CLICK HERE FOR ITALIAN VERSION
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 One
[Original Version: June 2017 - New Version: April 2019]
 |
| Fig. 1) Max Liebermann, The Hamburg Professors’ Meeting, 1906. Source: @bpk | Hamburger Kunsthalle | Photo: Elke Walford |
Examining the third volume of the Letters [1] by Max Liebermann (1847-1935),
edited by Ernst Braun in 2013, I have already reported the account by the painter of the
events that led to the foundation of the German Artists' League, the Deutscher Kuenstlerbund in 1903. This was
the first form of alliance at national level between artists and art critics in
support of the birth of modern art in Germany, for which tribute is mainly given today,
besides Max Liebermann, also to other artists like Lovis Corinth and Walter Leistikow,
whose writings on the issue have been discussed elsewhere in this blog. From
Liebermann's correspondence, it is clear that in addition to them, at least
other two figures played a key role in the creation and management of the League. They were Alfred Lichtwark (1852-1914), art critic and director for nearly thirty years of the public art gallery
of his home city, the Kunsthalle in
Hamburg, and Leopold von Kalckreuth (1855-1928), the first president of the League, a naturalist painter active in
Stuttgart, but more and more gravitating around Hamburg because of Lichtwark’s
commissions.
This post in two parts discusses the relations between Liebermann, Lichtwark and von Kalckreuth, and the topics they discussed. In the first part, I am specifically addressing two themes: first of all, the role that portraiture (including group portraiture) had in those years as a pictorial genre gaining much attention in art circles, reconciling the influence of the classics of Dutch Baroque with the new needs of the German business bourgeoisie; secondly, the interwoven influences in the definition of new artistic orientations between painters, on the one hand, (Liebermann, von Kalckreuth) and museum and critic directors (above all Lichtwark, but we will see also the names of other great critics), on the other hand. In the second part, I will dwell on the problem of the personal relations between the three, which was not free of tensions and ambiguities.
All these themes are discussed against the background of the correspondence between these three protagonists of the aesthetic debate of those years. The letters between the three were paradigmatic of a transition phase towards new patterns, which would however need to be based – in their view – on the iconographic recovery of classical figuration. We will see how, on the one hand, Liebermann considered this return to the age of Dutch baroque portraiture – which took shape above all in the Hamburg world because of his interaction with Lichtwark – as a liberation from French influence and a substantial innovation. In fact Liebermann had always looked at the painters of Flemish and Dutch Baroque age as his most sincere source of inspiration, even more than French Impressionists. In 1906 it became evident that his passion for the art of the age of Rembrandt and Frans Hals was prevailing on any more modern suggestion. On the other hand, the public preferred (and is still preferring today) his artworks of ‘impressionistic’ style. Due to the lack of public recognition of these attempts to innovate art through a return to past, Liebermann proposed again to his public, in the following years, his usual motives. While this guaranteed him more success, it also marked over time his incapacity to evolve from the patters of German impressionisms. Around mid of the first decade of the century, it became clear that his experimental energy was vanishing, something which would later on bring him to clearly dissent from vanguard art.
This post in two parts discusses the relations between Liebermann, Lichtwark and von Kalckreuth, and the topics they discussed. In the first part, I am specifically addressing two themes: first of all, the role that portraiture (including group portraiture) had in those years as a pictorial genre gaining much attention in art circles, reconciling the influence of the classics of Dutch Baroque with the new needs of the German business bourgeoisie; secondly, the interwoven influences in the definition of new artistic orientations between painters, on the one hand, (Liebermann, von Kalckreuth) and museum and critic directors (above all Lichtwark, but we will see also the names of other great critics), on the other hand. In the second part, I will dwell on the problem of the personal relations between the three, which was not free of tensions and ambiguities.
All these themes are discussed against the background of the correspondence between these three protagonists of the aesthetic debate of those years. The letters between the three were paradigmatic of a transition phase towards new patterns, which would however need to be based – in their view – on the iconographic recovery of classical figuration. We will see how, on the one hand, Liebermann considered this return to the age of Dutch baroque portraiture – which took shape above all in the Hamburg world because of his interaction with Lichtwark – as a liberation from French influence and a substantial innovation. In fact Liebermann had always looked at the painters of Flemish and Dutch Baroque age as his most sincere source of inspiration, even more than French Impressionists. In 1906 it became evident that his passion for the art of the age of Rembrandt and Frans Hals was prevailing on any more modern suggestion. On the other hand, the public preferred (and is still preferring today) his artworks of ‘impressionistic’ style. Due to the lack of public recognition of these attempts to innovate art through a return to past, Liebermann proposed again to his public, in the following years, his usual motives. While this guaranteed him more success, it also marked over time his incapacity to evolve from the patters of German impressionisms. Around mid of the first decade of the century, it became clear that his experimental energy was vanishing, something which would later on bring him to clearly dissent from vanguard art.
Liebermann and his
turn to tradition
The
'classic turning' in Liebermann's painting is summarized in a large canvas (The Hamburg
Professors’ Meeting) painted in 1905-1906 on a commission by Lichtwark.
