Archive Newsletter No. 8.2
September 2020
The Concept of Class at Kunstverein München
Part 2: Development of the Association in the 19th Century
Accompanying the exhibition Not Working – Artistic production and matters of class, the current sequence of the Archive Newsletter deals with the concept of class at Kunstverein München, from its foundation to the recent present. After the beginnings in Part 1, Part 2 finds the concept of class in further developments in the 19th century, this time with a special focus on the urban environment and the style presented in the Kunstverein.
The particular alignment of the membership structure, which was noticeable in Part 1, did not change significantly in the 19th century. Rather, the participation of artists even decreases in favor of the wealthy art enthusiasts. From 1848 onwards, the association also had a number of craftsmen and clerks in the association. This in turn led many aristocratic members to resign, who refused to be organized in such a bourgeois society. [1] On the whole, however, a better-off bourgeoisie remains among its own, not only in the Munich Kunstverein—even if a specific social structure is found here that favors this. The first semi-annual report from 1824 summarizes the coexistence of purchasing power and artists as follows: “In the capital Munich and the surrounding area of the Kingdom of Bavaria there is a considerable number of visual artists (...). Just as numerous are the art lovers and friends, many of whom possess a treasure trove of excellent works of art from the various fields of the fine arts.” [2]
Even then, Munich was already a city with strong police presence. Public life was monitored and controlled with meticulous precision by the authorities and gendarmes, “the grumpiest police pressure weighed on the city” [3]. In this atmosphere, artists were seen as elements that were rather contrary to the goals of the state. Although there was little reason to intervene with regard to the future members, the state was not opposed to establish the association. After the registration of the Kunstverein with the police, the artists were allowed to act in apparent independence, which was in turn covered by the state. This was also due to the fact that the associations had a stabilizing effect on the system, which helped to contain the remnants of a critical attitude towards the state: “They all had ‘patriotic,’ New Bavarian patriotic goals, promotion of the Bavarian economy, Bavarian art and artists.” [4] It can be assumed that the founding of the association was approved, just as state art and training at the academy were to fulfill a regulating function in the lives of the artists.
Until the beginning of the 20th century, there were very few efforts to open art associations to people other than the ruling class, and none of these efforts are documented in Munich. The attempt of the director of the Mannheim Kunsthalle, Fritz Wichert, to bring together members of all social classes through low membership fees even earned him the hostility of the Kunstverein in Mannheim. [5] York Langenstein reports in his history of the Munich Kunstverein in the 19th century of several cases in which applications for admission from employees were rejected.
In 1829, however, the Secretary Stademann put forward the idea of establishing a support fund for indigent artists. It did not come to fruition. In a protocolled report, the committee member Johann von Plötz expresses his concerns: “As beautiful as this proposal is in itself, and as easy as it seems to be executable, it will probably create an impression in the minds of the majority of members that is more of a hindrance than a benefit to the Institute, whose increase must be the prime concern of the committee.” [6] Rather, the idea would be contrary to the principle of the Kunstverein. “Whoever flees here from the troubles of the day to the cheerful creations of art seeks rest here, he does not want to be reminded again of the adversities of the time and of the distress of his brothers.” [7]
On the one hand, the associations organize a public beyond the coincidence of birth. On the other hand, they pay special attention to status designations, if necessary by additions: “(...) likewise very often the court title is supplemented” [8] that is placed in front of the professional titles at the Kunstverein. The more the membership organized there becomes differentiated, albeit very moderately, the more the need for a “distinguished livery” [9] becomes apparent. This is expressed in a particularly bizarre way in a detailed dispute over “whether the servants of the association should wear a livery in the future and no longer wear bourgeois clothing as before.” [10] While some insist that the Kunstverein, as a bourgeois institution, should appear modest and reserved, others fear that higher ranking visitors could, in the worst case, “accidentally talk to the servants” [11] in this way.
Further indications of the need for distinction through the use of a certain style can be seen in the conversion of the association building in 1899/1900 by, among others, Friedrich Thiersch, Franz von Lenbach, and the Kunstverein board. The redesign of the rooms at the end of the arcades of the Hofgarten, which with their marble fireplaces and other details were already considered lavish, resulted in “a reflection of the upper middle-class representation,” [12] with all registers of ostentatious ornamentation, which was in fact also controversial in membership circles. “Bourgeois club sociability thus—contrary to its claim—often takes on a decidedly elitist and exclusive form; it wants to demonstrate not only a noble disposition but also fine society. Art is excellently suited for this purpose, without letting bourgeois exclusivity immediately fall into the suspicion of old privileged thinking. For in contrast to the nobility, it is not only a matter of possession, but also of connoisseurship.” [13] This connoisseurship will play a major role in the history of the art associations in the emergence of a new social type that harmonizes perfectly with the self-created market structures and also boils down to a strong classification: figures in the service of professionalization (more on this in the 20th century).
