21er Haus Back to the

21er Haus Back to the

Future—A Retroperspective Look at a Museum

21er Haus Back to the Future— A Retroperspective Look at a Museum

Agnes Husslein-Arco, Cosima Rainer, Bettina Steinbrügge Ed.

Revolver Publishing Berlin 2011

Content

Prologue

Perspectives

Artist Pages

Retrospectives

Appendix

The 21er Haus: a Prologue Agnes Husslein-Arco p. 6

Wrestling Over the Right Museum Cosima Rainer p. 26

Marcus Geiger Axel Huber

Museums Provide Rules for the Play of Interpretation Werner Hofmann p. 8

The Sculpture Garden— A Matter of Context Harald Krejci p. 38

From the Austrian Pavilion to the 21er Haus. An Architectural Icon in Context Markus Kristan p. 98

Chronology of Exhibitions 1962—2000 Véronique Aichner p. 140

9/21/2011 Markus Oberndorfer p. 12

The Museum as … / of … / for … How Contemporary Art has Changed the Museums Bettina Steinbrügge p. 46 Ephemera has Many Faces. The Genesis of an Extraordinary Exhibition Venue Agnes Husslein-Arco, Alfred Weidinger p. 54 The New Old Movie Theater at the 21er Haus Bettina Steinbrügge p. 68

Clegg & Guttmann Nora Schultz Elke Silvia Krystufek Sadegh Tirafkan Marko Lulic Mario Garcia Torres Elfie Semotan Charline von Heyl Esther Stocker Daniela Comani Hans Weigand Richard Jackson Franz West Anselm Reyle Erwin Wurm Karin Sander Heimo Zobernig Michael Riedel Oswald Oberhuber Jürgen Klauke p. 73

Four Decades of Inspiration: The Exhibitions at the 20er Haus Matthias Boeckl p. 110 Signs of Modernism. The Corporate Identity of the Museum of the Twentieth Century in the Schweizergarten and its Genesis: From Georg Schmid to Oswald Oberhuber and Christof Nardin Rainald Franz p. 118 The Turns and Returns of Film. A Few Remarks Harald Krejci p. 134

Author Biographies p. 191 Picture Credits p. 195 Colophon p. 200

The 21er Haus: a Prologue Agnes Husslein-Arco

6

After an extensive period of reconstruction and modification, the 20er Haus finally reopens its doors as the 21er Haus. By acquiring this building, a milestone of Austrian architecture history, the Belvedere realizes a vision that was first articulated in the early years of the past century. Ever since the Modern Gallery was founded—the temporary home in which it was set up in 1903, the Lower Belvedere, must be regarded as the birthplace of today’s Austrian Gallery Belvedere— a desire was felt for a building specifically dedicated to modern and contemporary art. To this day, the Belvedere has lived up to the ambitious mission the Secessionists, who were among the new institution’s staunchest champions, set out for it: to open the widest possible artistic horizons—which necessarily included international art—for interested audiences. The Viennese museum landscape went through a series of reconfigurations, and so the 20er Haus, which had already written history as a World’s Fair pavilion, was finally taken into service in 1962 as a provisional exhibition space for the newly founded Museum of the Twentieth Century. At the time, the structure—Karl Schwanzer, the architect who designed it, also planned its conversion into a museum—represented a salient signal that Austria aspired to become a fully engaged member of the international community. The museum in the 20er Haus was a pioneering center for contemporary art and one of the earliest European institutions of its kind to reside in a work of advanced architecture, a success owed not least importantly to the work of its founding director, Werner Hofmann. Once the MUMOK moved to its permanent home to the MuseumsQuartier in 2001, where it continues to place an emphasis on international art, the Belvedere successfully lobbied to become the new tenant of the 20er Haus, where it will now focus on contemporary art made in Austria. In gaining the use of such a spectacular building, the Belvedere faces great challenges, but the possibilities are equally great: like its predecessor, the new 21er Haus will devote all its energies to its mission, breaking with conventions and articulating strong opinions as it pursues the question of how the museum of the twentyfirst century may—and perhaps, given the ways art has changed on the levels of content as much as media, must—be reconceived. The new museum in the former 20er Haus is meant to be a venue where people make, see, and reflect on art. Austrian art of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, embedded in its international contexts, will be at the heart of its presentations. The open and spacious building invites a discussion of

the art-historical interrelations and social processes that help shape contemporary art in an environment that exemplifies the ideas of modernism. The Belvedere’s collection of post-1945 art will be on permanent display on the 21er Haus’s upper floor, but the exhibition will adapt, reflecting the steady growth of our holdings. This platform dedicated to the presentation of a rich collection represents the fulfillment of a desire that has long been keenly felt. As an art venue with its own strong profile, the 21er Haus will complement the Belvedere, extending the arc of its exhibition program. The exciting challenge we face will be not only to provide a dedicated and intellectually rigorous engagement with contemporary art, but also to bring in the producers, the artists, as important stakeholders in our venture. The present book about the 21er Haus aims to examine various facets of the building and its colorful history, but also to discuss questions regarding the museum as an institution more generally. Werner Hofmann, for instance, takes a retrospective look at the early years of the museum, reflecting on his work as its founding director. Another essay draws a line to a more distant past, considering the Belvedere as a venue and an institution initially dedicated to the presentation of contemporary art that was shaped by the most important museum-reform movements of the nineteenth and twentieth century (Cosima Rainer). Building on the conditions of artistic production today, we then inquire into the challenges the 21er Haus faces in the twentyfirst century (Bettina Steinbrügge). We examine the history of how a World’s Fair pavilion became the 20er Haus (Markus Kristan) and discuss questions regarding the conceptions that underlaid the sculpture gardens created during the 1950s from contemporary perspective (Harald Krejci). Our exploration of the history of the museum continues with a study of the policies the house pursued under its different directors and the projects that helped the institution attain mythical status in Vienna (Matthias Böckl), emphasizing positive dynamics today’s museum programming may want to take up. Two aspects that made the house legendary were its graphic communication and corporate identity, developed in 1962 by Georg Schmid (Rainald Franz), and the integrated movie theater, whose installation was a revolutionary feature for a museum of modern art at the time, pioneering the status of film as a fully valid medium of contemporary art and a central point of reference for artists (Harald Krejci, Bettina Steinbrügge). The first anthology of solid scholarship on the unique

7

history of the 20er Haus, this book offers profound insight, complemented by an extensive collection of visual sources (Véronique Aichner). With its focus on contemporary art, the 20er Haus represented a novelty in the Vienna of its time. Today, the city is no doubt home to a number of firstrate institutions presenting exhibitions of contemporary art, and the 21er Haus will need to hold its own. We look forward to this challenging mission. The new museum offers its visitors a focused, comprehensive, and carefully assembled panorama of recent Austrian art history in all its diversity. The core tasks of a museum—communication, collection, scholarly study, and preservation of art—will be integral components of all exhibition projects and lay the foundation for the production and strategic presentation of Austrian art. I would like to thank all the authors who contributed to this important survey of the building’s past and future, and am delighted to present the public with this starting signal for the 21er Haus.

Museums Provide Rules for the Play of Interpretation Werner Hofmann

The museum in the Schweizergarten contains contributions to multiple realities of art that, even fifty years after it first opened its doors, reflect the views of its founding director and the problems he faced. To explain what I mean, I will proceed by layers. Let me begin by recalling the initial situation. The building, designed by Karl Schwanzer in 1958 as an exhibition hall for the Brussels World’s Fair, marks one of the cultural founding dates of the new (Second) Republic, which had regained its sovereignty in 1955 with the Austrian Independence Treaty. Steel, glass, and right angles defined the formal vocabulary of its sober style. Schwanzer conceived the “pavilion”—the term, which designates a minor structure, is inadequate—as a sort of cube on an open footprint that integrated the space surrounding it as floor space inviting creative uses. Given the general spirit of political restoration at the time, it seemed opportune to use the “pavilion” to articulate the young republic’s cultural self-conception.

František Kupka, Nocturne, 1910/11

Wilhelm Kopf/Josef Hoffmann Overdoor, relief for the 14th exhibition of the Secession, 1902 (reconstruction, 1985)

František Kupka, Nocturne, 1900 Illustration of René Puaux’s Nocturne

8

9

Turning it into a museum with a focus on the present would bolster Austria’s identity while also giving substance to the ideal of good neighborly relations in all directions. As a consequence, we asked ourselves: how much “Austria” would the new home of contemporary art bear? From the very outset, I professed allegiance to a belief insightful minds had expressed as early as 1901, in the debates leading up to the creation of a Modern Gallery: it must not be such a museum’s mission, “to diligently assemble a collection of examples illustrating a dictionary of Austrian artists;” ¹ instead, I needed to identify works by those artists whose creations were representative of present-day European art.² I set the new museum’s course based on the fundamental art-historical insight that Austria’s achievements in twentieth-century visual art—the situation was different in music—did not entitle it to the role of a leader or initiator; but the country did, “have a say, for several of its artists have contributed to the overall picture.” ³ In my practice, my primary interest was not to see what people with or without an Austrian passport had done somewhere in the world, but in fields of interdependency that had emerged with or without Austrian participation. As a result, some acquisitions reached into international dynamics, proving that distinguished works of art encompass multiple and complementary interpretive possibilities. Seen in an international perspective, František Kupka’s Nocturne (1910/11) is among the earliest works of nonrepresentational painting. To the historian, it at once also illustrates the genesis of this new visual language out of the natural symbolism of the Jugendstil. Kupka’s 1900 illustration of a lyrical Nocturne communicates with the 1910 painting, but also with Gustav Klimt’s vertical landscape curtains. The Nocturne also calls to mind that its creator was, as a Czech national, a citizen of the Danube Monarchy, and yet looked to Paris rather than Vienna for artistic inspiration. The loss this implied for Vienna was compensated by the famous overdoor Josef Hoffmann conceived in 1902 for the Beethoven exhibition at the Vienna Secession. The relief is a transitory novelty; it possessed the quality of an image and moreover suggested an abstract architectonic landscape. This brings me to an important regard in which my acquisition and exhibition strategies took sides. It concerns not the artists’ nationalities but the material quality of their artifacts. I was unable to accept the leading role of the easel painting—defending it required invoking an obsolete situation that emerged in the fifteenth century, when Leon Battista Alberti