It should be said that in 1906 the first
expressionist group was created in Germany (Die
Brücke). 1906 was also the year of Les Grandes Baigneuses by Cézanne, while only a year later Picasso painted Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, leading to
the launch of Cubism. There is no doubt that – in this comparison between collective
portraits completed by different artists within a few months – Liebermann positioned
himself with his Meeting along an
aesthetic path of a clear traditionalist setting. The iconographic influence of
the great Dutch painters of the Seventeenth century was evident. Nothing in the
Meeting recalls us Cézanne and
Picasso, while the eye brings us back directly to Rembrandt.
 |
| Fig. 2) Paul Cézanne, Les Grandes Baigneuses, about 1906. Source: Google Arts & Culture via Wikimedia Commons. |
 |
| Fig. 3) Rembrandt van Rijn, Syndics of the Drapers' Guild, 1662. Source: Google Arts & Culture via Wikimedia Commons. |
For Liebermann, the clear baroque derivation of the paintings was not only an evolutionary element for the identification of a new style. Liebermann probably saw in it also a great asset from
a commercial point of view: in those years, in fact, he received commissions
predominantly from Hamburg, a city whose aesthetic taste was certainly not
revolutionary, and where the wealthy merchant bourgeoisie wanted to be
portrayed in a celebration of his social role, just as it had done centuries
before in the Netherlands. His main contact with Hamburg was Alfred Lichtwark.
A today underestimated
work: The Hamburg Professors’ Meeting
Today The
Hamburg Professors’ Meeting is described as one of the least successful
works of the painter. When, for example, Liebermann's art work was rediscovered
in Germany with a great retrospective in Munich and Berlin in 1979-1980 [2], the
Meeting was not exposed among the 189
canvases of the exhibit. In fact, until the recent retrospective held in
Hamburg in 2011, entitled Lieberman
Wegbereiter der Moderne [3] (Lieberman, the forerunner of modern art), the canvas portraying the
university professors had remained in the Kunsthalle’s
depot.
 |
| Fig. 4) Max Liebermann, The Hamburg Professors’ Meeting, 1906. Detail. Source: @bpk | Hamburger Kunsthalle | Photo: Elke Walford |
To the contrary, in the third volume of the Letters, which collected the correspondence
between 1902 and 1906, "The Hamburg
Professors’ Meeting" was by far the most cited work. Liebermann was so
proud of that picture to call it jokingly his "mass murder" (Massenmord) [4]. With a play of words,
he referred to the fact that portraying a person meant taking action in order
to lastingly fix the portrayed on the canvas, thus metaphorically 'murdering'
him. Here the victims of his crime were nine. Liebermann devoted a lot of
energy to the painting: just consider the number of preparatory studies he made.
Besides the Meeting, the catalogue of
the Kunsthalle in 1910 cited thirteen
preparatory canvases, with individual or combined portraits of professors, and
an undefined number of drawings. In those days all the works (the man painting,
the thirteen preparatory studies and the drawings) were all exposed to the
public: this was the highlight proposed by director Lichtwark to the Hamburg public,
regularly visiting the Kunsthalle to admire the latest new paintings by
Liebermann.
 |
| Fig. 5) Franz Hals, The Officers of the St Adrian Militia Company, 1633. Source: Wikimedia Commons |
Both in size (175 x 290 cm) and by
compositional structure, the Meeting immediately
looked like a reinterpretation by Liebermann of The Officers of the St Adrian Militia Company by Franz Hals and Rembrandt’s
Syndics of the Drapers' Guild. The
reference to Rembrandt was explicit in a letter of the painter to Lichtwark of
January 8, 1905: "The college of
professors stimulates me even more. Rembrandt gave the best in his Drapers. Unfortunately, the only thing
Rembrandt and I have in common is that he had my age when he painted the
Syndics” [5].
From a compositional point of view, wrote Carl
Schellenberg, the art historian who first edited the correspondence between
Liebermann and Lichtwark in 1947, "the
painter made life drawings of the professors while they were gathered in their
meeting room. However, while designing them on the canvas, he intentionally distributed
them without any arrangement, placing them in scattered order. Then, he added
the background based on a scenic set-up prepared specifically at the Kunsthalle.
Liebermann built the Meeting of Professors in the same way as he composed his
landscapes” [6]. This is a circumstance that is only noticeable if you
observe that none of the nine portrayed figures projects its shadows on the
background libraries.
 |
| Fig. 6) Max Liebermann, The Hamburg Professors’ Meeting, 1906. Detail. Source: @bpk | Hamburger Kunsthalle | Photo: Elke Walford |
Alfred Lichtwark proposed Liebermann to paint a
collective portrait of the Meeting of
Professors for the first time in June 1905. At first, the artist was
sceptical: the endeavour seemed to be too extensive and complex [7]. However,
the expectation from such an important customer for him was very high, and his
letters were persistent. Lichtwark wrote to the painter on June 29: "Even more than before, I am forced to think
about the group's picture. I seem to see it in the coming days as an informal
gathering of people standing around the table where the meeting has to be held
(or perhaps has already been held), with all the finest heads in the light, the
other less accentuated or in the background. They are preparing the meeting,
talking and communicating, and now listen to the one leading it. And if I think
of the result, I still cannot, unfortunately, go beyond a very large picture
that hosts all presents. Here is what I am imagining. And I am writing about it
to you now, because your forthcoming painting just does not want to go out of
my mind” [8]. He added on July 3: "I
am thinking night and day at the college of professors. (...) I would like to
help you solve any practical difficulties that may create any obstacle between
you and the painting (...) Consider that you will have full freedom: I can put
at your disposal an atelier with light to the north, or with light
southwest – or even with direct exposure to the sun - or lighting from above.
