Archive Newsletter No. 8.1
September 2020
The Concept of Class at Kunstverein München
Part 1: The Origins in the 19th Century
“From the beginning, art associations and museums in Germany were bound to the development of the bourgeois class and the expression of its self-confidence. Further, art institutions were a strong tool of the representation of bourgeois culture. (...) We all know nowadays how ‘emancipative’ and radical this concept was at the beginning, to free art from the influence of the court and the church, but how ideological at the same time.” [1]
What role does the term “class” play in the almost bicentennial history of the Munich Kunstverein? Accompanying the exhibition Not Working – Artistic production and matters of class, the next four episodes of the newsletter will explore this question, from the founding of the association to the more recent present.
Before the concept of class appeared explicitly in exhibitions, from the early 1970s onward (to be recognized time and again as a problem of the institution), a certain idea of class already characterized the founding of the association. For whom the association was to be there, in opposition to whom it had to be founded, whom it was to represent and whom it was not—in discussions, apparent trivialities, or even questions of interior design, a concept of class emerged quite clearly throughout the entire 19th century, sometimes explicitly and sometimes involuntarily, starting in 1823.
“‘Classes’ are large groups of people who differ from one another according to their place in a historically determined system of social production, according to their relationship (largely fixed and formulated in laws), to the means of production, according to their role in the social organization of work, and consequently according to the manner of acquisition and the size of the share of social wealth they possess. Classes are groups of people, one of whom can appropriate the labor of another because of the diversity of their place in a particular system of social economy.” [2] Classes are thus anything but natural. Rather, they reflect the proximity or distance of people to social wealth—and thus also incompatible interests.
When Kunstverein München was founded in 1823, it was mainly the wealthy bourgeoisie and the nobility, in addition to artists, who were involved. The relatively new idea of self-governing associations was linked to the ideals of the Enlightenment. According to these ideals, art was to be freed from its ecclesiastical and courtly entanglements. The social prerequisite for this was the desired end to the constraints of the hierarchical society. This was also reflected in the organizational structure of the associations, which was individualistic and democratic, “since one shied away from the dictatorial at this point, and wanted to pursue the matter thoroughly according to principles of equality.” [3] Nevertheless, forces close to the court also played a role in the founding of the Kunstverein München—on whose favor the realization of the idea remained dependent. In this respect, Munich was not an isolated case—the Badischer Kunstverein in Karlsruhe and the one in Augsburg, among others, had similarly close connections to courtly structures. “The bourgeoisie has played a highly revolutionary role in history (...).” But “the modern bourgeois society, which emerged from the decline of feudal society, has not abolished class antagonisms. It has only put new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old.” [4]
On a historical scale, the self-empowerment of citizens at this time thus represents a qualitative leap. “In the art metropolis of Munich, a certain oppositional tendency will initially have been added by the democratization of art (...), by the representation, promotion, even overemphasis of a taste for art, of genres that were frowned upon by the court and academy, i.e. officially (landscape and genre painting).” [5]
In his detailed study of the history of Kunstverein München in the 19th century, York Langenstein contrasts the founding of the association with the preceding phase: “In a society that was purely corporative until the late 18th century, the living space of the individual was usually largely defined from birth; the personal and professional career, membership in religious communities and guilds was not at issue, but was part of the existential framework that could not be called into question.” [6] This began to change, not from the ground, but for some people. In addition to the craftsmanship and merchant classes, new jobs were created in the sciences, in newspapers, in the school system, or even in commercial enterprises. Life alongside work also had new freedoms: self-chosen interest groups arrange to meet and talk to each other or to further their education, for example in reading societies. The educational ideal represented in many associations originates from a special weighting of the Enlightenment in Germany. Unlike in some neighboring countries (during the French Revolution or the uprisings in England), however, it was less about collective empowerment.
