No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A Community in Transition: Painters in Munich, 1886–1924
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 December 2008
Extract
The idea of writing a social and economic history of Munich painters in the period between the death of King Ludwig II and the end of the German inflation evolved from earlier work on literary and theatrical censorship in the city. It soon became clear that artists, compared with writers and especially dramatists, normally ran little risk of police interference. Although pictures were occasionally removed from exhibitions, or rehung, for religious, moral, or political reasons, such cases were rare and controversial. Generally speaking, only artist-contributors to satirical papers like Simplicissimus, or specialists in erotic book illustration, were at all likely to fall foul of the law. Most painters' principal concern was not legal but financial: how to survive economically in the uncertain market conditions which had followed the Gründerzeit art boom.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 1982
References
I am grateful to the Wolfson Foundation and the University of Warwick for grants and sabbatical leave which enabled me to complete research for this study. The principal archival sources used were the files of the Bavarian Ministry of Church and School Affairs (MK) in the Bayerische Hauptstaatsarchiv, AUgemeine Abteilung (AStAM); of the Munich municipal Kulturamt in the Munich City Archive (MSA); the Nachlass Wilhelm Weigand in the Main-Frankisches Museum in Wiirzburg (MFMW); and the Nachlasse Hugo von Habermann and Robert Breyer in the Wiirzburg City Gallery (SGW). Other archives are cited in full.
1. See Lenman, Robin, “Censorship and Society in Munich, 1890–1914” (D. Phil, diss., Oxford, 1975).Google Scholar
2. The main examples were Liebermann's Young Christ in the Temple (1879); Slevogt's Danae (1899); Fabianski's From the Realm of the Tsar (1910); and various erotic works by Leo Putz.
3. Adressbuch für München, 1887, pt. 2, pp. 43–56.
4. Drey, Paul, Die wirtschaftlichen Grundlagen der Malkunst: Versuch einer Kunstökonomie (Stuttgart and Berlin, 1910), pp. 71–73.Google Scholar The original, slightly different version of this interesting study was a 1910 Munich dissertation entitled “Der Kunstmarkt; Eine Studie über die wirtschaftliche Verwertung der Bilder,” and is cited where appropriate. Drey was a Munich dealer's son.
5. Statistik des Deutschen Reichs 209 (1910): 47–67, 439–63, etc.
6. Quick, M., “Munich and American Realism,” in Munich and American Realism in the 19th Century (exhib. cat., Sacramento, 1978)Google Scholar; and Ruhmer, E., “München um 1875: Schnittpunkt internationaler Kunstbeziehungen,” in Die Münchner Schule 1850–1914 (exhib. cat., Munich, 1979).Google Scholar
7. Poprzecka, M., “Die Frage eines polnischen Akademismus,” in Jensen, J. C., ed., Polnische Malerei von 1830 bis 1914 (Cologne, 1978).Google Scholar
8. Statistics in AStAM, MK 14 155.
9. Ludwig, H., “Piloty, Diez und Lindenschmit—Münchner Akademie-Lehrer der Gründerzeit,” in Die Münchner Schule.Google Scholar
10. See Dube, W.-D., The Munich Gallery, Alte Pinakothek (London, 1970).Google Scholar
11. Ruhmer, E. et al. , Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen: Gemāldekataloge, vol. 2, pt. 1: Schack-Galerie (Munich, 1969).Google Scholar
12. Stat. Jahrbuch für das Deutsche Reich 35 (1914): 12Google Scholar.
13. Goering, Th., Dreissig Jahre München: Kultur- und kunstgeschichtliche Betrachtungen (Munich, 1904); and most memoirs of the period.Google Scholar
