, IMG_4876 Josef Maria Auchentaller 1865-1949 Wien Elfe at the brook, for the Scheid music hall in Vienna Elf at the brook, for the Music Room Scheid in Vienna 1899 Wien Leopold Museum, Family Blog 2020, Family Blog 2020

IMG_4876 Josef Maria Auchentaller 1865-1949 Wien Elfe at the brook, for the Scheid music hall in Vienna Elf at the brook, for the Music Room Scheid in Vienna 1899 Wien Leopold Museum

, IMG_4876 Josef Maria Auchentaller 1865-1949 Wien Elfe at the brook, for the Scheid music hall in Vienna Elf at the brook, for the Music Room Scheid in Vienna 1899 Wien Leopold Museum, Family Blog 2020, Family Blog 2020

Josef Maria Auchentaller 1865-1949 Wien
Elf by the stream, for the Scheid music hall in Vienna
Elf at the brook, for the Music Room Scheid in Vienna 1899
Wien Leopold Museum

1815 / 30-1940 A PLURAL PERIOD
OF EUROPEAN PAINTING

From 1792 to 1815 Europe did not have time to be artistic: It was totally occupied by the great French ambitions of the Revolution and the First Empire. Once liquidated the revolutionary and imperial adventures, Europe enters a period of economic and political expansion which results in painting by one of the most creative, most inventive and most diversely inspired phases of the history of the European painting.
Continental Europe was finally able to experience, after England, its second renaissance, technical, scientific and economic. The second birth of Europe, after that of the 11th-12th centuries. Industrial revolutions can succeed one another.
In the economically expanding Europe of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, the art of painting saw an explosion of totally different schools and movements, which coexisted without major problems, for more than a century. European painting is not more beautiful than that before, or that of other civilizations, but it is certainly more diverse. More diverse by its techniques and by its themes.
How to explain this diversity of art and this freedom of expression of European artists at that time?
The diversity and creativity of the schools of European painting is the consequence of a situation of cultural and ideological plurality. In the period from 1815 to 1914, and again until 1940, Europe was not subject to an ideology, profane or sacred, unique and exclusive.
In this Europe of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th coexist, despite very serious tensions, several different, and even opposite, conflicting representations of the world:
Catholicism, orthodoxy, Protestantism, Judaism, "Enlightenment" of all tendencies, Jacobin or pragmatic, moderate or extremist socialism, reasonable or ultra nationalism, none of these ideologies, sacred or profane, absolutely dominates European thought and politics, and does not monopolizes its territory from the Atlantic to the Urals.
Admittedly, this Europe is far from ideal. Europe is experiencing very serious confrontations, absurd wars. Precisely because no ideology, sacred or profane, is absolutely dominant. Because no ideology can totally rule European societies. Ideological diversity, source of tensions and even of wars, is also source of freedom, diversity.
It is almost impossible to cite all the schools of painting for this period in European history, from romanticism to abstract art. This multiplication of schools in search of new means of expression is eminently creative. Only for the record, without any exhaustiveness and out of order: Romanticism, neo-classicism, pre-Raphaelites, academism, realism, idealism, symbolism, pre impressionism, impressionism, nabis, fauvism, cubism, orientalism, expressionism, secessionism, surrealism, abstract art, dada, neo-plasticism ……
It is not only a flowering of new names, names invented by ideologists to hide the emptiness of art. It is an explosion of truly new forms, new themes, new sensibilities and meanings, new beauties.
Abstract Art is one of these very positive researches which renew the landscape of European painting. No monolithism of European thought, at this time which goes from 1815 to 1940 in big dates. Consequence: No monolithism of European Art during the same period, and in particular of painting.
This is what Aude de Kerros notes in his book "The imposture of contemporary art": "Creation in Paris is defined as autonomous. Artists can be recognized and legitimized without the approval of its main sponsors, the State and the Church, and in opposition to the criteria of the Academy of Fine Arts. "
It should only be pointed out that the cause of this situation is the diversity of ideologies present, and that this freedom is not only Parisian, even if Paris is indeed the great inspiring center of Modern Art, this freedom and this diversity are European.
With the exception of Russia, which entered in 1917 into the world of unique totalitarian thought and Non-Art.
With the exception also of Hitlerian Germany where a similar totalitarianism although adversary causes the death of art from the 1930s and following.
Before and elsewhere in Europe, all schools coexist, from academic figurative to abstract art.

