DOI article:
Parello, Daniel: "From the period of the deepest decline of German ecclesiastical art" - should artistic quality become a criterion for an inventory of stained glass?
DOI Page / Citation link: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.51154#0046
Folia Historiae Artium
Seria Nowa, t. 17: 2019/PL ISSN 0071-6723
DANIEL PARELLO
Corpus Vitrearum Germany, Freiburg im Breisgau
‘FROM THE PERIOD OF THE DEEPEST DECLINE
OF GERMAN ECCLESIASTICAL ART’ - SHOULD
ARTISTIC QUALITY BECOME A CRITERION
FOR AN INVENTORY OF STAINED GLASS?
When we deal with nineteenth-century stained glass as
specialists, we are often filled with missionary zeal to sen-
sitize society to an art genre that has long been neglected
by art historians. But if one takes a closer look - for ex-
ample - at the recently published volumes of the Prestel
Art History, one might be inclined to throw in the towel.1
The stained-glass windows from the Age of Romanticism
and Historicism still find no admission into many sur-
vey works of art history. Are we, in the end, only social
workers of art history who are trying to advocate the artis-
tic merit of a species threatened with extinction, to put it
somewhat hysterically? Do we want to ensure the survival
of products that would otherwise have long been lost in
the ecosystem of artistic evolution ? What if modern art
historiography is right, and not everything that was pro-
duced at that time is worth preserving, because it has nei-
ther artistic, nor creative, nor unique qualities?
It is not that I doubt the fundamental purpose of an
inventory, but it seems that qualitative criteria have taken
a back seat in the judging of these works. The Königlich
Bayerische Hofglasmalerei Franz Xaver Zettler made
a total of 12,532 windows in the years between 1870 and
19102 [Figs 1, 2]. Considering that at that time there were
hundreds of workshops operating in the German Empire
alone, one can imagine the enormous number of works
that literally flooded sacred buildings. Here we have to
speak of mass production, which undoubtedly requires
a rationalized production process. Would it be sacrilege
1 Geschichte der bildenden Kunst in Deutschland, vol. 6: Klassik und
Romantik, ed. by A. Beyer, Munich, 2006 and ibidem, vol. 7: Vorn
Biedermeier zum Impressionismus, ed. by H. Kohle, Munich, 2008.
2 J.L. Fischer, 40 Jahre Glasmalkunst, Festschrift der königlich-baye-
rischen Hofglasmalerei E X. Zettler, Munich, 1910, p. 103.
to compare these products with the articles of the count-
less picture factories that emerged especially in the sec-
ond half of the nineteenth century and contributed to an
enormous popularization of the religious image?3
On the market for ecclesiastical mass production, glass
paintings were traded in the same way as plaster figures,
oil prints and devotional pictures, as well as goldsmiths
and carpenters work [Fig. 3]. The ecclesiastical stained
glass developed a standardized style and a simple, rec-
ognizable pictorial language. From an artistic point of
view these catalog products were fundamentally different
from the workshops’ considerable achievements at the be-
ginning of the nineteenth century. Certainly there were
still smaller studios with their technically and artistically
more individual products, but they could not serve the
mass market.4 For a better understanding of the situation,
let me trace the development from the stained-glass art-
work to the mass product in five main steps.
3 W. Brückner, Ch. Pieske, Die Bilderfabrik, exh. cat., Histori-
sches Museum Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, 1973;
review by S. Metken, ‘Trivialkunst aus der Chromopresse. Zur
Wanderausstellung “Die Bilderfabrik’”, Kunstchronik, 27,1974, pp.
145-151.
4 Even contemporaries commented critically on this development.
The mass production of ecclesiastical art not only ruins the ar-
tistic talent of the employees, but also kills small handicraft en-
terprises, since the independent artists cannot compete with the
cheaper-producing industry. The factory-based production of
the Mayer sehe Kgl. Hofkunstanstalt in Munich is the target of
an unnamed author in the Organ für christliche Kunst, 20, 1871,
pp. 226s. Thanks to Elgin Vaassen for providing me with this ref-
erence.