14. Weiler, C., Alexej Jawlensky (Cologne, 1959), p. 54.Google Scholar
15. See below.
16. Lenman, R., “Politics and Culture: The State and the Avant-garde in Munich, 1886–1914,” in Evans, R., ed., Society and Politics in Wilhelmine Germany (London, 1978)Google Scholar; and Möckl, K., Die Prinzregentenzeit: Gesellschaft und Politik während der Ära des Prinzregenten Luitpold in Bayern (Munich, 1972).Google Scholar
17. U.S. Senate Documents, 57th Congress, 1st Session, vol. 29: Reports from Consular Officers of the United States (Washington, D.C., 1902): 218.Google Scholar
18. See Petzet, M., ed., Wilhelm Leibl und sein Kreis (exhib. cat., Munich, 1974).Google Scholar
19. Wolf, G. J. and Wolter, F., Münchener Künstlerfeste, Münchener Künstlerchroniken (Munich, 1925).Google Scholar
20. For the origins of the Secession, see Betz, E., “Kunstausstellungen und Tagespresse in München an der Wende des 19. Jahrhunderts” (diss., Munich, 1953)Google Scholar; Die Münchener Secession und ihre Galerie (exhib. cat., Munich, 1975)Google Scholar; and Ruhmer, E., “Kunst im Zeichen der Secession,” in Die Münchner Schule.Google Scholar
21. See the printed memorandum of 1892 in MSA, Kulturamt 119.
22. See figures in Drey, “Der Kunstmarkt,” pp. 170–71.
23. See AStAM, MK files on honors and purchases.
24. SGW, Nachl. Habermann: letters from Faber du Faur, Hans von and Petersen, Hans von to Habermann, , 05 26 and July 1, 1909; and MSA, Kulturamt 189.Google Scholar
25. Klee, Paul, Briefe an die Familie, 1893–1940, ed. Klee, Felix (Cologne, 1980), 1: 647Google Scholar: Klee to Lily Stumpf, June 12, 1906.
26. SGW, Nachl. Habermann: Kandinsky to Secession committee, June 1, 1906.
27. Ein Protest deutscher Künstler, mit Einleitung von Karl Vinnen (Jena, 1911).
28. For these groups, see especially Weiss, P., Kandinsky in Munich: The Formative Jugendstil Years (Princeton, 1979)Google Scholar; and Ishikawa-Franke, S., Albert Weisgerber, Leben und Werk (Saarbrücken, 1978).Google Scholar
29. Goering, Dreissig Jahre München, pp. 112–13.
30. von Ostini, F., Hugo von Habermann (Munich, 1912), p. 62.Google Scholar
31. AStAM, MK 14 173/4: student applications for bursaries.
32. Ateliers Münchener Künstler, 3 vols. (Munich, 1889).Google Scholar
33. Wichmann, S., Franz von Lenbach und seine Zeit (Cologne, 1973)Google Scholar; and Mehl, S., Franz von Lenbach in der städtischen Galerie im Lenbachhaus München, Materialien zur Kunst des 19. Jahrhunderts, vol. 25 (Munich, 1980).Google Scholar
34. Court testimony by von Defregger, F. and Löfftz, L., in Münchener Neuesten Nachrichten, 07 4, 1894, no. 303.Google Scholar
35. Zimmermanns, K., Friedrich August von Kaulbach 1850–1920: Monographie und Werkverzeichnis, Materialien zur Kunst des 19. Jahrhunderts, vol. 26 (Munich, 1980).Google Scholar
36. Voss, H., Franz von Stuck 1863–1928: Werkkatalog der Gemälde mit einer Einführung in seinen Symbolismus (Munich, 1973).Google Scholar
37. Martin, R., Jahrbuch des Vermögens und Einkommens der Millionäre in Bayern (Berlin, 1914), pp. 36, 47, 50.Google Scholar
38. Taylor, R., Tini Rupprecht: Eine Zeit steht Modell (Munich, 1968), pp. 21, 68.Google Scholar
39. Desai, A. V., Real Wages in Germany 1871–1913 (Oxford, 1968), p. 22.Google Scholar
40. Conrad, E., Lebensführung von 22 Arbeiterfamilien Münchens, Schriften des Stat. Amtes der Stadt München, 8 (Munich, 1909).Google Scholar
41. See official salary scales in Münchener Jahrbuch: Kalender für Bureau, Comptoir und Haus, 18 (1905): 414–20.Google Scholar
42. Reliable information on picture prices is scarce, due to painters' own reticence and the unavailability of dealers' records. Exhibition prices were rarely marked in catalogues, and were anyway probably negotiable; and auction results bore no necessary relation to an artist's current selling prices. The quite extensive records of Bavarian state purchases have to be used with caution: while exorbitant prices were paid for the work of a few prominent figures, the state evidently drove a hard bargain lower down the scale.
