Archive Newsletter No. 7.1
October 2019
The geographical location of Kunstverein München at the Hofgarten, its special architecture with the arcades, and its use as an exhibition space have been continuously reflected by artists and the changing directors and curators. [1] The almost 200-year old history of the institution is marked by regular architectural interventions and the temporary as well as long-term structural changes that accompany them, which are less due to renovation requirements than to artistic and curatorial decisions. The current newsletter would like to focus on this topic and on the question to what extent the architectural conditionality is a special feature of the institution.
The characteristic arcade passage was built as early as 1565 and was one of the first architectural buildings in the Hofgarten, which served the simple purpose of a covered passage to the Lusthaus [Pleasure House]. [2] With the construction of the Königliche Gemäldegalerie [Royal Picture Gallery] in 1779, the first building in the Hofgarten was realized. [3] The building adjoining the arcade, the present location of the Kunstverein, was not built until the 18th century. [4] Since its foundation in 1823, Kunstverein München has always been located in close proximity to the Hofgarten, but was rather provisionally housed until 1865: In its founding phase, the association was accommodated in the private home of Raphael von Winter (1784–1855) [5] and then resided in an apartment building of the contractor Johann Ulrich Himbsel (1787–1860) [6] on Maximiliansplatz. Between 1826 and 1866, the exhibitions, auctions and meetings were also held in an apartment, this time on the first floor of the Bazargebäude [bazaar building] [7], which had been newly erected by Leo von Klenze (1784–1864). In 1865, the Kunstverein München was finally given rooms specially designed for it at the end of the northern arcades [8].
In 1944, this building was destroyed and after the end of the Second World War, the Kunstverein lacked financial means as well as the permission to act. [9] After the war, like with all other German art societies, its license was revoked. In April 1947, the first new assembly took place, followed by the first exhibition in December 1947 at Städtische Galerie [municipal gallery] on Luisenstraße 33. [10] In the 1950s, Kunstverein München finally replaced [11] the Museum für Abgüsse klassischer Bildwerke [Museum for Casts of Classical Works of Art] [12] and moved to the premises where it can still be found today. [13] In 2012, Bart van der Heide (director from 2010–2015) built a bridge to the previous tenants with the exhibition The Imaginary Museum, bringing together contemporary positions with antique sculptures – loans from the Museum für Abgüsse klassischer Bildwerke – and thus creating an anachronistic moment that, in addition to an intermedial examination of contemporary art, also included the history of the house and made the active self-reflexiveness of Kunstverein München recognizable.
Special attention has been paid to the arcades as an architectural element. Already in 1832, King Ludwig I (1786–1868, reigning period 1825–1848) decided to decorate the arcades with frescoes to coronate his son Otto as King of Greece. Considerations of the weather and the resulting danger of destruction led to the realisation of the Greek cycle by Carl Rottmann (1797–1850), which was actually planned for the arcades, at the Neue Pinakothek. Between 1841 and 1844, Christoph Friedrich Nilson (1811–1879) finally created 39 frescoes for the arcades with scenes from Greece's liberation struggle against Turkish rule, which were destroyed in the Second World War. The arcades were rebuilt at the beginning of the 1950s under the direction of Josef Wiedemann (1910–2001), and, in 1961, Richard Seewald(1889–1976) added a new cycle of paintings to them. They still shape the image of the Hofgarten today and are an example of the "interesting encounter between inside and outside” [14], as former director Dirk Snauwaert described it in an interview on the spatial challenges of the Kunstverein in 1997. In spring 2019, the artist Batia Suter created with Hexamiles (Odyssee) a new work that once again formulated a dialog between Munich's city history and her own artistic examination of pictorial history.
The exhibition Parts by Fareed Armaly, which was executed in Dirk Snauwaert's second year as director in 1997, is also a very exact topological examination of the rooms with special attention to the arcades. In precise analyses, Armaly reformulated the relationships between architecture, media and "popular culture”, and thus put the role of the artist at disposal. In the form of interviews, documentaries, music magazines or graphic designs, he presented a changed concept of production. A social space becomes visible. [15] With the help of a red Ariadne's thread running through the upper rooms, he designed a present image by linking the past and a vision of the future. "[Armaly] is not limited [...] to a deconstruction on the one hand or a determinant construction of the institution 'Kunstverein' on the other. He takes it as a starting point for an increase and a transgression of the 'old' signs, towards a current practice that sees itself as a recycling of the existing and yet unfinished, as the reference to the tent roof of the Olympic stadium shows, which is currently being renovated." [16] In the large hall on the first floor of the Kunstverein, Armaly hinted at the arcades on a 1:1 scale by reconstructing them fragmentarily from cardboard boxes and hanging them from the ceiling. This also made "the pragmatic mood of the post-war reconstruction visible” [17].
