented in the previous post). Just compare the
covers of two catalogues, and you will notice the difference in style (the
Munich catalogue - fig. 52 -showed the bust of the Prince Regent of Bavaria – Luitpold
(1821–1912) – while the Berlin one - fig. 53 - did not make any concessions to decorative
elements). So the League remained a binding
cartel between different sensibilities.
Elements of ambiguity
Liebermann’s correspondence actually revealed us
also some fundamental elements of ambiguity. On the one hand, the statutes of
the League proclaimed the principle
that all artistic style orientations (with the exception of academicism) should
be welcomed: very different sensibilities and traditions could coexist side by
side within the organization. On the other hand, Liebermann would have
preferred something much more coherent and cohesive. He expressed his doubts to
Alfred Lichtwark, the director of the Kunsthalle in Hamburg, on January 3,
1905: “Too many cooks spoil the soup.
(...) There is a lot of forces which are in themselves and by themselves exceptional.
However, they cannot do anything (at least until now), despite the best will.
(...) The League of artists wants to give unitary expression (and thus style)
to the conventional wisdom on the art of our time. (...) Is the goal perhaps
unattainable? Does our inadequacy depend on the inadequate resources or
direction? Certainly, it cannot depend on events: our time imposes strictly
that we strive for a union of artists” [125]. Lichtwark’s answer was: to persevere [126].
From the point of view of freedom of initiative
too, the League had contradictory
aspects. It was both a tool to get more freedom from the imperial pressure, but
also a contractual mechanism to repress and sanction any too accommodative
behaviour vis-à-vis art events and artists outside the League. Thus, for example, on March 11, 1905 Liebermann asked
Kalckreuth to prohibit all members from participating in the Liège World Exhibition of that year
[127]; a few weeks later he
again required Kalckreuth to withdraw from the exhibition of the Berlin
academic artists
[128]; in May he refused an offer of peace from Anton von Werner, inviting all
the German Secession at an exhibition in honour of the 25th anniversary of the
emperor's wedding [129].
Liebermann and the
national mission
The letters between 1902 and 1906 testify to
the transition, in Liebermann, from a transnational concept of development of
the artistic style (in the first volume of the Letters Liebermann wrote that he had more success in Paris than in Germany) to very
local targets (such as establishing roots in Berlin) and finally to a national
mission (with the creation of the League
for the whole of Germany). A process of 'nationalization' of culture was perhaps
inevitable, because this was the path of the German society (and that of other
European polities) in those years. Certainly, Liebermann did not express an
aggressive cultural nationalism; he wanted to build the aesthetic identity of Germany
as a culturally open country, and his art was indeed often accused of being
'anti-German', as it happened in the controversy with the art historian Henry
Thode in summer 1905. However, his goal coincided more and more objectively
with a desire to ensure equal dignity to the modern art of young Germany exactly as to the
equivalent art in other areas of Europe.
In March 1903, the writer Theodor Wolff asked
him some insight into the Paris art schools for an acquaintance: after a few
words, Lieberman added: "However,
since a few years I am no longer aware of what is happening in Paris”
[139]. Over the years covered
by the third volume of letters, he had in fact a constant relationship only with
Auguste Rodin. The connection between the two artists must have been well known
in Berlin: in fact, Liebermann was commissioned by the Academy of Fine Arts in
Berlin to sound out the French sculptor on the proposal of his appointment as a
correspondent member [140], on February 8, 1906; Rodin formally accepted on
March 29, with a letter to the Academy, but also wanted to send a personal separate
note to Liebermann: "I am happy to
become your colleague” [141]. Liebermann maintained good relations also with the sculptor Aristide
Maillol, close to the Nabis [142] and great friend of Count Ulrich Kessler. If
there were direct relations with the protagonists of French sculpture, it is rather
surprising that relations with the French painters were close to none, and always
mediated by a third party. When organizing special sections of the exhibitions at
the Secession on 'young' Dutch, Dane and Swedes painters Liebermann wrote
directly to colleagues in other countries. However, when he decided to dedicate
a room to so-called French 'neo-impressionists' (as already mentioned, they
were Gauguin and the Nabis) in 1906, he delegated the pointillist Curt Herrmann
to select the painters to be chosen and made once again good use of Count
Kessler’s relations to contact artists and intermediaries in Paris.