43. Munich, Bay. Kriegsarchiv, OP 69691: Reserve Light Inf. Regt. 16 to 12th Bav. Res. Inf. Brigade, Mar. 18, 1915.
44. Thiemann, C., Erinnerungen eines Dachauer Malers: Beiträge zur Geschichte Dachaus als Künstlerort (Munich, n.d.), pp. 25–26.Google Scholar
45. Drey, Die wirtschaftlichen Grundlagen der Malkunst, pp. 71–73; and “Der Kunstmarkt,” pp. 170–71.
46. Weiss, Kandinsky in Munich, p. 64.
47. See AStAM, MK 14 163; and Staatsarchiv f. München, Polizeidirektion 3428.
48. AStAM, MK 14 163: MK to Foreign Ministry, Dec. 3, 1903.
49. Brougier, A., Gedanken über die fernere Entwicklung Münchens als Kunst- und Industriestadt (Munich, 1905)Google Scholar; and Kutter, P., Das materielle Elend der jungen Münchener Maler (Munich, 1911).Google Scholar
50. Diem, E., Johann Sperl: Ein Meister aus dem Leiblkreis (Munich, 1955), p. 26.Google Scholar
51. Weigmann, O. A., Sion Longley Wenban: Kritisches Verzeichnis seiner Radierungen mit einer biographischen Einführung (Leipzig, 1913).Google Scholar
52. Drey, Die wirtschaftlichen Grundlagen der Malkunst, pp. 75–80; and Kutter, Das materielle Elend.
53. For details about Klee's circumstances, see Briefe an die Familie, 1893–1940.
54. AStAM, MK 14 134 and 14 266.
55. AStAM, MK 14 229.
56. See printed Bericht und Mitgliederverzeichnis für 1912.
57. Deiters, H., Geschichte der allgemeinen deutschen Kunstgenossenschaft (Düsseldorf, n.d.), Pp. 5–7.Google Scholar
58. Drey, “Der Kunstmarkt,” pp. 91–93; and AStAM, Min. of Justice 17 482–83a.
59. MSA, Kulturamt 149: printed report for 1913.
60. Drey, “Der Kunstmarkt,” pp. 170–71.
61. Ibid., pp. 124–29; and printed annual Bericht über den Bestand und das Wirken des Kunstvereines München.
62. See Kunstverein report for 1905.
63. Drey, “Der Kunstmarkt,” pp. 172–73.
64. Adressbuch für München, 1892 and 1914.
65. See the press reports of July 3–5, 1894, and Nov. 5–12, 1895, on the trials of dealers and others accused of forging work by Lenbach.
66. Kahnweiler, Daniel-Henri, My Galleries and Painters (London, 1971), p. 75.Google Scholar
67. Macke, W., ed., Der Briefwechsel August Macke—Franz Marc (Cologne, 1974), pp. 19–20Google Scholar: Marc to Macke, Aug. 30, 1910.
