Francesco Mazzaferro
The correspondence between Max Liebermann, Alfred Lichtwark and Leopold von Kalckreuth, and the search for a new painting style in the first years of the Twentieth century
Part Two
The correspondence between Max Liebermann, Alfred Lichtwark and Leopold von Kalckreuth, and the search for a new painting style in the first years of the Twentieth century
Part Two
[Original Version: June 2017 - New Version: April 2019]
 |
Fig. 24) Leopold von Kalckreuth, Portrait of Alfred Lichtwark, 1912. Source: DIRECTMEDIA, via Wikimedia Commons
|
In November 1903 the Director of the Art Gallery of Hamburg (Kunsthalle), Alfred Lichtwark, agreed, upon
Liebermann’s request, to support the "League
of German Artists" (Deutscher
Kunstlerbund), thereby becoming
one of the most important cultural promoters for contemporary art in Germany. In the third volume of the Letters, curated by Ernst Braun [67], Liebermann showed gratitude: "Thank you very much for your letter. I'm
really happy to have your support. In truth, I was sure you would participate,
but your letter shows that you want to do more, i.e. to dedicate your strength
to our endeavour. And we really need it” [68]. The painter discussed with
Lichtwark strategies to gain the support from other critics and art historians
[69]. He opened up to him about the difficulty of keeping together, within the League, artists with sometimes very
different orientations [70]. They discussed how best to fit the taste of German
collectors [71]. Together, they scheduled the rhythm of exhibitions and
co-ordinated them with other art events throughout Germany, so as to take into
account regional interests [72]. It was Lichtwark, in the end, to find the
formula of the necessary compromise that kept the League alive: "Complete
freedom of association for the individual artists. On the contrary, constraints
for the artists’ groups to force them to hold joint exhibitions inside and
outside the country” [73].
The role of the director of the Kunsthalle became even more important
for Liebermann, when the naturalist painter Leopold von Kalckreuth (a close friend of Lichtwark) was named at
the head of the League. In short, the
third volume of the Letters
(1902-1906) was dominated by the entangled correspondence between Liebermann, Lichtwark
and Kalckreuth. This was a real triangular epistolary relationship, combining
private aspects and interactions between artists and other art operators. It
should be said that the letter exchange among the three was studied for many
years. Carl Schellenberg published in 1947 all letters from Lichtwark to
Liebermann [74] and, ten years later, those from Lichtwark to von Kalckreuth [75].
Both publications were financed by the Lichtwark Foundation in Hamburg. Lastly,
the entire exchange of letters between Liebermann and Lichtwark was published
and commented by Birgit Pflugmacher in 2002 [76]. Browsing these publications,
it is clear that the three had an important relationship (though not without
contradictory aspects), which had a significant impact on the development of
German art of those years. Liebermann was, among the three, the most proactive.
It was always him who took the initiative, especially with regard to the League of German artists.
 | |
|
The
Liebermann-Lichtwark relationship according to Schellenberg
 |
| Fig. 26) The collection of Lichtwark’s letters to Liebermann, published by Carl Schellenberg in 1947 |
In 1947, the Hamburg historian
Carl-Schellenberg (1898-1968) introduced the collection of Alfred Lichtwark's letters
to Max Liebermann with a dense introductory survey of 76 pages, in which he
analysed one of the most continuous epistolary reports in German art between
the XIX and XX centuries (although the documentation unfortunately had some
important gaps, such as the correspondence between 1895 and 1902) [77]. "The letters followed each other at a daily
rate. On some occasions, Lichtwark sometimes wrote two letters a day, either
because he wanted to keep separate the themes... or because, immediately after
sending the first letter, he received another one by Liebermann, whom he wanted
to answer immediately" [78]. From the letters we gain an image of the museum
director as "an enlightened individual of our
day” [79], a man "prompted by the
optimism of being able to move the world and to educate at least the majority
of people to understand art” [80] and therefore of a person who had great
passion for the dissemination of culture [81]. At the same time, he was an untiring
worker: during his long tenure at the Kunsthalle
he never took holidays and he always dealt with everything in the museum [82].