Thus from 1830/1850 to about 1940, it is in Europe the period of Modern Art.
The 19th century and the very first years of the 20th, in Europe, were characterized in painting by the very great diversity of themes tackled by painters, in a register that was both secular and religious. As well as by the great diversity of pictorial techniques, sometimes classic, sometimes modern, often used simultaneously. This period of European painting is multiple, as if in balance between its rich past and a still ill-defined future. Throughout this century Europe has not obeyed a single ideology. On the contrary, partisan elites of very different doctrines claim to dominate the continent, but without being able to impose themselves alone and exclude their rivals. In painting it is a magnificent swan song from Europe, which unfolds in a totally chaotic political environment, marked by absurd and self-destructive wars.
When Europe commits political suicide, its art explodes, once again, (a last time?) In a Festival of Beauty and Inventiveness.
A very imaginative Art, whose extraordinary diversity, technical and thematic, is a reflection of the existing tensions between the different components of European culture, the different beliefs then still alive in this ideologically diverse Europe:
– Traditional beliefs inherited from the values ​​of Europe's past, which are still very active among the people, and also in part of the economic, ideological and political elite. God, Religion, Duties, Order, Tradition, Work, Family, Fatherland …
– New beliefs, claiming the ideas conceived by the new rising ideology, the new religion for all Men, that of the "Enlightenment": Revolution, Science, Progress, Man, Democracy, Rights, Happiness, Modernity … De new values ​​very influential in another part of the economic, ideological and political elite of Europe.
This diversity of beliefs in different and even completely opposite values ​​is the explanation for this double observation:
In politics, incessant and deadly clashes, up to repeated genocides.
In painting, in Modern Art, these are remarkable inventions: An aesthetic renewed by observing the arts of Europe's past: Byzantine, Romanesque and Gothic. The flat painting of these "dark times" actually inspired all of Modern Art painting. But other approaches to the Beautiful have been developed: sketching, tachism …. and an absolute novelty appears, at least in Europe: Abstract Art. In Europe, because in the field of abstract art, China had preceded us, very far in time.
Artists benefit from this situation of ideological competition: they gain the freedom to paint according to their tastes and their own ideas. Painters are not forced to obey the orders of official or dominant institutions. In France the resistance of the Academy to impressionist painting only lasted a few years. The 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century are most certainly in the whole history of European painting the period when artists, painters, sculptors enjoyed the greatest freedom.
European artists of this era have the freedom to choose their themes from a very wide range of subjects and to treat them according to practically all possible techniques, both classic and modernist, or borrowed from a distant past like "flat painting".
It is a first in European history. It is certain that artists discover a freedom that their ancestors of medieval times or even of the Renaissance and Classical Times did not know.

This does not in any way mean that the artists of the medieval, Catholic and Orthodox era, experienced their situation as a constraint. All European art demonstrates by its spontaneity, its beauty, its sincerity, its permanence for about a thousand years, that the elites and the peoples shared the same vision of the world and adhered, with exceptions not significant in terms of global civilization, to beliefs formulated by the Catholic Church to the west, and the Orthodox Church to the east.
During the period of European history called by historians "Renaissance" there appeared no real ideological break. Only an evolution which opens to certain artists the doors of access to new themes drawn from Greek and Roman antiquity. These new themes are intended for a small aristocratic and big bourgeois elite. Nothing changes with regard to the painting intended for the populations. There is no real, serious conflict between the two artistic inspirations, which coexist peacefully. The elites of those times do not really have a totally separate art: they continue to share religious art with the populations. But they have also developed, at their sole address, a particular art, whose themes are profane and totally oriented towards the Greco-Roman past of Europe.
The Reformation in the countries it concerns imposes itself without concern on any of the beliefs of the peoples, exactly as Catholicism did from the 5th century AD. In the regions of Europe where the Reformation triumphs, by violence, it imposes the almost total abandonment of Catholic religious themes or themes inspired by Antiquity. Artists will have to conform to this new religious ideology. They will have to turn to a description of the nature and society of their time. This explains the very obvious peculiarities of Dutch art from the end of the 16th century and especially in the 17th century. But here again we do not observe that the artists working in this new context felt these new orientations as an absolute constraint. Elites, artists and populations of these northern European countries, were little influenced by Roman influences, both that of Antiquity and that of the Church. The whole population undoubtedly shared the same vision of the world of which their art is a free expression, at least freely felt, exactly as Romanesque and Gothic painting had been during a millennium of the prevalence of Catholicism. The new religious ideology is, with exceptions, internalized by the populations of Northern Europe.