This period was additionally formative for the institution. After the Kunstverein München moved into its present premises in 1953, only interior architectural changes took place from this year on, including more extensive modifications throughout the building in 1985 and on the ground floor in 1992. It was redesigned by Heimo Zobernig and initiated a new phase under the direction of Helmut Draxler (director from 1992–1996). "Zobernig rebuilt - from his role as an observer who perceives and analyses the social and spatial conditions of the 'System Art’ - the representative ambience of the entrance area of the Kunstverein with regard to its functionality and its role as a social meeting point: the gate was painted orange to mark the border to the outside, a monumental mirror was placed above the equally monumental bar, which now doubles the traditional ritual of the opening and stores it as a panel painting, also a bookshelf was erected that has the function of the building as an information pool in a post-modernist style. This reinterpretation of the institution was continued as a rather catalysing place in the stairwell of the exhibition spaces in the form of two information tables and a bench." [18]
In his exhibition realized at the Kunstverein in 1999, Zobernig resorted "[back] to the partial reconstruction of the Kunstverein München in 1992, which he repeated in permuted form.” [19] In his exhibition, the artist also referred to another past event in which he re-staged a symposium he had held in 1991 in order to subject it to a current reflection. Heimo Zobernig's exhibition demanded a different perception of space from the audience. The show was conceived in three chapters; it began at the Bonner Kunstverein, continued at the Galerie für zeitgenössische Kunst Leipzig, and was finally completed at the Kunstverein München from August to October 1999. Zobernig consistently works across media, but always focuses his works on the immediate social environment - an emerging theme in the 1990s, not only with regard to sculpture. "I believe that the place is essentially defined by the power of formal conditions. These exert a strong suggestive pressure on the mobile interventions... The parameters of exhibition conditions [...] as well as [a] certain ideological claim [mean power]. Then there are moments that persuade one to believe that a work can only function there, because of the significance of a particular institution. Every work, of course, takes place in a historical and spatial situation. But linking an art object with a place is pure idealism. I don't want to confirm this in-situ belief, but doubt its construction." [20]
As can already be seen from a few examples, the geographical location in the city center, the architecture itself and the history firmly anchored in it, have repeatedly been perceived by artists and curators as a burden, a challenge and an incentive at the same time, which has led to ever new, varied considerations and projects.
In an interview in 1997, Zdenek Felix, who was the Kunstverein’s director from 1986 to 1992, recalls his initial preoccupation with the institution and makes it comprehensible how the upper exhibition spaces were arranged following the reconstruction in 1985: "This building has a history as a picture gallery, the halls were connected with each other at the time, and one could walk through the entire hall. That's why the windows in the rooms are also at the top, the pictures hung below the windows. [...] Historically and politically a very interesting place. In addition, there was this architectural reconstruction, which in principle continued the classicist idea: for example, the door opening was extended upwards, so that a double opening was created. The other room above the office was opened up, thus creating the small galleries. In this situation there was the possibility to show contemporary art in this classical, very harmonious space." [21]
With the exhibition Dove sta Memoria, 1986 by Gerhard Merz not only a new spatial experience was created, the exhibition is also linked to the emergence of a "continuation of the thought of classicism as a consequence of the discussion about postmodernism" [22] and connected the political zeitgeist with historical consciousness. This exhibition led to controversies and, among other things, to a fundamental debate on the elusive concept of fascist aesthetics. Dove sta Memoria evoked an aesthetic questioning in relation to the spaces and led to different interpretations. [23] In the controversy surrounding the historically, aesthetically, and architecturally conceived exhibition, the accusation of the aesthetics of power as well as of art with fascist implications was mostly raised. Merz and Felix, on the other hand, emphasized that one wanted to counter the abuse of classicism by National Socialist aesthetics with "concept and order as principles of creative work,” among other things, by means of a "confrontation without moral and ideological protective formulas." [24] In this overall staging, Merz first transformed all the walls of the four exhibition spaces into a vibrating, light-flooded color continuum through the dual sound of turquoise and caput mortuum. This color sculpture, which at the same time emphasized the architectural interior with its classicist tradition, was assigned twelve paintings as well as one sculpture, which simultaneously opened up several thematic levels of the overall design. [25] The inscription DOVE STA MEMORIA (Where is Memory) in the first room goes back to a verse by Ezra Pound. Merz considered the walking direction of the visitors: "Altogether [the visitor] has two options: He can turn left at the top of the stairs to the rear, he would then enter the western head hall through an arched opening and start his contemplation here. It is more likely, however, that [the visitor], following the natural sense of direction, chooses the straight path and first opens up the three consecutive rooms and the fourth room only at the very end.” [26] The publication is arranged according to the second and, for Merz, more probable option and divided into the respective exhibition spaces. The architectural awareness was also increased by the omission of the colors of the round arches, door and window interiors.