68. See for example Imiela, H.-J., Max Slevogt: Eine Monographie (Karlsruhe, 1968), pp. 51–52, for the contract between Slevogt and Paul Cassirer in 1899.Google Scholar
69. Osborne, H., ed., The Oxford Companion to 20th-century Art (Oxford, 1981), p. 527.Google Scholar
70. See Stemmler, D. et al. , Die Rheinischen Expressionisten (Recklinghausen, 1980).Google Scholar
71. See Franke, E. A., “Publikum und Malerei in Deutschland vom Biedermeier zum Expressionismus” (diss., Heidelberg, 1934)Google Scholar; and more recently, Mayer, A. J., The Persistence of the Old Regime: Europe to the Great War (London, 1981), chap. 4.Google Scholar
72. Considering the importance of these men for the development of modern art, it is surprisingly hard to find details of their activities as patrons. But see van de Velde, H., Geschichte meines Lebens (Munich, 1962)Google Scholar; and Max Liebermann in seiner Zeit (exhib. cat., Berlin, 1979).Google Scholar
73. Teeuwisse, Klaas, “Berliner Kunstleben zur Zeit Max Liebermanns,” in Max Liebermann in seiner Zeit, pp. 74–75.Google Scholar
74. See below; and also Pauli, G., ed., Alfred Lichtwarks Briefe an die Kommission für die Verwaltung der Kunsthalle, 2 vols. (Hamburg, 1924).Google Scholar
75. Möckl, Die Prinzregentenzeit, pp. 112–13, 183–84.
76. See Pixis, E., Verzeichnis der von Weiland Seiner Kgl. Hoheit dem Prinzregenten von Bayern aus privaten Mitteln erworbenen Werken der bildenden Kunst (Munich, 1913).Google Scholar
77. Spindler, M., ed., Handbuch der bayerischen Geschichte, 4, pt. 1 (Munich, 1974): 288, 350.Google Scholar
78. For the evolution of this measure, see Archiv des bay. Landtages, MK Budget Committee proceedings, 1886/87, fasc. III–V; and 1890/91, fasc. II–V; and Stenographische Berichte über die Verhandlungen der bay. Kammer der Abgeordneten (VdKdAbg), 1884, vol. 2 (02 8, 1884), and 1889/90, vol. 5 (03 28, 1890).Google Scholar Compare the contemporary French and British state patronage systems outlined in Larroumet, G., L'art et l'état en France (Paris, 1895)Google Scholar, and Minihan, J., The Nationalisation of Culture: The Development of State Subsidies to the Arts in Great Britain (London, 1977).Google Scholar
79. VdKdAbg 1888, 2: 331 (Feb. 8, 1888).
80. This was the so-called “Swinemünde Telegram” affair: Möckl, Die Prinzregentenzeit, pp. 525–26.
81. MFMW, Nachl. Weigand: Weigand to Minister von Wehner, May 14, 1903 (copy).
82. See the speech by von Vollmar, Georg, 04 22, 1898: VdKdAbg 1897/98, 12: 189–93.Google Scholar
83. AStAM, MK 14 284: Tschudi to Ministry, Mar. 1, 1911.
84. Adolf von Hildebrand und seine Welt: Briefe (Munich, 1962), pp. 589–90: Rupprecht, Prince to Hildebrand, , 03 19, 1911.Google Scholar
85. Rupprecht's support for Tschudi's appointment from as early as 1906 is revealed in the letter from his adjutant, Count von Pappenheim, to Minister von Wehner on Oct. 16, 1906: AStAM, MK 18 295.
86. Listed in AStAM, MK 14 284: Galleries Directorate to Ministry, Jan. 30, 1912. See also Martin, K., Die Tschudi-Spende: Hugo von Tschudi zum Gedächtnis (Munich, 1962).Google Scholar
87. Rohe, M. K., “Zur Neuordnung der Münchner Neuer Pinakothek,” Die Kunst 29 (1913/1914): 313–24Google Scholar (Apr. 15, 1914); and “Die Änderung in der obersten Leitung der bayerischen Galerien,” Kunstchronik n.s. 35 (1913/14), no. 41 (Aug. 21, 1914), cols. 601–2.
88. See especially the controversies during the 1890s connected with the Secession and the Künstlerhaus: MSA, Kulturamt 119, 146, 148.