European painting from the so-called "Modern Art" period, which goes from around 1815 to 1950, is thus a witness to European dynamism. Its diversity of styles and subjects, its creativity, its spirit of research of the innovation, without denying the past, are like a splendid swan song of diversity. And indeed it will not last. This is how, in the museums of the West, from the 1950s onwards, came from New York, where it appeared in the 1920s and following, Contemporary Art: a new Academism, an Art Official, imposed, which claims its right to disturb people by instituting provocation by the combination of Laid and Absurd in a compulsory system for conforming artists. This institutional art makes almost all the works (paintings, sculptures, installations) resemble all the museums of Contemporary Art, from north to south, and from east to west in Europe and the West. It is the Massacre of Painting and the birth of a totally reserved art: Mondialist Art. This imposed institutional art is not only reserved but separate, highly funded, and highly financial. Free artists take refuge in private, local, regional, national commercial art and also in street art. This artistic dichotomy, this separation of the arts into distinct, separate domains is certainly very significant: a reflection of certain major characteristics of Western society after the Second World War in the capitalist camp.
The most obvious observation is that at the top of the social ladder, from the second half of the 20th century, a separate art was imposed, reserved for the elites, which no longer had the inter-social function which was constantly that of the ancient arts in the history of Europe, and even in universal history. It is the observation of a break in the dialogue between the classes, at least at this level of art. This does not necessarily preclude inter-social dialogue from being established in other ways. But this dialogue no longer passes through the institutional art favored by the ideological and political elites of the West, with the possible exception of architecture.
The radio, the cinema, the large press, and advertising do not function as vectors for real communication between the ideological and political elites and the peoples, but much more essentially as instruments of propaganda. They are the determining circuits by which the governing elites exercise their control over the thinking of peoples, at all stages of the social and cultural scale.
Private commercial art and street art, important sectors of true art, free art, function as well-defined "cultural reserves", whose function is quite similar to that of nature reserves or animal. The same is true of the non-art of the streets: vandal graffiti. At the popular level of the bases of the social and masonic pyramid, the provocation by the ugly and the absurd must be able to flourish in well delimited reserves: the traffic zones and the low-districts, which are thus the equivalent, for the lower classes, institutional museums. The temples where they sacrifice for their specific religion.
From time immemorial, at all times, art allows a reading of the ideological, political, social, technical conditions in which it is expressed.

1815/30 – 1940 A PLURAL PERIOD OF THE EUROPEAN PAINTING

From 1792 to 1815 Europe had no time to be artistic: it was totally occupied by the great French ambitions of the Revolution and the First Empire. Once the revolutionary and imperial adventures were over, Europe entered a period of economic and political expansion which translated into painting through one of the most creative, inventive and diverse phases in the history of European painting.
Continental Europe was finally able to experience, after England, its second technical, scientific and economic renaissance. The second birth of Europe, after that of the 11th-12th centuries. Industrial revolutions can follow one another.
In the economically expanding Europe of the 19th and early 20th centuries, the art of painting saw the appearance of an explosion of totally different schools and movements, which coexisted without major problems for more than a century. European painting is not more beautiful than the previous one, or the painting of other civilizations, but it is certainly more diverse. More diverse in its techniques and themes.
How can we explain this diversity of art and this freedom of expression of European artists at that time?
The diversity and creativity of the schools of European painting is the consequence of a situation of cultural and ideological plurality. In the period from 1815 to 1914, and again until 1940, Europe was not subject to a single, exclusive ideology, secular or sacred.
In this Europe of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, despite very serious tensions, several different, and even opposing, conflicting representations of the world coexisted:
Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism, Judaism, "Enlightenment" of all tendencies, Jacobin or pragmatic, moderate or extremist socialisms, reasonable or ultra nationalisms, none of these ideologies, sacred or profane, absolutely dominates European thought and politics, and monopolises its territory from the Atlantic to the Urals.
Admittedly, this Europe is far from ideal. Europe is experiencing very serious clashes, absurd wars. Precisely because no ideology, sacred or profane, is absolutely dominant. Because no ideology can totally rule European societies. Ideological diversity, which is a source of tension and even war, is also a source of freedom, of diversity.
It is almost impossible to name all the schools of painting for this period of European history, from Romanticism to abstract art. This multiplication of schools in search of new means of expression is eminently creative. Only for the record, without any exhaustiveness and in no particular order: Romanticism, neo-classicism, Pre-Raphaelites, academism, realism, idealism, symbolism, pre-impressionism, impressionism, nabis, fauvism, cubism, orientalism, expressionism, secessionism, surrealism, abstract art, dada, neo-plasticism ….
It's not just a flowering of new names, names invented by ideologists to hide the emptiness of art. It is an explosion of forms, really new, new themes, new sensibilities and meanings, new beauties.
Abstract Art is one of those very positive researches that renew the landscape of European painting. No monolithism of European thought, at that time which goes from 1815 to 1940 in big dates. Consequence: No monolithism of European Art during the same period, and especially of painting.
This is indeed what Aude de Kerros notes in her book "The imposture of contemporary art": "Creation in Paris is defined as autonomous. Artists can be recognized and legitimized outside the approval of its main sponsors, the State and the Church, and in opposition to the criteria of the Academy of Fine Arts.
It is only necessary to specify that the cause of this situation is the diversity of ideologies present, and that this freedom is not only Parisian, even if Paris is indeed the great inspiring center of Modern Art, this freedom and this diversity are European.
Except for Russia, which entered the world of single totalitarian thought and Non-Art as early as 1917.
With the exception also of Hitler's Germany, where a similar totalitarianism, although adversary, caused the death of art from the 1930s onward.
Before and elsewhere in Europe, all schools coexisted, from the figurative academic to the abstract.

Thus from 1830/1850 to 1940 approximately, it is in Europe the period of Modern Art.
The 19th century and the very first years of the 20th century in Europe are characterized in painting by the great diversity of themes tackled by painters, in both secular and religious registers. As well as by the great diversity of pictorial techniques, sometimes classical, sometimes modern, often used simultaneously. This period of European painting is multifaceted, as if in balance between its rich past and a still ill-defined future. Throughout this century Europe has not been governed by a single ideology. On the contrary, partisan elites of very different doctrines, claim to dominate the continent, but without being able to impose themselves alone and exclude their rivals. In painting it is a magnificent swan song of Europe, which unfolds in a totally chaotic political environment, marked by absurd and self-destructive wars.
When Europe commits political suicide, its art explodes, once again (one last time?) In a festival of Beauty and Inventivity.
A very imaginative Art, whose extraordinary diversity, both technical and thematic, reflects the existing tensions between the different components of European culture, the different beliefs still alive in this ideologically diverse Europe:
– The traditional beliefs inherited from the values ​​of Europe's past, which are still very active among the people, and also among part of the economic, ideological and political elite. God, Religion, Duties, Order, Tradition, Work, Family, Homeland …
– The new beliefs, claiming the ideas conceived by the new rising ideology, the new religion for all Men, that of the "Enlightenment": Revolution, Science, Progress, Man, Democracy, Rights, Happiness, Modernity … New values ​​very influential in another part of the economic, ideological and political elite of Europe.
This diversity of beliefs in different and even totally opposed values ​​is the explanation of this double observation:
In politics from incessant and murderous confrontations to repeated genocides.
In painting, in Modern Art, these are remarkable inventions: An aesthetic renewed by the observation of the arts of Europe's past: Byzantine, Romanesque and Gothic. The flat painting of these "dark times" has actually inspired all the painting of Modern Art. But other approaches to Beauty have been developed: sketching, tachism … and an absolute novelty appears, at least in Europe: Abstract Art. In Europe, because in the field of Abstract Art, China had preceded us by a long way in time.
Artists benefit from this situation of ideological competition: they gain the freedom to paint according to their own tastes and ideas. Artists are not compelled to obey the orders of official or dominant institutions. In France the Academy's resistance to Impressionist painting lasted only a few years. The 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century are most certainly in the whole history of European painting the period when artists, painters, sculptors, enjoyed the greatest freedom.
The European artists of this period had the freedom to choose their themes from a very wide range of subjects and to treat them according to practically all possible techniques, both classical and modernist, or borrowed from a distant past such as "flat painting".
This is a first in European history. It is certain that artists are discovering a freedom that their ancestors did not enjoy in medieval times or even in the Renaissance and Classical eras.

This in no way means that medieval artists, both Catholic and Orthodox, experienced their situation as a constraint. All European art demonstrates by its spontaneity, beauty, sincerity and permanence for during a thousand years that the elites and peoples shared the same vision of the world and adhered, with non-significant exceptions in terms of global civilization, to the beliefs formulated by the Catholic Church in the west and the Orthodox Church in the east.
In the period of European history called by historians as the "Renaissance" there is no real ideological break. Only an evolution that opens to some artists the doors to new themes drawn from Greek and Roman antiquity. These new themes are intended for a small aristocratic elite and a great bourgeoisie. Nothing changes as far as painting for the peoples is concerned. There is no real, serious conflict between the two artistic inspirations, which peacefully coexist. The elites of these times do not really have a totally separate art: they continue to share religious art with the populations. But they also have developed, at their own address, a particular art, whose themes are secular and totally oriented towards the Greco-Roman past of Europe.
The Reformation in the countries it concerns is imposed without any concern for the beliefs of the people, just as Catholicism did from the 5th century A.D. onwards. In those parts of Europe where the Reformation triumphs, through violence, it imposes the almost total abandonment of Catholic religious themes or themes inspired by antiquity. Artists will have to conform to this new religious ideology. They will have to turn to a description of the nature and society of their time. This explains the very obvious particularities of Dutch art from the end of the 16th century and especially in the 17th century. But here again we do not observe that artists working in this new context felt these new directions as an absolute constraint. The elites, artists and populations of these northern European countries were little affected by Roman influences, both those of Antiquity and those of the Church. The whole population undoubtedly shared a common world view of which their art was a free expression, freely felt at least, just as Romanesque and Gothic painting had been for a millennium of Catholicism's prevalence. The new religious ideology is, with few exceptions, internalized by the people of Northern Europe.

The European painting of the so-called "Modern Art" period, which lasted from 1815 to around 1950, is thus a witness to European dynamism. Its diversity of styles and subjects, its creativity, its spirit of searching for novelty, without denying the past, are like a splendid swan song of diversity. And indeed this will not last. This is how Contemporary Art imposed itself in the museums of the West, starting in the 1950s, from New York, where it had appeared in the 1920s and following years: a new Academism, an Official Art, imposed, which claims its right to disturb the people by instituting provocation through the combination of the Ugly and the Absurd in a compulsory system for conformist artists. This institutional art makes almost all the works (paintings, sculptures, installations) of all the museums of Contemporary Art, from North to South, and from East to West of Europe and the West, look alike. It is the Massacre of Painting and the birth of a totally reserved art: Globalist Art. This institutional art, imposed, is not only reserved but separate, highly financed, and highly financial. The free artists then take refuge in private, local, regional, national, commercial art and also in street art. This artistic dichotomy, this separation of the arts into distinct, separate domains is certainly very significant: a reflection of some major characteristics of post-World War II Western society in the capitalist camp.
The most obvious observation is that, from the second half of the 20th century onwards, a separate art, reserved for the elite, has imposed itself at the top of the social ladder, which no longer has the inter-social function that has been constantly that of the ancient arts in the history of Europe, and even in universal history. It is the observation of a rupture in the dialogue between classes, at least at this level of art. This does not necessarily rule out the possibility of inter-social dialogue being established by other means. But this dialogue no longer takes place through the institutional art favored by the ideological and political elites of the West, with the possible exception of architecture.
Moreover, radio, cinema, the mass press and advertising do not function as vectors of real communication between the ideological and political elites and the people, but rather essentially as instruments of propaganda. They are the determining circuits through which the ruling elites exercise their control over the thinking of the peoples, at all levels of the social and cultural scale.
Private commercial art and street art, important sectors of true, free art, function as well as well-delimited "cultural reserves", whose function is quite similar to that of natural or animal reserves. The same is true of the non-art of the streets: vandal graffiti. At the popular level of the bases of the social and Masonic pyramid, provocation by the ugly and the absurd must be able to flourish in well-delimited reserves: traffic zones and low districts, which are thus the equivalent, for the lower classes, of institutional museums. The temples where they sacrifice to their specific religion.
At all times, in all eras, art allows a reading of the ideological, political, social and technical conditions in which it expressed itself.

Posted by Tagged: , Peintres , Peintures , Painting , Musée , Museum , Museo , Österreich , Autriche , Austria , Vienne , Wien , Léopold Museum

#family #love #travel #happy #photography #friends #instagood #photooftheday #nature #fun #beautiful #fashion #life #summer #smile #picoftheday #art #cute #food #style #follow #beach #fitness #vacation #instadaily #instagram #music #instalike #adventure #tbt,

, IMG_4876 Josef Maria Auchentaller 1865-1949 Wien Elfe at the brook, for the Scheid music hall in Vienna Elf at the brook, for the Music Room Scheid in Vienna 1899 Wien Leopold Museum, Family Blog 2020, Family Blog 2020