Art Nouveau

Gustav Klimt was born July 14, 1862 in Baumgarten, a Viennese suburb. His father, an immigrant from Bohemia, failed in his occupation as a gold engraver, and his children were raised in utter poverty. Klimt's family, like many others in Vienna in the 1860's, was in desperate need of money. Frequently changing address, they lived in small and poorly lit houses, wherever they could afford.

When he was just 14, Gustav quit school, but managed to enroll at a local college of art and craft. While at BŸrgerschule, Klimt's artistic abilities were recognized, and he was encouraged to develop them. He applied for and gained a place at the Kunstgewerbeschule (Arts and Crafts school), one of two Viennese public art schools. He was so talented, he began earning a living off commissions while still at school. He formed a partnership with his brother Ernst and another student, Franz Matsch. Up until the 1890's , Klimt-Matsch & Co. were getting rich on commissions for the new buildings being constructed.

In Europe, historicism was in vogue. Legitimacy and authority were attributed through the use of past styles (Neo-Classical and Neo-Baroque, for example). This effectively denied artistic expression which could not justify its existence through historical continuity. A characteristic paradox of the emergent Viennese middle-class was the parading of objects in their homes, seeking to emulate the aristocracy they fancied themselves to be. Part of this fa�ade involved patronage of the arts, which fuelled a period of intense activity in painting, sculpture and architecture.

Towards the end of his attendance of the Kunstgewerbeschule, Klimt joined his brother Ernst and another student Franz Matsch in forming the KŸnstlercompanie, the Company of Artists. Upon leaving the Kunstgewerbeschule in 1883, the Klimts and Matsch began to work full-time producing various representational paintings for a range of patrons. Klimt wished to be seen as a painter of architectural decorations, a reputation underlined by the nature of commissions early in his career, which included works to be placed in theatres, museums and churches. Contributions for a series called Allegories and Emblems were produced on request for a publisher. Following this success, a second series was requested and produced (1896-1900), containing Klimt's painting Tragedy. In this painting, elements that would come to characterize Klimt's later work are already present: concentrated areas of detail, gold paint (Klimt's father was a gold engraver), the female form, classical symbolism and areas of abstract space.

Resulting largely from the production of decorations for the Kunsthistorisches Hofmuseum, Klimt and Matsch were commissioned in 1893 for the decoration of a hall in the new University of Vienna. This commission was different from previous ones in that the work was to be entirely their own: they could work with free hands. As the University commission progressed, a rift appeared between Klimt and Matsch, which deepened to the point where they would no longer work in the same studio. The commission dragged on, and it was some years before the exhibition of the commission finally opened. One of Klimt's paintings, Philosophy , caused widespread concern:

" Within days of the exhibition opening, eighty-seven members of the University ... had publicly protested about Klimt's picture and petitioned the Ministry of Education to cancel the commission. They accused Klimt of presenting 'unclear ideas through unclear forms' : instead of making an unambiguous statement about the virtues of philosophy he had produced a puzzle which seemed to suggest that the mysteries of life were ultimately impenetrable and that human existence consisted of nothing more than the infinitely repeated cycle of birth, copulation and death. "



A barrage of criticism followed, with Vienna journalist Karl Kraus accusing Klimt of being too simple to consider the issues involved in the commission. And it was not just Kraus: Klimt's painting annoyed virtually every ideological faction in Vienna: the academics found the symbolism too vague, and the Catholics took exception to the nudity. The painting also revealed a rift between rationalists and aesthetes: to the rationalists, Philosophy seemed to be attacking the positivist interpretation of the world in which reality consisted exclusively of demonstrable facts. Despite the extent of controversy, and the attraction of public attention to the debate, the commission remained intact through the support of Dr Ritter von Hartel, the Minister of Education.

The next painting, Medicine , was met with accusations of pornography and, again, 'unclear ideas through unclear forms'. Again it seemed as if almost every academic perspective had problems with the painting. The last of the series of three paintings, Jurisprudence, required to embody notions of Justice, Truth and the Law, was attacked for much the same reasons as the previous two: wrong message, wrong symbolism. In addition, the painting differed markedly from the sketch version earlier approved. Despite this continued criticism, Hartel remained a strong supporter of Klimt and his work. Further calls to cancel the commission were again rejected, and Klimt's paintings were accepted by the Artistic Advisory Committee of the Ministry. The paintings did not, however, go to the University, but instead to the State Gallery of Modern Art. This compromise seemed to calm tensions, but when the Gallery, fearful of Austria's artistic and intellectual reputation, refused to allow the paintings to be shown internationally, Klimt had had enough:

" For Klimt this was the final straw. In 1904 he resigned the commission for the ten spandrel paintings (which he had not even begun) and in the April of the following year he told the Ministry of Education that he was not prepared to relinquish ownership of the three ceiling pictures and would return all the advance payments. The Ministry replied that the paintings already belonged to the State and Klimt was not entitled to keep them. More angry than ever and more vehement in his assertions that no one had the right to limit his artistic freedom, he then declared that the pictures were in any case unfinished. After further correspondence and a dramatic episode during which Klimt is said to have kept the Ministry's removal men at bay with a shotgun, the Ministry finally relinquished its rights to the paintings and Klimt repaid his advance. Soon after, the Minister of Education resigned. "



This was the end of State patronage for Klimt, who would never again receive a public commission.



Klimt had finally decided that his integrity as an artist was under threat. This represented not so much a stylistic shift, but rather the culmination of a series of differences. What did shift was the source of Klimt's commissions, moving away from public patronage towards individuals and private organizations. As few private art galleries and dealers existed in Vienna at the time, the KŸnstlerhausgenossenschaft (Association of Viennese Artists) maintained a near monopoly exhibiting and dealing in local art. Dissatisfaction saw Klimt and others form the Secession from within the KŸnstlerhausgenossenschaft. In May 1897, the KŸnstlerhaus committee reacted by passing of a motion of censure on the Secession. Painters Klimt, Carl Moll, Josef Engelhart and eight others walked out of the meeting, to leave the Association for good.

The three main aims of the newly independent Secession represented the very problems that Klimt and his associates had with the KŸnstlerhaus: exposure for young unconventional artists; to bring quality foreign art to Vienna; and to publish a magazine. The Secession can be seen as a manifestation of the confli ...

(PLease Login to see the complete biography.)