proposed the framed “open window” as the formal equivalent of the new three-dimensional content of representation. That empirical content was subsequently displaced by other kinds, whose formal syntax was by no means dependent on the coordinates of a rectangle. The framed image thus forfeited its central role in the history of painting. At the same time, the rejection of integral illusionism yielded a new license. As Apollinaire had already proclaimed in 1913 (with a view to the Cubist papiers collés), artists could now, “paint with whatever [they want], with pipes, stamps, postcards or playing cards, candelabras, pieces of oilcloth, false collars, wallpaper, newspapers.” ⁴ I considered, and still consider, this opening toward multi-materiality the key event of modernism, and so it determined the emphases I placed in my work at museums, first in Vienna and then in Hamburg (1970– 1990). As a result, the guiding theme of my life has been the attempt to bring the museum and theory into interrelation. Such exchange is part of the Viennese tradition: Alois Riegl and Julius von Schlosser combined their duties at museums with teaching appointments. Seen as an overarching impulse, multi-materiality effectively dissolves the (material) boundaries delineating the genres. The accent accordingly shifts from the image (as the dominant “symbolic form” of the modern era) to the artifact. My transitory perspective ultimately derives from a situation whose emergence Otto Wagner had already envisioned when he considered extending the collection of modern art to be founded beyond the bounds of the panel painting. In the same sense, I was interested in works (i.e., pieces of evidence) that would reach into new (material) domains of figuration, works that belonged neither under sculpture nor under painting. A collection of architectural models was meant to document how interwoven the branches of art were—without, however, evoking the ideal of a Gesamtkunstwerk of the sort the Secession had envisioned. Following the example set by the MoMA, with which I became thoroughly familiar in 1957 when I held a visiting professorship in New York, I also planned the creation of an archive of films and musical records. Accompanied by an exhibition, the Weeks of French Film held in 1963 were a first step in that direction. “We will finally embrace an idea Otto Wagner proposed,” I wrote with disarming optimism in the preface to the catalogue documenting the inaugural exhibition, Art from 1900 to Today: “the museum as an institution that commissions the creation of art. In this way, we may succeed in setting the artist meaningful tasks,

10  Prologue, Werner Hofmann

and charting productive paths for the comprehensive mission of public art sponsorship.” ⁵ When I took stock, in the inaugural catalogue, of the purchases I had made over the course of roughly three years, I was able to list acquisitions that would not have been possible without considerable special funding; I should like to emphasize this start-up assistance. Roughly one third of the works I acquired belonged to the third dimension—I am avoiding the stale word “sculpture,” which conceals the multi-material quality of the new objectivity. “This high percentage,” I wrote in the catalogue, “did not come about by accident; it is the result of deliberate planning. The following considerations were decisive in this regard: first, the conviction that sculpture has not yet met with the recognition that it deserves from museums; second, the fact that today’s circumstances still permit us to acquire works of almost all eminent sculptors; third, the museum’s building provides an opportunity to present art outdoors; and finally, Vienna’s prominent position as a European center of sculpture. If the term ‘Viennese School’ has any legitimacy, it is with regard to the sculptors who work in this city.” ⁶ A critic bent on finding fault might make omission and neglect the constant leitmotifs of the sort of retrospection I am sketching here. In this view, the trajectories of Vienna’s museums consisted of a series of wrong turns, unchecked forays, one-way streets, and missed connections. But if we consider that the category of the work of art has now left the domain of certainty behind, that it has entered, with the active assistance of the institution of the museum, the dimension of the questionable, a more lenient assessment suggests itself. We are called upon to give account of a balance of profits and losses that Hegel had already drawn up in his Aesthetics. Since his day, we have known that, “the peculiar nature of artistic production and of works of art no longer fills our highest need. We have got beyond venerating works of art as divine and worshipping them.” ⁷ Not content with designating this loss, Hegel also indicates the profit with which it is bound up: “What is now aroused in us by works of art is not just immediate enjoyment but our judgment also, since we subject to our intellectual consideration (1) the content of art, and (2) the work of art’s means of presentation, and the appropriateness or inappropriateness of both to one another.” ⁸ The work of art, that is to say, is constituted for us based on what is questionable in it. Art becomes a term of convention. This concerns not just the question: “what is an image?” but also, conversely: “when is an image a work of art?”

The latter question is now the subject of visual studies—a vehicle that is slowly gaining momentum, even as those who conduct it often forget that the history of visual studies is long and reaches back further than to Aby Warburg alone. Let us once again think outside our national boxes. With his tone row technique, Arnold Schoenberg invented a structural model for music whose significance is comparable to that of Piet Mondrian’s geometry of the painting. In a schematic illustration by Felix Greissle , we find the four interlocking tonal movements of a “row” translated into a configuration that visualizes their equipollence. This unity is ensured by the underlying series. As Anton von Webern puts it, “it’s always the same; only its manifestations are different.” ⁹ These “manifestations” refer to the cycle of series—inversion—retrograde—inversion of the retrograde. Schoenberg once illustrated this movement in a lecture: “He took a hat, turned it in all directions and said: ‘You see, this is a hat, whether I look at it from above, from below, from the front, from behind, from the left, from the right, it always remains a hat, even though it may look one thing from above and another from below.’ Inversion and retrograde motion, too, look different from the basic form, yet they are the self-same motif.” ¹⁰ The play with unchanging fundamental figures is a model that applies to Mondrian’s visual world as well. Why did I purchase the unfinished Composition with Double Line and Blue (1935) from Galerie Beyeler in 1967? Not just because we were able to afford it. The Composition does not proclaim a definite form—something collectors generally cherish—but it had other qualities waiting to be discovered. When I exhibited (and published) the picture at the time, the blue field was in the bottom right corner. Today, the picture has been turned on its head—and why not? We might even imagine it as a landscape format. To conclude: works of art contain rules for the play of interpretation. Allowing the visitor to engage in this play is perhaps the most untapped opportunity the museum harbors today. On the other hand the visitors would then have to sign a letter of indemnity exonerating them of the obligation to demand conclusive solutions and answers. That means bidding farewell to aesthetic univocity. In its stead, multivocity emerges: it is now the distinguishing mark of the quality that used to define the masterwork.

11

1 Ver Sacrum 20 (1901), p. 343. 2 Ibid. 3 Werner Hofmann, “Vorwort,” in: Kunst von 1900 bis heute (ex. cat., Museum des 20. Jahrhunderts, Wien), 1962, p. 9. 4 Guillaume Apollinaire, “Les Peintres Cubistes,” quoted in: Willard Bohn, The Aesthetics of Visual Poetry, 1914–1928 (University of Chicago Press, Chicago), 1986, p. 17. 5 Werner Hofmann, “Vorwort,” p. 9. 6 Ibid., p. 10. 7 G.W.F. Hegel, Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Art, trans. T.M. Knox, vol. 1 (Clarendon, Oxford), 1975, p. 10. 8 Ibid., p. 11. 9 Anton Webern, The Path to New Music, ed. Willi Reich (Universal Edition, Vienna), 1975, p. 40. 10 Erwin Stein, Orpheus in New Guises (Rockliff, London), 1953, p. 63.

Michail Larionov, The Smoker, 1912

Felix Greissle, Schema of the tone row technique, 1925

9/21/2011

Markus Oberndorfer

12

Perspectives Wrestling Over the Right Museum Cosima Rainer p. 26 The Sculpture Garden— A Matter of Context Harald Krejci p. 38 The Museum as … / of … / for … How Contemporary Art has Changed the Museums Bettina Steinbrügge p. 46 Ephemera has Many Faces. The Genesis of an Extraordinary Exhibition Venue Agnes Husslein-Arco, Alfred Weidinger p. 54 The New Old Movie Theater at the 21er Haus Bettina Steinbrügge p. 68

25

Wrestling Over the Right Museum Cosima Rainer

Public museums of art have existed for more than two centuries, but questions of what exactly the spirit and purpose, the primary audience, and the correct methodology of such institutions are, or ought to be—have remained contentious. Just as some artists, collectors, benefactors, and art historians have, sometimes passionately, championed the museum of art, the institution has at other times come under heavy criticism and even been outright rejected. Over the course of its history, the museum has generated a wide variety of forms of knowledge and emotions, of order, classification, and display, of social behavior and economic mechanisms. Any particular realization of the idea of the museum, the canon it favors, and the forms of public sphere it engenders have always been the product of negotiations between antagonistic or complementary interests. The history of the ways the Belvedere has served as an exhibition space for art and an independent institution is representative of this wrestling over the “right museum.” From the conversion of the former pleasure palace of Prince Eugene of Savoy into a home for the imperial and royal gallery of paintings (1779–1781) to the imminent extension of the Belvedere’s ambit by the addition of a department of contemporary art in the former World’s Fair pavilion created in 1958: the Belvedere’s history spans a series of debates that, far from being solely about works of art, have frequently also addressed questions of the construction of geographical and national identity, of connoisseurship and the didactics of the formation of taste, as well as the question of whether a museum of art ought to be first and foremost a hallowed temple or a sort of laboratory. The quotations collated in the following pages, representing a variety of periods and perspectives, and the brief remarks that follow each one hope to offer glimpses of the wide field these different historical positions stake out.¹

Christian von Mechel, Index of the Paintings of the Imperial and Royal Picture Gallery in Vienna, 1783 “[…] The purpose guiding all efforts was to use this beautiful building, perfectly suited to this end by virtue of its subdivision into numerous rooms, in such fashion that the installation as a whole as well as in its parts would become instructive and, as far as possible, a visible history of art. Such a large collection, one de-

26

27

Floor plan of the gallery in the Upper Belvedere indicating the different schools, from Christian von Mechel, Verzeichniß der Gemälde der Kaiserlich Königlichen Bilder Gallerie in Wien (Vienna), 1783.

