Archive Newsletter No. 8.3
January 2021
The Concept of Class at Kunstverein München
Part 3: Bourgeoisie and Nationalism at the Beginning of the 20th Century
The starting point for Part 3 of the newsletter series on the concept of class in relation to the history of Kunstverein München is the previously mentioned nationalist tendency, which intensifies around the turn of the century. Here, the concept of class falls far behind the at least claimed standards of the founding years. The annual reports from the time continue the usual longish tributes to the state (and the church) on their first pages. One of the already mentioned basic ideas of the association—the emancipation from state influence—is not redeemed even on a symbolic level: in 1913 the Crown Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria is even appointed honorary president.
The picture that emerges, especially from the official statements of the Kunstverein, supports the thesis “that fascism did not strike the bourgeois state like a lightning coming out of the blue, but rather developed out of circles of domination and legitimation in bourgeois society (…).” [1] The connectivity of certain bourgeois with völkisch-nationalist views becomes increasingly evident in the period from about 1900 to 1930.
Already under pressure for legitimacy from the neighboring Glass Palace and facing dwindling revenues, the membership structure gradually modernizes with greater participation by women. On the one hand, more female artists exhibit, including regularly through the Neue Vereinigung Münchner Künstlerinnen. [2] In addition, after almost 100 years, women now also take active roles on the board. A proposal by Helene Schattenmann seeks “to now also grant female members of the association, who previously only had active voting rights, access to association offices. Following the unanimously accepted proposal, 2 ladies—Mrs. Rentierswitwe Ella Wünsch as an art lover and painter Maria Laumen as an artist—were elected for the first time to the board of the association for the reporting year.” [3]
The reciprocal legitimization of artistry and the state, which is typical of Munich, found a new climax in the figure of Prince Regent Luitpold. [4] Even groups such as the Munich Secession, who were more unconventional in their early years, found his support and exhibited regularly at the Kunstverein. However, the negotiation of the concept of art should not go too far in this context. “Even Futurism and Cubism, once exalted to the heavens but now soundlessly buried, have never managed to confuse minds here,” [5] the 1926 annual report praises the programmatic continuity of the association. The conservative tendencies of the exhibition operations should also testify to its quality to the outside world.
In addition to at least initially more progressive groups of artists, the activities of the Kunstverein in the first decades of the 20th century were often shaped by patriotic sentiments and local exhibitions—the so-called Heimatausstellung. “Tranquility and calm spoke from the countless descriptions of the old Munich cityscape, and some older members of the association had friendly memories of their youth at the sight of houses and alleys that had long since disappeared. (...) Then, suddenly and unexpectedly, the violent World War broke out and paralyzed at one stroke the sense and strength for peaceful work. For a time, it seemed as if interest in spiritual and cultural things was destroyed for months to come (...) until the brilliant feats of arms of our brave armies restored peace and security to those at home, so that slowly and steadily the sense for the fine arts also revived.” [6]
The conservative press regularly praises the program as pleasantly unfashionable, “the solid, clear, well-educated technique and—to the disgust of the most modern—the diligent work.” [7] The Kunstverein sees itself as opposed to the distraction it attributes to new media such as cinema. A protocol from 1928 announces that “head teacher Freytag suggested that in the future guided tours through individual exhibitions should be held again in order to educate visitors to view art properly.” [8] During this period, the Kunstverein exemplarily represents an anti-modernist aggravation and predominantly serves the aesthetic dead ends of bourgeois art. “Both avant-garde modernism and the field-and-forest genre are artistic realizations of one and the same, bourgeois society. The one, as an early bourgeois product, contains the egalitarian tendencies, the other, as a late bourgeois phenomenon, the elitist constituents of the bourgeois social order. (...) The played-up (false) antagonism between it and the avant-garde has largely paralyzed democratic perspectives for the visual arts—and continues to do so today.” [9] Munich’s reputation as a city of art comes under serious pressure, the concept of “down-to-earthness” is positioned against the hated “Bolshevism,” but also the talk of the “stupidest city in Germany” [10] makes the rounds.
