International studio (16.1902)

Studio-Talk

A consequence of the disagreeable condi-
tions prevailing in Munich art matters was the
foundation, last autumn, of the artistic union of
T34


On the whole, it is considered that the decline of
Munich is only relative, in so tar as the other
German art cities have recently made greater
efforts, and have also attained better results, than
Munich. Further, it is complained that Munich,
which is very progressive in matters of art generally,
assumes a somewhat neutral attitude towards modem
applied art. Nearly all the exponents of the new
decorative style of art came originally from Munich,
but nearly all of them have been compelled, owing
to the unfavourable conditions prevailing here, to
migrate to other cities. Eckmann, Endell, and
Schmuz-Baudiss went to Berlin ; Behrens, Biirck,
Habich, and Huber to Darmstadt; Fischer, Kruger,
and Pankok to Stuttgart; the two Von Heiders
(Junrs.)and Lang to Magdeburg; Gross to Dresden;
and Wenig to Hanau. There remained at Munich
only Von Berlepsch, Obrist, Bruno Paul, Fritz
Erler, and Martin Diilfer. The existence of the
“ Vereinigte Werkstatten fiir Kunst im Handwerk,”
a distinctive and much-needed organisation, com-
posed of modern representatives of art-handicraft,
is greatly jeopardised by this emigration en masse.
General complaint is made against the Minister of
Education, to whom strong representations have to
be made before he will move in matters of
art policy. Little importance is attached, by
those most concerned, to the “ Art Com-
mission ” appointed by the Prince Regent;
its composition is entirely reactionary, and
it is not expected to proceed in a modern
direction. As regards painting at Munich,
the premier position among all the other art
cities of Germany is unanimously assigned
to it, but some critics complain that the
members of the Secession are too much
inclined to mannerism, at one time imitating
Scottish landscape painters, at another the
younger Dutch school. Scarcely any pros-
pect is apparent of an improvement in these
respects. With a certain fatalism the struggle
for hegemony in art in Germany is looked
forward to— a struggle which is to be fought
out between Munich and Berlin. Berlin is
increasing both in extent and prosperity, and
leaves no means untried to entice away from
Munich its best talent. Berlin would un-
doubtedly in a short time outstrip the smaller
and more lethargic Munich if its stiff and
exclusive “ society ” did not repel artists.

the “Phalanx ” This small group has just organic
its second exhibition, which unfortunately den1011,
strates the fact that the forces of the “ Phalan'
are far too weak to bring about any decisl'e|
advance. Besides visitors from Berlin and
stadt, one sees mostly only two or three RusSiajji
artists working at Munich, and it almost looks aS
the “Phalanx” were destined to become gradua^
a kind of Russian colony of Munich art. Shou
• J • u tO
this happen, the status of the Union would sin*
. # . . 'f\)(
that of all foreign colonies in European cities.
compatriotic and social element would soon Pr
ponderate over the artistic constituent, and pro**1
displace it entirely. E- *"
» ARIS. — The statue entitled

now reproduced, is the work of

P .,... ,.
M. A. Demagnez, a young PUP'
Mercie’s, who has been exhibition ^
the Salon of the “Societe des Artistes Franf^T.
The work has delicate and thoroughly fen’ ^
sentiment, and is distinctly praiseworthy,
execution shows marks of indecision and
perience.