Schellenberg explained that the passion for
modern art led the director to make radical choices. For the latter, the Kunsthalle
owed to be a contemporary museum, or 'a
collection of living artists', as already mentioned in the first part of this post. In 1907, he was offered the complete art collection of Eduard
Friedrich Weber (1830-1907), a great Hamburg merchant who had collected more
than 350 works of art by Italian, Dutch and German painters and artists between
the Middle Ages and the Baroque. However, he considered that the price to pay
(two million and a half marks) would have deprived his museum of sufficient financial
resources for the acquisitions of modern art. Therefore, despite the public disagreement
of those who would have loved to create a public museum of old masters in
Hamburg worthy of those in Munich and Berlin, he did not accept (the following
public auction of the Weber collection for a total of four and a half million marks
revealed that he had been really offered a good price and that Lichtwark was
not a good businessman) [83], even if he had exercised a buying option for some
of the best pieces (paintings and drawings by Rubens, Rembrandt, Mantegna,
Holbein the Elder, Dürer and Cranach).
Certainly, between Lichtwark and Liebermann
there was also a difference of social rank: Lichtwark came from a very modest
family, made career on the basis of a hard-working discipline and, despite
this, faced problems of social acceptance for all his life [84]. To the
contrary, Liebermann was born in a wealthy and affluent family. Indeed, the former's popular origin also explains the use by Lichtwark of an intentionally simplified vocabulary in his art writings, using
plain terms in order to make specialised texts understandable also to the laymen [85]. Concerning Liebermann's painting, he really liked the
immediacy of his art, the spontaneous naturalism, the ability to portray every
day scenes, which were of immediate interest to the audience and about which
visitors could talk at a cafe house after visiting exhibitions [86]. Moreover, the
director of the Kunsthalle was, at
the same time, immensely more cultivated than the painter, whose theoretical
writings were limited both by number and content: Schellenberg explicitly wrote
that "to a scholar daily dwelling on
the texts of idealism, it could not be certainly sufficient to consider Liebermann's
repetitive aesthetic statement that art consists exclusively of the
representation of nature” [87].
Obviously , there were also behavioural differences
between the two of them. While Lichtwark was a man of the people, a
disseminator who liked to write in a direct and clear way, and a lover of
simple and immediate art, he was also an extremely cautious and risk-averse
person, as shown by his reaction when the burgomaster Petersen prohibited
Liebermann to exhibit his portrait at the Kunsthalle.
To the contrary, Liebermann was an impulsive person, who liked to take stance
against power, including against the Emperor. Liebermann would have often preferred
if Lichtwark had taken bold public positions. The latter, instead, liked to
work in the shadows; often, he asked the painter to destroy confidential
documents [88] and not to disseminate to third-party publications that were not
yet on the market (such as exhibit catalogues due to open in a few weeks) [89].
Schellenberg also wrote that the director of the Kunsthalle was not, albeit only
marginally, insensitive to anti-Semitic arguments: "Liebermann had the feeling that a traditional habit to systematically keep
distance from Jews had been extended to him as well” [90].
 |
| Fig. 27) Leopold von Kalckreuth, Portrait of Alfred Lichtwark’s mother, 1908. Source: DIRECTMEDIA, via Wikimedia Commons |
The spiritual community between the two found the
clearest expression in the collection of Liebermann’s paintings that Lichtwark
created over the years at the Hamburg art gallery. As a matter of principle,
the director refused to buy German art on the market, but commissioned new
works (to Liebermann and other painters) to exhibit them at the Kunsthalle. The commissioned works had
above all themes on Hamburg. And yet "Lichtwark also aimed at creating a
gallery of portraits of the nation's most important men. Already in the
early years of his direction, commissioned to Lenbach paintings with images of
Emperor William I and von Moltke. He decided not to commission these works to portrayers but to
make use of artists who had no problem painting free and large images” [91].
 |
| Fig. 28) Franz von Lenbach, Portrait of the Emperor William I, 1888. Source: The Bridgeman Art Library via Wikimedia Commons |
 |
| Fig. 29) Franz von Lenbach, Portrait of Count Helmuth von Moltke, 1890. Source: DIRECTMEDIA, via Wikimedia Commons |
In addition, he intended to use the portrait as
an artistic creation that - while confronting the painter with a concrete theme
- also made it visible to the public that contemporary artists had multiple
technical solutions at their disposal. This is also why he commissioned to
multiple painters some portraits of the same person and even acquired different
versions of the same portrait, such as that of Marie Zacharie (an art designer and
family friendly) which von Kalckreuth portrayed both on a rainy and a sunny day
in 1904. To the painters (including Liebermann) Lichtwark gave precise
instructions on the size of the picture and the pose of the represented subject
[92]. The purchase of all thirteen preparatory studies of Liebermann’s Meeting (see part one of this post) can
be explained with the same educational reasons. Schellenberg wrote: "As to the Meeting of Professors, Lichtwark needed the studies as a pedagogue,
because he wanted to facilitate the understanding of the painting. The sketches
he exposed in the gallery did not just want to show different solutions to the
problem of vision, but also to lead visitors from the usual to the unusual,
allowing them to admire the individually portrayed personalities after having
ripped them out of the collective composition” [93].
