Klimt’s paintings in the turn of the century Vienna were called pornographic. For or against?

Klimt’s paintings in the turn of the century Vienna were called pornographic. For or against?


“If all that you make and all that you do by the masses seem never well taken, do your utmost to delight the few: the attempt to please all is mistaken. – Schiller, Nuda Veritas.

The artists of the Turn of the century could be described as mavericks. Artists such as Beardsley and Klimt unequivocally challenged the status quo of the period, with their unique but otherwise controversial works, which for Klimt were centred upon the symbolic; the subject of the erotic nude. The Austrian Government commissioned Klimt in 1894[1] to paint three panels for the ceiling of the assembly hall of the University of Vienna. Representing the three main faculties within the university, the works were to depict Philosophy, Medicine and Jurisprudence. Klimt’s paintings were not received well and were branded as ugly and pornographic; such deliberate frankness of eroticism set the public to become aghast at such deviance to conventional art being made simultaneously to that of Klimt. It was the refusal of these paintings that lead Klimt to reject future commissions and thus create even more risqué works, in the form of drawings. It could be argued that the Faculty paintings were a catalyst to Klimt’s much greater erotic drawing works, which could be considered as pornographic, opposed to his paintings which were considered pornographic at the time. However, what these critics did not know is that they were to become masterpieces, celebrated for the artistic, natural beauty they depict, not pornography.
Klimt was one of the great symbolist artists, who used pattern, allegory, beauty and the female form to create aesthetically pleasing works of art, but simultaneously symbolising subjects such as life, death and mythological tales. When we think of Klimt’s work, most people would recall his colourful, intricate paintings, strikingly Byzantine-like which suggest a merging of old traditions with a more modernist technique, showered in gold and in his nude works, perfect execution of pale bare, almost translucent skin. However, Klimt’s radical works which were not completed until the turn of the century were seen to be in “perverted excess”[2] up to the point of which in fact his faculty paintings were refused due to intense public outcry from politicians as well as religious and mainline artistic groups. The first of the three ceiling paintings to be completed was Philosophy. One interesting idea that arises when thinking about this painting, is the notion that most other countries throughout Europe were beginning to radicalise their art, it was not easy but certain groups were persistent and looking for the art world to be diverted down a new path; an art of freedom and liberation from the art of high society, it was after all the 20th Century. Philosophy was awarded a gold medal at the world exhibition in Paris and admired for its beauty and decorative features; however the painting was scrutinised by Klimt’s fellow citizens, even more importantly, artists and critics within his own country. Like most of his works, Philosophy was highly allegorical but not in a traditional way, rather in an overtly eroticised symbolic fashion, which was certainly unique at the time. It seems nonsensical to describe the works as pornographic, when at this time in Europe, so many styles were being explored and what Klimt was mastering was in fact using art and nature to describe and symbolically illustrate processes of nature itself. It is of great assistance that Klimt described the paintings himself, describing these metaphorical images, declaring their true meanings. “On the left a group of figures, the beginning of life, fruitition, decay. On the right, the globe of mystery, emerging below, a figure of light- knowledge”. However the themes that were commissioned in the original proposal were too vaguely represented in the work, they were almost too metaphorical and not centred enough to represent the faculties coherently.
We shall next consider the second work in the faculty painting series in order to consider the validity of such claims about his interventional work. Klimt famously claimed that “all art is erotic”, this may well suggest that he applied a certain amount of eroticism in his work, but more importantly also, that it was inherent in all art work and no matter how he created art and expressed himself, it was inevitable that the end product would dispel a sense of eroticism; a eroticism which was innocent. Medicine, the name of the second painting of the commission was completed in March 1901[3]. The paintings was attacked by critics for being too ambiguous in that it was not clearly representing the commissions requirement of displaying the universities services to the science of medicine and its achievements in research and cures. One word which could describe Klimt’s approach to the work was that he romanticised the subject to the degree of there being no agreeable contextualisation of medicine. Much like the first painting, Philosophy, he used symbolism to the extreme, where the sexualisation and unconventionality made his paintings illiterate to its audiences. We cannot pin point one genre or style in these paintings. The secession was made up of young artists who did not adhere or commit to one distinctive style; this was the beauty of the symbolists. Each artist had a style distinctive to their own work and radicalisation in art was the predominant ethos encouraged amongst the group. Medicine, the second painting, which could be seen as the most mystical and ambiguous out of all three, as well as seeming the most erotic, when considering the audience it was presented to at the time. Klimt uses a rather compact yet contrasted composition in this painting, which creates a sense of chaotic imbalance. On the left we see a naked woman who is floating in mid air with an infant at her feet. This suggests that the painting is about the life cycle. This is backed up by the identification of a skeleton on the right, placed among the other figures at various stages within their lives. The two columns are linked by the left nude and a male arm protruding from the river of people on the left. The image does not seem to conjure up ideas about medicine; it is too allegorical, which was why the critics branded the piece unusable.