“For the revolution did not take place in Germany, and the rebellious spirit was lost in nationalism and Biedermeier.” [7] The focus of contemporary philosophical aesthetics is not so much on the struggle for rights as on the individual called upon to educate himself. A boundary to the educated bourgeoisie with refined tastes are those who (cannot) pay attention to such activities. Langenstein quotes Schiller’s widely received letters “On the aesthetic education of man”: “In the lower and numerous classes, we see raw and lawless drives that are unleashed after the disintegration of the bourgeois order and rush with unguided fury to their animalistic satisfaction.” [8]
Thus, under the roof of the Kunstverein, a demarcated society is formed, which, despite the ideals of the Enlightenment, is characterized by “a conservative political basic attitude, which has become even stronger over time (...). Characteristic of the often downright restorative tendencies, of the not only willing but almost eager acceptance of the class society of the 19th century, is the catalog of royal or princely heads, which precedes the list of ordinary members and which was compiled according to all the rules of etiquette, who, through their membership, adorned the association, as we find it not only in the accounts of Kunstverein München.” [9]
On the one hand, the art associations play a role in the democratization of art through seriality and reproducibility, for example through the prints sold as annual editions. New, secular sales markets outside the court and church are opened up for works of art. However, the small-format pictures produced in this way also obeyed the requirements of the apartments occupied by the citizens. The newly created distribution structure for works of art tends to reach a larger audience and is, at first glance, more democratic in this respect. [10] “When studying the membership lists, however, it becomes apparent that almost exclusively representatives of the upper class belonged to the Society. One may assume that here not only the significant membership fee had its deterrent effect (...), but that the applications for membership were rejected by persons who did not fit into the circle of members.” [11] “Membership required a certain solvency, because it was acquired by the purchase of one or more association shares.“ [12] Admitted were “educated men” [13]—women were not admitted until 1829 and did not have the right to vote until the next century, from 1902, in the course of a crisis-related modernization. [14]
In the next episode of the newsletter we will take a closer look at the composition of the members in the 19th century. We will also look at the role of the police, the clothing of the club servants and a reconstruction of the club building.
Text: Adrian Djukic
Translation and Editing: Adrian Djukic, Maurin Dietrich, and Gloria Hasnay
Many thanks to Theresa Bauernfeind for numerous references
If you have any questions or suggestions please contact us via archiv@kunstverein-muenchen.de.
Footnotes:
[1] Barbara Steiner, Conflicts and collisions among the “acteurs” in contemporary art institutions. In: Liam Gillick and Maria Lind, Curating with light luggage, Munich, Frankfurt 2005, pp. 53–61, here: p. 53.
[2] Lenin, The Great Initiative. In: Collected Works, Volume 29, Berlin 1984, pp. 397–424, here: p. 410.
[3] Kunstverein Protocol, Munich 1824, p. 2.
[4] Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei. In: Collected Works, Volume 4, Berlin 1972, pp. 459–493, here: p. 463.
[5] Ingo Tornow, Das Münchner Vereinswesen des 19. Jahrhunderts, mit einem Ausblick auf die zweite Jahrhunderthälfte. Phil. Diss., Munich 1976, p. 230.
[6] York Langenstein, Der Münchner Kunstverein im 19. Jahrhundert. Ein Beitrag zur Entwicklung des Kunstmarkts und des Ausstellungswesens, Munich 1983, p. 6.
[7] Stephan Dillemuth, Helmut Draxler, Nikolaus Pevsner, Die Schritte der Menschheit sind langsam, man kann sie nur nach Jahrhunderten zählen. In: Stephan Dillemuth (ed.), Akademie, Munich 1995, pp. 8–35, here: p. 21.
[8] Friedrich Schiller, On the Aesthetic Education of Man. In: Collected Works, Volume 5, Munich 1962, pp. 570–669, here: p. 579. Quoted after: Langenstein, p. 11.
[9] Langenstein, p. 12.
[10] Cf. Alice Creischer, Das Genie als Bedürfnis der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. In: Stephan Dillemuth (ed.), Akademie, Munich 1995, pp. 82–102.
[11] Ibid., p. 12 f.
[12] Walter Grasskamp, Die Einbürgerung der Kunst. Korporative Kunstförderung im 19. Jahrhundert. In: Jutta Dresch and Wilfried Rößling (eds.), Bilder im Zirkel. 175 Jahre Badischer Kunstverein, Karlsruhe 1993, pp. 19–24, here: p. 19.
[13] Langenstein, p. 61 f.
[14] Ibid., p. 216.
—
Literature:
Creischer, Alice: Das Genie als Bedürfnis der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. In: Stephan Dillemuth (ed.): Akademie, Munich 1995, pp. 82–102.
