Bruno Meyer (art scholar)

Bruno Ludwig Julius Boguslaus Meyer (born June 28, 1840 in Kempen , Province of Posen ; † November 12, 1917 in Berlin ) was a German art scholar who was known for his interest in photography as a scientific aid in art studies in schools and universities also excelled as an artistic medium in the context of amateur / art photography .

Bruno Meyer (in a light suit, sitting) in the middle of the Düsseldorf jury in 1902;
Supplement to No. 33 of the Deutsche Photographen-Zeitung

Life

Meyer was born as the son of the royal district physician L. Meyer and the, poet and painter, E. geb. Thiel was born in Kempen in the province of Posen. The father died in 1841 and the family moved to Berlin. Meyer was raised by his mother and grandmother. It is probably the influence of the Thiel family - his grandfather, grammar school director K. Thiel published a two-volume edition of Virgil - that Meyer started studying classical antiquity and art history in 1860 after attending grammar school "zum Grau Kloster" at the University of Berlin. There he learned from the classical archaeologist Friedrich Wilhelm Eduart Gerhart and the art historian Ernst Guhl . In 1864 Meyer received his doctorate with a dissertation on the ancient niobid group ("De Niobidarum compositione"). He obtained his first teaching position at the Dorotheenstädtische Realschule , which he carried out until 1870, through the teacher examination, the "examen profacultate docendi", which was completed in front of a scientific examination committee in 1865, and the pedagogical probationary year at the French grammar school in Berlin that followed until 1866 . From 1872 to 1874 Bruno Meyer taught art history as a private lecturer at the Royal Art School in Berlin. In 1874 he succeeded A. Woltmann as a full professor of art history at the Grand Ducal Polytechnic in Karlsruhe. Here he did everything in his power to advance his vision of enriching art teaching through slide projection. In 1876 eMeyer married Anna W. Bayer, the daughter of the former artillery lieutenant and later mine owner CH Bayer. The marriage had seven children: Erich (1877), Emma (1879), Roland (1882), Norman (1883), Irene (1885), Kurt (1887) and Edith (1890). In 1884 he moved back to Berlin, where he seemed to be teaching literary and art studies as a private lecturer, but devoted himself mainly to private studies. On March 28, 1900, his wife died as a result of influenza, which was rampant in the family. After a break of several months, Bruno Meyer threw himself back into work in June 1900 and finally took up the problem of image copyright. From 1909 the aged art scholar seems to slowly withdraw from all affairs. He died on November 12, 1917 in Berlin.

Act

The collective work “Who is it?” States that Bruno Meyer's favorite pastime is “socio-ethical endeavors”. This preference is shown in his involvement in the associations “German Society for Ethical Culture”, “ Bund für Mutterschutz ” and “Association of Friends of the Humanistic Gymnasium”. Politically, he is liberal. In addition, Bruno Meyer had the 'Deutsche Warte. A look around on the life and work of the present "," as the successor to the 'supplementary sheets for knowledge of the present', founded and edited from 1871 to the end of 1875, with several contributions of her own. "

In addition, Bruno Meyer showed a keen interest in pedagogy from the very beginning , which may also be due to the choice of his subject, art history. Art history rose in the second half of the 19th century “from a [mere] auxiliary science of aesthetics and theology to a historical discipline. This reference to history as the leading science of the 19th century made art history, in the eyes of contemporaries, a 'real' science, “which only gradually made its way into universities. This meant that standards and didactics had to be renegotiated. As Oelkers points out, school criticism was common in the 19th century. Structural reforms in the education system, due to modernization and the accompanying social change, attempted to find better pedagogy.