We shall now consider the third painting, Jurisprudence. Symbolism can be seen as a continuation of the decadent movement, along with the aesthetic of the romanticist traditions. Jurisprudence is an emotionally charged, poignant piece of art. This third instalment of Klimt’s visual protest is displaying an overtly contemplative, psychological mood. We are shown a subdued frail man in the centre whose figure looks almost skeletal. Jurisprudence, which translates as Philosophy of law, or the Latin prudentia meaning knowledge, we recognise the man to be involved in a judicial event, in which he is to be punished and therefore is in deep cogitation. We are then made to ideate the notion that the three surrounding figures which envelop the man are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone[4], known in Greek and Roman mythology as the providers of retribution in unpunished criminals. The punishment is being carried out by an octopus which is entangling the man. One could even suggest that the man is submissive in his pose, surrounded by the revealed female figures that are eroticized, Megaera; the central character is even looking at us with one eye open and her figure in an alluring arrangement. The work is certainly erotic but does not classify as pornographic. The theme of jurisprudence has been sexualised and is in no terms traditional. To the critics, it did not signify contextually or pictorially the philosophy of law in the early twentieth century. However, we must also consider Klimt’s drawings which in turn are more risqué forms of art and would be closer in classification of pornography. It is at this point where we notice a change in the increased sexual tone of his work, and some were even humorously intentional, primarily for his critic’s eyes to find. Klimt painted Gold Fish (to my critics), a responsive backlash towards his critics who branded his work pornographic and ridden with taboo subjects. Here we see a shift towards a more spurred, driven and rebel like Klimt, which leads us to start questioning, was it the rejection of the ceiling paintings which catalysed his erotic drawings which could to a certain extent be considered as pornographic? As they don’t seem to carry the same artistic appreciation value as the paintings and are somewhat aggressive in their execution. It would not be difficult for one to misinterpret Klimt’s supposed attitude towards sexuality and women in these drawings, something which was in the ceiling paintings, a tone of admiration of beauty and nature. The piece could not be any more erotic, the viewer is presented most notably with a nude crouching female figure, who is peeping at us with a smile on her face, knowing that her bottom is presented to us. The woman’s expression hints that what she is doing is somewhat a taboo action, a reference to Klimt’s attitude towards his critics, certifying that this is what his art is and how he shall paint and as we shall see, also draw.
We cannot doubt that we learn a considerable amount about Klimt and his interests from his pictures and has said, "I have never painted a self-portrait. I am less interested in myself as a subject for a painting than I am in other people, above all women... There is nothing special about me. I am a painter who paints day after day from morning to night... Whoever wants to know something about me... ought to look carefully at my pictures?"[5] Klimt’s drawings are clearly less allegorical and more explicit in detail and of course sexually erotically charged. Knowing about Klimt’s biography, interests and character sheds light on why he might have created such erotic works. Klimt had an array of models and who according to legend, he slept with. He fathered fourteen children in his lifetime, not surprising as the number of models who posed for him were more often than not, more inclined to prostitution rather than artistic purposes .Throughout his life he drew, painted and had a firm interest in sexuality; which was the main theme of his art. One drawing which raises the question of its context is the Lovers which depict an actual act of copulation. Klimt also drew many images of women masturbating, which would class certainly as pornography. This proves that there is a fine line between what may be considered art and pornographic material. Just like Beardsley in Victorian Britain, Klimt was exploring the repressed, unacknowledged sexual instincts of the late 19th century which sadly his own country was not ready for. 
Klimt’s faculty paintings are not pornographic. I agree that there is an inherent erotic quality to them, but this is Klimt’s style, they are revolutionary in regards to art history. I do however agree that his drawings are very near the mark, but again the subject within art is somehow legitimised. Some of his finest works were produced in relation to the pornography scandal, with a positive attitude he continued to create art that he considered relevant and what could be considered a new language within art. Art created since then has allowed itself, by pushing the boundaries to take on other meanings, as erotic and sensual, rather than purely pornographic.

Bibliography:
Robert wheldon Whalen, Sacred spring: God and the birth of modernism in fin de siècle Vienna, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2007.
Sabarsky.S, Gustav Klimt: Drawings, the Gordon Fraser Gallery Ltd, London. 1984.
Gilles Néret, Gustav Klimt: 1862-1918, Taschen, 1999.
Gustav Klimt, Colin B. Bailey, John Collins, National Gallery of Canada, Gustav Klimt, modernism in the making, H.N. Abrams, 2001. 

Gustav Klimt, Alessandra Comini, Gustav Klimt, G. Braziller, 1975.






[1] Gerstenblith, P. Art, cultural heritage, and the law: cases and materials, Carolina Academic Press, 2004 pp532.
[2] Néret, G. Gustav Klimt: 1862-1918, Taschen, 1999. Pp26.
[3] Klimt, G. Colin B. Bailey, John Collins, National Gallery of Canada, Gustav Klimt, modernism in the making, H.N. Abrams, 2001. Pp149.
[4] Klimt, G. Alessandra Comini, Gustav Klimt, G. Braziller, 1975. Pp25.
[5] Whalen, R, W. Sacred spring: God and the birth of modernism in fin de siècle Vienna, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2007. Pp74.

Comments

Popular Posts