The Kunstverein’s fundamentally authoritarian attitude becomes particularly conspicuous in relation to historical events such as the First World War or the Munich Räterepublik. The initially enthusiastic support for the war is also evident in the program. As a prelude, an exhibition of German battle paintings is held in 1914. The artist Ludwig Putz was able to make the studies for the Jahresgabe [annual gift] of 1915 Erstürmung des Zamecyskoberges bei Gorlice [Storming of Zamecyskoberg near Gorlice], as it is proudly announced, “on the spot during the great May offensive in the Carpathians (...).” [11] The Münchner Neueste Nachrichten reports on the poster competition organized by the Kunstverein in 1917 for the benefit of the Bavarian Victims’ Day. The board of the Kunstverein, the police commissioner, and the chairmen of the Red Cross receive the king in civilian clothes at the opening, who expresses his “full approval of the beautiful patriotic idea of the Victims’ Day.” [12] In 1918, the Isonzo exhibition is shown which is supposed to “remind of the past, but never fading struggle (...).” [13]
Accordingly, during this period the Kunstverein’s patriotic affirmations became more frequent and the vocabulary more nationalistic. The view is expressed several times that Germany must assert itself in a time trembling with “open and hidden enemies” [14] — the institution’s contribution is the cultivation of German art. [15] In this context, it is important for the chairmen to remain loyal to the monarchy, also for reasons of financial support. The revolution in Munich and the short period of the Räterepublik are perceived as a threat. The Munich bourgeoisie condemned the Räterepublik almost completely, while the violent acts of the nationalist Freikorps [16] were mostly overlooked [17]. The appeals of the association’s management are reminiscent of the male fantasies that achieved sad notoriety, rejecting everything that could be connected with Bolshevism and femininity. Just as it was feared in the art of modernism “that the radical excess which elsewhere abundantly broke through the dams” [18] would do the same in Munich, so too in the political order: “The public appearance of revolutionary masses is a consequence of dam bursts; it also threatens their own dams,” [19] it reads. The “chaos,” the “political savagery and the raw hustle and bustle of the street” that had arisen in Munich were also countered in the Kunstverein by the virtues of “discipline and order” and “loyalty to duty.” [20] The resentment continues, and even in 1928 the consequences of the abolition of the monarchy are taken into account—the move to a neighboring property cannot take place as intended: “The revolution has deprived the association of this art-friendly donation from the Wittelsbach family,” [21] while the strikes delayed the delivery of the Jahresgabe. The director of the Kunstverein from 1905 onwards, Erwin Pixis, lamented the changed social circumstances at a conference of the Association of German Kunstvereine in 1930: “The art-friendly princes were driven out, the aristocracy retreated to its estates, the middle classes became impoverished.” He warns against modern art, which has the consequence that “there is no longer a uniform conception of art among our people.” [22] Instead, he recommends following classical forms.
In 1923/1924, in the midst of financial lows, the 100th anniversary is approaching, which is used to evoke the relevance and spirit of optimism of the early years. Members of the royal family, the state government, and the board of directors have breakfast for the celebration at the nearby Hotel Marienbad. Mixed into their speeches, however, is an educational tone that emphasizes the Kunstverein’s role for the “good of the fatherland” and “the struggle for the traditional position in German art.” [23] The employees of the association celebrate “the anniversary day according to their own wish, which shows loyal attachment, with a dinner in the business premises of the association.” [24]
The fourth and last part of this Archive Newsletter series will deal with how, at the end of the 20th century, there were phases of reaction to the concept of class inherent in the history of the Kunstverein. The activities during the Nazi era are to be analyzed in a more detailed study. Extensive research is still underway in this area, as there are large gaps in the documents and the records are very disparate, which makes reconstruction difficult. At that time, the gleichgeschaltete Kunstverein exhibited art that conformed to the regime and, just a few meters away, the propaganda show Degenerate Art (1937) took place in parts of its current spaces—the former Museum für Abgüsse klassischer Bildwerke.
Text: Adrian Djukic
Translation and Editing: Gina Merz, Gloria Hasnay and Adrian Djukic
Many thanks to Sabine Brantl, Rudolf Herz, Jenny Mues, Wilfried Petzi, Laura Schütz, Theresa Sepp and Stephanie Weber for valuable hints
If you have any questions about the Martina Fuchs Archive, please contact Adrian Djukic via archiv@kunstverein-muenchen.de.
—
Footnotes:
[1] Niels Kadritzke: “Arbeiterbewegung und Faschismus. Warum die antifaschistische Einheitsfront nicht zustande kam,” in: Neue Gesellschaft für Bildende Kunst (ed.), Wem gehört die Welt: Kunst u. Gesellschaft in d. Weimarer Republik (Berlin: Neue Ges. für Bildende Kunst, 1977), pp. 25–34, here: p. 25.
[2] “Münchner Künstlerinnen,” Münchner Neueste Nachrichten 204, April 24, 1917.
[3] Kunstverein München e.V.: Accountability report for the financial year 1919 (Munich: 1920), p. 3.
[4] See Birgit Joos: “‘Ein Tadel wurde nie ausgesprochen.’ Prinzregent Luitpold als Freund der Künstler,” in: Ulrike Leutheusser, Hermann Rumschöttel (eds.), Prinzregent Luitpold von Bayern: ein Wittelsbacher zwischen Tradition und Moderne (Munich: arthistoricum.net, 2012), pp. 151–176, http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/artdok/volltexte/2014/2756 (accessed January 11, 2021).
[5] Kunstverein München e.V.: Accountability report 1926 (Munich: 1927), p. 10. Further, there is talk of its “culture rooted in the native soil.”
[6] Kunstverein München e.V.: Report of the Committee of the Kunstverein Munich for the War Year 1914 (Munich: 1915), p. 1.