89. MSA, Kulturamt 128: “Aufwendungen der Stadtgemeinde München für Kunstzwecke (aus neuerer Zeit),” Oct. 2, 1902.
90. Steinborn, P., Grundlagen und Grundzüge Münchener Kommunalpolitik in den Jahren der Weimarer Republik, Misc. Bavarica Monacensia, 5 (Munich, 1969), pp. 41–49.Google Scholar This ascendancy was challenged from 1908 by the SPD, which, however, usually took a liberal stance on cultural matters.
91. See Lenman, R., “Art, Society and the Law in Wilhelmine Germany: The Lex Heinze,” Oxford German Studies 8 (1973): 86–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
92. MSA, Kulturamt 831/1: statute of June 8, 1903.
93. Baedeker, W., “Kulturpflege der Stadt München 1870–1932” (diss., Munich, 1951), p. 172.Google Scholar
94. Ibid., pp. 166–83. The gallery finally opened in 1929.
95. AStAM, MK 14 277, 14 278, 14 280, 14 282–84. Particularly favored were Lenbach, Kaulbach, Stuck, Löfftz, and Keller.
96. See de Sonneville, G., Collections et collectioneurs bordelais (Bordeaux, 1893)Google Scholar; and Willett, J., Art in a City (London, 1967), chap. 2.Google Scholar
97. von Schack, Adolf Friedrich Graf, Meine Gemäldesammlung, 6th ed. (Stuttgart, 1891).Google Scholar
98. Imiela, Max Slevogt, pp. 36–38, 50, 355–57;Google Scholar and Die Galerie Thomas Knorr in München: Herausgegeben vom Besitzer, beschrieben von Fritz Frhr. von Ostini (Munich, 1901).Google Scholar
99. MSA, Kulturamt 122.
100. For Forbes, see Dictionary of National Biography, 2nd Supplement, 1901–11 (Oxford, 1912), 2: 37–39; for Simms, see letters to Habermann in SGW, Nachl. Habermann.
101. Mayr, J., Wilhelm Leibl: Sein Leben und sein Schaffen, 4th ed. (Munich, 1936), pp. 194–96.Google Scholar
102. Macke—Marc Briefwechsel, p. 230; and Vriesen, G., August Macke, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart, 1957).Google Scholar
103. See Brougier, A., “Die Bedeutung des Fremdenverkehrs für Bayern,” Bayerland 13 (1902): 332–34, 344–45, 359–60, 368–71, 380–83Google Scholar; Krauss, M., Die Grundlagen des Fremdenverkehrs in München und im bayerischen Hochland: Kleine Beiträge zu einer Geschichte des Fremdenverkehrs in München (Munich, 1917); and the printed annual reports of the Munich Fremdenverkehrsrat, available in the Staatsbibliothek, Munich.Google Scholar
104. In 1907 only 2% of the labor force was employed in enterprises of over 1,000 workers: see Steinborn, Grundlagen und Grundzüge Münchener Kommunalpolitik, p. 27.
105. Zeitschrift des bay. stat. Landesamtes 47 (1915): 36–37.Google Scholar
106. Wichmann, Lenbach, p. 85.
107. AStAM, MK 14 163.
108. Archiv des bay. Landtages, MK Budget Committee proceedings, 1890/91, fasc. IV, Kap. 24, p. 12: speech by acting Minister von Crailsheim, Mar. 6, 1890.
109. Drey, Die wirtschaftlichen Grundlagen der Malkunst, p. 170.
110. Ibid., p. 168.
111. See Die Münchner Schule; Die Düsseldorfer Malerschule (exhib. cat., Mainz, 1979); and The Düsseldorf Academy and the Americans (exhib. cat., Atlanta, 1973).