It is all at your disposal” [9]. “On the
road to Amsterdam [editor's note: during one of Liebermann's frequent trips
from Berlin to Holland] you might come to meet the gentlemen at the Kunsthalle
so that you can make yourself an impression. If you want, I can arrange for a
photographer to be present at the meeting, so that he can take photos of
everything you want” [10].
 |
| Fig. 7) Leopold van Kalckreuth, Portrait of Court Presidents, 1904 (from the volume of Alfred Lichtwark's collection of letters to Leopold van Kalckreuth, edited by Carl Schellenberg, 1957) |
 |
| Fig. 8) Jan van Scorel, Five members of the Utrecht Brotherhood of the Pilgrims to Jerusalem, about 1541. Source: Google Art Project, via Wikimedia Commons |
The genre of collective portrait was very topical
in those years. In 1902, the art historian Alois Riegl (1858-1905) published in
Vienna his first essay on "The group
portraiture of Holland", where he analysed that genre, starting from
the collective portraits of the Pilgrims to Jerusalem, produced by Jan van
Scorel in the first half of the sixteenth century [11]. Two years later,
Lichtwark commissioned the Portrait of
the Court Presidents to Leopold von Kalckreuth [12]. His collective portrait of the most senior judges of Hamburg reproduced
the same rigid and almost hieratic iconography as in van Scorel, and therefore did
not meet in full Lichtwark’s expectations, who had suggested another
composition [13]. So the director of the Kunsthalle took a new initiative, commissioning
this time to Liebermann another collective portrait of Hamburg public officials.
 |
| Fig. 9) Max Liebermann, The Hamburg Professors’ Meeting, 1906. Detail. Source: @bpk | Hamburger Kunsthalle | Photo: Elke Walford |
The path leading to the completion of the work
was long. Liebermann was unable to travel to Hamburg in the summer of 1905, but
proposed he would attend a council meeting at the University as soon as
possible, to get a first-person idea [14]. On August 3, 1905, he announced a forthcoming
trip to the Hanseatic City and asked whether the members of the council could
meet with him, also to decide where to portray them [15]. Finally, he travelled
to Hamburg in early September to produce some sketches. On September 28, 1905,
he wrote to Lichtwark that the canvas had arrived and he hoped to finish the
work in two weeks [16]. In fact, he continued working at it only from June of
the following year [17]. The Meeting
was the focal point of his art production in the summer of 1906. His friend
Gustav Schiefler, a collector of contemporary drawings, also from Hamburg,
wrote him on 25 August [18] and thanked for having had the honour of seeing him
live at work in the Berlin atelier (a privilege which Liebermann almost
conceded to nobody). Finally Liebermann wrote about achieved progress in
September (with the arrival of the frame) [19]. The painting was completed in
October 1906 [20]. Completing the Meeting took Liebermann a year of work,
even though it was interspersed with other commitments.
 |
| Fig. 10) Rembrandt, The Night Watch, 1642. Detail. Source: https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/collection/SK-C-5, via Wikimedia Commons |
Still under completion, the painting was being
praised by the art critics with whom the painter regularly exchanged letters.
In September 1905, Liebermann was in contact with von Bode (1845-1929), another
art historian and general manager of the Berlin art collections, and discussed
with him the prospective orientation of the Meeting.
Bode called it "a modern Night Watch",
referring to Rembrandt’s masterpiece [21]. Hugo von Tschudi (1851-1911),
director of the
Nationalgalerie in Berlin since 1896, believed instead that the most accurate reference was to Rembrandt’s Syndics [22]. Lichtwark reacted to Bode
and Tschudi's compliments, by stating that he intended to build a chapel in the
Kunsthalle to host the new "Night Watch", and explained that -
upon the arrival of the painting - he wanted to rethink the location of many
works at the civic art collection in Hamburg [23]. It was not a joke: indeed, Lichtwark
built chapels inside the museum to show the best paintings, such as Renoir’s Riding in Bois de Boulogne and Liebermann’s
Jesus in the Temple [24]. In the
specific case of the Meeting, he
never made a chapel, but devoted a whole corner room of the gallery to this
work and all preparatory studies, along with other portraits of Liebermann.