Compared to his predecessor Felix, Helmut Draxler saw the classicist exhibition space as more critical and afflicted with problems: "I see the spaces [...] as excessively classicist. The reconstruction in 1985 also enriched it with a fascistoid aesthetic. For me, the place was almost unacceptable and accordingly the first impulse was to rebuild it. But then I had the feeling that it would be better to leave it as it was in order to understand what it was saying. As a talking architecture, I wanted to thematize these spaces again and again, and give them a new interpretation.” [27]
Since the 1990s, the artistic program has been characterized by regular changes of artistic directors and curators. This is visible not only in the programmatic execution, but also through the different uses of the architectural spaces. Of course, this is also due to developments in the discourse of exhibition making, such as the emergence of video art in the 1960s. The associated questioning of adequate presentation with regard to the diversity of artistic media inevitably leads to a necessary reflection on the architectural conditions, and is an important part of curatorial practice. In the following, Dirk Snauwaert makes it clear that, with regard to the curatorial work, reflections on conversions always resonated: "The Kunstverein building is located in the Hofgarten, in the middle of the city center, in a very idyllic niche, which makes it almost timeless, although this is actually inappropriate for contemporary art. I was also interested in the spaces [...] that, although at first glance they impress with their monumentality, their light and their volume, they are very grateful and allow many kinds of art presentation. One should not destroy this place by making anti-aesthetic or anti-architectural interventions. It is very easy to convert it from a white cube to a black box, and therefore offers an ideal space for different art forms..." [28]
The ever-increasing importance of a collaborative identity, which became fully established in 2002 under Maria Lind's direction, further sharpened the architectural perception of the institution and considered it more than ever as a structure consisting of architecture, program, artistic and curatorial implementation, as well as its external perception.
In a second part, we would like to stick to this theme and, among other things, deal with the time under Maria Lind and the subsequent directors, who, within their curatorial practice, questioned the institution as such anew and also further thought about its architectural conditionality. The interplay of interior and exterior space, which is not only apparent in the Schaufenster at the Hofgarten, also reflects the theme of this newsletter.
Text: Christina Maria Ruederer
Research: Christina Maria Ruederer
Translation and Editing: Theresa Bauernfeind, Gloria Hasnay and Christina Maria Ruederer
If you have any questions or suggestions please contact us via archiv@kunstverein-muenchen.de.
[1] Until the 21st century, these were mainly male artists, curators and directors.
[2] Lusthaus: From 1560 onwards, another garden was created further north on the site of today's State Chancellery. A pleasure house with a cycle of ceiling paintings on the theme of the Silver Age was built in its northeast corner in 1565/67(only a few ceiling paintings have survived). See also: Anna Bauer-Wild; Brigitte Volk-Knüttel: Residence. In: Bauer, Hermann; Rupprecht, Bernhard (Ed.): Corpus of Baroque Ceiling Painting in Germany. Volume 3: Free State of Bavaria. Regierungsbezirk Upper Bavaria. City and district of Munich. Part 2: Profane buildings. Munich 1989, pp. 20–349., pp. 33-–48.
[3] Königliche Gemäldegalerie: The Royal Picture Gallery was founded in the late 18th century. Initially housed in the New Schleißheim Palace, a new gallery was built by Karl Albert von Lespilliez (1723–96) between 1777 and 1782 for the paintings in the court garden of the residence under Elector Carl Theodor. From 1826 to 1836 the Old Pinakothek was finally built, followed in 1853 by the New Pinakothek for the contemporary art of that century (destroyed in 1944/45).
[4] The extension to the arcades was built by the architect Karl Albert von Lespilliez.
[5] Raphael von Winter, also known as Wintter: (1784–1855), State Councillor lithographer.
[6] Johann Ulrich Himbsel (1787–1860), entrepreneur, among others involved in railway construction.
[7] Leo von Klenze (1784–1864) erected the bazaar building on behalf of Johann Ulrich Himbsel, it was financed by Raphael von Winter. (Cf. Langenstein, York: Der Münchner Kunstverein im 19. Jahrhundert, Munich 1983, p. 73f., p. 103f.).
[8] "When the Kunstverein moved into its own building in 1865, the construction of the northern Hofgartenarkaden was completed. The new building adjoined the army barracks erected by Joseph Frey in 1801–1807 in the south of the Hofgarten, for which the lower Hofgarten had been converted into a parade ground." Hess, Regine: The Kunstverein building by Eduard von Riedel. Ludwig II's first building in Munich. In: Lepik, Andres und Bäumler, Katrin (ed.): Königsschlösser und Fabriken - Ludwig II. und die Architektur, Basel 2018, pp. 168–179, translated by Kunstverein München.
[9] See also Announcement of the Bavarian State Ministry of the Interior, in: Bayerischer Staatsanzeiger, Nr. 15, 1947, 2.
[10] The city was also asked to use the premises of the Neue Sammlung. This was rejected.
[11] After the Second World War, the Kunstverein München was faced with the great task of reorganizing itself. Due to the financial situation, the war-damaged architecture and the withdrawal of licenses, it became difficult to retain members and to tie in with the time before the war. The revival of the institution then began in 1953 at Galeriestrasse 4.
[12] The Museum für Abgüsse klassischer Bildwerke is now located at Katharina-von-Bora-Straße, Munich.
[13] Since 1953 the Kunstverein has been located at Galeriestrasse 4, a permanent right of use has been agreed. The use of the building was also allowed without rent for 50 years. (From the contract between Kunstverein München e.V. and Bayerische Verwaltung der staatlichen Schlösser, Gärten und Seen/ Dr. Kiefer of 27 October 1953).
[14] Exh. cat. Parts, Kunstverein München 1997, Munich, 1997 (no page references).
[15] Cf. project website Kunstverein München: http://www.kunstverein-muenchen.de/de/programm/ausstellungen/archiv/1997/fareed-armaly [21.10.2019].
[16] Snauwaert, Dirk: Restoration - Renovation - Reconstruction in: exh. cat. Parts, Kunstverein Munich, 1997 (no page references).
[17] Ibid.
[18] Cf. project website Kunstverein München: : http://www.kunstverein-muenchen.de/de/programm/ausstellungen/archiv/1999/heimo-zobernig [21.10.2019].
[19] Ibid.
[20] Interview of Isabelle Graw with Heimo Zobernig in: Exh. Cat. Art and Text, Kunstverein Bonn, Galerie für Zeitgenössische Kunst Leipzig, Kunstverein Munich, 1998–99, Leipzig, 1998, p.50.
[21] Interview with Zdenek Felix, in: Exh. Cat. Parts, Kunstverein Munich 1997, Munich, 1997 (no page references).
[22] Ibid.
[23] Toellner, Simone: Dove sta memoria, Munich, 2003.
[24] Research by eurinos, Dr. Birgit Jooss in the course of the exhibition "Telling Histories" Munich, 2003.
[25] Cf. project website Kunstverein München http://www.kunstverein-muenchen.de/de/programm/ausstellungen/archiv/1986/gerhard-merz [21.10.2019].
[26] Exh. Cat. Gerhard Merz Dove sta Memoria, Munich 1986, p. 4.
[27] Interview with Helmut Draxler, in: exh. cat. Parts, Kunstverein München 1997, Munich, 1997 (no page references).
[28] Interview with Dirk Snauwaert, in: exh. cat. Parts, Kunstverein Munich 1997, Munich, 1997 (no page references).
Fig.:
Heimo Zobernig, 1999. Installation view Kunstverein München e.V., 1999. Courtesy Kunstverein München e.V., photo: Wilfied Petzi