The “Black Cabinet” of the gallery in the Stallburg. From Storffer’s inventory, vol. II (Vienna), 1730, p. 9.

signed to promote education rather than mere passing pleasure, would seem to resemble a rich library in which a mind eager to learn is delighted to find works of all kinds and from all times; to find not only pleasing and perfect ones, but rather variegated contrasts, whose contemplation and comparison (the only path that leads to knowledge) may make him a connoisseur of art. The attentive enthusiast who visits this temple of art will find, immediately upon entering the marble hall [here Mechel lists the works of art on display in the marble hall as well as the schools represented in the adjacent rooms]. A flight of stairs leads to the third floor and the four rooms located directly above those lower rooms, which are devoted to the old Flemish artists, and so an inscription indicates: Old Flemish School. Ancienne École Flamande. They present to the eye a visible history of art; specimens of the genesis, the growth, and the entire development of talent among the

Flemish, with each room containing a distinctive epoch […] These are followed by their counterparts on the other side of the marble room, four rooms the true patriot does not enter without warm sentiment. The inscription reads: German School. École Allemande. Here is proof of what our industrious fathers accomplished in art, and several specimens of the work of more recent artists who lay claim to our approbation of their merit […]” ² Empress Maria Theresa had ordered the removal of the imperial and royal picture gallery from the narrow rooms of the Stallburg to the spacious Belvedere in 1776. The Basel-based engraver and art dealer Christian von Mechel was commissioned to oversee the conversion of the building and the installation of the collection. Only a few years later, in 1782, Joseph II, acting in the spirit of the Enlightenment, opened the collection to the public. Christian von Mechel’s index is considered one of the earliest sources documenting the genesis of the art museum. The idea that the museum’s arrangement should reflect a history of the development of art is evident in it. Selected objects were placed in chronological order and grouped by geographically defined schools. Each school was assigned its own rooms. This division into the German, Italian, and Flemish schools was retained later on when the collection moved into the Kunsthistorisches Museum, which opened its doors in 1891. Mechel’s “first visible history of art” is, for its part, akin to the eighteenth-century trend of arranging natural history collections in accordance with scientific principles. This narrative register “naturalized” (Foucault) the history of painting as well as that of nature.³

Paul Signac, Au Minuit, 1888 “It is the exclusive merit of the neo-impressionists to have established the neutral exhibition, where, in an achromatic environment, the canvases alone will vibrate in the splendor of their contrasts.” ⁴ Artists played an important role by initiating new forms of presentation in museums. For instance, as early as 1886, the neo-impressionists around Paul Signac and Georges Seurat articulated their opposition to the decorative ensembles produced by the then customary hanging, where walls covered with dark-red fabric would be taken up in their entirety by pictures arranged in three to four registers. They called for a

28  Perspectives, Cosima Rainer

different hanging, one that would foster a focus on the individual work by presenting it “achromatically,” in a white or light gray frame without profile set against a wall covered with gray fabric. The Viennese Secessionists took another influential stance within these debates over the practice of exhibiting art. Their catchphrase “moderne Raumkunst” (“modern spatial art”) described an encompassing conception that integrated paintings, sculptures, handcrafted objects, and architecture, as well as all aspects of design associated with an exhibition, such as posters and publications. Koloman Moser’s elaboration of this conception, paradoxically enough, evolved in the direction of the White Cube. His reduced version of the “spatial-art gallery,” designed primarily with the requirements of the hanging of pictures in mind (only the doorways received decorative frames) and first presented in 1904 during the 18th Secession exhibition, surprised visitors with their staging of “austere rooms” defined by an utterly novel economy of aesthetic means; it may be regarded as a pioneering achievement that paved the way for the future White Cube,⁵ a new form of presentation that would soon become the international standard, which has by and large remained a force to this day.

Alfred Roller, The Modern Gallery, 1901 “It is of great importance to our association that we set down our views on these matters in emphatic terms at this point in time, and to this end we have presented the following memorandum to the Minister of Education: Your Excellency! When we founded our association—it has now been four years—we made it a central item on our agenda to advocate for the creation of a modern gallery in Vienna. It was not the addition of a depot for modern pictures to the existing collections of old pictures that we had in mind, but the creation of an institute that would offer our people the opportunity to witness, and empathetically understand, the titanic urge that moves the art of our times: its struggle to achieve new ideals. Rather than confronting, as it does now, those creations that ephemeral exhibitions of art happen to bring before its eyes and seeking to catch hold of passing buzzwords, the public, we hoped, would henceforth be rendered capable of witnessing one of the most memorable phenomena of presentday cultural development with open and seeing eyes, of appreciating it as it is happening instead of being informed about it by art-historical publications that

may appear only after much time has passed. It was to promote this goal that the association included in its bylaws the provision that the net profits from its endeavors be used to acquire works of art that will be donated to the ‘Modern Gallery’ to be founded. Yet the selection of works we have purchased for this purpose to date—Segantini, Dagnan-Bouveret, Gandara, L. von Hofmann, Roll, Rodin, Herterich, Hahn, et al.—also indicates of what kind such acquisitions would have to be if the intended effect described above is to be achieved. By choosing these works, we hoped to articulate that it must not be the mission of the new institute to serve as a diligently assembled collection of examples illustrating a dictionary of Austrian artists; that the aim must instead be to acquire those works of the art of our time that have indelibly imprinted the trace of their spirit upon the overall development.” ⁶ The institution now known as the “Österreichische Galerie” or “Austrian Gallery”—the name “Belvedere” did not become part of its official designation until 2000—was founded by imperial decree in 1903 as a “modern gallery.” The Secessionists had been the leading champions of the creation of an Austrian museum dedicated exclusively to contemporary art. An important spokesman during that campaign was Alfred Roller, then the Secession’s president. Exhibitions, publications, and private donations to the state, he hoped, would, “instill a refined modern view of art among wide audiences.” Yet the quick success of the endeavor—founded in 1903, the “modern gallery” found a provisional home for many decades in

Transverse gallery of the XVIIIth Secessionist exhibition, Vienna, based on designs by Koloman Moser, 1903

29

the Lower Belvedere before moving to the Orangery— had more to do with the significance attributed to art as a “force of conciliation” and a symbol of vitality in the Habsburgs’ multiethnic empire.⁷ The collection, augmented by the above-mentioned donations of the Secession, initially consisted of works of recent art that had previously been held by institutions such as the Academy of Fine Arts. Starting in 1905, a gallery commission used funds provided by the Ministry of Education to make carefully selected purchases from exhibitions across the crown lands as well as shows held by the Secession or at the Hagenbund. Gustav Klimt’s Kiss, the painting that is now the Belvedere’s most popular possession, was among these acquisitions. The presentation amid the baroque interiors of the Lower Belvedere however, was an unsatisfactory compromise that held until the Museum of Modern Art was founded in 1962 and set up, again provisionally, in the pavilion recycled from the 1958 Brussels World’s Fair.

Filippo Tommaso Marinetti: Futurism, 1909 “[…] In truth I tell you that daily visits to museums, libraries, and academies (cemeteries of empty exertion, Calvaries of crucified dreams, registries of aborted beginnings!) are, for artists, as damaging as the prolonged supervision by parents of certain young people drunk with their talent and their ambitious wills. When the future is barred to them, the admirable past may be a solace for the ills of the moribund, the sickly, the prisoner … But we want no part of it, the past, we the young and strong Futurists!” ⁸ The manifesto of the Futurists, which was first published in 1909 on the title page of the Paris daily Le Figaro and would soon become famous, concludes with the furious summons to tear down all libraries and museums. Not by chance did the man who wrote it hail from Italy: no other country then had a similarly dense and established network of museums and old palaces devoted to the glorious past. As early as the eighteenth century, some of the country’s great collections had opened their doors to the public: the Capitoline museum, Rome, had done so in 1734; the Uffizi, Florence, in 1771. To this day, Marinetti’s manifesto stands as a vivid illustration of how an excess of witnesses to the past can become a crushing burden for the present and the future.

Paul Valéry: The Problem of Museums, 1923 “I am not over-fond of museums. Many of them are admirable, none are delightful. Delight has little to do with the principles of classification, conservation, and public utility, clear and reasonable though these may be […] our heritage is a crushing burden. Modern man, worn out as he is by the immensity of his technical resources, is also impoverished by the sheer excess of his riches. The process of donations and legacies, the connection between production and purchases—and that other source of increase depending on changes in fashion and taste and their reactions in favor of works fallen into neglect—all conspire, without ceasing, to accumulate a necessarily un-usable excess of capital […] our capacity to use these ever-increasing resources is far from growing with them. Our wealth is a burden and a bewilderment […] However vast the palace, however suitable and well-arranged, we always feel a little lost, a little desolate in its galleries, all alone against so much art. The product of thousands of hours’ work consumed in painting and drawing by so many masters, each hour charged with years of research, experiment, concentration, genius, acts upon our sense and minds in a few minutes! We cannot stand up to it. So what do we do? We grow superficial.” ⁹

Series of observations recorded by Boston-based museum official Benjamin Ives Gilman (1852–1933) regarding arrangements of display cases and objects that are inconvenient for visitors

30  Perspectives, Cosima Rainer

In the first decades of the twentieth centuries, more and more artists declared the museum to be obsolete. Most of their complaints concerned the confusion and colorful variety of works of art filling the rooms, a state of affairs that, they argued, violated every individual work, which, being singular, wanted to be perceived in isolation. In this regard, the article the French lyric poet and essayist Paul Valéry wrote is characteristic of his era. Starting in the 1920s, several German museum directors including, for instance, Alexander Dorner at the Provinzialmuseum, Hanover, responded with a fundamental revision of the conventional format of art presentations: Dorner commissioned El Lissitzky to develop the “cabinet of the abstracts” for the Provinzialmuseum, a “totally designed” room dedicated to the international constructivist tendencies. László Moholy-Nagy designed a “room of the present” for Hanover intended to examine the media of photography, film, and slide projection as a new vocabulary of artistic expression. In Halle, on the other hand, Alois Schardt initiated what was described as a “creative museum,” a collaborative project involving living artists such as Lyonel Feiniger, who created

the famous Halle Cycle in 1931. The new conception of the museum as an institution that commissioned the production of art likewise guided the contemporaneous practice at the Hamburger Kunsthalle and the Museum Folkwang, Essen. Even today, Vienna’s Kunstverein museum in progress pursues a similar approach. For its art projects in the city’s urban spaces and media, that have repeatedly caused sensation since 1990, museum in progress has chosen something Alexander Dorner once said as its motto: the museum of the new type ought to be more like a power plant.

