Viewing the collection of works by Gustav Klimt at the Leopold Museum, I was struck by the extent to which the artist’s work so clearly influenced and inspired his contemporaries. Yet it was his influence on the young Austrian, Egon Schiele that was most prominent. The Leopold Museum dedicates much of it's space to exhibiting 44 of the artist's oil paintings and around 180 of his graphic works; after studying these alongside those of Gustav Klimt, I realised the major role both artists palyed in advocating a new, modern type of art. With Gustav Klimt, this is manifest in his Art Noveau inspired portraits and his use of ornament and gold leaf, however, Egon Sciele goes further with his portraiture, especially his self portraits, and seems to be anticipating the future expressionist movement. It was their progressiveness and also their explicit showcase of sexuality which continues to capture the attention of generations of viewer, however, it was this too that made both artists the most controversial of their time.
During his lifetime, Schiele was fascinated by the human body, and made many portraits that featured nude women in explicit, even perverse poses. It is clear that to a late 19th century audience, his work would have been regarded as scandalous and when I read that Schiele was ever charged with producing and exhibiting pornography, I understood the contraversy that his work represented compared to his contemporaries. However, when viewing the paintings of the Fauves and the early German expressionists also exhibited in the museum, I discerned a link between their presentation of sexual freedom and Schiele's own. Above all, it seemed to be the erotically charge art of Gustav Klimt that mean that Schiele was able to explore sexuality through his art. In fact, viewing paintings such as Mulher sentada and Danaë, it is easy to argue that Klimt was in fact more provocative that Schiele. It was his artwork that awarded future generations with greater freedoms to depict emotion, especially that of sexual desire. If it were not for Klimt, it is almost certain that Schiele would not have ventured to depict eroticism and sensuality to the extent he did.
Klimt’s fascination with women is ever present in his artwork, and is quite clearly an all- absorbing theme. The apparent eroticism in Klimt’s works repeatedly attracted negative criticism, especially his designs for the Great Hall of the University of Vienna, commissioned in 1899. These were widely regarded as obscene and inappropriate; Medicine came under such strong criticism for its portrayal of life and erotic expression that Klimt was charged with ‘pornography’ and ‘perverted excess’. His third commission received similar critical attention for its portrayal of nakedness; Jurisprudence was also particularly shocking, as Klimt seemed to be presenting sexuality as a liberating force. The issue of whether or not to remove the painting from the University was even debated in parliament, showing that Klimt would have been recognised nationally as a controversial artist. In fact, Klimt responded to such attention with a defiant painting, initially called To my Critics. This painting is dominated by a naked female figure depicted from below so as to emphasise her bottom. Even her expression is of mischievous delight, almost inviting criticism or reprimand. However, beneath the obvious shock of the nudity present in the series, Klimt’s paintings also explore much more complex concepts about human existence and challenge the ideas they are intended to represent. For example, Philosophy was commissioned with the purpose of expressing light over darkness, but Klimt’s work contrastingly portrayed the “victory of darkness over all”. Again with his commission for Medicine, Klimt ridiculed the scientific establishment by undermining the value of medicine as a healing force, compared to the power of the natural cycle of birth, copulation and decay. Therefore, perhaps Klimt’s most controversial action was merely failing to meet the specifications of a commission and misunderstanding the brief. Having said that, Klimt was surely aware that his three paintings Philosophy, Medicine and Jurisprudence would cause scandal in the prudish atmosphere of fin de siecle Vienna, and thus the artist’s attempts at rebellion should not be undervalued.
In fact it seems that in his later works, Klimt pushed the boundaries further. As the viewer, I felt as though I was somehow invited to share in his personal experiences of women and Klimt’s love for them. It is the ability of his art to forge a connection between the viewer and the painting that undoubtedly had the biggest influence on Schiele’s own style. The young Austrian’s 1915 work Two girls lying entwined seems a direct response to Klimt’s 1913 painting The Virgin, so obvious are the similarities. The figures depicted in Two girls lying entwined mimic the sensual, intertwined positioning of Klimt’s 1913 painting. Schiele also adapts the richness of pattern present in Klimt’s painting through his introduction of fabric and texture to his own work. Despite the differences in technique – Klimt worked in oil paint while Schiele preferred gouache and pencil on paper – the artworks testify the enormous influence one artist had on the other. Yet unlike the aggressive despair discernable in so many of Schiele’s paintings, Klimt’s work emanates a far more voluptuous playfulness. His use of ornament and rich patterns most notably in Portrait of Friederike Maria Beer, 1916 and Portrait of Aele Bloch-Bauer I, 1907, show that while Klimt very much believed Adolf Loos’ concept that “all art is erotic”, he was far too concerned with aestheticism to convey the subtlety of expression. His reliance on pattern and embellishment meant that Klimt’s artwork remained relatively tame. In fact, he was the portrait artist of choice for of wives of the Viennese aristocracy because his style was relatively classical. Essentially, Klimt was not brave enough to expose the Viennese aristocracy with the expression and truth his own artistic vision demanded of him. This responsibility to upset the stagnant bourgeois society fell on Egon Schiele who, unlike his predecessor, would cause much deeper repercussions.
Ultimately, I enjoyed the Leopold's exhibiting of the two artist's work immensely. Above all, Schiele and Klimt's work made me re-evaluate my notions of what makes something controversial. Is an artwork that challenged the social establishment and the status quo immediately 'controversial' and if this is so, wouldn't Schiele's work cease being controversial when these social attitudes where overturned and moved away from? I believe that Scheiel and Klimt actually speak to the viewer on a much deeper level; their works expose the rawest of human emotion and a deeper personal conflict which all viewers can relate in some way to.
No comments:
Post a Comment