Pedagogical approach and understanding of art

On the one hand, Bruno Meyer places a strong emphasis on general education and source work at grammar school. As early as 1867 he dealt with these topics in a lecture “The aesthetic as a means of upbringing and teaching subject” (published in Berlin 1868). In 1873 he published his most important work in the field of general education: “From aesthetic education. Six lectures. ”In it, he tries to legitimize the subject of art as a subject, making particular use of humanism or humanity and Christian values ​​(he equates aesthetics with the commandment to love one's neighbor). “Pedagogy teaches the means to turn man into man”, whereby Bruno Meyer sees that aesthetics are neglected, although they are indispensable for the perfection of the 'spiritual life': “If we don't like art in every way, but especially By preparing for real understanding and awakening true love and enthusiasm, we experience it that the wedge of the life of sensation, which overcomes itself in its depravation, tears and bursts between the other parts of our inner being, willing and thinking, and instead of pushing it in To form a bond of harmony and perfection, which represents and promotes disintegration and disruption. ”“ Furthermore, and in general, education is the absolute opposite of one-sidedness. ”In addition, he already indicates“ the absolute lack of the necessary teaching material ”. “It cannot be denied that the educational establishments themselves are equipped with the necessary teaching aids for art lessons.” Apparently, however, his warning words have not been answered satisfactorily, because “we also learn from the 'glass photograms' script that Br. Meyer [...] had started with the support of the Prussian ministerial authorities to [build up] a “World atlas of building history for universities, secondary and technical schools”. In the prospectus of March 1883 he hoped that as a specialist, following the pedagogical practice behind him, he would succeed in thinking his way into the needs and wishes of the teacher. - His self-publishing also announced: 'Photographic studio for the production of teaching materials. Acceptance of photographic work where scientific accuracy is important. '"

On the other hand, Bruno Meyer is one of those who want to bring art history to universities. "The university education movement, that is, the endeavor to elevate the practice, criticism and theory of academic education from an approximate level to a scientific level," has Bruno Meyer "accompanied both with enthusiasm and with rich contributions from the beginning" - especially in his obituary highlighting the treatise "The Cinderella of Modern Science". In the same obituary, his interests are summarized as follows: “Already from the overview of Br. Meyer's share in the university pedagogical endeavors, especially from his initial lectures, there is such an overriding interest in the methodology of scientific research itself - compared to the methodology of its didactic transfer - so that the impression can arise that, as our opponents believe, this latter methodology has absolutely no right to exist alongside the former. […] In any case, through all of Br. Meyer's achievements, there is evidence of the close relationship between the academic teaching and learning method and the academic working method itself. ”Going beyond art history, Meyer has a special interest in systematic and historical knowledge of science, where he profiles art history against art history, which explains his keen interest in new teaching methods.

Consistently staying true to his line, "[s] an art-historical publications [...] are primarily dedicated to the art of his time and to" aesthetic pedagogy "."

The photograph

Simultaneously with the arrival of art history at the universities, a new medium moved into the focus of the discussion: photography . First and foremost, it was discussed whether the creation of the picture would be purely chemical-technical or whether the photographer would create it like an "artistic author". In the first case, photography would have to be regarded as unaffected and therefore objective, so it would be a "documentation medium of science"; in the second case it would have the status of a work of art. Interestingly, Bruno Meyer participates in these discussions in both directions. On the one hand he is one of the first to want to make photography usable as a teaching medium, on the other hand he is to be associated with the amateur movement that practices photography as an art.

The amateur art photography movement

Meyer's interest in photography began during his student days. In the foreword to the glass photograms he refers to his "reports from the international photographic exhibition in Berlin in 1865 ", which "[had] received attention and recognition even in relevant specialist circles". Since his return to Berlin in 1884 at the latest, he has been involved in the German Photographers Association. He is also a “long-standing, eager employee” in the association's communications organ - the Deutsche Photographen-Zeitung - and has added countless articles to it. In one (half-hearted, poorly researched obituary in the Deutsche Photographen-Zeitung - age and date of death are wrong here) it is particularly emphasized that “every year he gives the critical report on the content of the touring exhibitions of the 'German Photographers Association' and thus created a lot of useful things ”. Nevertheless, Bruno Meyer - quite an art historian - seems to be very skeptical of photography in the artistic sense: "The fact that the equation of photography in terms of copyright with works of fine art is fundamentally rejected can only be approved." the actual photographic process is not accessible to any individual achievement or influence, but rather everything that, comparable to an artistic level, can be achieved by the author of a photographic recording, does not belong to the photographic process itself, but precedes or follows it. " "However, the best photographic works almost rise up into the region of art, while with some" works of fine art "it is difficult to discover something that justifies them to be classified". That in no way means that Meyer was not really enthusiastic about amateur photography. “But it is very significant that in professional photographic circles the need is felt to raise one's voice aloud for this change that has come from within, which has taken place in photographic art in recent years, and it is by no means enough for professional photography as a reproach if one can [and must] establish that the main stimulus for this comes from the circles [of the most vilified, what there is in professional photography circles (or may one say: there was?)] the amateur photography, and from scientific research and Instruction has been given in the field of the entire photographic production. ”The condition for such artistic photography is“ to give each individual work an individual character, which is determined on the one hand by the object, on the other hand by the view and the characteristics of the producer. In this way alone - that is absolutely certain, no matter how much may be missing in this way as it may, - in this way alone one can achieve really artistically valuable products in photography, just as much as in art, too, only the same path can lead to really outstanding things [and has led at all times]. ”“ Measure is and remains that which makes art into art. Only when the opposites, which everything [life and] work is about, opposites that one brings together, that one forces, that one must unite, - only when these opposites are tamed to such an extent that they come to measure that they come together bend in front of each other so that they merge into a unity, only then can the really perfect emerge. ”In a congratulation on his 70th birthday, another activity is emphasized:“ The importance he has in photography, especially through his work as a judge, is known and critics for the exhibitions of the German Photographers Association ”. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that Bruno Meyer himself became an art photographer.

Skiopticon in art history

One measure to improve art studies is particularly important to Bruno Meyer: the introduction of the slide projection at grammar schools and universities.

The Skioptikon was presented in 1851 as a considerable improvement of the Laterna Magica, which had been known since the 16th century, at the first world exhibition (industrial exhibition) in London. In the following, the Skioptikon was used for teaching various sciences.

Bruno Meyer recognizes the benefits of the ski optics also for the art science lessons, which consists especially in the simultaneity of representation and lecture, but also for the first time enables "control of scientific work for its accuracy". “Until then, one worked with graphic and photographic reproductions and with the graphic reproduction of works of art and buildings. At lectures, prints were passed around among the listeners, which of course led to a very delayed visualization of the works of art discussed. ”In 1873 the world exhibition took place in Vienna, and for the first time around 80 art historians from German-speaking countries were represented. Meyer uses the platform as the main speaker on teaching methods and materials in the subject and is the first to publicly present the Skiopticon to his colleagues as a new teaching tool. But, like the few others who tried to introduce photography and slide projection into art studies at this time, including Max Jordan , Anton Springer and Herman Grimm (to whom some sources later attribute the introduction of slide projection to art history), Bruno Meyer consistently comes across Rejection. How could this happen? The projection method was still very popular in the “educated salons” around 1800. But then the projection conquered the street: In the middle of the 19th century it was used to entertain the masses at the annual fairs. Photography had also degenerated into a trivial mass medium, so there were numerous monument photographs on the tourist market. The use of such profane media in the emerging, elite art history was unthinkable. Art science, now recognized as a “real” science, was based on the humanities, with written sources as the main source. The Zeitschrift für Bildende Kunst (ZfbK), one of the central organs of the art history of the time, expresses itself - if at all - critical of photography, ignoring Meyer's (and also Grimm's) revolutionary thoughts on slide projection in art lessons completely (although Meyer also publishes here, however, with the exception of photography).