112. U.S. Consular Reports, 1885, no. 52 (Apr. 1885), p. 881. International art trade statistics for this period are unreliable and difficult to interpret. In addition to misprints and arithmetical errors, there are discrepancies (for example, between the exports recorded by one trading partner and the imports recorded by the other) which are sometimes impossible to reconcile. Works of art were classified differently by consuls in different places, and in different statistical series: oil paintings were often lumped together with chromolithographs and/or statuary and antiques, so that comparisons are difficult. It is impossible to tell whether pictures were painted in the places from which they were exported; and a substantial proportion of Munich's exports were cleared through Bremen, and so do not appear in the Munich consular figures. The above should therefore be regarded simply as an exploratory survey.
113. U.S. Treasury Dept.: Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1883, p. 68; and 1884 onward. See also Finance, Commerce and Immigration of the United States. Various fluctuations in the size of the tariff took place, and it was temporarily abolished between 1894 and 1897. The exchange rate has been calculated at 4.20 M to the dollar.
114. Zs. des bay. stat. Landesamtes 46 (1914): 269–70.Google Scholar
115. Der Kunstmarkt 9, no. 13 (Dec. 29, 1911): 124.
116. Drey, “Der Kunstmarkt,” p. 168.
117. Figures in Mitteilungen des Stat. Amtes der Stadt München; Zs. des bay. stat. Landesamtes; and AStAM, MK 14 155.
118. See Österreichische Statistik 14 (1887): 95–100; and 26 (1891): 34–39Google Scholar. Subsequent reorganization of the statistics makes further comparisons impossible. A 1913 pilot scheme to measure trade between Bavaria and Austria had meager results: Zs. des bay. stat. Landesamtes 50 (1918): 121–37Google Scholar.
119. Adressbuch für München und Umgebung, 1914, pt. 3, pp. 102–14. Some of those listed had other jobs.
120. Ibid., pt. 4, pp. 116–17, 121–22.
121. See van Muyden, G., “Die neueren Vervielfältigungsverfahren,” Die Kunst für Alle 7/23 (09 1, 1892): 358–61Google Scholar; Goebel, Th., “Die Verlagsanstalt F. Bruckmann A.G. in München,” Zs. für Bücherfreunde 4 (1900): 73–92Google Scholar; and Ranke, W., Joseph Albert: Hofphotograph der bayerischen Könige (Munich, 1977).Google Scholar
122. Wilke, K., “Die Leipziger Illustrierte Zeitung und ihre Geschichte,” Zs. f. Bücherfreunde 5 (1901/1902): 188–96, 228–36.Google Scholar
123. See Dangl, H., Die Münchener Fliegenden Blätter als Spiegel ihrer Zeit, Zeitung und Leben, vol. 49 (Würzburg, 1938)Google Scholar; Lenman, , “Censorship and Society”; Simplicissimus: Eine satirische Zeitschrift, München 1896–1944 (exhib. cat., Munich, 1977)Google Scholar; Koreska-Hartmann, L., Jugendstil—Stil der Jugend (Munich, 1969).Google Scholar
124. Ishikawa-Franke, Albert Weisgerber, p. 35.
125. For the historicist beginnings, see Pecht, F., Geschichte der Münchener Kunst im 19ten Jahrhundert (Munich, 1888)Google Scholar; and 125 Jahre Bayerischer Kunstgewerbeverein (exhib. cat., Munich, 1976).Google Scholar
126. See Weiss, Kandinsky in Munich, chap. 3; and Günther, S., Interieurs um 1900: Bernhard Pankok, Bruno Paul und Richard Riemerschmid als Mitarbeiter der Vereinigten Werkstätte für Kunst im Handwerk (Munich, 1971).Google Scholar
127. MSA, Kulturamt 187: Handwerkskammer f. Oberbayern to Magistrat, Mar. 30, 1909.
128. See Rademacher, H., Das deutsche Plakat von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart (Dresden, 1965)Google Scholar.