Publikacja jest udostępniona na licencji Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 PL).
Seria Nowa, t. 17: 2019/PL ISSN 0071-6723
DANIEL PARELLO
Corpus Vitrearum Germany, Freiburg im Breisgau
‘FROM THE PERIOD OF THE DEEPEST DECLINE
OF GERMAN ECCLESIASTICAL ART’ - SHOULD
ARTISTIC QUALITY BECOME A CRITERION
FOR AN INVENTORY OF STAINED GLASS?
When we deal with nineteenth-century stained glass as
specialists, we are often filled with missionary zeal to sen-
sitize society to an art genre that has long been neglected
by art historians. But if one takes a closer look - for ex-
ample - at the recently published volumes of the Prestel
Art History, one might be inclined to throw in the towel.1
The stained-glass windows from the Age of Romanticism
and Historicism still find no admission into many sur-
vey works of art history. Are we, in the end, only social
workers of art history who are trying to advocate the artis-
tic merit of a species threatened with extinction, to put it
somewhat hysterically? Do we want to ensure the survival
of products that would otherwise have long been lost in
the ecosystem of artistic evolution ? What if modern art
historiography is right, and not everything that was pro-
duced at that time is worth preserving, because it has nei-
ther artistic, nor creative, nor unique qualities?
It is not that I doubt the fundamental purpose of an
inventory, but it seems that qualitative criteria have taken
a back seat in the judging of these works. The Königlich
Bayerische Hofglasmalerei Franz Xaver Zettler made
a total of 12,532 windows in the years between 1870 and
19102 [Figs 1, 2]. Considering that at that time there were
hundreds of workshops operating in the German Empire
alone, one can imagine the enormous number of works
that literally flooded sacred buildings. Here we have to
speak of mass production, which undoubtedly requires
a rationalized production process. Would it be sacrilege
1 Geschichte der bildenden Kunst in Deutschland, vol. 6: Klassik und
Romantik, ed. by A. Beyer, Munich, 2006 and ibidem, vol. 7: Vorn
Biedermeier zum Impressionismus, ed. by H. Kohle, Munich, 2008.
2 J.L. Fischer, 40 Jahre Glasmalkunst, Festschrift der königlich-baye-
rischen Hofglasmalerei E X. Zettler, Munich, 1910, p. 103.
to compare these products with the articles of the count-
less picture factories that emerged especially in the sec-
ond half of the nineteenth century and contributed to an
enormous popularization of the religious image?3
On the market for ecclesiastical mass production, glass
paintings were traded in the same way as plaster figures,
oil prints and devotional pictures, as well as goldsmiths
and carpenters work [Fig. 3]. The ecclesiastical stained
glass developed a standardized style and a simple, rec-
ognizable pictorial language. From an artistic point of
view these catalog products were fundamentally different
from the workshops’ considerable achievements at the be-
ginning of the nineteenth century. Certainly there were
still smaller studios with their technically and artistically
more individual products, but they could not serve the
mass market.4 For a better understanding of the situation,
let me trace the development from the stained-glass art-
work to the mass product in five main steps.
3 W. Brückner, Ch. Pieske, Die Bilderfabrik, exh. cat., Histori-
sches Museum Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, 1973;
review by S. Metken, ‘Trivialkunst aus der Chromopresse. Zur
Wanderausstellung “Die Bilderfabrik’”, Kunstchronik, 27,1974, pp.
145-151.
4 Even contemporaries commented critically on this development.
The mass production of ecclesiastical art not only ruins the ar-
tistic talent of the employees, but also kills small handicraft en-
terprises, since the independent artists cannot compete with the
cheaper-producing industry. The factory-based production of
the Mayer sehe Kgl. Hofkunstanstalt in Munich is the target of
an unnamed author in the Organ für christliche Kunst, 20, 1871,
pp. 226s. Thanks to Elgin Vaassen for providing me with this ref-
erence.
Publikacja jest udostępniona na licencji Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 PL).