Hans Tietze: Modern Art and the Museum of Art, 1925 “Herein lies the difficulty of the museum of modern art, a paradox that almost contradicts itself. Do we not need to slay what is alive before we can compel respect for it, placing it on a throne among the dead; does not our very conception of art imply that the work must have accomplished its organic mission before it enters the museum; and if it had no such mission, has it lived at all? L’art des musées—a title of honor has become a taunt! […] On the other hand, he [the museum director] fears that he will crush the works to which the aroma of the unfinished still clings with the burden of the definitive, the unalterable, the museum-compatible, that he will present under the aspect of eternity what as yet lives entirely in the today. The presentation of such works would have to be utterly different from that of the stalwarts among the museum’s collections, lighter, more precarious, more changeable; and we would need to undertake acquisitions in such fashion that, though retaining works, we would not yet brand them as museum art. We need to find an intermediate stage, a purgatory, something like the Luxembourg in Paris, a manifesto of the art of our time that is supple enough to adapt itself to the subtlest nuances of contemporary feeling, and sifted so as to anticipate the historical selection the future will perform; nimble and firm, the natural reservoir of the museums, which would find here the material for their ongoing expansion. So un-museum-like and immediately alive that it would bear an art museum of the future in its womb.” ¹⁰ The art historian Hans Tietze, whose duties as a ministry official included supervision of the Austrian art collections, closely studied the efforts to reform the museum that had occupied the German-speaking world since 1890. Between 1919 and 1925, he was

31

El Lissitzky, “Cabinet of the Abstracts,” 1928, Provinzialmuseum, Hannover

in charge of the reorganization of the art collections in Vienna. He arranged for a modern presentation at the Kunsthistorisches Museum and, in 1923, initiated the creation of the new Österreichische Galerie at the Belvedere. This complex included the new Museum of Baroque Art—according to Tietze the baroque, as the “true national style,” had energized all art that followed, down to the present—at the Lower Belvedere; the Gallery of the Nineteenth Century at the Upper Belvedere (inaugurated in 1924); and the new Modern Gallery in the Orangery, which opened its doors in 1929. The enclosed park was used as a sculpture garden for modern statuary art. In keeping with Tietze’s call for a fresh perspective on art, the works in the Museum of the Baroque in particular were presented in the “modern” fashion for the first time. In 1932, the rising influence of Austrofascism led Tietze to withdraw from public service and travel abroad more and more frequently until, in 1938, he emigrated to the United States.¹¹

André Malraux: The Imaginary Museum, 1947 “[…] The reason why not until quite recently, and only under European influence, Asia has had experience of the art collection is that for an Asiatic, artistic

contemplation and the picture gallery are incompatible. In China the full enjoyment of works of art necessarily involves ownership, except where religious art is concerned; above all, it requires their isolation. A painting is not exhibited, but unfurled before an art lover who is in a proper state of grace; its function for fifteen centuries has been to deepen and adorn his communion with the universe. The practice of pitting works of art against each other, an intellectual activity, is at the opposite pole from the mood of mental relaxation which alone makes contemplation possible. To the Asiatic’s thinking an art collection (except for educational purposes) is as preposterous as would be a concert in which the audience had to listen to an ill-assorted miscellany of pieces performed without a break.” ¹² The French writer André Malraux came to international prominence as Charles de Gaulle’s minister of cultural affairs between 1959 and 1969; his essay “Le musée imaginaire” anticipated the sequence of developments that would lead to today’s virtual global museum, as embodied by libraries and the Internet. He saw the very abundance of works held by the European museums—though he made the questionable choice of contrasting them with “Asian customs” to delineate their profile—as holding potential for the future: in his vision, the works of art of all times and all parts of the world, supplemented by journals, books, and other visual archives, will be available to us, lending themselves to ever more effortless synopsis and propelling an intellectualization of the engagement with art. He failed to foresee, however, that the same developments would promote an intellectualization of the production of art as well.

Le Corbusier’s proposal for an infinitely growing museum, 1930

Poster advertising the opening of the entre Pompidou, Paris, posted in the Paris Métro, 1977

Renzo Piano and Richard Rogers, Centre Pompidou, 1975 “[…] a dynamic communication machine, highly serviced and made from prefabricated pieces […] in order to design a center for specialists, tourists, and people from the neighborhood […] The greater the public interest, the greater the success […] away with the traditional stone, glass, or brick façade […] flexibility; the division of the office landscape can be altered in mere minutes, the larger elements in the museum can be repositioned in an hour, the firewalls, within a day. Everything is movable […] It is flexible, functional, transparent, and the inside has been turned to the outside. This might even be a place where it is fun to be inside.” ¹³

32  Perspectives, Cosima Rainer

Centre Pompidou, room inviting visitors to listen to records and read the press

Centre Pompidou, escalator to the upper floors, beside Victor Vasarely’s portrait of Georges Pompidou

33

In addition to new ideas regarding the presentation of works, the larger architectural form of the museum itself emerged as a central issue in the reform debate. The Centre national d’art et de culture Georges Pompidou, Paris, which opened its doors in 1977, became this paradigm. It now attracts up to 600,000 visitors every month, making it one of the world’s most lucrative buildings to house a cultural institution. As early as 1965, Le Corbusier had been commissioned to design a museum for twentieth-century art that would rely on a concept he had devised in 1930: a spiral-shaped “infinitely growing museum.” The project later converged with efforts to erect the first central public library, leading to the directive issued by President Georges Pompidou in 1969 to build a comprehensive cultural center on the Plateau Beaubourg that would house the library as well as sculptures and paintings, but also special facilities for music, film, and experimental theater. This spectrum was later expanded by adding a design center. In 1971, Piano and Rogers’s proposal won the architectural design competition. They gave their “dynamic communication machine” the shape of a refinery. On the inside, they aimed to create the greatest possible degree of flexibility and transparency. The idea of flexibility and transparency in museums was fashionable at the time. As early as 1942, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe had sketched a “design for a museum for a small town” in which interior and exterior spaces (the landscape) completely interpenetrate. Willem Sandberg, director of the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, likewise envisioned a bright, open, and dynamic museum. To realize this vision, he commissioned the architects Frits Eschauzier and Jan Leupen in 1954 to build a new wing for the museum flooded with light falling in not through the customary skylights but instead through large lateral windows. In order to allow for frequently alternating exhibitions, he had the room furnished with movable asymmetrical partitions. The new architecture—at the time, the media dismissively described it as an aquarium or a reptile house— was supposed to dispel the “museum headache” that, Sandberg argued, light coming from above in combination with the stuffy air typical of conventional museums brought on.¹⁴ The pavilion Karl Schwanzer designed for the 1958 Brussels World’s Fair can likewise be seen as exemplary of this international trend. In 1962, it was adapted to become Austria’s first museum of modern art. However, architectural utopias rarely meet real

needs, as became apparent soon enough, when the climatic and lighting conditions in Schwanzer’s architecture caused damage to many works that were on display for extended periods of time. By resembling a floating glass case, the room also seemed to confirm the view that art is divorced from reality and autonomous, buoyed by universalist ambitions and untethered to any historic context.

Harald Szeemann: The Museum of Obsessions, 1979

Moderne Kunst nieuw+oud exhibition, July 26– October 3, 1955, Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam

View of the exhibition room with a work by Daniel Spoerri in Dylaby, September 1962, Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam

“I call this place the museum of obsessions. In physical terms, the museum no longer strikes me as the ambivalent site it was in the late 1960s; it is the place where fragile objects can be preserved and new connections, tested; in the mind, it is the place, the world, where a never-static sum of speculations fed by a variety of sources struggles to achieve visualization. And obsession, of course, is no longer just the negative (in the social perspective) element, the devil to be exorcized from the body of the possessed by the priest, or the forever-lurking fixation […]; it is a unit of energy (and not a compulsive notion) we gladly recognize even though it is pre-Freudian, an energy that, at its origin, cares not one whit for how it expresses itself, for whether its articulation or potential application is, in the social view, positive or negative, noxious or useful. So if obsession is the spiritual element, the unit of energy, the museum is the temptation to pin it down, to arrest the speculation, in a temporary visualization. I do not have the time now to explain how the museum of obsessions, which most neatly fails to keep metaphysics, ethics, morals, the theory of energy, and science apart in order to avoid disrupting the speculative impulse, maintains its function […] For the museum of obsessions does not select according to defined criteria. Instead, the effort expended on the work of screening the official art world requires shifts toward the permanent respect for the source of energy; for in a way that eludes immediate comprehension but is only the more exciting for it, the obsessive character is really the only one to have found a solution to the problem of leisure that occupies society.” ¹⁵

Harald Szeemann is considered the inventor, as it were, of the profession of the freelance curator and exhibition organizer. His exhibition Live in Your Head: When Attitudes Become Form at the Kunsthalle Bern in 1969 is regarded as a legendary act of initiation. The new form of mise-en-scène aimed to create a sort of work of meta-art: the emphasis was no longer on the presentation of chronologically or thematically arranged art but instead on a contentious dialogue between the works engendered by the curatorial conception. Many works were specifically created on the site, in the museum. Numerous exhibitions by Szeemann were on display in Vienna as well, including Bachelor Machines, The Tendency Toward the Total Work of Art, and Monte Verità—all of them at the former 20er Haus.