Demirovic, Alex: Kultur für alle – Kultur durch alle. Demokratische Kulturpolitik und soziale Transformation. In: Texte zur Kunst, Nr. 12, Cologne 1993, pp. 39–52. Quoted after: Inge Westphal, Martin Freitag, Die Kunstakademie und ihr Zusammentreffen mit dem herrschenden Sozialen. In: Stephan Dillemuth (ed.): Akademie, Munich 1995, pp. 110–157.
Dath, Dietmar, Kirchner, Barbara: Der Implex: Sozialer Fortschritt: Geschichte und Idee, Berlin 2012.
Diederichsen, Diedrich: Musikzimmer. Cologne 2005.
Dillemuth, Stephan, Draxler, Helmut, Pevsner, Nikolaus: Die Schritte der Menschheit sind langsam, man kann sie nur nach Jahrhunderten zählen. In: Stephan Dillemuth (ed.): Akademie, Munich 1995, pp. 8–35.
Grasskamp, Walter: Die Einbürgerung der Kunst. Korporative Kunstförderung im 19. Jahrhundert. In: Jutta Dresch and Wilfried Rößling (eds.): Bilder im Zirkel. 175 Jahre Badischer Kunstverein, Karlsruhe 1993, pp. 19–24.
Grasskamp, Walter: Die unbewältigte Moderne. Kunst und Öffentlichkeit, Munich 1994.
Hahl, Werner: Art. „Gattungspoetik“. In: Volker Meid (ed.): Sachlexikon Literatur, Munich 2000, pp. 308–12.
Kaschuba, Wolfgang: Kunst als symbolisches Kapital. In: Peter Gerlach (Hrsg.): Vom realen Nutzen idealer Bilder. Kunstmarkt und Kunstvereine, Aachen 1994, pp. 9–20.
Kunstverein München (ed.): 150 Jahre Kunstverein. Dokumentationen zur Frühgeschichte des Kunstvereins. Jahresgaben des Kunstvereins 1825 bis 1973/74, Munich 1974.
Kunstverein Protocol, Munich 1824.
KVB (Reports on the holdings and the work of the Kunstverein in Munich), first half year 1824.
Langenstein, York: Der Münchner Kunstverein im 19. Jahrhundert. Ein Beitrag zur Entwicklung des Kunstmarkts und des Ausstellungswesens, Munich 1983.
Lenin: The Great Initiative. In: Collected Works, Volume 29, Berlin 1984, pp. 397–424.
Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich: Manifesto of the Communist Party. In: Works, Volume 4, Berlin 1972, pp. 459–93.
Reising, Gert: 1818/1848/1989. Zur Frühgeschichte deutscher Kunstvereine. In: Peter Gerlach (ed.): Vom realen Nutzen idealer Bilder. Kunstmarkt und Kunstvereine, Aachen 1994, pp. 112–25.
Schmitz, Thomas: Die deutschen Kunstvereine im 19. und frühen 20. Jahrhundert, Neuried 2001.
Steiner, Barbara: Conflicts and collisions among the “acteurs“ in contemporary art institutions. In: Liam Gillick and Maria Lind: Curating with light luggage, Munich, Frankfurt 2005, pp. 53–61.
Tornow, Ingo: Das Münchner Vereinswesen des 19. Jahrhunderts, mit einem Ausblick auf die zweite Jahrhunderthälfte. Phil. Diss., Munich 1976.
Fig.:
1. Friedrich Thiersch, perspective cut to the reconstruction project for the Kunstverein building in Munich, May 1890. Courtesy Architecture Museum of the TU Munich.
2. The Munich artists and their creations under Ludwig I., pen and pencil drawing by Eugen Napoleon Neureuther, ca. 1845. Courtesy State Collection of Graphic Art Munich, Maillinger Collection.
3. Diary of income and expenditure of the Kunstverein for the year 1824, title page, 1824. Courtesy Munich City Archive, stock of associations 256.
4. Report of the Administrative Committee of the Kunst-Verein in Munich for the year 1844. Courtesy Bavarian State Library Munich.
5. Album with six lithographs with animal studies. Dedicated to the Kunstverein by the author Raffael Wintter, 1832. Courtesy State Collection of Graphic Art, Munich.
6. The Ruins of the Colosseum, lithograph by Andreas Borum after Carl Rottmann, Annual Edition 1828, Munich City Museum, Maillinger Collection.