But against all opposition, Bruno Meyer sticks to his vision. With his appointment as a professor at the Polytechnic in Karlsruhe in 1874, he began to set up a photographic apparatus for teaching art studies on his own initiative and partly from his own resources, which at last was "about 10,000" photographs. "He showed these Karlsruhe beginnings at the teaching material exhibition in Trier in autumn 1879. At the end of the same year, a treatise appeared in 'Westermann': 'Photography in the service of art science and art teaching'." In 1880 he was finally able to equip his lecture hall with a Projection apparatus and other necessary things approved. In 1883 he brought a catalog of 4,000 glass photograms for art studies onto the market, which he offered to colleagues in the mail order business. The foreword shows the great disappointment about the lack of support from colleagues and publishers, but also the great ambition that has made Bruno Meyer persevere and set up his own company: “And the result of all the struggles is that I come out with a company today which is to be called my own to a much greater extent than it corresponds to my wishes, and than at first sight is likely to find approval in most places. I am not only the originator of the basic idea, not only the scientific director and advisor of the publication, not only the author of the necessary texts, but the glass photograms I have edited are also, without exception and restriction, the products of my own photographic studio, and I also manage them myself the company as a publisher 'to the scientific and art-loving public. ”In addition, reference is made to the fact that the offered pictures as well as the partly self-developed equipment of the studio were awarded medals at various teaching material exhibitions. For Meyer, however, the decisive factor does not seem to be the economic benefit, but he emphasizes: "The glass picture collection is based on the needs of art-scientific teaching, and it therefore claims the character of a scientific work." The introduction also discusses which standards Slides for art science lessons must correspond. “When an auditor noticed that Meyer was benefiting financially from this acquisition through his company, the Polytechnic initiated a budget cut for the 'glass picture collection' and threatened an 'investigative commission'. In a dispute with the committees of the Polytechnic School, Meyer submitted his dismissal from the Baden civil service in 1884. "

Bruno Meyer is never given high credit for his earnings. In obituaries and encyclopedia articles of his time, the introduction of the ski optics is not mentioned. But in retrospect, Bruno Meyer was a great pioneer and visionary; 20 years after his endeavors, slide projection has become an indispensable part of art studies and remains so to this day. The technical apparatus changed the acquisition of knowledge in art history - slowly the history of art is making a change to the science of art, just as Meyer had thought up and practiced himself years before.

Copyright protection in photography

As important as the Skioptikon was for himself and ultimately also for the history of art history, Bruno Meyer's last great work is just as important for the photography movement, which has been thanked many times even after the photographer association and newspaper split up. On behalf of the Photographers Association, Bruno Meyer dealt with copyright law in photography at the turn of the century - "by virtue of which he can be recognized as one of the most professional experts in this field" - and ultimately successfully enforces his proposals, with a few compromises .

Bruno Meyer "at the international literary and artistic congress in Dresden in 1895 energetically demanded a reform of the G 1876". This older copyright law for photography “at least at the end of the 19th century no longer met the needs of traffic and legal life. The ability to reproduce photographs had been simplified and improved. The achievements of the photographers were often characterized by their artistic character. The epoch of art photography (since the 1990s), which was significantly influenced by ambitious amateur photography, was characterized above all by the avoidance of image fidelity and the use of blurring as an artistic means. On the other hand, in view of the onset of mass photography, one could only speak of “artistic achievements” for a very small fraction of the total photographic production. However, a number of mass photography products that were created according to the Kodak slogan “You press the button, we do the rest” seemed surprisingly successful if the position of the object, the lighting, etc. was favorable. ”With this change in photography A protection period of five years turned out to be too short, “especially for recordings that required a large capital investment. He recommends a protection period of at least 15 years. "

“ Bruno Meyer , who published his own draft law (draft law on the copyright on products of photographic technology, Deutsche Photographen-Zeitung 1898), saw the reason for the need to protect photography primarily in the fact that the income from any work had to be secured against external interference. However, apart from the similarity of their material creation process, the various products of photographic work have hardly anything in common. Some of the products have an unmistakable analogy with works of art. Others simply emerged from commercial operations. The peculiarity of photography can only be done justice if it is protected in a special law as such, as photography. The photographer cannot rely on submitting it to the judge first for an unpredictable decision as to whether his work is an 'artistic' one and is therefore entitled to the protection of the art law. "