Peter Weibel, The Museum as a Performance Venue, 1988 “The contemporary museum is still guided by the paradigm of the private collection owned by a nobleman or a wealthy bourgeois. The need private citizens felt

Exhibition view of Monte Verità, 1979

34  Perspectives, Cosima Rainer

35

to show off, their craving for recognition, has merely shifted to the national and governmental level […] In this form, the museum is of course incapable of realizing its historic ambition to be a site of enlightenment and the proclamation of human rights […] Since the early twentieth century, there have been many artistic forms and movements that rebel against narrowing art down to museum-compatible art. From Dadaist actions to socially interventive and participative strategies to video installations, this ‘anti-art’ has developed a great variety of new forms and functions. The museum resists this formal diversity of modern art at the price of sinking down to the level of a conservatory of traditional arts; as a model of the public communication of art, it becomes a museum object itself, obsolete […] To live up to the original ideas and intentions that motivated its creation, then, a museum must not primarily be a collection […] If contemporary culture consists of practices ranging from performances to digital techniques, the museum, too, must develop a practice that enables it to engage with these new artistic forms and techniques […] This mission calls for a museum designed, first and foremost, as a performance venue […]” ¹⁶

Exhibition view of The Tendency Toward the Total Work of Art, 1983

Although the anti-museum forms of art Peter Weibel lists, forms that work with performance in time rather than quiet stasis (video art, media art and film as performative, installational, and socially interventive work conceptions), have risen to much greater prominence within the art world than they held in 1988, they are still largely absent from the majority of museums. Instead of their integration into the museum system, the rapidly growing number of biennials, festivals, and large-scale exhibitions, such as the documenta or the Manifesta, all over the world has led to the emergence of a sort of parallel system specifically designed for the presentation of such formats. The general public thus increasingly approaches art through two separate systems of access: the large majority visit the conventional museums, which are degenerating into places of recreation, “destinations for family excursions and colonial tourism” (Weibel); those with a more pronounced interest in art, by contrast, attend the temporary festivals and biennials, venues where current and new developments are staged and negotiated.

1 In formal terms, the following collection of passages was inspired by Walter Grasskamp, Sonderbare Museumsbesuche. Von Goethe bis Gernhardt (Munich: C.H. Beck), 2006, as well as Kristina Kratz-Kessemeier, Andrea Meyer, Bénédicte Savoy (eds.), Museumsgeschichte. Kommentierte Quellentexte 1750–1950 (Berlin: Reimer), 2010. For further reading, I expressly recommend the latter work in particular, which is a rich source of original texts and commentary. I am grateful to Vitus H. Weh for his invaluable advice. 2 Christian von Mechel, Verzeichniß der Gemälde der Kaiserlich Königlichen Bilder Gallerie in Wien nach der von ihm auf Allerhöchsten Befehl im Jahre 1781 gemachten neuen Einrichtung (Vienna), 1783, p. XI–XXII. 3 Cf. Debora J. Meijers, Kunst als Natur. Die Habsburger Gemäldegalerie in Wien um 1780 (Schriften des Kunsthistorischen Museums 2; Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna), 1995, p. 120. 4 Paul Signac, “Au Minuit,” Le Cri du peuple, May 29, 1888. 5 Cf. Alexis Joachimides, Die Museumsreformbewegung in Deutschland und die Entstehung des modernen Museums 1880– 1940 (Verlag der Kunst, Dresden), 2001, p. 138. 6 Alfred Roller, “Die Moderne Galerie,” Ver Sacrum. Mittheilungen der Vereinigung Bildender Künstler Österreichs, no. 20 (October 15, 1901), p. 341–49.

Andrea Fraser, Museum Highlights: A Gallery Talk, 1989, 29 min.

7 Cf. Jeroen Bastiaan van Heerde, “Die versöhnende Kraft der Kunst. Die Gründung der Österreichischen Galerie im Belvedere als Exponent dynamischer habsburgischer Kunstpolitik,” in Hadwig Kräutler, Gerbert Frodl, eds., Das Museum. Spiegel und Motor kulturpolitischer Visionen. 1903–2003. 100 Jahre Österreichische Galerie Belvedere (Facultas, Vienna), 2004, p. 149–58. 8 Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, “Le Futurisme,” Le Figaro 55, no. 51 (February 20, 1909), p. 1; this translation in Nigel Spivey, Michael Squire, Panorama of the Classical World (Thames & Hudson, London), 2004, p. 328.

36  Perspectives, Cosima Rainer

9 Paul Valéry, “Le problème des Musées,” Le Gaulois 56, no. 16618 (April 4, 1923), p. 1; translated as “The Problem of Museums,” in The Collected Works of Paul Valéry, Bd. 12: Degas. Manet. Morisot, trans. D. Paul (Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.), 1971, p. 202–5. 10 Hans Tietze, “Moderne Kunst und Kunstmuseum,” in Tietze, ed., Lebendige Kunstwissenschaft. Zur Krise der Kunst und der Kunstgeschichte (Vienna), 1925, p. 55–66, quoted in Almut KrapfWeiler, ed., Hans Tietze. Lebendige Kunstwissenschaft. Texte 1910– 1954 (Schriften der Akademie der bildenden Künste Wien 4; Akademie der bildenden Künste, Vienna), 2007, p. 149–157. 11 Cf. Verena Perlhefter, “Eine ‘einleuchtende Einheitlichkeit’? Hans Tietze und die Museumsreform von 1919,” Belvedere. Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst 7, no. 1, 2001, p. 60–73. 12 André Malraux, The Psychology of Art, vol. 1: Museum without Walls (Pantheon Books, New York), 1950, p. 16. 13 Renzo Piano, Richard Rogers, “Centre Pompidou,” AD 45, no. 5 (1975): 275–311, quoted in Alexander Fils, Das Centre Pompidou in Paris. Idee, Baugeschichte, Funktion (Moos, Munich), 1980, p. 60. 14 Cf. Caroline RoodenburgSchadd, “Das Museum von Heute. Das Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam von Willem Sandberg,” in: Barbara Steiner, Charles Esche, eds., Mögliche Museen (Jahresring 54, Jahrbuch für moderne Kunst; Walther König, Cologne), 2007, p. 55. 15 Harald Szeemann, “Museum der Obsessionen,” in: Kunst wofür?— Publikum, Museen, Handel, Politik. 2. Österreichgespräch (Wiener Schriften 46; Kulturamt der Stadt Wien, Vienna), 1980, p. 27–38. 16 Quoted in Christian Reder, Wiener Museumsgespräche. Über den Umgang mit Kunst und Museen (Falter, Vienna), 1988, p. 127–148.

The Sculpture Garden— A Matter of Context Harald Krejci

38

The creation of the Museum of the Twentieth Century in 1962 represents an important contribution not only to the historiography of art from classic modernism to international postwar modernism, but also to the debate over twentieth-century sculpture in the context of local positions. When the museum opened in the exhibition pavilion, whose design was fully in line with the ideas of the era’s international modernist architecture, Werner Hofmann had integrated an outdoor area for the presentation of the collection’s sculpture holdings. In consideration of the building’s new purpose as a museum the boundary between interior and exterior spaces would also be permeable. This architectonic concept called for a garden designed to a single unit with the building, and so it made sense that the museum would use this space for the presentation of works as well. Hofmann’s aim was to embed the museum’s engagement with the evolution of sculpture in Europe and Austria within its art-historical context. Placing sculptures in the museum’s outdoor area made it clear that this was also the beginning of a new era; for around the same time—after 1962—European and American sculpture began to enter a new phase. Object art, performative action art, and the expansive works called environments clearly represented the attempt to overcome the idea of the autonomous sculptural object. Heterogeneous combinations of materials and/ or forms that, rather than being self-contained, were open toward their temporal and architectural contexts were characteristic of the work concepts of the New Realists, the Situationists, and in Pop and Conceptual Art; the aim was to create works that would interact with real living conditions, the beholder, and the related social circumstances of art and its production. It made perfect sense, then, to use the garden to present the evolution of sculpture in the sense of an epochal and genre-specific construction that began with modernism and extended to the contemporary artistic production of, say, Fritz Wotruba or Henry Moore. In temporary exhibitions, the museum’s program featured important international positions from the 1920s to the late 1960s, with presentations of the oeuvres of Wilhelm Lehmbruck, Robert Müller, Fritz Wotruba, and Roland Goeschl, which integrated the “sculpture garden satellite” as a homogeneous component of the museum outside the building’s transparent walls.

39

Conception of the Garden and Initial Installation In the catalogue documenting the sculpture collection and garden, Hofmann explains the reasons that led him to accord a paramount position to sculpture: “They spring, first, from my observation that too little regard is paid to sculpture; second, from the insight that eminent sculptors are at work in Vienna; and finally, from the favorable spatial circumstances, which make it possible to install a large number of sculptures out of doors. The sculpture terraces that surround the museum on three sides form an ideal spatial zone that, while on the one hand still being in contact with the building, is on the other hand unmistakably distinct from the romantic parkland.” ¹ Among the arrangement as it was installed at the time, Wotruba’s multipart work Figure Relief (1958) stood out as a sort of “art in architecture” project. The work was conceived for the Brussels World’s Fair; representing figures that seemed to be stepping out of a wall, it referred to its architectural context as well. The sculpture already suggests contentious issues that seemed to emerge at the time around the concepts of autonomous sculpture and context. Was Wotruba’s work an autonomous sculpture? Or was it, as a commissioned piece of art, a site-specific work that evolved out of its given local context at the World’s Fair? In any case, the work recommended itself for the initial installation in the museum context because it buttressed the historic significance of the pavilion in its new function as a museum. In late 1950s Austria, the status of sculpture was on the rise. In fact, we may well say that the creation of the sculpture garden was intended to keep pace with international tendencies to include outdoor installations—see, for instance, the Kröller-Müller Museum, Otterlo, the Netherlands, and the Museum of Modern Art, New York, to mention only two prominent examples—while also reflecting the dynamic situation within Austria created by the St. Margarethen symposium (since 1959), an event that drew international attention. One reason in favor of the emphasis on sculpture in the outdoor area of Vienna’s Museum of the Twentieth Century (whose cogency in Hofmann’s mind should not be underestimated) was surely the person of Fritz Wotruba, a sculptor and professor at the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna who enjoyed an excellent international reputation. Wotruba’s works were among those on display in the Kröller-Müller Museum’s sculpture garden, among other venues, and at the 2nd documenta held in Kassel in 1959. At the 1958 Venice Biennale, Austria

presented Wotruba in its national pavilion. Hofmann also held many of Wotruba’s students in high esteem, including Joannis Avramidis, Roland Goeschl, Rudolf Hoflehner, and Heinz Leinfellner.

Planning the Sculpture Garden—Schwanzer’s Changes to the Design In keeping with the modernist view of architecture, Werner Hofmann had conceived the outdoor area as an integral component of the museum—as an architectonic exterior space subject to the museum’s curatorial premises. Originally the architect, Karl Schwanzer, had patently different intentions. His initial concept draft still called for the sculpture garden to be integrated into the Schweizergarten park. The plan shows how tree islands and a path leading through the garden to the main entrance (which Schwanzer still envisioned in the rear of the building) would tie the architecture into the garden area of the Schweizergarten. This first design was simpler too in regard to the elevations. A flight of stairs would lead down from the pavilion to the level garden area surrounding the building. Not until the second draft did the plans include an architectonic connection between the outdoor area and pavilion. Plateaus resembling terraces now lined the pavilion on three sides; paved rather than green spaces, they were bounded by balustrade-like low walls, with similar elevated low walls surrounding the trees, whose number Schwanzer reduced in comparison to the first draft. The exterior terraces inserted a more clearly articulated architectural distance between the pavilion and the Schweizergarten. Hofmann’s curatorial vision was to create a homogeneous exhibition space that would represent not a romantic idealization of the dichotomy between art and nature but rather a contextualization of the evolution of autonomous sculpture in an art-historical perspective. Furthermore the installation of all sculptures on pedestals and the walls bounding the area as well as the water basin distinctly defined an exterior museum space.

Models With regard to the museum presentation of sculptures in exterior spaces, the abovementioned models—the Museum of Modern Art, New York, and the Dutch Kröller-Müller Museum—represent two different underlying concepts. Both presentations from the collections

40  Perspectives, Harald Krejci

form interesting points of comparison for the study of the museum in Vienna because they stand in close temporal proximity to it as well. The MoMA had rung in a new era in the museum installation of sculptures in exterior spaces when it commissioned architect Philip Johnson to plan the 1953 redesign of its garden. For the grounds, which had until then be used for temporary exhibitions and full-scale architecture models, Johnson planned a paved courtyard with stylized references to Japanese gardens and modern architecture of the 1920s—in particular, to designs by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe—that would provide variously defined platforms for the installation of sculptures with or without pedestals. Works developed as autonomous sculptures would thus subsequently be integrated into an architectonic concept. The art-historical framework in which the works constitute a self-enclosed portrait of modernism would supply the context. The Kröller-Müller Museum, by contrast, had initially featured an area linked to the building as an outdoor museum space; in 1961, an organically designed garden area was added. Finally, in 1964, Gerrit Rietveld’s sculpture pavilion for the 1955 Arnheim sculpture exposition was reconstructed on the museum’s grounds and likewise integrated into the garden. In other words an attempt was made to intertwine different discourses of sculpture by embedding them in a variety of architectonic contexts in a way that would enrich the art. Rietveld’s pavilion evinces close conceptual parallels with the solution that was found in Vienna. He created a basic architectural order within which the installation of the sculptures would take place, permeating the boundary between interior and exterior spaces. The 1961 expansion project in Otterlo also aimed to provide landscaped spaces for conceptual art that the artists—Christo, for example, or Richard Serra—would be able to appropriate for their works. As we have mentioned, one of the artists whose works had been included in the Kröller-Müller Museum’s collections since the 1950s was Fritz Wotruba. We have reason to assume, then, that given the Viennese sculptor’s activities, interested parties in his hometown were familiar with the concept of the Museum in Otterlo as well. We may also surmise that the location for the 20er Haus was chosen due to the site’s potential in terms of landscape architecture, since its being embedded in the ample space of the Schweizergarten made it ideal for the sort of ideas Otterlo represented in exemplary implementation. Yet Schwanzer’s ultimate realization of the Schweizergarten and the exterior museum space tied to the pavilion by architectural features do

Fritz Wotruba, Great Relief, in seven parts, 1957/58, Commissioned for the Austrian pavilion at the 1958 Brussels World’s Fair, installed in front of Karl Schwanzer’s Austrian pavilion, Brussels, 1958

Fritz Wotruba, Great Relief, in seven parts, 1957/58, Commissioned for the Austrian pavilion at the 1958 Brussels World’s Fair, installed in the sculpture garden at the Museum of the Twentieth Century in the Schweizergarten, photograph taken from the lefthand side with the construction site in the background

Karl Schwanzer, layout plan for the sculpture garden of the Museum of the Twentieth Century, scale of 1:100, October 14, 1959

The Abby Aldrich Sculpture Garden at the Museum of Modern Art, New York, modification and design by Philip Johnson, 1953

J. T. P. Bijhouwer, sculpture park at the KröllerMüller Museum, scale of 1:1000, April 16, 1960

41

2/4 The sculpture garden at the Museum of the Twentieth Century, 1962, 1/4

View of the enclosed garden at the Modern Gallery in the Belvedere, after 1929

not form an architectonic union to the same degree that was achieved at the Kröller-Müller Museum. Fritz Wotruba’s abovementioned work Figure Relief embodies a configuration and abstraction of an Austrian history of ideas by means of an interpretation of the Viennese School of music: Mahler, Schönberg, Webern, and Berg. Here Wotruba realizes sculpture as a rhythmical sequence of figural representations behind which a fragmentary piece of wall art extends. Hofmann speaks of an “idea for a monument” that seems to underlie the work. In his rhetoric we can discern Hofmann’s attempt to contextualize the selection of sculpture in a more general Austrian intellectual history of modernism, an attempt reflected in the works and also in the architecture. The lasting success of Hofmann’s ideas bespeaks their consistency and clarity. The garden remained largely as he conceived it until the 1990s. Other curators made different choices, and areas such as the plaza in front of the museum were subsequently integrated into the conception, but all changes respected the underlying idea of the garden as an integral element of the architecture. Although a more expansive notion of sculpture prevails in art today, the fundamental conception of the garden has remained unchanged. So we must not measure the sculpture garden solely by the works that were installed in it back then, which would imply a purely historical perspective. On the contrary, we must examine the fundamental idea in a historical aspect in order to be able to envision an updated conception of

Plan indicating the arrangement of sculptures in the enclosed garden at the Modern Gallery in the Belvedere, 1929

4/4

Exhibition view of Roland Goeschl, 1969

3/4

42  Perspectives, Harald Krejci

43

Roland Goeschl’s Downpour on the façade of the Museum of the Twentieth Century, 1969

the exterior space for contemporary art. For in today’s perspective, the installation set up at the time appears interesting as a historic document of modern art and its problematic engagement with modernist architecture, which was content with the “pure” formal articulations of a last bastion of the homogeneous and unified conception of art. A lesser known fact is that the Modern Gallery in the Belvedere worked with outdoor art installations as early as the 1920s: a sculpture garden of international modern work that was presented within the enclosed garden of the Lower Belvedere during this period was the first of its kind in an Austrian museum. Documents detail the use of the garden as a site for the installation of works by artists including Aristide Maillol and Anton Hanak through the 1950s. Autonomous sculptures were transplanted and integrated into the existing baroque garden architecture. They were treated, in other words, as though they were works of decoration—Auguste Renoir’s Venus, for instance, was recontextualized as a fountain figure, while other works were installed on pedestals on the green. Autonomous sculpture also needed, so to say, to stand its ground against the spaces and ideas amid which it was set. On the other hand, this implied an intervention into the self-contained overarching architectural-artistic design of the baroque garden. Modern sculpture was made to compete with the garden’s baroque program. In the neutral and sheltered space of the museum, the curatorial, but also importantly the architectural context represent the two most important parameters influencing how a work appears.

Is the Museum Sculpture Garden Still Relevant Today? In today’s perspective, the particular potential of the 21er Haus is to provide a stage for the activities of the sort of contemporary art that has devised ways to make the free play of contextualization with a site, its history, and its theory an integral component of its effect. For a variety of influences have led to a transformation of the concept of sculpture, and repeatedly pose challenges to its presentation in museums as well. One important impulse in post-1945 art was its integration into public construction projects, which gave rise to a full-throttle debate over the relationship between the work of art and the work of architecture, and how their interaction must be understood. Artists also began to engage site-specific conditions on the

44  Perspectives, Harald Krejci

conceptual level and transform the parameters circumscribing their work in productive ways. We should note that the discussion of “art in architecture” also contributed insight and energy to the engagement over what conceptual blueprint today’s art needed to work with in order to find artistically productive ways to channel its confrontation with architectural space. Roland Goeschl’s 1966 Schüttung (Downpour) from the roof of the museum, whence the sculpture spilled freely toward the street, represents an exemplary strategy to integrate the museum as a platform for the artist’s sculpture.

by artists such as Wilhelm Lehmbruck, Robert Müller, or Roland Goeschl expanded the visitor’s horizon. To harness the potential implicit in the interior and exterior spaces, and to take up Hofmann’s concept for progressive contextualization of artistic articulations within the exterior space in all of its dimensions of significance: these will be the tasks of exhibitions of contemporary positions organized by the building’s new occupant.

Sculpture Exhibitions After World War II, sculpture exhibitions enjoyed great popularity. Shows in London’s Battersea Park and in Arnheim as well as the later creation of Münster’s sculpture park are only some examples. Though not pure sculpture exhibitions, the first three documentas in 1955, 1959, and 1964, brought important contributions to the debate over sculpture. The 3rd documenta, a “museum for a hundred days,” promised to set an example for all future presentations of art. Whitewashed walls surrounded the sculptures in order to isolate them from the environment and shelter them against disruptive influences, showcasing them to their fullest effect. The curators deliberately sought to mask the social context of urban space. The newly erected temporary architecture with its walls and pergolas was meant to lend particular emphasis to the autonomy of sculpture and, importantly, to exemplify how museums should present modern art in the future. The shift of the concept of sculpture in the direction of an artistically defined coordinate system in which references on the planes of content, history, society, and politics are arrayed, references that can be articulated in monolithic works, but emphatically also in expansive conglomerates, suggests that we return once more to Werner Hofmann’s fundamental idea. By installing the works in an open arrangement in the garden, the Viennese Museum of the Twentieth Century aimed to allow their formal and historical relationships rise to distinction and become apparent to the beholder. Moreover, in its transparency the building itself was taken into account in this regard as well; Hofmann strove to render the outdoor space especially relevant by contextualizing the works with temporary presentations in the indoor exhibition space. Shows of works

Exhibition view of documenta III, with a sculpture by Norbert Kricke in the center, 1964

45

1 Werner Hofmann, Die Plastiken, exh. cat. Museum des 20. Jahrhunderts, Wien (Vienna), 1966, p. 6.

The Museum as … / of … / for … How Contemporary Art has Changed the Museums Bettina Steinbrügge

Since the final decade of the past century, traditional institutional models have been set in motion—from the early 1990s¹ debate over the Kunstvereine to the redefinition of the Kunsthallen,² whence the discussion soon spilled over into the museums as well. It became increasingly clear that the museums needed to change, and change they have: formerly rather elitist sites of preservation and history have become open venues that appeal to a variety of audiences and have warmed to contemporary art with its shifting conditions of production. Developments in the art of the 1960s and 1970s presaged these changes: artistic concepts at the time aimed to address new audiences or to defend art by critiquing the strategies institutions employed to accumulate power. Art evolved that was on site-specific display outside the museum (Richard Serra); contextualized the museum within the museum (Daniel Buren); became ever more performative and activist (Art Workers’ Coalition); and ultimately foregrounded the idea (Art & Language). The 1990s then saw the rise of those artistic ideas that now guide the restructuring of the contemporary art museums. In addition to relational aesthetics and participative art, artists devoted themselves to the politics of design, examined the potential of the archive, and lent historical and political significance to the aesthetics of space and situation. The result was a growing interest in contemporary art on the part of the public at large and a radical transformation in the museums. People suddenly looked at alternative sites of art—be they Kunstvereine, artists’ spaces, temporary venues such as factories, empty storefronts, or rooms in shared apartments—and perceived them as vital cultural resources that were able to explode the hermetic quality of conventional museums.³

Flash in the Metropolitan The change in the public’s attitude toward the museums and contemporary art as well as the museums themselves is something we can now study in art films as well; the genre not infrequently takes a critical view of the museum as an institution. In Flash in the Metropolitan (2006), a film by Rosalind Nashashibi and Lucy Skaer, the two artists venture into New York’s Metropolitan Museum at night in order to film the exhibits, be they religious masks, medieval sculptures, or cult and ritual objects from different parts of the world. The camera scans the glass cases with a probing gaze, suddenly stops, pulls back only to zoom forward in the next

46

47

moment, almost touching the reflective surfaces on which the alternation between strobe lighting and pitch darkness of the surroundings engenders afterimages. In addition to the exhibits themselves, this technique seems to reveal the subjectivity of perception and its production of ephemeral images. For fractions of a second, the exhibits emerge from the dark, flashing up in an irregular rhythm and with varying brightness. The visual relationships between the objects are suspended; they seem to strive to break free of the exhibition context and recover their original nature. Flash in the Metropolitan defies the museum’s defined parameters of time and space, eluding all logic and all legible narrative structure, whether imposed by the institution or the by artists’ signature style. The two filmmakers take a critical look at established conventions of representation that still determine the picture we have of what it means to visit a museum. The film wrenches various objects from the presentations amid which they slumber, isolating them and forcing the viewers to reconstruct their movement through the space of the museum on their own terms. Deprived of their content, the endless images of the museum’s exhibits coalesce into a sort of overall picture that now represents nothing but itself. That self-reference and the multiplication of reality are part of art is not a new idea; the museum, after all, is seen as a site where objects become self-referential. In this film, however, the exhibits acquire an, “entirely unmuseum-like momentum. Gone is the air of history and duration that museums produce; the exhibits appear ephemeral and yet timeless,” ⁴ confronting us with an immediacy that enables us to look at them with new eyes. And that takes us right into the debate over the “new” museum for contemporary art. The art of the present, in the guise of film, encounters here a collection of cultural history in order to illustrate recent varieties of artistic method and contemporary museum practices. The project’s most interesting aspect is the deconstruction of the collection, the way it brusquely separates the exhibits from one another, whence the individual works now seem to await assignment to a new place, a new context. Spaces of Production, a project by Nikolaus Hirsch, Philipp Misselwitz, Markus Miessen, and Matthias Görlich,⁵ raises the question: what is it that defines the site of contemporary art today? The study is based on the following hypothesis: “The growing autonomy of art has led to the construction of ever more hermetic spaces. But the secure boundaries of these self-referential systems are being called into question today: from outside, by social and

Rosalind Nashashibi/Lucy Skaer, Flash in the Metropolitan, 2006

48  Perspectives, Bettina Steinbrügge

economic forces that alter the fundamental conditions that shape how art is exhibited; from inside, by aesthetic strategies that tie it in ever more closely with external social realities.”⁶ The conventional museum, as a place where historic exhibits are preserved, has been transformed into a field of experimentation where conventional concepts come under scrutiny and are replaced with something that raises the question of the collection anew in light of the contemporary situation. Today’s museum stands by its basic mission of “collecting,” “preserving,” and “exhibiting”; but it at once also wants to be a place where habits of perception are disrupted in order to enable a fresh gaze at history as well as the present. Museological discourses no longer solely address the question of how artifacts are to be adequately presented in space; they instead organize the display of a comprehensive arrangement in which aesthetic, economic, performative, architectural, and even political aspects communicate. Susanne Gaensheimer puts the mission of contemporary museums succinctly: “To exhibit today’s art no longer means merely to present existing works. In many instances, artists develop context-specific, process-oriented, and discursive projects for a given site that relate to the architectural, historical, and structural parameters of the particular institution. They usually need to be produced afresh and communicated in accordance with their open character. The museum of the twenty-first century thus becomes a producer and mediator, and it needs to find structural ways and means to live up to this responsibility. Yet the museum ought to facilitate not only the production and communication, but also importantly the preservation of the works of art and their documentation for future generations.” ⁷ Understanding the museum as a site of production has probably had the strongest impact on its transformation. The linear conception of history suddenly came under question, making room for a multiplicity of perspectives and points of departure. In an essay on “A Museum of the Future,” Heike Munder writes: “It is the free choice of interpretations and the free engagement with art history that made the house interesting from the outset.” ⁸ Fixed concepts were to be dissolved in order to engender a new “expansiveness of thought.” ⁹ In this form of museum, the artists assume the prerogative of definition; turning away from classical art history, they—examples include Minerva Cuevas, Mark Dion, and Walid Raad—work with postcolonial and sociological methods, among others, in order to redefine the museum as embedded in the structure of

49

society at large and independently of artists’ biographies, objects, or aesthetic movements. Another characteristic is that these same artists work with the institution itself and its collections. Discontinuities have become the status quo; dynamism emerges in the form of permanent reformulations; doctrines are thrown into disarray. The recourse to history and the recontextualization of what it holds have become everyday business. Perhaps we have finally arrived in a place Alexander Dorner sought to create as early as the 1920s with his Laboratorium: ¹⁰ a field of experimentation that takes today’s pluralities into account and builds ties with the various domains of life. This museum sees rapprochements with history and the present as things it actively pursues. Collection policies too, take a more active form, as today’s museums are increasingly open to positions that are not yet firmly established, and hence open for a present that is still liable to all sorts of scrutiny. Acquisitions are more strongly determined by subjective factors and subject to more vigorous public debate than they were forty years ago. Museums thus make themselves vulnerable, touching upon areas that may be shocking or unfamiliar to the public; but it allows them to exhibit surprising qualities that let them intervene deeply in what is going on at the time. They are seen today as parts of a larger cultural landscape; the social aspect is the connecting element that renders museums a vital organ of the twenty-first century.¹¹ Similar discussions can be found in the sociology of art since the 1990s. In 1996, Hans-Joachim Klein identified and discussed the challenges museums face today.¹² I would like to single out two of his points. On the one hand, Klein speaks of a competitive challenge: museums vie with a growing popular event culture—this alone compels them to build stronger ties to changing social forms. But he also mentions a political challenge, recognizing in museums the, “mediating stage of civil society on which democracy is enacted.” ¹³ Taken together, these two points imply that it is society that poses a challenge to the museums.¹⁴ Key concepts such as integrity and sustainability come to mind, but also the social responsibility that every museum bears. The cultural sociologist Volker Kirchberg describes the museum of the future as follows: “An innovative and, to put it more strongly, a rebellious type of museum takes […] an accommodative stance vis-à-vis its environment, which is to say, it autonomously interprets its position within society, even critically lends it new meaning, and reshapes outside influences in keeping with its own objectives whenever possible. Neil Harris¹⁵ has assessed

this current critical self-reflection as the ultimate progress for museums; as the fourth stage of the evolution of the museum in the twentieth century, he has labeled it ‘existential scrutiny.’” ¹⁶ Douglas Worts writes on the same point: “It will require humility and courage, wisdom and ingenuity, but museums can add tremendous value to society.” ¹⁷

The Host and the Cloud A white rabbit gets Alice to enter Wonderland, where mysterious beings go about their business. Another white rabbit beckons from Pierre Huyghe’s film The Host and the Cloud (2011). In the film, visitors amble like performers through an empty museum. It seems to have been deserted only a moment ago, and the spirit of the museum still hovers over what can be seen there. A group of actors is exposed to influences they can help shape and transform. Their roles and patterns of behavior shift as they are confronted with a series of situations, spatial arrangements, and fragmentary stories. Ideas emerge and thoughts flash up, offering glimpses of insight into what the museum may have been and what a museum of the twenty-first century might be. Pierre Huyghe’s film spreads out an imaginary museum-world before us, in which one situation follows upon another and intellectual worlds emerge that render the museum once again a space of possibilities that permits more than other merely social domains. The Host and the Cloud was a real experiment that took place in a museum that had closed its doors forever: the Musée des arts et traditions populaires, Paris. On three holidays—Halloween, Saint Valentine’s Day, and May Day—Huyghe worked in the expansive building with the museum’s former staff and guests. The situations and the heterogeneous narratives the actors and the museum’s employees encountered in the museum shaped their roles and forms of behavior. By staging situations, Huyghe explores the ability of the museum to twist recollections and to reshape them in the process. As he blurs the traditional distinction between fiction and reality, rendering the experience of fiction palpable and tangible in the everyday, his playful work at once also addresses complex social issues such as the yearning for utopia, the temptations of the mass-media spectacle, and the effects modernity has had on contemporary values and belief-systems: from a shadow theater on the wall, a hypnotizer, and a model that turns the museum into a catwalk to a man who

50  Perspectives, Bettina Steinbrügge

tells the children fairytales about a labyrinth. At many moments, the play with identities is at issue: Who am I? Where do I stage myself? Where is public life itself a theatrical production? Some actors wear luminous face masks that conceal their individuality and thus point to the museum as such. Today the museum can also be understood as a stage on which the beholder appears. In Woody Allen’s movie Match Point, Scarlett Johansson walks through a reconstruction of London’s Tate Modern, which stands here as representative of the museum as a bourgeois institution: Chris and Nola act out the class differences that separate them. The museum is the place where Chris wants to be accepted, the place where Nola feels welcome because she is an artist herself. They each have their very particular ideas about this place, a conflict they ultimately fail to resolve in their relationship. Two different users of the museum encounter each other: she uses the museum to nourish her personal growth; he hopes to build his social network and strengthen his identity. Woody Allen portrays this difference in conventional hermetic structures; Pierre Huyghe, by contrast, playfully dissolves it by making all situations transition into one another. He creates a dynamic whole without undoing the diversifications that emerge in artistic practice as well as the behaviors of visitors. Museums of contemporary art were never more popular, and hence never subject to greater internal differentiation, than today. The postmodern “anything goes” plays out not only in the plurality of their forms, but also in the heterogeneity of their audiences. Interestingly, most visitors share a trust in the power of art to generate ongoing innovation. In a 1993 study conducted in Vienna 68 percent of visitors held this belief, a survey taken in Zurich in 2009–2010 shows that this rate has now risen to 83 percent.¹⁸ We find that today’s visitors likewise no longer perceive the museum merely as a place where objects are on display, but also as a public space in which art can be experienced as an “environment,” a space that allows the visitor, formerly a passive beholder, to become active. This development is evident not only in the works—for instance, when Rirkrit Tiravanija cooks, or when Tino Sehgal instructs his performers to interact directly with the visitors to his exhibitions—but also in the way today’s museum reveals its own entire structure as well. The visitors’ selfperformance is on display in foyers such as the Turbine Hall at the Tate Modern; in shops such as those at the new 21er Haus, where the Art Book Salon, as an artistic project, will perform this function; or in the restaurants,

Pierre Huyghe, The Host and the Cloud, 2009/10

51

which have become sites of artistic interventions, but also popular social meeting spots. Relational aesthetics has a firm hold on the museum visitor, and it is ultimately also what led to the contemporary art boom. In an essay, Niru Ratnam has described this as “curating the catering”; he concludes: “We must be careful not to overemphasise the radical breaks that these shifts represent—audiences are not, in the main, snogging over installation work whilst munching on falafel […] we should welcome each shift as a step forward in moving away from the important but now complete deconstruction of the museum towards re-imagining what the museum might be and how it might work best.” ¹⁹ It is important instead to focus the energies and possibilities of a museum and to communicate them to the general public, convincing as many people as possible of the potentials art and culture hold for a social future. The aim is to think deeply about an institution that uncovers these potentials and refuses to accept simple answers to existing questions, instead seeking to generate new ideas and conceptions. The paramount task today is, “to become popular without having to be populist,” ²⁰ something Charles Esche’s work in Eindhoven demonstrates with great clarity. Art education and scholarship play an ever larger role in this regard. Museums have increasingly become public educational institutions that combine research with innovation, reflecting on social changes and actively chaperoning them in order to generate a palpable sense of an elusive phenomenon: what does it mean to be contemporary? In his essay on, “The Museum—An Instrument of Democratic Cultural Policy?”, Jean Leering writes, “that the museum, in its pursuit of the abovementioned goals—education, schooling, study, and pleasure—[…] accepts the visitor or recipient as a ‘partner,’ rather than as a ‘layperson’ or ‘consumer.’” ²¹ This development, too, was initiated by art, as works by Liam Gillick, Andrea Fraser, or Thomas Hirschhorn illustrate which launched debates over representation, identity, power relations, and interpretation, debates the visitor could not escape once he had entered the museum. In today’s best instances of institutional critique, we can speak of an evolution toward an institution of critique that involves the visitors, that raises questions and informs without trying to instruct. The institution has become more subjective and left the ivory tower of knowledge behind, as there is no permanence in today’s knowledge. This insight is currently giving rise to a dialogic structure in which education becomes an ongoing cognitive process.

52  Perspectives, Bettina Steinbrügge

Accordingly a museum of the future is not a site of historic truths; rather, it puts these truths up for debate, studying, discarding, and reassembling them. An institution of the twenty-first century must frame itself as a field of the possibility of heterogeneous realities that foregrounds what are constitutive processes and allows its visitors to participate in these processes. A collection must be examined with a view to new readings, must respond to contemporary tendencies and persistently interrogate its own truths. This requires curators to be venturesome and chart paths that, rather than emphasizing conformity, open our eyes in the first place to what the space of the museum, as a space of possibility, will be able to offer in the future.

1 See Annette Zimmer, “Kunstvereine mega-out, oder wieder im Kommen?”, Kulturpolitische Mitteilungen 64, no. 1, 1994, p. 27–29; Bernd Milla, Heike Munder, Tatort Kunstverein. Eine kritische Überprüfung eines Vermittlungsmodells (Verlag für moderne Kunst, Nuremberg), 2001. 2 See Vanessa Joan Müller, Nicolaus Schafhausen, Under Construction. Perspektiven institutioneller Praxis (Walther König, Cologne), 2006. 3 See Iwona Blazwick, “Introduction,” in A Manual For the 21st Century Art Institution (Whitechapel Gallery, London), 2009, p. 14. 4 “Künstler als Geisterjäger,” in: Der Tagesspiegel, 8. 3. 2007 (DV). 5 Spaces of Production is a study Nicolas Schafhausen and Vanessa Joan Müller commissioned in 2005 in order to devise a room strategy for the European Kunsthalle, Cologne. 6 Nikolaus Hirsch, Markus Miessen, Philipp Misselwitz, Matthias Görlich, “Spaces of Production,” in: Müller, Schafhausen (eds.), Under Construction, p. 50–52. See also Nikolaus Hirsch, Markus Miessen, Philipp Misselwitz, Matthias Görlich, Institution Building. Artists, Curators, Architects in the Struggle for Institutional Space (Sternberg, Berlin, New York), 2009, p. 7–9. 7 Susanne Gaensheimer, “Curatorial Statement,” website of the Goethe Institute: http://www.goethe.de/kue/ bku/kur/kur/ag/gae/sta/deindex.htm (accessed September 5, 2011). 8 Heike Munder, “migros museum für gegenwartskunst—Ein Museum der Zukunft,” in: Munder (ed.) Sammlung/Collection 1978–2008 (JRP Ringier, Zurich), 2008, p. 17. 9 Ibid., p. 18. 10 See Alexander Dorner, Überwindung der Kunst [1949] (Fackelträger, Hannover), 1959. 11 See Blazwick, “Introduction,” p. 22. 12 Hans-Joachim Klein, “Besucherforschung als Antwort auf neue Herausforderungen,” in: Museen und ihre Besucher. Herausforderungen in der Zukunft (Haus der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Berlin), 1996, p. 72–84.

53

13 Ibid. (abstract). 14 See also Volker Kirchberg, “Gesellschaftliche Funktionen von Museen zwischen Assimilation und Akkommodation,” Museumskunde 76, no. 2, 2011 (forthcoming). 15 Neil Harris, Cultural Excursions: Marketing Appetites and Cultural Tastes in Modern America (University of Chicago Press, Chicago), 1990. 16 Kirchberg, “Gesellschaftliche Funktionen.” 17 Douglas Worts, “Rising to the Challenge: Fostering a ‘Culture of Sustainability,’” muse, September/ October 2008, p. 7. 18 See Ulf Wuggenig, “Das Kunstpublikum hat den Glauben an seine eigene Begabung verloren,” June 9, 2010; www.kulturprozent.ch/ Magazin-Themen/Themen/ Untersuchung-Museumsbesucher/ 37959/Default.aspx?DetailTemplate Id=66&DetailZone=center (accessed September 5, 2011). 19 Niru Ratnam, “Curating the Catering,” in: A Manual For the 21st Century Art Institution, p. 127–28. 20 Charles Esche, “Eine Erziehungseinrichtung, eine computerisierte Datenbank der Kulturgeschichte, ein Träger für Aktionen,” in: Barbara Steiner, Charles Esche (eds.), Mögliche Museen (= