DOI issue:
No. 91 (Septemner, 1904)
DOI article:Singer, Hans Wolfgang: The fine arts and horticultural exhibition at Düsseldorf
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.26962#0308
Dusseldorf Exhibition
What Berlin has sent
is upon the whole much
better, though it too is not
represented by an extra-
ordinary collection. There
are some early Lieber-
manns, a very good Spanish
Dancer and Laughing
Philosopher by Arthur
Kampf, some good pictures
by Skarbina, von Hofmann,
and others.
The best German dis-
play is, of course, that of
the home school itself,
and naturally it is the one
to interest us most. Al-
though about the latest to
rejuvenate among all
German art centres, Diissel-
dorf has at least not
dropped out of the race
altogether in the end.
We should hear much
more about new life
and new strength in the
Dusseldorf school, were
it not for the fact that so
much of the rising talent
is called away to other
places as soon as it
makes something of a name
for itself. One of the
most serious losses of this
kind was that of Prof.
Arthur Kampf, who recently
“mother and child” by gari melchers migrated to Berlin.
Notwithstanding this,
the Diisseldorf men are
to-day well able to hold their own, and it is no
longer a place to be spoken of slightingly. Space
prohibits my doing more than merely naming a
few of the most promising artists. A few illustra-
tions supplement the information, though not
entirely adequately. There is H. Otto, the land-
scape and catt'e painter, who is known to the
readers of The Studio as the author of a number
of very fine auto-lithographs in colours. The
same applies to the landscapists Eugene Kampf
and Fritz von Wille. Other notable landscape
painters are O. Ackermann and E. Hardt. Among
the portraits, those by Miss v. Beckerath and H.
Angermeyer are especially attractive. Gerhard
Jansen excels as a figure painter. M. Clarenbach
236
equally to Diisseldorf’s call. Stuttgart, Worpswede,
Weimar, Dresden, and the Vienna Secession are
altogether absent, Karlsruhe only meagrely repre-
sented. There is a good deal from Munich, but
it is mediocre. There is certainly not a single
master-piece to be seen in all their three rooms
and very few paintings worth having at all, while
follies are plentiful, especially amongst the con-
tributions sent by the group of artists who style
themselves the “ Scholle ” and who figure with
such paintings as Georgi’s Same Wochen,froheFeste
(“Workday’s Labour, Holiday’s Pleasure”), Eichler’s
A Feast of Nature, A. Miinzer’s Garden Party,
and Erler-Samaden’s Meadow, all of which partake
of the nature of rather foolish jokes.
What Berlin has sent
is upon the whole much
better, though it too is not
represented by an extra-
ordinary collection. There
are some early Lieber-
manns, a very good Spanish
Dancer and Laughing
Philosopher by Arthur
Kampf, some good pictures
by Skarbina, von Hofmann,
and others.
The best German dis-
play is, of course, that of
the home school itself,
and naturally it is the one
to interest us most. Al-
though about the latest to
rejuvenate among all
German art centres, Diissel-
dorf has at least not
dropped out of the race
altogether in the end.
We should hear much
more about new life
and new strength in the
Dusseldorf school, were
it not for the fact that so
much of the rising talent
is called away to other
places as soon as it
makes something of a name
for itself. One of the
most serious losses of this
kind was that of Prof.
Arthur Kampf, who recently
“mother and child” by gari melchers migrated to Berlin.
Notwithstanding this,
the Diisseldorf men are
to-day well able to hold their own, and it is no
longer a place to be spoken of slightingly. Space
prohibits my doing more than merely naming a
few of the most promising artists. A few illustra-
tions supplement the information, though not
entirely adequately. There is H. Otto, the land-
scape and catt'e painter, who is known to the
readers of The Studio as the author of a number
of very fine auto-lithographs in colours. The
same applies to the landscapists Eugene Kampf
and Fritz von Wille. Other notable landscape
painters are O. Ackermann and E. Hardt. Among
the portraits, those by Miss v. Beckerath and H.
Angermeyer are especially attractive. Gerhard
Jansen excels as a figure painter. M. Clarenbach
236
equally to Diisseldorf’s call. Stuttgart, Worpswede,
Weimar, Dresden, and the Vienna Secession are
altogether absent, Karlsruhe only meagrely repre-
sented. There is a good deal from Munich, but
it is mediocre. There is certainly not a single
master-piece to be seen in all their three rooms
and very few paintings worth having at all, while
follies are plentiful, especially amongst the con-
tributions sent by the group of artists who style
themselves the “ Scholle ” and who figure with
such paintings as Georgi’s Same Wochen,froheFeste
(“Workday’s Labour, Holiday’s Pleasure”), Eichler’s
A Feast of Nature, A. Miinzer’s Garden Party,
and Erler-Samaden’s Meadow, all of which partake
of the nature of rather foolish jokes.