Works (selection)

• The aesthetic as a means of education and a subject of instruction. Berlin 1868.
• From aesthetic pedagogy. Six lectures by Bruno Meyer. Berlin 1873.
• Glass photograms for art science lessons. First directory (No. 1–4000). With an introduction and a richly illustrated treatise on the art of projection. Karlsruhe in Baden 1883.
• About instant and series recordings. To hatchet. After Ottomar Anschütz. With 1 plate. In photograv. u. 1 plate. In Lichtflachdr.- Weimar: Verl. D. German Photographers Newspaper 1892.
• A photographic legal case of fundamental importance. E. Contribution to question d. Copyright protection. Weimar: Verl. D. German Photographers Newspaper 1892.
• Photographic art sheets. From D. Magdeburg exhibition 1898. 16 plates with. 2 See text. Text by Bruno Meyer. Weimar: Verl. D. German Photographers Newspaper 1899.
• The new photographic protection law according to the government draft. Critically illuminated by Bruno Meyer. (German Photographers Library. Volume IX.). Weimar 1902.
• On the question of photography protection. (= German photographer library. Volume X) Weimar: Verl. D. German Photographers Newspaper 1903.
• Expert and DRP64806. (= German photographer library. Volume VIII) Weimar: Verl. D. German Photographers Newspaper 1903.
• Feminine beauty. Critical consideration of the representation of the naked in painting and photography. With times. Nude studies by Hermann Luch ue Einl. By Ludwig cabinet. Stuttgart: Klemm & Beckmann 1904.
• The beauty of the human body. With contributions from Eduard Daelen, Gustav Fritsch, Bruno Meyer, Ludwig Cabinet and Konrad Wahr and 100 painters. Nude studies in color Dr. By Arthur, René, Le Bègue, F. Boissonnas a. a. Düsseldorf: Ulrich u. Steinbecker 1905.

literature

• German photographer newspaper. 1900-1917.
• Heinrich Dilly: The projector. 121 years of art history slide projection. ( foto.unibas.ch ; PDF; 187 kB).
• Annual report on the Dorotheenstädtische Realschule, through which on Monday, October 1st, 1866, (mornings from 9-12 1/2 a.m. and afternoons from 2 1/2–5 p.m.) in the lecture hall of the institution (Georgenstrasse 23, second entrance Dorotheenstrasse 23) Instead of public exams, Dr. L. Kleiber, Director. Berlin 1866 ( google.de ).
• Jürgen Oelkers : Reform Education. A critical story of dogma. Weinheim / Munich 1989.
• Martin Papenbrock : The chair for art history in Karlsruhe. A review. In: Art and Architecture in Karlsruhe. Festschrift for Norbert Schneider. Ed .: Katharina Büttner, Martin Papenbrock. Karlsruhe 2006, pp. 179-192 ( digbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de ).
• Dorothea Peters: The world in a grid. Georg Meisenbach and the long road to printed photography. In: constructing, communicating, presenting. Images of science and technology. Ed .: Alexander Gall. Göttingen 2007, pp. 179–244.
• Wiebke Ratzeburg: Media Discussion in the 19th Century. How the history of art found its scientific basis in photography. In: Critical reports. Zeitschrift für Kunst- und Kulturwissenschaften Announcement organ of the Ulmer Verein - Verband für Kunst- und Kulturwissenschaften eV Volume 30 (2002), Issue 1. Edited by Annette Dorgerloh , Annelie Lütgens, Bernd Nicolai and Tilmann von Stockhausen. Pp. 22-39.
• Ingeborg Reichle: Photography and photography: the “invisible” visual media in art history. In: Visibility and Medium. Exchange, connection and difference of scientific and aesthetic image strategies. Ed .: Anja Zimmermann. Hamburg 2005 ( uni-hamburg.de ; PDF; 6.4 MB), pp. 169–181.
• Ingeborg Reichle: Media breaks. In: Critical reports. Zeitschrift für Kunst- und Kulturwissenschaften Notification organ of the Ulmer Verein - Verband für Kunst- und Kulturwissenschaften eV, Volume 30 (2002), Issue 1. Edited by: Annette Dorgerloh, Annelie Lütgens, Bernd Nicolai and Tilmann von Stockhausen, pp. 40–56 ( art history. de ; PDF; 4.5 MB).
• Stefan Ricke: Development of the legal protection of photographs in Germany with special consideration of the Prussian legislation. Munster 1998.
• Hans Schmidkunz: Obituary Bruno Meyer. In: Journal for University Education. Volume 9, 1918, pp. 7-13.
• Herrmann AL Degener (Ed.): Who is it? Our contemporaries. Biographies and bibliographies. Information about origin, family, curriculum vitae, works, favorite occupations, party membership, membership in societies, address. Other communications of general interest. V. edition. Completely reworked and significantly expanded. Leipzig 1911.

Individual evidence

1. ↑ ^{a b c d e f g h i} Hans Schmidkunz: Obituary Bruno Meyer. In: Journal for University Education. 1918. Volume 9, p. 7.
2. ↑ ^{a b c d e f g h i j k} Herrmann AL Degener (Ed.): Who is it? Our contemporaries. Biographies and bibliographies. Information about origin, family, curriculum vitae, work, favorite occupations, party membership, membership in societies, address. Other communications of general interest. V. edition. Completely reworked and significantly expanded. Leipzig 1911, p. 953.
3. ↑ ^{a b c} Annual report on the Dorotheenstädtische Realschule , through which on Monday, October 1st, 1866, (mornings from 9 a.m. to 12 1/2 p.m. and afternoons from 2 1/2 to 5 a.m.) in the lecture hall of the institution (Georgenstrasse 23 , second entrance Dorotheenstrasse 23) Instead of the public examination of the students, Dr. L. Kleiber, Director. Berlin 1866, p. 74 ( google.de ).
4. ↑ ^{a b} Annual report on the Dorotheenstädtische Realschule, note 3, p. 74
5. ↑ to Who is it? it says on p. 953: "Dorotheenstädtisches Realgymnasium"
6. ↑ ^{a b c d e f g} Hans Schmidkunz: Obituary Bruno Meyer. In: Journal for University Education. Volume 9, 1918, p. 8.
7. ^ Martin Papenbrock: The chair for art history in Karlsruhe. A review. In: Katharina Büttner, Martin Papenbrock (Hrsg.): Art and architecture in Karlsruhe. Festschrift for Norbert Schneider. Karlsruhe 2006, p. 181 ( uni-karlsruhe.de )
8. ↑ ^{a b} Hans Schmidkunz: Obituary Bruno Meyer. In: Journal for University Education. Volume 9, 1918, p. 9.
9. ↑ Deutsche Photographen-Zeitung, 24th year 1900. p. 179
10. ^ Heinrich Dilly: The image thrower. 121 years of art history slide projection. Notes p. 43. foto.unibas.ch ( Memento of the original from April 1, 2010 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. 
11. ^ From 1909 onwards there are no more articles in the Deutsche Photographen-Zeitung.
12. ^ ^{A b c} Wiebke Ratzeburg: Media discussion in the 19th century. How the history of art found its scientific basis in photography. In: Annette Dorgerloh , Annelie Lütgens, Bernd Nicolai and Tilmann von Stockhausen (eds.): Critical reports. 1/2002. Journal for Art and Cultural Studies Bulletin of the Ulmer Verein - Association for Art and Cultural Studies eV Issue 1, Volume 30, p. 22
13. ^ Jürgen Oelkers: Reform pedagogy. A critical story of dogma. Weinheim and Munich 1989, p. 34.
14. ↑ Bruno Meyer: From aesthetic pedagogy.…. P. 5.
15. ↑ Bruno Meyer: From aesthetic pedagogy.…. P. 21
16. ↑ Bruno Meyer: From aesthetic pedagogy.…. P. 4.
17. ↑ Bruno Meyer: From aesthetic pedagogy.…. P. 20.
18. ^ ^{A b} Bruno Meyer: From the aesthetic pedagogy. Six lectures by Bruno Meyer. Berlin 1873, p. 30.
19. ↑ Schmidkunz p. 185.
20. ↑ Schmidkunz p. 18.