129. AStAM, MK 14 095: Kunstgewerbeschule report on Behrens's proposals, May 13, 1902.
130. Hendschel, R., “Einige Erlebnisse und Erfahrungen im Kunstreferat aus den Jahren 1915–1933” (typescript in Monacensia-Abteilung of the Munich City Library), pp. 45–55.Google Scholar
131. Obrist, H., “Die Lehr- und Versuchateliers für angewandte und freie Kunst,” Dekorative Kunst 12 (1903/1904), Mar. 6, 1904, 228–32Google Scholar; and Weiss, Kandinsky in Munich, pp. 121–22.
132. MSA, Kulturamt 187: memorandum of Münchener Vereinigung für angewandte Kunst on its activities during 1909/10.
133. See Teeuwisse, “Berliner Kunstleben zur Zeit Max Liebermanns,” in Max Liebermann in seiner Zeit.
134. Paret, P., The Berlin Secession: Modernism and Its Enemies in Imperial Germany (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1980), pp. 95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dube, W.-D., “Die Kunstsituation in Berlin und Corinth,” in Lovis Corinth 1858–1925: Gemälde und Druckgraphik (exhib. cat., Munich, 1975), Pp. 41–45.Google Scholar
135. Corinth, T., ed., Lovis Corinth: Eine Dokumentation (Tübingen, 1979), p. 58Google Scholar: Liebermann to Corinth, Feb. 12, 1900.
136. Staatsarchiv für München, Regierungsakten 3830/58113: Police President von Grundherr to Provincial Government, report for 1914, July 1, 1915.
137. For Berlin's appeal, see Roters, E., “Big-city Expressionism: Berlin and German Expressionism,” in Expressionism: A German Intuition (exhib. cat., New York and San Francisco, 1980)Google Scholar; and for comparison, Mumford, Lewis, “The Metropolitan Milieu,” in Frank, W. et al. , eds., America and Alfred Stieglitz: A Collective Portrait, new ed. (New York, 1979)Google Scholar; and Rosenberg, B. and Fliegel, N. E., “The Vanguard Artist in New York,” Social Research 32 (1965), pt. 2: 141–62.Google Scholar
138. Albrecht, W., Landtag und Regierung in Bayern am Vorabend der Revolution von 1918: Studien zur gesellschaftlichen und staatlichen Entwicklung Deutschlands von 1912–1918 (Berlin, 1968), pp. 20–48.Google Scholar
139. Paret, The Berlin Secession, pp. 82, 89–90, and chap. 4.
140. Der Tag, Apr. 13 and 14, 1901, nos. 143, 145; and see also Engels, E., Münchens Niedergang als Kunststadt: Eine Rundfrage (Munich, 1902).Google Scholar
141. SGW, Nachl. Breyer: Trübner to Breyer, ca. 1901.
142. See letters from Slevogt to Breyer in SGW, Nachl. Breyer; Munich City Library, Monacensia-Abteilung, Nachl. Ruederer Br.e.74: Corinth to Jos. Ruederer, Jan. 27, 1901; and letters of this period in Lovis Corinth: Eine Dokumentation.
143. SGW, Nachl. Habermann: letters from Vinnen and Schultze-Naumburg to Habermann.
144. Vinnen, Ein Protest deutscher Künstler; Paret, The Berlin Secession, pp. 182–99.
145. See Weiss, Kandinsky in Munich, chap. 9; and Münch. Neuesten Nachrichten, June 7 and 10, 1907.
146. Weiss, Kandinsky in Munich, pp. 75, 77; Paret, The Berlin Secession, p. 105; and Doede, W., Die Berliner Secession: Berlin als Zentrum der deutschen Kunst von der Jahrhundertwende bis zum Ersten Weltkrieg (Berlin, n.d.), pp. 22–24.Google Scholar
147. Weiler, Alexej Jawlensky, p. 89.
148. See documents from the war years in Nebehay, C. M., Egon Schiele 1890–1918: Leben, Briefe, Gedichte (Salzburg and Vienna, 1979); and Lovis Corinth: Eine Dokumentation.Google Scholar
149. See Hillmayr, H., “München und die Revolution von 1918/19,” in Bosl, K., ed., Bayern im Umbruch: Die Revolution von 1918, ihre Voraussetzungen, ihr Verlauf und ihre Folgen (Munich and Vienna, 1969).Google Scholar
150. U.S. Department of Commerce: Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States for the year ending 30 June 1917, p. 31.