 |
| Fig. 30) Leopold von Kalckreuth, Portrait of Marie Zacharias on a rainy day, 1904. Source: DIRECTMEDIA, via Wikimedia Commons |
The correspondence
between Liebermann and Lichtwark in Birgit Pflugmacher’s
Interpretation
 |
| Fig. 31) The exchange of letters between Liebermann and Lichtwark in the 2003 edition edited by Birgit Pflugmacher |
Fifty-six years after the Schellemberg edition,
the full letter exchange from both correspondents was published by Birgit
Pflugmacher, also in this case with a large introduction, however written in
the different perspective of a scholar of language and epistolary genre.
Compared with the previous edition, a few points were repeated: there were,
however, some new accents. According to Ms Pflugmacher, the letter exchange
testified not only how strongly Lichtwark influenced Liebermann’s aesthetic preferences
[94], but proved that the painter would have never achieved such a great
success without the support of the director of the Kunsthalle and his campaign of purchases and exhibitions [95]. Since
1895, Lichtwark's goals had been twofold: on the one hand "the promotion of a kind of painting in
Germany that would be independent of the schools and academies of the past, but
also free of the influence of the French tradition" [96], on the
other, the education of citizens "for
a healthy German culture in literature and art" [97]. Thus, the
process of nationalization of Liebermann's art – already described in the review of the third volume of his Letters – would be an integral part of a design formulated not in Berlin but above
all in Hamburg. In fact, Lichtwark was a man of his time, to the extent that he
shared the dominant view that Germany was culturally superior to the rest of
Europe. It is to be said here that, while in the letter exchange with
Liebermann these themes were very much contained, in that between the director
of the Kunsthalle and von Kalckreuth they had a dominant role [98].
“How much
Liebermann was influenced by Lichtwark's ideas, conversations and challenges - Pflugmacher writes - it is shown by the fact that, after the death of the
latter, the former is no longer able to evolve from the point of view of the
reasons and of the Style, and remained a prisoner of his own iconographic
themes and his own painting form” [99]. According to this interpretation,
Lichtwark was therefore the thinking head, while Liebermann was the performer.
A check: what did the
two really think about each other?
But what did Liebermann really think on Lichtwark? And what Lichtwark on
Liebermann? Are we
perhaps facing a case where the two correspondents wrote each other for a
lifetime, but never said each other all what they had in the back of their mind?
Was their relationship marked by barriers, which none of them ever wanted to cross?
To make Liebermann's arrière-pensées explicit, Ernst Braun, curator of the artist's
complete letter collection, included in the third volume extensive excerpts
from Gustav Schiefler's journal. The account of a conversation of 2 July 1906 cast
a shadow on the friendship between Liebermann and Lichtwark, and confirmed some of the reasons
for perplexity that Schellemberg had already highlighted. Schiefler took some notes
after a talk with the painter: "The
conversation turns to the person of Lichtwark. Liebermann perceives in him a
lack of courage, and the incapacity to perform an act of liberation and to
reveal his own opinion. He does not agree when I tell him that Lichtwark is
being dragged by others. He himself tells me that he has not been able to make
progress since they know each other. Lichtwark, in his opinion, is a man who
holds everything secret. If Liebermann invites him at home and then tells him
that either he or she will be present, then Lichtwark immediately takes a step
back and says he does not have time anymore. His temperament of military intransigence,
his subjugation to nobility, even his anti-Semitism are nothing but a reaction
to his low social origin. In Liebermann's opinion, Lichtwark would be
ambitious, jealous and a man who is always dissatisfied with himself”
[100]. I'm not sure such words would fit a decennial friendship, even if they probably represented
a moment of particularly bad mood between them.
 |
| Fig. 32) The letters of Alfred Lichtwark to Gustav Pauli, published by Carl Schellenberg in 1946 |
 |
| Fig. 33) Letters by Alfred Lichtwark to Count Leopold Kalckreuth, edited by Carl Schellenberg in 1957 |
As for the true thinking of Lichtwark, it is
possible to find some trace of it in the two volumes of letters that Carl
Schellenberg has published on the epistolary of the director of the Kunsthalle in
Hamburg with his dearest friends, Gustav Pauli [101] (director of the Kunsthalle in Bremen)
and Leopold von Kalckreuth [102]. Here we did not find any negative judgments on
the Berlin painter [103]. Pauli’s letters showed that Lichtwark constantly referred
to the "Kalckreuth-Liebermann" couple as the main tool he had at his
disposal to make sure that his art gallery in Hamburg become the centre of
contemporary art production in Germany. The letter exchange with Kalckreuth
showed, instead, that Lichtwark had much more human empathy with him rather
than with Liebermann. The letters were much more personal, their writing style
was more at ease, and even revealed aspects - such as nationalism - that he
held back with Liebermann, as we have already said. Thus, on March 31, 1904, in
the same letter telling Kalckreuth of Liebermann's preparations for the new
headquarters of the Berlin Secession on the Kurfusterdamm, Lichtwark also had
rebuking words for Hugo von Tschudi (1851–1911), the director of the Nationalgalerie in Berlin, who had
bought a still life by Cézanne for his collection: "He would have made better to buy German art of the Nineteenth century"
[104]. Lichtwark never dared to write anything similar to Liebermann.
Last but not least,
Liebermann’s exchange of letters with Leopold van Kalckreuth
 |
| Fig. 34) Leopold von Kalckreuth, Harbour workers returning home at the end of the day, 1894. Source: http://www.wikigallery.org (not for commercial use) |
Liebermann's first letter to Count Leopold van
Kalckreuth (1855-1928), a painter already famous in those years, was dated
February 25, 1902. The name of the painter - who lived in those years in
Stuttgart - did not appear yet in the letter exchanges of previous years. The
reasons why Liebermann addressed the colleague was first of all 'tactical' and
referred to the difficulties between German secessions. Kalckreuth - who was based in
Stuttgart, and therefore in Swabia - was a useful reference point in Southern
Germany, at a stage in which relations between Berlin and Munich secessionist
painters had deteriorated: Bavaria and Swabia lived in fact in a relationship
of natural contrast since centuries. From spring 1902, the epistolary relationship became
intense. Liebermann was revealing him the intention to ‘circle’ the Munich
painters, and was pleased that his counterpart accepted his arguments: "Dear Count, thank you for the letter, from
which I am infering with joy that you agree with our behaviour concerning the Munich
Secession. Obviously, we all make
mistakes. But, in the end, it is a matter of principle" [105].
Kalckreuth's role became crucial when choosing
whom to appoint as chairman of the League
of German artists. Once again Liebermann regarded him as an ideal candidate, because
he was neutral, both geographically and culturally, with respect to the rivalry
between Berlin and Munich. Kalckreuth, moreover, had also been a very good
friend with Lichtwark for years, and thanked to him he attended the same
Hamburg circles. A few days before the inauguration meeting in Weimar -
December 15, 1903 – Liebermann sent him a letter to make sure he would attend the
meeting.
 |
| Fig. 35) Leopold von Kalckreuth, Docking Pylons in the Hamburg Harbour, 1894. Source: DIRECTMEDIA, via Wikimedia Commons |
Once Kalckreuth was elected chairman of the League, the number of mutual letters
increased dramatically, but their contents became so detailed that they are not any more worth quoting: it was about the costs for the typewriter and the
secretary [106], the composition of juries [107], the space to be assigned to
applied arts in the exhibitions [108], the minimum time distance between
regional and national exhibitions [109]. To be honest, one has the impression
of a relationship that was never equal: Liebermann was very intruding
in his letters and he did nothing but give orders and set conditions.
In October 1906, a tragedy changed everything:
Liebermann wrote to Lichtwark that Kalckreuth's son, the scourge of two
aristocratic families (the Kalckreuths and the Yorcks), who had just entered
military service, took his life away because he felt not to be fit for the army
[110]. Today, we would talk of a clear case of a 'hazing' victim. Liebermann wrote to Leopold on
October 30, acknowledging the painter’s intention to withdraw from the League’s chairmanship, and informing him
of the intention to propose Max Klinger as new president [111]. With the same
letter (and, if I must be honest, I do not find it a great demonstration of
style and empathy), Liebermann asked Lichtwark to confirm the promise of a
donation to the Berlin Secession, which obviously must have had financial
difficulties at that time.
NOTES
[68] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 147.
[69] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 148-149.
[70] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 153.
[71] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 156.
[72] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 156.
[73] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 164.
[74] Lichtwark, Alfred - Briefe an Max Liebermann, edited by Carl Schellenberg, Hamburg, J. Trautmann publishing house, 1947, 349 pages.
[75] Lichtwark, Alfred - Briefe an Leopold Graf von Kalckreuth, edited by Carl Schellenberg, Hamburg, C. Wegner publishing house, 1957, 285 pages.
[76] Pflugmacher, Birgit - Der Briefwechsel zwischen Alfred Lichtwark und Max Liebermann, Hildesheim, Olms publishers, 2003, 507 pages.
[77] Lichtwark, Alfred - Briefe an Max Liebermann … (quoted), p. 7.
[78] Lichtwark, Alfred - Briefe an Max Liebermann … (quoted), p. 8.
[79] Lichtwark, Alfred - Briefe an Max Liebermann … (quoted), p. 45.
[80] Lichtwark, Alfred - Briefe an Max Liebermann … (quoted), p. 14.
[81] Lichtwark, Alfred - Briefe an Max Liebermann … (quoted), p. 26.
[82] Lichtwark, Alfred - Briefe an Max Liebermann … (quoted), p. 24.
[83] Lichtwark, Alfred - Briefe an Max Liebermann … (quoted), p. 43.
[84] Lichtwark, Alfred - Briefe an Max Liebermann … (quoted), pp. 15-16.
[85] Lichtwark, Alfred - Briefe an Max Liebermann … (quoted), pp. 28-29.
[86] Lichtwark, Alfred - Briefe an Max Liebermann … (quoted), p. 45.
[87] Lichtwark, Alfred - Briefe an Max Liebermann … (quoted), p. 60.
[88] Lichtwark, Alfred - Briefe an Max Liebermann … (quoted), p. 23.
[89] Lichtwark, Alfred - Briefe an Max Liebermann … (quoted), pp. 22-24.
[90] Lichtwark, Alfred - Briefe an Max Liebermann … (quoted), pp. 16.
[91] Lichtwark, Alfred - Briefe an Max Liebermann … (quoted), p. 33.
[92] Lichtwark, Alfred - Briefe an Max Liebermann … (quoted), p. 46.
[93] Lichtwark, Alfred - Briefe an Max Liebermann … (quoted), p. 37.
[94] Pflugmacher, Birgit - Der Briefwechsel zwischen Alfred Lichtwark und Max Liebermann, … (quoted), p. 16.
[95] Pflugmacher, Birgit - Der Briefwechsel zwischen Alfred Lichtwark und Max Liebermann, … (quoted), p.18.
[96] Pflugmacher, Birgit - Der Briefwechsel zwischen Alfred Lichtwark und Max Liebermann, … (quoted), p. 17.
[97] Pflugmacher, Birgit - Der Briefwechsel zwischen Alfred Lichtwark und Max Liebermann, … (quoted), p. 17.
[98] Lichtwark, Alfred - Briefe an Leopold Graf von Kalckreuth, … (quoted), pp.8-9.
[99] Pflugmacher, Birgit - Der Briefwechsel zwischen Alfred Lichtwark und Max Liebermann, … (quoted), pp. 18-19.
[100] Lichtwark, Alfred - Briefe an Max Liebermann … (quoted), pp 518-519.
[101] Lichtwark, Alfred – Briefe an Gustav Pauli, Hamburg, Trautmann publishing house, 1946, 96 pages.
[102] Lichtwark, Alfred - Briefe an Leopold Graf von Kalckreuth … (quoted).
[103] Lichtwark, Alfred - Briefe an Leopold Graf von Kalckreuth, p. 60.
[104] Lichtwark, Alfred - Briefe an Leopold Graf von Kalckreuth, p.100.
[105] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 105.
[106] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 189.
[107] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … pp. 190; 202; 213; 215 and 240.
[108] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … pp. 191 and 253.
[109] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 211.
[110] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 456.
[111] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 462.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento