The Individual
“For the visible world in combination with our inner selves provides the realm where we may seek infinitely for the individuality of our own souls.”[1] This quote from Max Beckmann defines a myriad of facets of New Objectivity, an art movement founded after the end of WWI, and ending largely at the dawn of WWII. This movement was loosely based on a group of artists who worked in a new realm of portraying society, specifically individuals. People, depicted solely or in conjunction with another, became the focus of these New Objectivists. Beckmann describes what might be considered the ultimate theme of New Objectivity: the depiction of individuals in a way that illustrates their inner loneliness, while maintaining an air of detachment or indifference. Self-reflection continued through this period, being used in previous movements, such as German Expressionism. New Objectivity is unique, and its upbringing can be seen in two forerunners of the movement, George Grosz and Max Beckmann. Their work can be analyzed through two sets of comparisons of the portrayal of the individual for each artist (seen in the accompanying images and text), with the images relating to earlier art preoccupations as well as the current movement of New Objectivity.
George Grosz was a prominent member of the New Objectivity circle. As such, his works are largely known for their poignant representations of individuals. From the very start, Grosz deviated from the norm. His disinterest in the Academy, and all of its conventions for replicating statuary was made very clear, as evidenced by the following quote, “Besides, we lived in an era that loved the ugly and rejected the beautiful.”[2] Much of Grosz’s early work was influenced by Italian Futurists, and his style developed quickly into one that is known for its boldness, enhanced by his use of pen and ink with watercolor.[3] Above anything, his use of satire is what he is most known for, and according to his autobiography, A Little Yes and a Big No, people were enthralled with the satirical references.[4] Satire can be seen as a direct response to his involvement in WWI, in which he reluctantly committed his service. Despite not serving on the front lines, he lived through the many horrors of the War. In 1917, after being called to War again after being released, his poor psychological state caused a stay at a mental asylum. After this experience, Grosz developed a certain hatred for everything in his surroundings, propelling his use of satire.[5] A review from his time describes Grosz’s style as “expressive” and having “childlike outlines.” Berlin became Grosz’s fascination, specifically the dirty manifestations of war, such as corruption.[6]
Dadaism was a movement in which Grosz spent a good part of his early career. This movement was meant to criticize high society, and be a shocking reminder of political and cultural issues. Berlin Dada began at the end of WWI, around 1919.[7] Figure 1 shows an image of Grosz’s wife, Eva Peter, and himself. It is a social commentary on the relationship between him and his wife, evidenced by the inclusion of his face, which is all covered up, and the fact that his body resembles a machine or robot. The work includes many Dada photomontage elements, which enhance its absurd outlook.
1923 is the year in which Grosz’s style changed dramatically. He went from having conceptual work to creating drawings depicting figures that have an overtly traditional bent, looking back to the German Masters (Cranach, Dürer, etc.) This is the moment in which the New Objectivity style fully matured.[8] Figure 2 shows Grosz drawing a model in his studio. The figures are depicted in a very real sense. Dramatic lighting, and an indifferent portrayal of the figures alludes to their psychological core, which is largely affected by the War.
1932 marks the beginning of Grosz’s American adventure, in which he escaped Nazi persecution. This stay was sparked by a teaching position at the summer school affiliated with the Art Student League in New York.[9] “Since coming to America, I have changed. I have become more realistic.”[10] Figure 4 depicts a skeletal figure, most likely influenced by the Nazi threat, felt even overseas. Grosz used a mannequin in order to construct this figure, and this charcoal drawing gives a foreboding impression.[11]
Max Beckmann was like George Grosz in many respects, such as the portrayal of individuals. A main focus of Beckmann’s early work is characterized by the self-portrait. Figure 5 is one of his earliest paintings, and it shows an air of confidence. Beckmann shows himself holding a cigarette, fully aware of his stature. This work appears to be expressionistic, with rapid brushstrokes. Beckmann was concerned with the idea of self and identity. Figure 5 appears to have been a way for Beckmann to release his inner emotions, as his self-portrait stares intensely at the viewer, evoking a reaction.[12] Beckmann’s early work is largely recognized for the “complexity of content and forceful élan than for development of successful new forms of expression.”[13]
WWI caused stylistic changes among Beckmann’s work, much like Grosz reacted to the aftermath of war. The concept of the inner being remained as an integral part of Beckmann’s paintings. “For the visible world in combination with our inner selves provides the realm where we may seek infinitely for the individuality of our own souls.”[14] Beckmann was part of the paramedical service during the War, and this involvement gave him an indifferent attitude to the world, a visceral effect of war atrocities.[15] The artist developed a deep hatred for the bourgeois society, which can be seen in many of his portraits of upper class individuals. These portraits all have a rooted sadness, evidenced by their blank expressions. However, Beckmann lost this hatred almost as soon as he developed it. Figure 6 shows Beckmann as an older version of the earlier painting of himself. This time, he has a calmness not seen in his earlier work. The work is heightened by the shadows, and Beckmann seems to have a smug expression, still holding a cigarette. He seems to represent the bourgeois society he previously despised.[16]
A theme that interplayed with the idea of the individual is that of role-play. “But Beckmann after all, is a mask-maker and an unmasker at the same time.”[17] Beckmann loved harlequins, and they served as inspiration for his work. In Figure 7, Beckmann portrays himself and his wife, Quappi, as harlequin performers.[18] Beckmann was just one of many artists at the time that focused their attention on circus subject matter. Beckmann kept this fascination, as shown by Figure 8, which is an image of two acrobats. The colors are more exuberant, as the artist developed a new sense of contentment in his later years.
Grosz and Beckmann depicted individuals in a new light under New Objectivity. These individuals are significant for their imbued indifference to the viewer, serving as reminders to the aftermath of war. The artists’ styles evolved over time, and comparisons of works from separate eras show the development of the New Objectivity style. They kept certain elements that transcend the experiences that shaped or influenced stylistic inclusions.
[1] Max Beckmann, “Letters to a Woman Painter,” College Art Journal 9, no. 1 (1949): 40.
[2] George Grosz, A Little Yes and a Big No: The Autobiography of George Grosz (New York: The Dial Press, 1946),
111, 122.
[3] Antony Wood, ed., The Berlin of George Grosz: Drawings, Watercolors and Prints 1912-1930 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997), 5.
[4] Grosz, A Little Yes and a Big No, 122.
[5] Wood, The Berlin of George Grosz, 5-6.
[6] “George Grosz: A Survey of His Art.” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago (1907-1951) 32, no. 7 (1938): 112.
[7] Wood, The Berlin of George Grosz, 8-9.
[8] Ibid., 14.
[9] Ibid., 17.
[10] George Grosz, “I Teach Fundamentals,” College Art Journal 9, no. 2 (1949-1950): 199.
[11] Juerg M. Judin, ed., George Grosz: The Years in America (Hatje Cantz, 2009), 72.
[12] Richard Spiedler, Max Beckmann (Köln: Taschen, 2002), 7.
[13] Ibid., 23.
[14] Beckmann, “Letters to a Woman Painter,” 40.
[15] Spiedler, Max Beckmann, 25.
[16] Ibid., 51.
[17] Alfred Neumeyer, “Max Beckmann by Benno Reifenberg; Wilhelm Hausenstein,” Books Abroad 24, no. 3 (1950):
281.
[18] Spiedler, Max Beckmann, 76.
George Grosz was a prominent member of the New Objectivity circle. As such, his works are largely known for their poignant representations of individuals. From the very start, Grosz deviated from the norm. His disinterest in the Academy, and all of its conventions for replicating statuary was made very clear, as evidenced by the following quote, “Besides, we lived in an era that loved the ugly and rejected the beautiful.”[2] Much of Grosz’s early work was influenced by Italian Futurists, and his style developed quickly into one that is known for its boldness, enhanced by his use of pen and ink with watercolor.[3] Above anything, his use of satire is what he is most known for, and according to his autobiography, A Little Yes and a Big No, people were enthralled with the satirical references.[4] Satire can be seen as a direct response to his involvement in WWI, in which he reluctantly committed his service. Despite not serving on the front lines, he lived through the many horrors of the War. In 1917, after being called to War again after being released, his poor psychological state caused a stay at a mental asylum. After this experience, Grosz developed a certain hatred for everything in his surroundings, propelling his use of satire.[5] A review from his time describes Grosz’s style as “expressive” and having “childlike outlines.” Berlin became Grosz’s fascination, specifically the dirty manifestations of war, such as corruption.[6]
Dadaism was a movement in which Grosz spent a good part of his early career. This movement was meant to criticize high society, and be a shocking reminder of political and cultural issues. Berlin Dada began at the end of WWI, around 1919.[7] Figure 1 shows an image of Grosz’s wife, Eva Peter, and himself. It is a social commentary on the relationship between him and his wife, evidenced by the inclusion of his face, which is all covered up, and the fact that his body resembles a machine or robot. The work includes many Dada photomontage elements, which enhance its absurd outlook.
1923 is the year in which Grosz’s style changed dramatically. He went from having conceptual work to creating drawings depicting figures that have an overtly traditional bent, looking back to the German Masters (Cranach, Dürer, etc.) This is the moment in which the New Objectivity style fully matured.[8] Figure 2 shows Grosz drawing a model in his studio. The figures are depicted in a very real sense. Dramatic lighting, and an indifferent portrayal of the figures alludes to their psychological core, which is largely affected by the War.
1932 marks the beginning of Grosz’s American adventure, in which he escaped Nazi persecution. This stay was sparked by a teaching position at the summer school affiliated with the Art Student League in New York.[9] “Since coming to America, I have changed. I have become more realistic.”[10] Figure 4 depicts a skeletal figure, most likely influenced by the Nazi threat, felt even overseas. Grosz used a mannequin in order to construct this figure, and this charcoal drawing gives a foreboding impression.[11]
Max Beckmann was like George Grosz in many respects, such as the portrayal of individuals. A main focus of Beckmann’s early work is characterized by the self-portrait. Figure 5 is one of his earliest paintings, and it shows an air of confidence. Beckmann shows himself holding a cigarette, fully aware of his stature. This work appears to be expressionistic, with rapid brushstrokes. Beckmann was concerned with the idea of self and identity. Figure 5 appears to have been a way for Beckmann to release his inner emotions, as his self-portrait stares intensely at the viewer, evoking a reaction.[12] Beckmann’s early work is largely recognized for the “complexity of content and forceful élan than for development of successful new forms of expression.”[13]
WWI caused stylistic changes among Beckmann’s work, much like Grosz reacted to the aftermath of war. The concept of the inner being remained as an integral part of Beckmann’s paintings. “For the visible world in combination with our inner selves provides the realm where we may seek infinitely for the individuality of our own souls.”[14] Beckmann was part of the paramedical service during the War, and this involvement gave him an indifferent attitude to the world, a visceral effect of war atrocities.[15] The artist developed a deep hatred for the bourgeois society, which can be seen in many of his portraits of upper class individuals. These portraits all have a rooted sadness, evidenced by their blank expressions. However, Beckmann lost this hatred almost as soon as he developed it. Figure 6 shows Beckmann as an older version of the earlier painting of himself. This time, he has a calmness not seen in his earlier work. The work is heightened by the shadows, and Beckmann seems to have a smug expression, still holding a cigarette. He seems to represent the bourgeois society he previously despised.[16]
A theme that interplayed with the idea of the individual is that of role-play. “But Beckmann after all, is a mask-maker and an unmasker at the same time.”[17] Beckmann loved harlequins, and they served as inspiration for his work. In Figure 7, Beckmann portrays himself and his wife, Quappi, as harlequin performers.[18] Beckmann was just one of many artists at the time that focused their attention on circus subject matter. Beckmann kept this fascination, as shown by Figure 8, which is an image of two acrobats. The colors are more exuberant, as the artist developed a new sense of contentment in his later years.
Grosz and Beckmann depicted individuals in a new light under New Objectivity. These individuals are significant for their imbued indifference to the viewer, serving as reminders to the aftermath of war. The artists’ styles evolved over time, and comparisons of works from separate eras show the development of the New Objectivity style. They kept certain elements that transcend the experiences that shaped or influenced stylistic inclusions.
[1] Max Beckmann, “Letters to a Woman Painter,” College Art Journal 9, no. 1 (1949): 40.
[2] George Grosz, A Little Yes and a Big No: The Autobiography of George Grosz (New York: The Dial Press, 1946),
111, 122.
[3] Antony Wood, ed., The Berlin of George Grosz: Drawings, Watercolors and Prints 1912-1930 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997), 5.
[4] Grosz, A Little Yes and a Big No, 122.
[5] Wood, The Berlin of George Grosz, 5-6.
[6] “George Grosz: A Survey of His Art.” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago (1907-1951) 32, no. 7 (1938): 112.
[7] Wood, The Berlin of George Grosz, 8-9.
[8] Ibid., 14.
[9] Ibid., 17.
[10] George Grosz, “I Teach Fundamentals,” College Art Journal 9, no. 2 (1949-1950): 199.
[11] Juerg M. Judin, ed., George Grosz: The Years in America (Hatje Cantz, 2009), 72.
[12] Richard Spiedler, Max Beckmann (Köln: Taschen, 2002), 7.
[13] Ibid., 23.
[14] Beckmann, “Letters to a Woman Painter,” 40.
[15] Spiedler, Max Beckmann, 25.
[16] Ibid., 51.
[17] Alfred Neumeyer, “Max Beckmann by Benno Reifenberg; Wilhelm Hausenstein,” Books Abroad 24, no. 3 (1950):
281.
[18] Spiedler, Max Beckmann, 76.