The style used for distinction was sometimes rather mediocre (already in the late 1840s, “a drop in level was noticeable“ [14] and the demarcation to the bottom seems to coincide with this regularly). Less the development of taste, as practiced at the Kunstverein, than the affirmation of class rule through this taste is striking. Prepared in literature, bourgeois stylistics found a model in the family novel, among others. Here, too, a similar phenomenon can be traced alongside the secularization of the courtly world. “The characters and their motivations are privatized, even where they remain political (and can thus be experienced by a bourgeois audience).” [15]
It is no coincidence that a pleasing style prevailed at the Munich Kunstverein in the 19th century, which can be interpreted as “documentation of aesthetic peace with the political status quo.“ [16] The exhibited works of art and their sujets often refer to a presupposed bourgeois educational canon. The search for artworks that could, in principle, address anyone, or the discussion as to why they do not exist, is hardly ever carried out. This culture of domination is “part of the social division of labor, that is, a practical process of social struggles. These practices are highly cultural, because they have, according to their self-understanding, a binary nature of the lower classes, of the masses, of the people, who are not supposed to have this culture at their disposal, and over whom rulers and intellectuals claim leadership.” [17] In addition, towards the end of the century, the nationalist tendencies of this culture of domination intensified at the Kunstverein.
In the next episodes of the newsletter we will look at the concept of class in various episodes of Kunstverein München in the 20th century. We will also deal with the question to what extent the conditions created in the 19th century remain intact, and when and how they are perceived as a problem.
Text: Adrian Djukic
Translation and Editing: Adrian Djukic, Maurin Dietrich, and Gloria Hasnay
If you have any questions about the Martina Fuchs Archive, please contact Adrian Djukic via archiv@kunstverein-muenchen.de.
Footnotes:
[1] Kunstverein München (ed.): 150 Jahre Kunstverein. Dokumentationen zur Frühgeschichte des Kunstvereins. Jahresgaben des Kunstvereins 1825 bis 1973/74. Munich 1974, p. 6.
[2] KVB (Reports on the holdings and the work of the Kunstverein in Munich), first half-year 1824. p. 4.
[3] Friedrich Precht: Aus meiner Zeit. Lebenserinnerungen. München 1894, p. 100. Quoted after: York Langenstein: Der Münchner Kunstverein im 19. Jahrhundert. Ein Beitrag zur Entwicklung des Kunstmarkts und des Ausstellungswesens, Munich 1983, p. 55.
[4] Ingo Tornow: Das Münchner Vereinswesen des 19. Jahrhunderts, mit einem Ausblick auf die zweite Jahrhunderthälfte. Phil. Diss. Munich 1976, p. 249.
[5] Thomas Schmitz: Die deutschen Kunstvereine im 19. und frühen 20. Jahrhundert. Neuried 2001, p. 189.
[6] 150 Jahre Kunstverein, p. 20.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Tornow, p. 223.
[9] Langenstein, p. 122.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid., p. 199.
[13] Wolfgang Kaschuba: Kunst als symbolisches Kapital. In: Peter Gerlach (ed.): Vom realen Nutzen idealer Bilder. Kunstmarkt und Kunstvereine. Aachen 1994, pp. 9–20, here: p. 16.
[14] Tornow, p. 115.
[15] Werner Hahl: Art. “Gattungspoetik”. In: Volker Meid (ed.): Sachlexikon Literatur. Munich 2000, pp. 308–16, here: p. 310.
[16] Gert Reising: 1818/1848/1989. Zur Frühgeschichte deutscher Kunstvereine. In: Gerlach, pp. 112–25, here: p. 125
[17] Alex Demirovic: 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. 110–57, here: p. 135.
Fig.:
1. Friedrich Thiersch: Skylight - Hall (perspective), reconstruction project for the Kunstverein building in Munich, 1889–99. Courtesy Architecture Museum of the TU Munich.
2. Accompanying letter from the police and copy of the letter of approval (approval of the Kunstverein as a private company), 23.12.1823 / 20.01.1824. Convolute York Langenstein, Courtesy Kunstverein München e.V.
3. Illustrated walk through Munich. A panorama of the most important streets, places and buildings, “Row leading into the English garden, Exhibition of paintings, Royal riding school”, ca. 1864. Courtesy Bavarian State Library/Picture Archive.
4. The Sleeping Beauty, a fairy tale after Grimm. Etching by Eugen Napoleon Neureuther after his own design. Annual Edition 1836. Courtesy State Graphic Collection Munich.
5. Friedrich Thiersch: Design for the painting of the coving in the stairwell hall of the Kunstverein building, 1890. Courtesy Architecture Museum of the TU Munich.
6. KVB (Reports on the existence and work of the Kunstverein in Munich), 1st half-year, title page, 1824. Courtesy Bavarian State Library Munich.