21. ↑ ^{a b} Heinrich Dilly: The image throwers. Note 15, notes on p. 43.
22. ^ ^{A b c} Wiebke Ratzeburg: Media discussion in the 19th century. Note 19, p. 23
23. ↑ Bruno Meyer: Glass photograms for art studies. First directory (No. 1–4000). With an introduction and a richly illustrated treatise on the art of projection. Karlsruhe in Baden 1883, p. III f.
24. ↑ In the Deutsche Photographen-Zeitung you can find Bruno Meyer in the membership directory of the German Photographers Association from January 1902. Cf. Deutsche Photographenzeitung. 1902 (No. 7). P. 83.
25. ↑ ^{a b} Deutsche Photographen-Zeitung 1917, Volume 41 (No. 48) p. 317.
26. ↑ Bruno Meyer: The new photographic protection law according to the government draft. Critically illuminated by Bruno Meyer. (= German Photographers Library. Volume IX.). Weimar 1902, p. 26
27. ↑ Bruno Meyer: From aesthetic pedagogy.…. P. 26.
28. ↑ Bruno Meyer: From aesthetic pedagogy.…. P. 28.
29. ↑ ^{a b} Deutsche Photographen-Zeitung 1900. S. 700
30. ↑ Deutsche Photographen-Zeitung. 1900. p. 761.
31. ↑ ^{a b} German Photographers Newspaper. 1910. (No. 27) p. 295.
32. ↑ ^{a b c d e f} Heinrich Dilly: The image throwers. Note 15, p. 39.
33. ↑ Hans Schmidkunz: Obituary Bruno Meyer. In: Journal for University Education. Volume 9, 1918, p. 11.
34. ^ ^{A b} Martin Papenbrock: The chair for art history in Karlsruhe. Note 11, p. 181.
35. ↑ Critical Reports. Editorial p. 3.
36. ^ Ingeborg Reichle: Photography and light image: the 'invisible' visual media in art history. In: Anja Zimmermann (Ed.): Visibility and Medium. Exchange, connection and difference of scientific and aesthetic image strategies. Hamburg 2005, p. 173 ( hup.sub.uni-hamburg.de ).
37. ^ Wiebke Ratzeburg: Media discussion in the 19th century. Note 19, p. 24.
38. ^ Wiebke Ratzeburg: Media discussion in the 19th century. P. 27.
39. ↑ Bruno Meyer: Glass photograms for art studies. Note 40, SV
40. ↑ Bruno Meyer: Glass photograms for art studies. SV; Cover sheet.
41. ↑ Bruno Meyer: From aesthetic pedagogy.…. S. VIII.
42. ^ Martin Papenbrock: The chair for art history in Karlsruhe. Note 11, p. 181 f.
43. ^ Ingeborg Reichle: Media breaks. In: Annette Dorgerloh, Annelie Lütgens, Bernd Nicolai, Tilmann von Stockhausen (eds.): Critical reports. 1/2002. Journal for Art and Cultural Studies Bulletin of the Ulmer Verein - Verband für Kunst- und Kulturwissenschaften eV, issue 1, year 30.
44. ↑ Deutsche Photographen-Zeitung. Weimar 1915. p. 192 f.
45. ↑ Stefan Ricke: Development of the legal protection of photographs in Germany with special consideration of the Prussian legislation. Münster 1998, p. 122 f.
46. ↑ Stefan Ricke: Development of the legal protection of photographs in Germany with special consideration of the Prussian legislation. P. 126.