Munch case
The Munch case (also Munch affair or Munch scandal , in Norwegian Affæren Munch ) played a key role in the history of modernity in the visual arts in Germany. "Hardly any other art event from the imperial era was discussed as passionately in the feature pages as the Munch case ." The young Norwegian painter Edvard Munch had not yet found buyers for his pictures when the Berlin Artists' Association invited him to a major solo exhibition in 1892 . Munch's first exhibition in Berlin took place in the “Architektenhaus” at Wilhelmstrasse 92. It was opened with 55 pictures on November 5, 1892 and ended with a gruesome "succès de scandal".
The Munch exhibition caused the greatest scandal that the art world in Germany had ever seen . The public and the older painters perceived Munch's pictures as anarchist provocation, and the exhibition was closed in protest on November 12, 1892 at the instigation of Anton von Werner , the director of the Royal University of Fine Arts . But with the attacks on the Munch exhibition in the conservative public, Berlin “finally began to draw attention to the newer international artistic endeavors and to open up its art market to them.” This became the so-called “Munch scandal” of the year 1892 in German art history "regarded as the birth of modernity ."
Prehistory: The International Art Exhibition 1891
In 1891 the Association of Berlin Artists , of which Anton von Werner was chairman, organized an international art exhibition in Berlin. In his role as “a major regressive art politician who, with the support of Kaiser Wilhelm II, fought vigorously against modern art for decades”, Werner had a great influence on the selection of works. The approximately 5000 works came from artists living and working in Germany.
In order to secure the title-giving "internationality", Werner tried to get French and Norwegian artists to participate with the help of private relationships and invitations. So the Empress Friedrich traveled to Paris to get French artists to participate. But “through unskillful behavior” by the Empress, the company acquired “the character of an official Prussian or Imperial German exhibition.” It was not only the French who refused to take part in the exhibition that opened on May 1, 1891, but so did the majority of the Norwegian ones The artist had canceled. Above all, "Werner's personal decisions and art views contributed to this," according to the art historian Reinhold Heller .
Norway's commission, which consisted of the country's best-known younger artists, including Christian Krohg , Frits Thaulow and Erik Werenskiold , named the painter Otto Sinding as their representative in Berlin . The chairmanship of the Association of Visual Artists had recognized the commission and Sinding; then 55 exhibits were sent to Berlin. Shortly before the planned opening of the exhibition, Werner withdrew the recognition of Sinding without giving a reason for his decision. Werner had previously received a report from the painter Hans Dahl , who lives in Berlin and is friends with him , in which Sinding was described as the leader of a clique of “anarchist impressionists ” who control art life in Norway and suppress all artists who are not artistic Views followed.
Thereupon Werner authorized his friend Dahl to make a new selection of works of Norwegian art. He invited 22 other painters, mostly in the conservative orientation of popular landscape and marine painting . This ultimately led to the rejection of the Norwegian committee, in which it resigned from responsibility for representing their country. The invited painters then sent their work to the international exhibition in Munich, which took place in the Glaspalast .
There the exhibits of the "youthful northerners" were the sensation of the exhibition; they received numerous awards, more than any other foreign group. A contemporary critic praised the "simplest, lyrical poetry"; Cornelius Gurlitt , one of the most important proponents of open air painting in Germany, wrote:
Gurlitt praised the young Norwegians' approach to art, in whose works “human nature is pursued more closely”, the “ beautiful cloak is torn off to show it as it is”. Gurlitt emphasized that only those who "wish to be lied to or who despair of humanity as it is" can feel hurt by this.
“Everything, if only it came from Scandinavia, was received with uncritical enthusiasm; It went so far that German artists like Arno Holz and Johannes Schlaf , who were hushed up, smuggled in their works under a Scandinavian pseudonym so that they could even be mentioned, ”recalls the Polish writer Stanislaw Przybyszewski , who was living in Berlin at the time.