Let it be clear: it remains valid what has
already been said previously. Liebermann never became an anti-French
nationalist, and always objected to the increasingly rhetoric of national art,
as in a letter of March 1902 to publicist Maximilian Harden: “If you fail to find any defect in a pretty
picture, the last card you will play against it is the argument that it is not
German. Is perhaps the funny, comedian, satirist feature in Menzel something
typically German, and the simple, serious, melancholic element in Millet
something typically French? No! The good God gives us the talent not according
to national borders, trying to stir up malicious resentments” [143]. And yet, if Lieberman was opposed
to the use of bayonets to make war with the French, he did not eschew ambitions
of a German cultural leadership in Europe, which in the letters of previous
years were absent: “Art is power. The
creator wants to force me to follow in his wake. Twenty years ago I heard
Richard Wagner complain bitterly of the war of the '70s: he said it was
useless, because he, Wagner, still would have conquered France with his music.
Is it not what happened?” [144]
The Dutch roots of
Liebermann’s Impressionism
We often associate German Impressionism with the
idea that it had been imported directly from France. Reading the letters, it is
clear that – despite the homage to Degas and Manet (Liebermann collected the
latter’s paintings and called him his teacher, using the Latin expression preceptor picturae [145]) – in the case of Liebermann the
French inspiration was always filtered through the lens of Dutch painting,
including contemporary ones.
Why do we continue to define Liebermann an
impressionist, even when it is clear that his roots were firmly anchored in the
Dutch world? Why do we not you call him a neo-Baroque or a neo-Dutch painter?
Certainly, Liebermann himself believed that Impressionism was a category of the
universal spirit; it was the culmination of world art and embraced much more
than France. One cannot however rule out that the definition had purely commercial
reasons. The Impressionists were selling well in Germany, they were related to
the theme of light and colour, and offered the new German bourgeoisie a joyful
image of nature and life. Dutch painting was phenomenal, but much more
difficult to read and introverted. Just browse the illustrated art calendars which
are being sold today to the general public, and you will realize that there are
much more inspired by Monet and Pissarro than by Rembrandt and Frans Hals.
The emerging powers: the United States and Russia
On the sidelines of the discussion on the
relations with France, it should be noted that Liebermann received numerous
requests from the United States, particularly from the Carnegie Institute [151].
He was invited to hold exhibitions, attend conferences, visit New York, but he never
responded positively: evidently a trip to the US was not in his plans.
A curiosity is the interest in the culture of
Russian exiles in Berlin, and in particular the meeting with Maxim Gorki. It took
place in March 1906, in occasion of a special evening in the premises of the
Secession, in the presence of writers and artists from Berlin. Liebermann wrote
Pauli that he had introduced the evening with a short speech in Russian [152].
And Italy?
In the third volume, we learnt than he travelled
to Florence (four weeks) and Rome (two weeks) during the autumn 1902,
accompanied by his family. It was a relatively long stay, but - unlike what always
happened when he was in the Netherlands - his days in Italy did not inspire him
to produce large paintings. The six weeks in Italy were instead devoted to the
minor arts: his 'Italian' drawings, pastels and watercolours are now dispersed
between Germany, the Netherlands and Italy; they were all exposed at the sixth
Berlin Secession exhibition in November 1902.
Liebermann brought back from Florence at least
some crayons (the 'Monte Oliveto in
Florence', a study of the city rooftops and a tree-lined boulevard) that were
presented in the journal Kunst und
Künstler the following year [154]. The works surprise because the artist seemed to intentionally avoid
any processing of the monumentality of the Tuscan city, searching instead
glimpses of almost Flemish taste. In a letter from Florence to the art
historian Max Lehrs [155] (October 5, 1902), he stressed his love for thirteenth century art, his
appreciation for the one of the fourteenth century, but then stopped there. Of
the fifteenth century, perhaps not surprisingly, he mentioned only Hugo van der
Goes, which was certainly not Tuscan, but whom he saw in Florence. He stressed
the quality of the van der Goes painting in Florence also once he was back in Berlin, in letters directed
to Lichtwark
[156] and
Jan Veth [157]. Renaissance, in short, did not seem to interest him.
NOTES
[92] The dissidents were Willi Döring, Otto H. Engel,
Oskar Frenzel, Viktor Freudemann, Richard Friese, Hermann Hendrich, Paul
Hoeniger, Felix Krause, Carl Langhammer, Hugo Lederer, Franz Lippisch, Hans
Looschen, Martin Schauss, Max Schlichting, Max Uth and Julie Wolf-Thorn.