For the Meeting
(and for the portraits of Berger and Strebel, on which we will talk below)
Liebermann received 21,000 marks in November 1906. It was a considerable sum,
for which the artist hastened to thank [25]. In December 1906, the Kunsthalle Art Committee decided to
acquire separately all preparatory studies, namely the thirteen preparatory canvases
and many drawings [26]. Today only some of those studies are frequently reproduced;
it is, for example, the case of the study for the portrait of rector Justus
Brinckmann.
 |
| Fig. 11) Max Liebermann, Study for the portrait of Professor Justus Brinckmann, 1906. Source: http://www.justusbrinckmann.org/geschichte |
The correspondence commenting the reaction of
the public is contained in the fourth book of the Letters in the edition by Ernst Braun, covering the years 1907-1910 [27]. It is
obvious from it that the painter (waiting in Belin for news) was in fact concerned about the public's
reaction, which in fact was not positive (on January 1, 1097, Lichtwark informed
separately van Kalckreuth that "most
visitors do not like the Meeting” [28]). Liebermann was made particularly suspicious
by the absence of a letter from Lichtwark updating him on the reaction of
visitors. The painter then wrote to another correspondent in the Hanseatic
City, the just above mentioned Gustav Schiefler, on January 8, 1907, to know
about the reactions of the Hamburg public [29]. On January 11, he took courage
and addressed directly Lichtwark, telling him that Aby Warburg (also from
Hamburg, and perhaps the most famous of the German art historians in those
years) had put some reservations in writing (in a letter to him that has gone
lost) about the representation of light in the picture. He then asked him a
sincere opinion and "the whole truth"
about the reaction of the public; he also confessed that the Meeting was the most complex work he
ever had to produce in his entire career [30]. On January 13, Lichtwark
responded, taking it a long way away: the picture was exposed in a corner room,
along with all the preparatory studies. The director reported that the room was
always full: the audience admired the preparatory studies, but the main canvas
created disorientation [31]. If the public was perplexed, fellow painters like Kalckreuth,
Uhde, Olde appreciated the collective portrait [32]. Finally, Lichtwark added: “You asked me about my reaction to the picture. My travels to the
discovery of the surface have not yet been concluded and will never be. It's
just sufficient I am not present in the museum one day or that there is a sunny
day, and I always see a new and more beautiful picture and I wonder: were you
blind, did you not notice, did you miss, did you ignore that detail?” [33]
Two pages followed, in my view with considerations I found a bit pedantic and
difficult to interpret: in summary, the director focused on the differences
between the images of the portrayed: he felt their variety was by far superior
to the actual diversity of the nine professors. The only explanation he could
give was that Liebermann had focused more on the "unconscious" than
on the "conscious" differences [34]. Indeed, Lichtwark wrote that
Liebermann's Meeting was not, from
this point of view, a naturalistic painting, but an allegory, produced in such
a way as to symbolically characterize figures beyond intentions [35]. The painter's answer was dated January 27: Liebermann conceded that the visitors’ reception
was not favourable, he wrote that more than once the public had not understood
his works at first, he was convinced that in 10 to 15 years the audience would
change to the better, as it had eventually done for many other paintings of his,
and thanked the fellow painters for the words of praise [36].
 |
| Fig. 12) Leopold von Kalckreuth, Portrait of Justus Brinckmann, 1901. Source: The Bridgeman Art Library, via Wikimedia Commons |
Hamburg
Let's take a step back: the correspondence of
these years witnessed the advent of Hamburg as a trade centre for modern art in
Germany.
 |
| Fig. 13) The Hamburg City Hall, built between 1886 and 1897 in the neo-renaissance style, according to a project by Martin Haller and other architects, here seen in a postcard of 1906-1908. Source: http://nucius.org/photographs/hamburg-city-hall-c-19061908/ |
 |
| Fig. 14) The Hamburg Harbor 1906. Source: http://www.lauritzen-hamburg.de/hh_hafen.html |
 |
| Fig. 15) Wilhelm Weimar, The construction of the train station in Hamburg, 1906. Source: http://www.hamburgmuseum.de/uploads/hamburg_museum/documents/4242/original/Wilhelm_Weimar__Hauptbahnhof_im_Bau__1906__Foto_SHMH_Hamburg_Museum.jpg?1457536035 |
 |
| Fig. 16) The new headquarters of the Hamburg University, inaugurated 1909 on a project by Hermann Distel and August Grubitz. Source: http://www.bildarchiv-hamburg.de/hamburg/gebaeude/universitaet/index.htm |
The economic capital of Northern Germany was
one of the few large German cities not hosting an autochthonous group of
secessionist painters in action, but had a buoyant economy and acquired canvases
from the rest of Germany. Through the large port on the Elbe, in fact, passed almost
all exports of the rising industrial power to Great Britain and the United
States; the city was also the centre of an enlightened and multilingual
bourgeoisie, and at the same time a place with a distinct cultural identity
distinct from everywhere else in the German-speaking world, thanks to the Hanseatic
heritage and the administrative autonomy of the town. It was therefore not only
a business place, but above all the host of identification of a rich
bourgeoisie with ancient merchant traditions. Just consider the historicist
approach with which the Rathaus - the Hamburg City Hall, i.e. the headquarters
of the Hanseatic City Government - was rebuilt at the end of the XIX century
after the fire destroying almost the entire historic centre in 1842 to realize
how much establishing a bond with the past was considered in Hamburg also
crucial to build the future. As shown by the pictures shown above, the years
when the Meeting was produced were
marked by an extreme social and economic dynamic in the city.
 |
| Fig. 17) The Hamburg Kunsthalle in an early-1900 postcard. Source: http://images.zeno.org/Ansichtskarten/I/big/AK04541a.jpg |
Alfred Lichtwark had been the director of the Kunsthalle in Hamburg since 1886 and was
the soul of Hamburg's new interest for its own painting, both past and present:
on the one hand he had authored several essays on the history of local art and,
on the other hand, he had created a collection of contemporary paintings on
Hamburg in the gallery he was directing.
Liebermann had been writing letters to Lichtwark
since 1889 (and continued to do so until a few days before the death of the
director of the Kunsthalle in 1913).
Since 1890, the letters between both of them were starting with the term 'Verehrtester Freund', a very formal
expression today ('very illustrious friend'). However, Liebermann did not allow almost
anybody to call him “friend”. Liebermann used the term 'Liebster Freund', i.e. 'very dear friend', only in the case of
letters with Gustav Pauli (1866-1938), the director of the civic museum of the
other great Hanseatic harbour, i.e. Bremen’s Kunsthalle, and with the painter Leopold von Kalckreuth (and to
them he wrote even with the personal pronoun "du", that is, the
German colloquial 'you'). Lichtwark and Liebermann wrote instead each other using
the formal personal pronoun Sie, but
their dialogue was nevertheless very intimate. The relationship had in fact
become personal and also involved families. Since Liebermann and Lichtwark knew
each other, the painter had often travelled to Hamburg with his wife and the
museum director was really a good host. Perhaps there is a good deal of flattery
when, in a letter to the critic of December 10, 1902, Liebermann wrote, "Hamburg is big enough to allow you to
realize your ideas, and not so big (like Berlin) to distract you from other
interests” [37]. In any case, Liebermann really liked the city on the Elbe,
to the point that he thought in those years to acquire a villa on the
outskirts. That Hamburg was becoming an important centre for the art market is also
confirmed by the fact that Paul Cassirer had already opened there in 1902 a
branch of his Berlin gallery, in the Jungfernstieg, the elegant promenade
in the city centre along the
Alster lake [38].
 |
| Fig. 18) Hamburg’s Jungfernstieg in an original picture between 1906 and 1908. Source: http://nucius.org/photographs/panorama-of-the-jungfernstieg-promenade-with-inner-alster-lake-hamburg-c-19061908/ |
In April 1902, Liebermann received Lichtwark's
commission for the Kunsthalle for two new paintings with scenes from Hamburg
[39]. In the summer of the same year he painted "The polo players at the Jenisch park" and "The Jacob Restaurant's terrace at
Nienstedten on the Elbe" [40]. He handed over the paintings in January
1903. These paintings fully reflected the maturity of the artist in terms of
the 'impressionist' combination between motion and colour, figures and nature.
The transition in style between the two Hamburg impressionist paintings of 1902
and the Meeting painted in 1905-1906
marked Liebermann's evolution towards more classicist terms.
The reaction of Lichtwark to the two Hamburg
paintings of 1902 was of pure praise. On January 23rd he wrote: "I have to go see the two pictures every half
hour and I'm happy every time. What an amazing type you are! I do not know what
I like more. I find the pole
extremely powerful as an expression of movement, as a space, as a colour
(Runge's realization: light, color, and moving life after one hundred years).
The space gained greatly thanks to the
delicate insertion of the white fence that delimits the playing field, in the
background of the woods. You've been
able to place stereometrically the horses so naturally, that one does not even
have to struggle to figure out how you've conceived and achieved that effect”
[41]. And the next day he informed Liebermann that the art commission of the Kunsthalle had immediately accepted the
paintings and offered a very high remuneration [42]. Liebermann replied with a letter
dated January 25, full of gratitude for the long-term commitment that Lichtwark
had shown to his own art since decades. Exactly in that letter he revealed the
intention of wanting to paint, from now on, according to a new 'classical
tradition'. "I am of course of the
opinion that I am painting today much better than I did in the past. (...)
Previously, I wanted to paint everything I could see according to old recipes; now
I want to paint what I see in my recipes. The old tradition no longer suits the
new content. We must try to distil a new tradition. Obviously one always risk
getting out of the rails. But derailing is always better than bring the
painting to a dead track" [43]. As already explained, it goes without saying, according
to Liebermann, the new classical variant of his painting was an evolution
towards a new painting, not a return to the past.
 |
| Fig. 19) Gustav Schiefler, The catalogue of Max Liebermann's Graphics, 1907 |
For Liebermann, another important contact
person in Hamburg was Gustav Schiefler (1857 -1935). He was a singular figure
of an administrative judge with a strong interest in art. Enthusiast of graphic,
he became a collector and a financial supporter of many German artists (not
only of Liebermann, but also of Munch, Nolde and Die Brücke - i.e. the Bridge – members). Schiefler personally compiled
and published the reasoned catalogue of the graphic artwork of all of them. On
December 17, 1905, the judge informed Liebermann that he was preparing a
systematic list of his graphic works [44]; in January 1906 he visited Berlin to
check some information about the works [45]; Liebermann produced for him a new
engraving of "Samson and Dalila" in July 1906, so that it could be
included in the catalogue, which was eventually published in 1907 (and then
expanded by Schiefler himself in three volumes in 1923 and most recently
re-released in German and English in 1991).
The portraits of the
Hanseatic bourgeoisie
 |
| Fig. 20) Max Liebermann, Portrait of Burgenland Petersen, 1891. Source: Zeno.org via Wikimedia Commons |
In the review of the first volume of Liebermann’s Letters edited by Ernst Braun, I have
already mentioned the (ill-fated) story of the portrait of Hamburg’s burgomaster Carl
Friedrich Petersen. This was
the first portrait, which Lichtwark commissioned Liebermann in 1891.
Unfortunately, the burgomaster and his family really disliked the painting and
found it even insulting. In fact, the representation of local notables in
traditional forms was a theme that had always been dear to the director of the
Kunsthalle, who imagined his gallery as a place to leave historical witness to
the new strength of the city. As I have explained in the review of Liebermann’s
Letters, despite all Lichtwark’s efforts,
the opposition of the burgomaster and the city council turned to be so strong that
the work was never exposed to the public in Hamburg for more than ten years. At
Liebermann's pressing request, the portrait was sometimes lent to some minor exhibitions
outside Germany (imposing however that the subject would not be specified).
Many other requests he made to grant the portrait to prestigious international exhibitions
(e.g. for the Venice Biennale) were however rejected.
The painter not only took
very personally this ostracism vis-à-vis his first portrait, but was even convinced
that it was in fact one of his masterpieces. During the following decade,
therefore, he always came back to the point, hoping to get the 'release' of the
portrait. Still in April 1902 - eleven years after the painting had been
produced – he resumed the theme, counting that the censorship be overcome [46],
and in January 1903 - reassured by the success of the above-described paintings
on Hamburg (the polo match and the restaurant on the Elbe) – he announced a
visit to Hamburg to try to solve the problem once for all with local
authorities [47]. He submitted a new letter on the topic on May 10th
[48]. Lichtwark informed him that there was some progress, but that the
procedure was very complicated: the new burgomaster asked for an external
commission's opinion before authorizing the inclusion of the painting among
those that the public could admire at the Kunsthalle
[49]. The favourable opinion of the experts came in January 1905 [50].
With the years, Liebermann devoted more and
more time and energy to portraiture, not hesitating if necessary to travel to
personally know the customers and to be able to portray them life (and not just
using photographs). Thus, when Lichtwark contacted him in January 1904 with the
news that "there may be a need for a
portrait of an important and significant man for the Kunsthalle” [51] (referring
to Dr. Hermann Strebel), the positive answer was immediate: "You know my passion for portraits” [52].
And a year later, always in a letter to Lichtwark, the painter cited a passage
of his essay Fantasy in painting [53] (one of his recent writings,
published in a magazine, which he was transforming into a broader essay):
"It can be said that the best that
painting has accomplished are representations of portraits, from Assyria to
Ingres or Runge or Frank Krueger” [54]. For Liebermann, portraying was the
central part of every naturalist painting, and naturalism was for him the focus
of every art.
 |
| Fig. 21) Nicola Perscheid, Picture of Max Liebermann in his atelier in Berlin, in front of Prince Lichnowsky's portrait, 1905. Source: Wikimedia Commons |
Obviously, he did not only portrayed personalities
in Hamburg. In October 1904 Liebermann concluded in Berlin the first version of
von Bode's portrait [55] and started that of Prince Lichnowsky [56]. But already in 1905 he
began working on new Hamburg portraits commissioned by Lichtwark: those of
Alfred von Berger and of the above mentioned Strebel, together – of course –
with the collective portrait of the college of university professors, i.e. the Meeting. Lichtwark decided to exhibit in
a single room of the Kunsthalle,
dedicated to portraiture of Liebermann, the new images of von Bergen and
Strebel together with the already ten-year-old (but never exhibited) portrait
of Petersen; to this aim, he thought of restructuring the new art gallery
layout, also to include the new acquisitions since 1888 [57]. The new set-up
was inaugurated by Lichtwark on October 2, 1905, with a speech dedicated to
"How to expose a collection of
living masters". For this occasion, he published a catalogue of new
acquisitions [58]. Originally, this was the occasion planned also to show the Meeting to the public, but his completion, as explained, was delayed by more than one year. Lichtwark wrote to Liebermann that the so-called 'young
painters' in Hamburg were excited about his works, while they had deep
reservations against those of Slevogt [59]. In general, however, the director
confessed that the new arrangement with the inclusion of contemporary artists created,
at least in the early days, many polemics in the adult audience: "I am smelling rotten eggs" [60].
Then Liebermann was reassured that even the most conservative audience finally
showed signs of approval: "I rejoice
tremendously - as he wrote on December 27, 1905 -" also for selfish
reasons, since until now my portrait of the bourgeoisie Petersen was a serious
bone of contention” [61].
 |
| Fig. 22) Max Liebermann, Portrait of Alfred von Berger, 1905. Source: Google Art Project, via Wikimedia Commons |
About the first subject to be portrayed, Alfred
von Berger, Lichtwark wrote on January 7, 1905: "What a magnificent but ugly, almost grotesque head; however, it is a
face like a mask behind which a great beauty may be seen. It's a mask that
throbs light everywhere” [62]. Another letter by the director of the
Kunsthalle (dated June 22, 1905) was entirely devoted to the portrait of
Berger, as he had has just seen the painting for the first time. "Dear friend, just arrived from the station,
the first thing I did was to rush to see your Berger. He talks so much
as I am speechless. It goes beyond your own Bode, if ever possible.
(...) I cannot satisfy myself with this vision and I know that for long time
the first thing I'm going to do in the museum will be to go over to your
picture” [63]. The compliments
were followed by a very detailed evaluation of the verisimilitude of the
portrait: "The silhouette's living
form really belongs to this man, this particular form of mass weighting does
not apply to any other person. This is the most characteristic way in which he
is sitting. None else rest his arms in this way, nobody else’s hands play so
with each other, the whole weight of the body is discharged on the right, and
it opposes the movement with the cigar of the left which, I would say,
replicates with less intensity the vitality of the face. This face evokes so
many reactions and stimuli of a different nature, despite remaining in the full
of the peace of its own power. (...) At the centre of his face stands his mouth
in his darkness. It really occupies the centre, one of the funniest topography
of a face I've ever seen. It seems that you proved the charm of expressing the
precision of this face without giving it a precise shape, with these eyes
looking beyond his cheeks as if they were on the tip of a mountain” [64]. And he returns to the theme in another
letter one week later: "It's great
how you have shaped his head: large surfaces, small surfaces, flat, concave,
convex surfaces. Surfaces that move around its axis. I would like to say: warm
surfaces, cold surfaces, as if all was already written, as if it could not be
otherwise, as if even another could not do it any other way” [65].
On July 2, Liebermann responded to so many
congratulations with a confession: "When
I saw Berger for the first time, it seemed impossible for me to paint him: this
colossal type with such a giant head. I was seated with perplexity in front of
him as he drank a cup of tea; when he started talking, I suddenly found the
picture as it is today. I did a crayon in an hour, the day after a second one”
[66].
 |
| Fig. 23) Max Liebermann, Portrait of Hermann Strebel, 1905. Source: Wikimedia Commons. |
[1] Liebermann, Max - Briefe, zusammengetragen, kommentiert und herausgegeben von Ernst Braun. [Letters, collected, commented and edited by Ernst Braun], Baden-Baden, Deutsche Wissenschaftlicher-Verlag (DWV), Third Volume - (1902-1906), 2013, 651 pages.
[2] Achenbach, Sigrid and Matthias Eberle, Max Liebermann in Seiner Zeit [Max Liebermann in his time], Catalogue of the exhibition at the Nationalgalerie Berlin / Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz (6 September - 11 November 1979) and at the Bayerischen Staatsgemäldesammlungen Haus der Kunst (December 15 1979 - February 17, 1980), Munich, Prestel, 1979, 687 pages.
[3] Fleck, Robert - Max Liebermann. Wegbereiter der Moderne [Max Liebermann, the precursor of modern art], Cologne, DuMont, 2011, 224 pages.
[4] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p.432.
[5] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 260.
[6] Lichtwark, Alfred - Briefe an Max Liebermann [Letters to Max Liebermann], edited by Carl Schellenberg, Hamburg, Trautmann, 349 pages. Quotation on page 54 in the introduction of Carl Schellenberg.
[7] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 350.
[8] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 318.
[9] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 322.
[10] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p.323.
[11] Riegl, Alois, Das Holländische Gruppenporträt, in: Kunsthistorische Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses, Vienna, 1902. See:
[3] Fleck, Robert - Max Liebermann. Wegbereiter der Moderne [Max Liebermann, the precursor of modern art], Cologne, DuMont, 2011, 224 pages.
[4] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p.432.
[5] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 260.
[6] Lichtwark, Alfred - Briefe an Max Liebermann [Letters to Max Liebermann], edited by Carl Schellenberg, Hamburg, Trautmann, 349 pages. Quotation on page 54 in the introduction of Carl Schellenberg.
[7] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 350.
[8] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 318.
[9] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 322.
[10] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p.323.
[11] Riegl, Alois, Das Holländische Gruppenporträt, in: Kunsthistorische Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses, Vienna, 1902. See:
http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/jbksak1902/0077 .
[12] Lichtwark, Alfred - Briefe an Leopold Graf von Kalckreuth [Letters to Count Leopold von Kalckreuth], edited by Carl Schellenberg, Hamburg, Wegner, 1957, 285 pages. Quotation on page 47.
[13] Lichtwark, Alfred - Briefe an Leopold Graf von Kalckreuth (quoted), p. 47.
[14] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 327.
[15] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 335.
[16] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 349.
[17] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 432.
[18] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 445.
[19] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … pp. 446; 447 and 449.
[20] Letter of Lichtwark to Leopold von Kalckreuth dated October 28 ottobre, 1906. Lichtwark, Alfred - Briefe an Leopold Graf von Kalckreuth (quoted), p. 186.