In contrast, the Berlin International Art Exhibition received a lot of criticism; With over 5000 works of art on display, it was “more confusing than ever before. The good quality and noteworthy was pushed aside by an overwhelming abundance of trivialities. ”The art critic Karl Scheffler raged:
- " The art exhibition as a means of entertainment and education, the amalgamation of art, beer music and the love market, the profanization, proletarianization and theatricalization of art: that is entirely in the spirit of the new Berlin ."
From this point of view, the emergence of oppositional artist groups at the beginning of the 1890s seemed to be an absolute necessity; the scandal surrounding the Munch exhibition the following year was supposed to fuel this development, as it exacerbated the differences among Berlin's artists.
Changes in the Association of Berlin Artists
The exclusion of younger Norwegian artists from the Berlin International Art Exhibition led to efforts by younger members to reform the Association of Berlin Artists . Anton von Werner was able to keep his position as chairman when he was elected at the beginning of January 1892, but the exhibition commission newly elected with him intended to open future association exhibitions to newer art movements and to take international developments into account in special exhibitions. Landscape paintings by the Glasgow Boys (including Thomas Austin Brown, James Paterson , Macaulay Stevenson) were exhibited, who had received great recognition and admiration in Munich in 1890 with their “dreamy atmospheric landscapes and symbolic figure paintings”. Reinhold Heller suspects that with the exhibition of the Glasgow Boys, the Berlin Artists Association attempted to no longer be “dependent on the insights and discoveries of other” organizers and gallery owners; "Now they wanted to introduce an artist in Berlin who had previously only become known by sending three pictures for the Munich Glaspalast exhibition in 1891 (annual exhibition of works of art of all kinds) ".
"The young Edward Munch was one of the Norwegian painters boycotted the previous year, which is why his invitation was perhaps a kind of compensation for Werner and Dahl's dealings with the Norwegian artists," wrote Heller. “No one had any doubts about the quality of his pictures, because the recommendation came from Eilert Adelsteen Normann , a highly respected club member who had great success in Germany with his realistic fjord landscapes.” Normann, who worked in Berlin and Düsseldorf, was a member of the exhibition commission of the Association of Berlin Artists . The 29-year-old Munch finally owed the invitation to Berlin to the preference for Scandinavian art in this era. “It was signed by Anton von Werner as chairman of the Berlin Artists Association. He - like almost all the members of the exhibition committee who unanimously decided in favor of Munch - did not, however, know Munch's pictures. ”One would probably expect something friendly and idyllic in the manner of Anders Zorn , Carl Larsson or the Skagen Painter , as is the case for Scandinavian art seemed characteristic.
Edward Munch had heard of Normann's invitation; On his last visit to Norway in 1892, he had seen an exhibition with pictures by the little-known artist Munch, whose talent he recognized. Normann had then proposed to the commission to exhibit Munch's latest work. "I am therefore free to ask you, if you have not already made other arrangements about your pictures, whether you would not be willing to exhibit them here and what conditions you were setting."
The Munich painter Fritz von Uhde is also said to have spoken out in favor of Munch; he accepted immediately when he received Normann's letter. "For the young Munch, who was not exactly popular here at home, this invitation from the capital was an honor and encouragement," wrote Jens Thiis, who later became director of the Norwegian National Gallery in Oslo. The exhibition was advertised as “ Ibsen's mood pictures ”, which was supposed to last 14 days from November 5th to 19th. The exhibition space was the newly renovated hall of honor in the ground floor rotunda of the “Architects' House ” on Wilhelmstrasse. The Berlin Architects' Association regularly held special exhibitions there. The building of the architects' association erected by Wilhelm Böckmann in 1876–77 was demolished in 1934.