[7] “Bildende Kunst,” Bayerischer Kurier 228/29, August 15/16, 1912. Also see: Georg Jacob Wolf: “Ausstellung der ‘Luitpoldgruppe’ im Münchner Kunstverein,” in: Kunst für alle. Malerei, Plastik, Graphik, Architektur 28 (1913), pp. 265–296, here: p. 266, https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/kfa1912_1913/0302 (accessed January 11, 2021).
[8] Kunstverein München e.V.: Minutes of the General Meeting 1928 (Munich: 1928), p. 5.
[9] Berthold Hinz: “Zweierlei Kunst in Deutschland,” in: Wem gehört die Welt, pp. 264–267, here: p. 266.
[10] Winfried Nerdinger: “Die ‘Kunststadt’ München,” in: Münchner Stadtmuseum (ed.), Die Zwanziger Jahre in München. Exh. Cat. (Munich: 1979), pp. 93–120, here: p. 102.
[11] Full title: “Storming of Zamecyskoberg near Gorlice by the 3rd Bavarian Infantry Regiment on May 2, 1915,” Kunstverein München e.V.: Annual Report and Accounts of the Committee of the Munich Kunstverein for the Year 1915 (Munich: 1916), p. 3.
[12] “Die Ausstellung des Plakatwettbewerbs für den Bayerischen Opfertag”, Münchner Neueste Nachrichten 304, June 16, 1917.
[13] Kunstverein München e.V.: Zur Isonzo-Ausstellung des k.u.k. Kriegspressequartiers (Munich: 1918), p. 1.
[14] Kunstverein München e.V.: Annual Report 1917. Business Report on the Year 1917 (Munich: 1918), p. 5.
[15] Here, as in many publications of the time, the ideals of the “class warrior” are invoked, as well as “a ruling class based on this status, (...) accountable to no one and least of all to itself.” Walter Benjamin: “Theories of German Fascism,” in: Michael Opitz (ed.), *A Reader / Walter Benjamin* (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1996), pp. 187–199, here: p. 197.
[16] See also: Die Zwanziger Jahre in München, p.4 and Martin H. Geyer: Verkehrte Welt Revolution (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1998), p. 112–115.
[17] The “white guard” as “liberators” in: City archive stock DE-1992-FAM-1228 on painter Benedikt Neumüller. There, the takeover of his workplace by the councils is described: “A new era has dawned. From now on, government is no longer from above but from below, and so on. Some, especially women, agreed enthusiastically. But most of them were skeptical about this wonderful music of the future!” In: Reminiscences of the revolutionary and council period (from April 7, 1919) in Munich, especially about the events in the telegraph office, around the main train station and Milbertshofen, and about the conquest of Munich by Freikorps units at the beginning of May 1919, maschMS, 1918–1919.
[18] “München als Kunststadt,” Münchner Neueste Nachrichten 183, Mai 1, 1922, quoted from: Nerdinger, p. 99.
[19] Klaus Theweleit: Male Fantasies, Complete new edition, expanded with an epilogue (Berlin: Matthes & Seitz, 2019), p. 541.
[20] Kunstverein München e.V.: Annual report and accounts of the Committee of the Kunstverein München for the year 1918 (Munich: 1919), p. 1 and Kunstverein München e.V.: Accountability report for the financial year 1919 (Munich: 1920), p.2.
[21] Kunstverein München e.V.: Accountability report for the 105th business year 1928 (Munich: 1932), p. 4.
[22] Erwin Pixis, in: Doc. PROTOKOLL VDK 1930, Bl. 4b, Niederschrift über die Hauptversammlung des Verbandes DKV am 5. u. 6. Oktober 1930 in Speyer a/Rhein, LB Speyer, Hs. 568, Nr. 9/2, quoted after: Jenny Mues: Kunstvereine als Vermittlungsinstanzen der Moderne in der Zeit der Weimarer Republik. Phil. Diss. (Munich: 2018), p. 32. Here also on Pixis as one of the two chairmen in the völkisch-nationalist “Bayerischer Ordnungsblock”.
[23] Kunstverein München e.V.: Accountability Report 1924 (Munich: 1925), pp. 4 and 8.
[24] Ibid., p. 4.
Fig.:
[1] Galeriestraße, 1935. Courtesy City Archive Munich (DE-1992-FS-NL-PETT1-1037).
[2] Letterhead of Kunstverein München, 1905. Courtesy Stadtarchiv München (DE-1992-KULA-0112-1).
[3] Prince Luitpold at the arcades in the Hofgarten, 1905. Courtesy City Archive Munich (DE-1992-FS-NL-PETT2-1456).
[4] Galeriestraße, view from the Hofgarten parterre to the Kunstverein building, behind it the tower of the Hofgartenbrunnhaus, 1924. Courtesy City Archive Munich (DE-1992-FS-NL-PETT1-1039).
[5] Rokoko, exhibition at Kunstverein München, 1925. Courtesy City Archive Munich (DE-1992-FS-ERG-H-0453-M).
[6] Letterhead of Kunstverein München, 1922. Courtesy City Archive Munich (DE-1992-KULA-0112-1).