151. Nebehay, Egon Schiele, pp. 387, 420, 425, nos. 1079, 1198, 1239: letters to Schiele in 1916 and 1917 from the Munich dealer Hans Goltz.
152. Reported in SGW, Nachl. Habermann: Richard Winternitz to Habermann, Aug. 28, 1916.
153. See MSA, Kulturamt 831/1; and Kunstverein reports for 1915 and 1917.
154. For 1871, see Wolf, G. J., Leibl und sein Kreis (Munich, 1923), p. 63; for 1914–18, Bay. Kriegsarchiv, MKr 1710: “Personen vom Zivilstande bei der mobilen Armee, 1906–18.”Google Scholar
155. See Klee, , Briefe an die Familie, 1893–1940, vol. 2; and Tagebücher 1898–1918, ed. Klee, F. (Cologne, 1957).Google Scholar
156. See detailed medical reports on one case in Bay. Kriegsarchiv, OP 19650.
157. Mayer, A. L., “Vor Kunstreformen im Volksstaat Bayern,” Kunstchronik und Kuntstmarkt n.s. 30, no. 7 (11 29, 1918): 136–39Google Scholar; and Hendschel, “Einige Erlebnisse,” pp. 40–44.
158. AStAM, MK 14 168: Acad. Director von Marr to Ministry, June 14, 1919.
159. Kunstverein report 1922/23: obituaries for 1914–23, p. 16.
160. Taylor, Tini Rupprecht, p. 22.
161. Marilaun, K., “Bei Franz v. Stuck,” Neues Wiener Journal, 08 10, 1923, p. 678.Google Scholar
162. Achner, L., “Die Teuerungsverhältnisse in Bayern und im übrigen Reich in den Jahren 1913/14 und 1924,” Zs. des bay. stat. Landesamtes 57 (1925): 40–42.Google Scholar
163. Die Quellen des Münchener Wirtschaftslebens, Schriften des Stat. Amtes der Stadt München, vol. 14 (Munich, 1930), pp. 75, 80–86.Google Scholar
164. Simon, E., Wandlungen im Fremdenverkehr und die sich daraus ergebenden Forderungen (Munich, 1931)Google Scholar; Morgenroth, W., “Fremdenverkehr,” in Stat. Jahrbuch der deutschen Städte, 22 (1927): 558–583.Google Scholar
165. See Hendschel, , “Einige Erlebnisse”; and for Munich art in general, Die Zwanziger Jahre in München (exhib. cat., Munich, 1979).Google Scholar
166. AStAM, MK 14 102: protest declaration of Feb. 13, 1919.
167. Hendschel, “Einige Erlebnisse,” pp. 45–55.
168. For the general background, see Pevsner, N., Academies of Art (Cambridge, 1940), chap. 6.Google Scholar
169. Hendschel, “Einige Erlebnisse,” p. 19.
170. MSA, Kulturamt 119: declaration of July 26, 1892.
171. See for example the speech by Minister von Crailsheim on Mar. 28, 1890: VdKdAbg 1889/90, 5, pp. 602, 604.
172. In 1910, for example, the Dachau artist Carl Thiemann was commissioned to do thirty woodcuts to commemorate the centenary of the Krupp steelworks. See Merx, Claus, Carl Thiemann 1881–1966: Meister des Farbholzschnitts (Darmstadt, 1966), p. 29.Google Scholar
173. See Hinz, B., Art in the Third Reich (Oxford, 1979), chap. 1.Google Scholar
174. See Martens, W., Lyrik kommerziell: Das Kartell lyrischer Autoren 1902–1933 (Munich, 1975), chaps, 1 and 2.Google Scholar