Munch had brought a total of 55 pictures with him to Berlin, "which showed his artistic development since the 1880s, a development that began in radical realism and in the most recent pictures presented the influence of French impressionism and neo-impressionism ," wrote Reinhold Heller . “These works showed features of the latest avant-garde Parisian art movements, which in their radicalism easily surpassed everything that the most progressive Berlin artists - such as Max Liebermann and the other members of the newly founded artist group Vereinigung der XI - produced; Works that even approving critics consider " so unusual to our eyes that at first glance you can hardly find your way around this brightly colored play of purple and green spots ."
In addition to Munch's pictures from his Impressionist phase, such as Rue Lafayette , these included The Day After (1895), the view of a young woman after a night of partying, and his favorite picture The Sick Child . This sparked outrage not because of his motif, but because of his style of painting. Munch had tried to make physical infirmity and the extinction of a person visible by applying and scraping the paint several times.
The day after
Portrait of August Strindberg
.jpg)
The "Munch Case"
The title “ Ibsen 's mood pictures” suggested new depictions of Norwegian landscapes such as mountains and fjords , with which painters such as Hans Dahl and Adelsteen Normann were commercially successful at the time; but soon the show was for all of Berlin's artists and visitors recognized that "Munch was not a tame mood painter, but - as the Illustrierte Zeitung put it -" one of the boldest modern Impressionists, whose art every tradition of the older directions Hohn speaks . " “In the art chronicle , the supplement to the magazine for visual arts , the art historian and publicist Adolf Rosenberg stated :
- " What the Norwegian had achieved in terms of formlessness, brutality of painting, brutality and meanness of feeling, puts all the sins of the French and Scottish impressionists in the shade ."
Soon after the opening, Munch wrote to his family: “ Yes, the exhibition is now open - and it is causing a colossal annoyance - there is a mass of older, wretched painters here who are mad about the new direction. - The newspapers complain terribly - but some have praised me. - But all boys like my pictures very much . "
Munch's works caused a shock to the conservative wing of the club. The sculptor Max Kruse wrote about the events of November 5, 1892: “ We had invited Edvard Munch to an exhibition. But we had no idea of the outbreak of indignation, yes anger, with the old men . ”In the“ Freie Bühne ”a Walter Selber wrote with bitter ironic intent:“ That should be art! O misery, misery! It was different from the way we paint it, it was new, strange, repulsive, ugly, mean! Out with the pictures, out, out! “ The impressionist painter Walter Leistikow was hiding behind the pseudonym .
Both in the German press and in the Berlin Artists' Association there was a lively discussion about "whether an" impressionist "who denies tradition also has a right to exhibit in the association, or whether his" smear "is not such an" offense "for all those honestly aspiring artists who [...] are robbed of light and space "that one would be entitled to close the exhibition so as not to further offend the public."
Shortly after they had seen the exhibition, the board of the association rushed back into the assembly hall and "Anton von Werner declared the exhibition to be closed as a mockery of art, as a mess and meanness". But it was not in Werner's power to close the Munch exhibition immediately after it opened. There was resistance to this in the association, especially among the younger members. “Not so much because they were enthusiastic about Munch. It was about the freedom of every artist to tread their own, even unconventional paths. ”The statutes prevented an immediate closure and so an extraordinary general assembly was called.
In that “tumultuous” general assembly, 23 artists, including Hermann Eschke , Wilhelm Streckfuss , Emil Hundrieser and Louis Douzette , demanded that the rotunda be closed immediately and, “out of respect for honest artistic endeavors in the certainly justified wish, the Berlin Arts Association to protect against suspicion of his undignified undertaking «"
In a counter-motion brought in by 30 artists led by Karl Breitbach , Karl Köpping , Otto Brausewetter and August von Heyden , it was requested that the exhibition commission be replaced by another. Werner, who had not voted as chairman of the meeting, prevailed in the vote; The motion of Hermann Eschke's group was accepted with 120 against 105 votes and it was decided to close the exhibition. As a result, Munch's work was removed within a few days.