[21] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 349.
[22] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 354.
[23] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 350.
[24] Lichtwark, Alfred - Briefe an Max Liebermann (quoted), p. 69.
[25] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 464.
[26] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 484.
[27] Liebermann, Max - Briefe, zusammengetragen, kommentiert und herausgegeben von Ernst Braun. [Letters, collected, commented and edited by Ernst Braun], Baden-Baden, Deutsche Wissenschaftlicher-Verlag (DWV), Fourth Volume - (1907-1910), 2014, 613 pages.
[28] Lichtwark, Alfred - Briefe an Leopold Graf von Kalckreuth (quoted), p. 201.
[29] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Fourth volume (1907-1910), (quoted) … p. 19.
[30] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Fourth volume (1907-1910), (quoted) … p. 22.
[31] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Fourth volume (1907-1910), (quoted) … p. 24.
[32] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Fourth volume (1907-1910), (quoted) … p. 25.
[33] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Fourth volume (1907-1910), (quoted) … p. 25.
[34] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Fourth volume (1907-1910), (quoted) … p. 25.
[35] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Fourth volume (1907-1910), (quoted) … p. 26.
[36] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Fourth volume (1907-1910), (quoted) … p. 26.
[37] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 83.
[38] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 60.
[39] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 40.
[40] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 56.
[41] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 96.
[42] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 98.
[43] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 99.
[44] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 365. Liebermann’s answer letter was dated December 23, 1905 (p. 366).
[45] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 380.
[46] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 40.
[47] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 100.
[48] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 116.
[49] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 102 and 117.
[50] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 254.
[51] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 169.
[52] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 170.
[53] Liebermann, Max - Die Phantasie in der Malerei [The fantasy in painting], in" Die Neue Rundschau ", Vol. 1, March 1904, pages 372-380. With the same title, a collection of writings was published in 1916.
[54] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 259.
[55] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 234.
[56] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 237.
[57] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … pp. 265 and 328.
[58] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 352.
[59] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 352.
[60] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 353.
[61] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 372.
[62] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 256.
[63] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 317.
[64] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 317.
[65] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 319.
[66] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 320.
[12] Lichtwark, Alfred - Briefe an Leopold Graf von Kalckreuth [Letters to Count Leopold von Kalckreuth], edited by Carl Schellenberg, Hamburg, Wegner, 1957, 285 pages. Quotation on page 47.
[13] Lichtwark, Alfred - Briefe an Leopold Graf von Kalckreuth (quoted), p. 47.
[14] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 327.
[15] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 335.
[16] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 349.
[17] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 432.
[18] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 445.
[19] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … pp. 446; 447 and 449.
[20] Letter of Lichtwark to Leopold von Kalckreuth dated October 28 ottobre, 1906. Lichtwark, Alfred - Briefe an Leopold Graf von Kalckreuth (quoted), p. 186.
[21] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 349.
[22] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 354.
[23] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 350.
[24] Lichtwark, Alfred - Briefe an Max Liebermann (quoted), p. 69.
[25] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 464.
[26] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 484.
[27] Liebermann, Max - Briefe, zusammengetragen, kommentiert und herausgegeben von Ernst Braun. [Letters, collected, commented and edited by Ernst Braun], Baden-Baden, Deutsche Wissenschaftlicher-Verlag (DWV), Fourth Volume - (1907-1910), 2014, 613 pages.
[28] Lichtwark, Alfred - Briefe an Leopold Graf von Kalckreuth (quoted), p. 201.
[29] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Fourth volume (1907-1910), (quoted) … p. 19.
[30] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Fourth volume (1907-1910), (quoted) … p. 22.
[31] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Fourth volume (1907-1910), (quoted) … p. 24.
[32] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Fourth volume (1907-1910), (quoted) … p. 25.
[33] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Fourth volume (1907-1910), (quoted) … p. 25.
[34] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Fourth volume (1907-1910), (quoted) … p. 25.
[35] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Fourth volume (1907-1910), (quoted) … p. 26.
[36] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Fourth volume (1907-1910), (quoted) … p. 26.
[37] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 83.
[38] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 60.
[39] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 40.
[40] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 56.
[41] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 96.
[42] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 98.
[43] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 99.
[44] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 365. Liebermann’s answer letter was dated December 23, 1905 (p. 366).
[45] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 380.
[46] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 40.
[47] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 100.
[48] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 116.
[49] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 102 and 117.
[50] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 254.
[51] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 169.
[52] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 170.
[53] Liebermann, Max - Die Phantasie in der Malerei [The fantasy in painting], in" Die Neue Rundschau ", Vol. 1, March 1904, pages 372-380. With the same title, a collection of writings was published in 1916.
[54] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 259.
[55] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 234.
[56] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 237.
[57] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … pp. 265 and 328.
[58] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 352.
[59] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 352.
[60] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 353.
[61] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 372.
[62] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 256.
[63] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 317.
[64] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 317.
[65] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 319.
[66] Liebermann, Max – Briefe, Third volume (1902-1906), (quoted) … p. 320.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento