The Viennese Secession. Victoria Charles

in matters of art and above all valued historical paintings; modern art or anything tending towards a more modern conception of art simply did not exist. This is quite evident when one considers that he commissioned 32 monumental and epic sculptures to be erected along the Siegesallee to honour and represent the history of Prussia. Consequently, he and other visitors of the exhibition were shocked and offended by Munch’s paintings. Some of the older and more established painters even took the paintings as anarchist provocation. Heated discussions ensued and the exhibition was subsequently closed. The scandal dominated the headlines of newspapers for weeks but proved to be excellent publicity for Munch.

      The department that exhibited his paintings did not survive the scandal and the public disapproval for long – after a week it was closed. On top of that, other Norwegian painters retracted their works since they felt belittled by the enormous attention that their fellow countryman received. Munch’s fame, however, rose, to heights he was maybe not entirely comfortable with. He had many supporters among the younger artists, who soon started gathering similar-minded people and progressive authors like August Strindberg (1849–1912), the Polish author Stanislaw Przybyszewski (1868–1927) who wrote mainly in German, or art critic Julius Meier-Graefe (1867–1935) – one of Munch’s more outspoken advocates – around them.

      This unusual group of friends met regularly in a pub called Zum Schwarzen Ferkel (The Black Piglet) and fittingly named itself “piglet’s circle”. Among this group was also Dagny Juel (1867–1901), the future wife of Przybyszewski, whom the other members lovingly called “Ducha”. However, her seductive appearance and animalistic allure did not only captivate Munch, but many other men as well. Ultimately, her presence led to friction and even arguments between the individual members which, interestingly, did not lead to a complete break-up but rather, combined with the scandal of Munch’s exhibition, to the foundation of the Berlin Secession.

      Walter Leistikow, Aus dem Grunewald (From the Grunewald Forest), c. 1907.

      Oil on canvas, 75 × 100 cm.

      Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Berlin.

      Max Slevogt, Flowering Cherry Trees in Neukastel, 1898.

      Oil on canvas, 70.2 × 100.6 cm.

      Saarland Cultural Heritage Foundation, Saarlandmuseum, Saarbrücken.

      Ludwig von Hofmann, Idyll, 1896.

      Oil on linen canvas, 111.5 × 109 cm.

      Sander Collection, Berlin.

      Artists of the Berlin Secession

      Three artists, who were enormously popular and had many imitators in 19th century Berlin, need to be addressed first: Ludwig Hoffman (1861–1945), Walter Leistikow (1865–1908), and Max Liebermann (1847–1935). Ludwig Hofmann was both a painter and a designer. His personality and passion for French art gave him the tools to render his art with a truly unique character. The world he shows us in his paintings with visually poetic eloquence is detached from all insufficiencies of life. His figures don’t belong to a specific period or era; they are always young, beautiful and innocent. They bathe, exult, rest, play, or dance. Hoffmann’s paintings are like shallow, pleasant dreams. Certainly, they don’t move the soul deeply, but stroke it tenderly, like music. Nevertheless, they are delightful to behold and a fitting adornment for every monumental room.

      A kindred spirit to Ludwig Hofmann is landscape painter Walter Leistikow, who similarly used influences from a specific school of painting – in his case, the Old Dutch masters – to create distinct style of his own. Characterised by a tranquil atmosphere, few muted colours and strong, big shapes, his paintings depicted the melancholic nature of the March of Brandenburg or the endless pastures of the Danish landscape. He, like no other painter before him – with the exception of Karl Blechen (1798–1840), maybe – made the austere beauty of the dark seas and the acheronian forests of the Berlin environs accessible to a larger audience.

      Max Liebermann could be the legitimate successor of famous painter Adolph Menzel (1815–1905), whose style is apparent in many of Liebermann’s paintings and drawings. Menzel is counted among the most important artists of German impressionism – if not the most important artist – having drawn inspiration from the old Master Rembrandt and from his contemporary Jean-François Millet, and thus having created an oeuvre that shows obvious nods to the two great artists but is, nevertheless, a coherent and individual achievement in itself.

      Liebermann’s first painting, Gänserupferinnen (Women Plucking Geese) (1872), caught the eye of the public and caused general indignation among Berlin’s art critics and enthusiasts, who considered the subject either too mundane or too “dirty”. Liebermann, however, continued in the same vein and painted Konservenmacherinnen (Women Crafting Tin Cans) (1872) and Arbeiter im Rübenfeld (Workers Harvesting Turnips on the Field) (c. 1874). He was also amongst the first German painters to head for the Netherlands in order to study certain overlooked artists like Frans Hals (1580/85–1666), and to capture the unique atmosphere of the country. Initially he focused on specifically “Dutch” motives, as in the paintings Men’s Retirement Home in Amsterdam (1882), Schusterwerkstatt (Cobbler’s Workshop) (1881), or Freistunde im Waisenhaus in Amsterdam (Free Period In An Orphanage In Amsterdam) (1881/1882), while later it was the Dutch coast and its unique light and air that captivated his artistic spirit. Women Mending Nets (1889) and Frau mit den Ziegen (Woman with Goats) (1890) were both created during that time.

      Already by 1892, Max Liebermann and Walter Leistikow had created the Vereinigung der XI (Association of The Eleven) and were presiding over the group, which – true to its name – was a group of exactly eleven artists. After the foundation of the Berlin Secession on 2 May 1898, they, being experienced leaders, took over the direction of the newly-found group, too.

      Hans Thoma, Solitude, 1906.

      Oil on canvas, 82 × 67 cm.

      Landesbank Baden-Württemberg Collection.

      Max Liebermann, Country House in Hilversum, 1901.

      Oil on canvas, 65 × 80 cm.

      Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Berlin.

      Walter Leistikow, Waldstück mit Sandgrube (Corner of Forest with Sand Pit), c. 1905.

      Oil on canvas, 30 × 50 cm.

      Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Berlin.

      Other members of the group were Käthe Kollwitz (1867–1945), Heinrich Rudolf Zille (1858–1929), Lovis Corinth (1858–1925) and Max Slevogt (1868–1932). Kollwitz worked as sculptor and designer, creating impressive works that were a testimony to her sensitivity and passion for the social problems of the city. She was born and lived in Konigsberg (modern-day Kaliningrad) where she joined the Prussian Academy of Fine Arts and remained a member of the board of professors until the National Socialists deemed her “unacceptable” and removed her from her position as teacher. Her artworks, which could easily be classified as Realism, were dedicated to neglected social topics. The most important of those works are the etching cycles Revolt of the Weavers (1897–1898), The Peasants’ Revolt (1903–1908), and a series of woodcuts entitled Der Krieg (War) (1922/1923). Shortly before the end of the Second World War, she died in the ruins of the nearly destroyed city of Dresden.

      Painter, illustrator, and photographer Heinrich Zille, who carried his Berlin nickname “Pinselheinrich” (Paint-Brush-Heinrich) proudly, was a similarly dedicated critic of the low social conditions that plagued the less privileged classes with his precise depictions of the Berlin slums and housing projects drawing attention to their plight. Soon after, the residents of Berlin started calling these parts of