Munch's art in the review of art critics and the capital city press around 1892
|
| The sick child |
|---|
| Edvard Munch , 1885/86 |
| Oil on canvas |
| 119.5 × 118.5 cm |
| Norwegian National Gallery , Oslo |
In the discussion in the “Munch case”, “ Impressionism ” was used as a dirty word and placed on the same level as anarchism - “without dealing with the actual concerns of open-air painting.” Munch's pictures were also only briefly discussed, “mostly disapproving or mocking "; they only spoke for Munch, "to protect the right of all artists to exhibit -" in art everyone has the right to express their opinion freely, "demanded Theodor Wolff in the Berliner Tageblatt.
What angered the conservative painter colleagues were less Munch's motifs , such as " The Sick Child " (1885/86), than his painting style, according to the art historian Uwe M. Schneede :
- “Again and again Munch scraped off the pasty, viscous material and applied new one. The layers obscure the color. So here the white of the pillow is applied to the underlying color, there it is painted over with color, in any case only present as a broken one . So the picture is full of color, but the refractions give it a gray haze. "
The Imperial press also took a position on Munch's art and the avant-garde currents of the Wilhelmian era. The Berlin art critic Adolf Rosenberg , who, disgusted by the exhibition, wrote in the conservative daily Die Post about the “crudity and meanness of feeling” and the “formlessness ” is often cited as an example of the indignation at that time about Munch's “house painting” and the brutality of painting ” .
In contrast, the journalist Theodor Wolff defended the “melancholy mood” in Munch's work in the liberal Berliner Tageblatt and vehemently criticized the repressive approach of the artists' association in the name of artistic freedom. In addition to these two extreme positions, most of the Berlin reviews of Munch's pictures in 1892 included the frequently recurring categorization of Munch's art under the categories of the ugly , fragmentary and national . Opinions of the press differed precisely on his most recent pictures, which followed a radical concept of subjectivity , but not necessarily according to conventional cultural-political models. As Krisch shows, cultural-political and aesthetic points of view intersect again and again , according to Monika Krisch in her analysis of newspaper criticism in the course of the Munch affair. Krisch gives an example here: In the rejection of the ugly in modern art, two otherwise politically opposed newspapers stood side by side: the liberal-democratic Vossische Zeitung and the monarchist- conservative Kreuzzeitung .
In the course of the Munch affair, much-read journalists such as Ludwig Pietsch , Georg Voss , Helene Vollmar , Reinhold Schlingmann , Hans Schliepmann and others spoke out at the time . The aesthetic position of a critic had to be distinguished from his political one. According to Monika Krisch, when the first reaction to Munch's pictures in Germany there were no standardized labels that identify a “ liberal ” or “ conservative ” camp of journalists.
With Munch and the mood against his exhibition, "the judgment of» degeneracy «about modern art and its artists, which 45 years later would have its most tragic consequences in the actions against» degenerate art «, entered the vocabulary of German art criticism " , wrote Reinhold Heller.
Attempt to split up the Association of Berlin Artists
The heated argument in the "Munch case" almost led to a split in the association. Immediately after the vote, around 80 members around Karl Köpping left the hall and founded a Secession on the same evening , the “Free Association of Berlin Artists”.
On November 14, 1892, the new free artists 'association sent all members of the Berlin Artists' Association a circular, signed by 18 artists, in which they justified their step and asked for further supporting signatures:
“ When we cast our vote, we were guided by the idea that Mr. Munch should be invited to the exhibition by a commission freely chosen by the Association of Berlin Artists , and that it must be viewed as invited by the association itself , and therefore we condemn it without going to the Munch's To take any position in the art direction expressed in images, the closure of the exhibition as a measure contrary to the usual decency. It is important to us to consider this with the greatest possible emphasis in public, if it should be necessary. "
Even before the closure of the Munch exhibition, the Association of the XI (including Walter Leistikow , Hans Herrmann and Ludwig von Hofmann ) later and a. Max Liebermann , Max Klinger formed to support young new artists on a private basis. However, they remained in the Association of Berlin Artists , above all in order not to reduce their exhibition opportunities. Ultimately, only 155 club members publicly supported the circular; As a result, efforts were made in the Köpping group to de-escalate. In a new letter it was pointed out that membership "in the free artists' association would in no way influence the position of the individual towards the association of Berlin artists ". “The artists in Berlin did not yet have the courage to found an alternative artists' association and to propagate new values in art,” said Reinhold Heller, “but the academy professors Franz Skarbina , August von , protested against the actions of their director Heyden and Hugo Vogel resigned their teaching post. On January 3, 1893, the Berlin artists voted Anton von Werner again as chairman of their association. "Little seemed to have changed."
The consequences of the "Fall Munch"
.jpg)
Edvard Munch himself, who was still sensitive to criticism of his work in Oslo, wrote home after the Berlin scandal that he would find all the ado about the closed exhibition extremely amusing. Countless newspaper articles had appeared, art dealers contacted him, and his pictures were shown in Düsseldorf and Cologne. Munch was suddenly a well-known artist, but he hardly sold a picture. Edvard Munch:
- "The bohemian era came with their free love - God and everything collapsed - everyone rested in a wild, insane dance of life."
Munch finally decided to move to Berlin and rented a small studio. Munch was to stay in Germany for around 20 years. In the pub " Zum schwarzen Ferkel " he met in a circle of writers, artists and scientists around the writers August Strindberg and Stanisław Przybyszewski .
Access to Munch's pictures was found more in the circle of Berlin literature, "which was far ahead of the visual arts in the development of naturalistic , but also post-naturalistic directions." But he was also supported by some collectors such as the Lübeck doctor Max Linde , and the industrialist Walther Rathenau and the writer Harry Graf Kessler had him paint them. Today Munch is not only regarded as a pioneer of Expressionism , but also as an artist whose work, which revolves around loneliness, life and death, still moves people.
Despite the scandal, Munch's pictures were sent to the gallery owner Eduard Schulte in a traveling exhibition in Düsseldorf and Cologne , who then returned to the Equitable-Plast in Berlin. He rented space at Friedrichstrasse 59-60 to exhibit a portrait of August Strindberg and several drawings. But despite income from entrance fees, it had high costs; "I was hoping to be able to send you more than the 35 crowns that I recently sent to aunt," he wrote on January 20, 1893 to his sister Inger Munch.
According to Reinhold Heller, the attacks against the Munch exhibition in the media and in the art association led an interested public of collectors, writers and cultural workers in Berlin to become aware of the newer international art endeavors and to open up the Berlin art market to them. “Consciously or not, intentionally or not, Anton von Werner was directly responsible for both developments due to his opposition to the 'messing around ' of the Norwegian and other 'Impressionists', especially Munch”, is Heller's conclusion. The painter Lovis Corinth stated:
- “The ancients had a Pyrrhic victory by throwing out the annoyance and being able to muddle on for the time being. The boys could intensify their hatred of the reaction and put themselves in an even brighter light than martyrs of art, and the rabbit who was all the scuffle about, Edvard Munch, had the greatest advantage; all of a sudden he was the most famous man in the whole of the German Empire ”.
Hardly any other art event from the imperial era was discussed as passionately in the feature pages as the Munch case . Some of the liberal press went even further than the artists, who protested against the behavior of the association, but had clearly distanced themselves from Munch's art. Theodor Wolff , who later became editor-in-chief of the “Berliner Tageblatt”, wrote a fiery article on the day of the extraordinary club meeting not only in defense of Munch, but also in defense of artistic freedom.
“It does not occur to me to want to mess with this know-it-all with my amateurish inexperience , and I like to hide the higher opinion of this artist's ability, which I came to in the small rotunda of the clubhouse, in the deepest depths of my heart. I left - why should I deny it and make myself better than I am now? - to this rotunda to laugh. - But let it be stated by all the Heligen , I did not laugh. It turned out very differently than I had thought. Because between some quirks and real horrors I thought I saw fine, overly delicate moods - in dark, moon-flooded rooms, on lonely country lanes, on silent Norwegian summer nights - I thought I heard the breathing of silent, melancholy, strange people, who wanderer at night and wordlessly, Hiding the heavy struggle in one's chest, striding over desolate rubble. And I'm not laughing - "
Munch found passionate admirers of his art in the Berlin scene, among the writers and artists from the circle of the “Black Piglet”, the bohemian hangout where August Strindberg, the Swedish writer Ola Hansson , the poet Richard Dehmel , Munch , the Polish poet Stanisław Przybyszewski and the art historian Julius Meier-Graefe met, and from which “Berlin's first modern avant-garde emerged”.
Przybyszewski published an article about Munch's pictures, which he interpreted as "radical individualism". His description of Munch's style of painting, which depicts “the most subtle soul processes independent of any brain activity”, can be seen as anticipating the idea of the surrealist écriture automatique .
With a few interruptions, Munch stayed in Berlin until 1896. Most collectors and gallery owners, although representing the tendencies of modern art, do not intend to do business with the difficult artist. Apart from the occasional sale of paintings - such as to Walther Rathenau, Harry Graf Kessler, the lawyer, art historian and entrepreneur Eberhard von Bodenhausen and the collectors Eugen and Arthur von Franquet - Munch's income was rather low. Other buyers mostly came from circles of the city's wealthy and educated Jews , such as the literary and art historian Julius Elias .
This group of collectors “did not find their pictures in the great Berlin art exhibitions that were organized annually under Werner's supervision. The epoch in which these unmanageable and conservative exhibitions set the tone of the Berlin art world began its decline with the fall of Munch, even if the Prussian state continued to make large purchases from the exhibitions, ”wrote Reinhold Heller. But in the fall of 1893 Munch had to rent rooms at his own expense to show his cycle of pictures Die Liebe , a preliminary stage of his life frieze . In December 1895, Ugo Baroccio's new gallery ( Unter den Linden 16) exhibited him , as Munch had meanwhile also been ready to create prints of his subjects that were cheaper and easier to sell .
Munch achieved his artistic breakthrough with the Secession Exhibition of 1902, after Paul Cassirer, as secretary of the Berlin Secession, had advocated Munch's participation. In protest against it, 16 members declared their resignation. This brought the Secession the convenient position that it got rid of the traditionalists in its ranks. There was finally a further differentiation of modernism in 1910, when Expressionist artists were rejected by the jury of the annual secessionist exhibition; they founded the " New Secession " under the leadership of Max Pechstein .
See also
further reading
- Dominik Bartmann : Anton von Werner. On art and art politics in the German Empire. Berlin, Deutscher Verlag für Kunstwissenschaft 1985. ISBN 3-87157-108-3 .
- Georg Bollenbeck : tradition, avant-garde, reaction. German controversies about cultural modernity. 1880-1945. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer 1999
- Ulrich Brömmling: Edvard Munch in Berlin . Series Stations, Volume 29. Morio Verlag 2017 ISBN 978-3-945424-64-3
- Indina Kampf: The German Criticism 1892–1902 . In: Munch and Germany , ed. by Dorothee Hansen, Hamburger Kunsthalle. Gerd Hatje, 1994
- Monika Krisch: The Munch Affair - Rehabilitation of newspaper criticism. An analysis of aesthetic and cultural-political assessment criteria in the daily press for Munch's exhibition . Tenea 1997. ISBN 3-932274-02-4 .
- Wolfgang J. Mommsen : Civil culture and artistic avant-garde. 1870-1918. Culture and Politics in the German Empire. Munich: Ullstein 1994
Web links
- Nils Ohlsen in conversation with Liane von Billerbeck: Edvard Munch “A Great Titan” - Museum Director Ohlsen on the painter's 150th birthday. Deutschlandfunk, December 12, 2013, accessed on July 22, 2019 .
- Edvard Munch's utstillingsåpning i Berlin blir en scandals. Tidsand, July 22, 2019, accessed July 22, 2019 (Norwegian).
Individual evidence
- ↑ Reinhold Heller: Anton von Werner, the Munch case and modernism in Berlin in the 1890s . In: Dominik Bartmann (Ed.): Anton von Werner. Story in pictures . Hirmer, Munich 1993, ISBN 3-7774-6140-7 (exhibition catalog). Pp. 101-109
- ↑ a b c Wilfried Dürkoop: An art scandal in Berlin helped Edvard Munch to first fame in 1892 - his breakthrough came ten years later - suddenly known throughout the entire Reich. Kreiszeitung, November 20, 2011, accessed on July 21, 2019 .
- ↑ a b c d e f g Carmela Thiele: 125 years ago - Much ado about Munch. Deutschlandradio, November 5, 2017, accessed on July 22, 2019 .
- ↑ Ulrich Bischoff : Edvard Munch 1863-1944, Pictures of Life and Death , Taschen , Cologne 2006, ISBN 978-3-8228-6369-5 .
- ↑ a b c d Reinhold Heller: Anton von Werner, the Munch case and the modern age in Berlin in the 1890s. Berlin, p. 105
- ↑ a b c d Cecilia Lengefeld: Review of a legend - The Berlin newspapers on Edvard Munch in 1892. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung , June 17, 1998, accessed on July 22, 2019 .
- ↑ Reinhold Heller: Anton von Werner, the Munch case and modernism in Berlin in the 1890s . Berlin p. 101
- ↑ a b c d Reinhold Heller: Anton von Werner, the Munch case and modernism in Berlin in the 1890s . Berlin., P. 102
- ↑ a b c d Peter Dittmar: Anton von Werner's Pyrrhic victory. Die Welt , January 6, 2003, accessed July 21, 2019 .
- ↑ a b c Klaas Teeuwisse: Berlin art life at the time of Max Liebermann. In: Max Liebermann in his time. Exhibition in Munich, House of Art Berlin, State Museums of Prussian Cultural Heritage. 1980, 1979
- ↑ a b c d e Reinhold Heller: Anton von Werner, the Munch case and modernism in Berlin in the 1890s . Berlin, pp. 102-103
- ↑ Peter Dittmar: Anton von Werner's Pyrrhic victory. Die Welt, January 6, 2003, accessed July 22, 2019 .
- ↑ a b c d e f g h i j Reinhold Heller: Anton von Werner, the Munch case and the modern age in Berlin in the 1890s. Berlin, p. 104
- ↑ Cf. Eva Züchner, Berlinische Galerie: Stations of Modernism: the major art exhibitions of the 20th century in Germany . Berlinische Galerie, Museum for Modern Art, Photography and Architecture, 1988
- ↑ Schliepmann, Hans: An epilogue to the Berlin art exhibition, FB 2 (1891), pp. 963–966. In: Margot Goeller Guardian of Culture: educated citizenship in the cultural magazines Deutsche Rundschau and Neue Rundschau (1890–1914) Bern, Berlin a. a: Peter Lang 2010
- ^ Germany Berlin: Belle Epoque and Secession
- ↑ Bettina Kaufmann: Symbol and Reality: Ernst Ludwig Kirchner's Pictures from Fantasy and Edvard Munch's Frieze of Life . Bern, Berlin: Peter Lang, 2007, p. 10
- ↑ a b c d e f g h Reinhold Heller: Anton von Werner, the Munch case and the modern age in Berlin in the 1890s . Berlin, p. 106
- ↑ Yvonne Schymura: Käthe Kollwitz : Love, War and Art. Munich: CH Beck 2016, p. 71
- ↑ Cf. Werner Doede: The Berlin Secession . Berlin: Ullstein Verlag 1977