[93] See:
http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/kfa1902/0306?sid=40ff31db955e2695a505556f211d01ec.
http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/kfa1902/0306?sid=40ff31db955e2695a505556f211d01ec.
[94] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, zusammengetragen, kommentiert und herausgegeben von Ernst Braun.
(Letters. Collected, annotated and edited by Ernst Braun), Baden-Baden,
Deutscher Wissenschaftlicher-Verlag (DWV), Third volume - (1902-1906), 2013,
651 pages. Quotation at page 539.
[95] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume - (1902-1906),
p. 69.
[96] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 154.
[97] Doede, Werner – Die Berliner Sezession. Berlin als Zentrum der deutschen Kunst von der
Jahrhundertwende bis zum Ersten Weltkrieg (The Berlin Secession. Berlin as centre of German art from
the beginning of the century to World War I), Frankfurt am Main – Berlin –
Vienna, Propyläen, 1977, 139 pages. Quotation at page 23.
[98] Teewisse, Klaas – Berliner Kunstleben zur Zeit Max Liebermanns (The artistic life of
Berlina t the time of Max Liebermann), in: Max Liebermann, Catalogue of the
exhibition in Berlin (6th September 1979 – 11th November
1979) and Munich (15th December 1979 – 1st February
1980), Munich, Prestel, 1979, 687 pages. Quotation at page 83 and footnote 53
at page 87.
[99] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 33.
[100] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 34.
[101] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 24.
[102] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), pp. 28-29.
[103] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 32.
[104] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 29.
[105] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 95.
[106] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 95.
[107] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 76.
[108] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 106.
[109] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), pp. 198 and 248.
[110] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), pp. 158-159.
[111] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 126.
[112] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 127.
[113] Paret, Peter, The Berlin Secession. Modernism
and Its Enemies in Imperial Germany, Harvard University Press, 1980, 269 pages.
Consulted in the German
version dated 1981: Paret, Peter - Die
Berliner Secession : moderne Kunst und ihre Feinde im Kaiserlichen Deutschland,
Berlin, Severin und Siedler, 1981, 351 pages. Quotation at pages 168-173.
[114] Paret, Peter - Die Berliner Secession (quoted), p.
173.
[115] Paret, Peter - Die Berliner Secession (quoted), p.
187.
[116] Paret, Peter - Die Berliner Secession (quoted), p.
188.
[117] Paret, Peter - Die Berliner Secession (quoted), p.
190-191.
[118] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 127.
[119] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 127.
[120] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), pp. 131-132.
[121] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), pp. 133-134.
[122] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 147.
[123] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 153.
[124] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 180.
[125] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 255.
[126] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 258.
[127] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 277.
[128] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), pp. 293 and 294.
[129] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), pp. 291 and 298.
[130] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 398.
[131] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 401.
[132] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), pp. 30-31.
[133] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 66.
[134] For the original of the catalogue, see:
http://digital.ub.uni-duesseldorf.de/urn/urn:nbn:de:hbz:061:1-15646. For a show review of those days in Kunstchronik, see
http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/kunstchronik1902/0257?sid=04b830d987b2c064947008a9fa7accee.
http://digital.ub.uni-duesseldorf.de/urn/urn:nbn:de:hbz:061:1-15646. For a show review of those days in Kunstchronik, see
http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/kunstchronik1902/0257?sid=04b830d987b2c064947008a9fa7accee.
[136] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 275.
[137] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), pp. 20 and 22.
[138] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 93.
[139] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 109.
[140] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 385.
[141] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 428.
[142] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 387.
[143] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 33.
[144] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 33.
[145] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 42.
[146] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), pp. 123 and 268.
[147] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 24.
[148] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 24.
[149] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 18.
[150] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), pp. 17-18.
[151] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), pp 51; 204; 209, 316, 459, and 481.
[152] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 407.
[153] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 477.
[154] See: Neue Arbeiten von Max Liebermann (New
artworks by Max Liebermann), in: Kunst und Künstler, 1903, p.133 (http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/kk1902_1903/0142).
[155] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 65.
[156] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 71.
[157] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume - (1902-1906),
p. 72.
[158] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 12.
[159] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 71 and 76.
[160] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 490.
[161] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, (…), Third volume -
(1902-1906), p. 493.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento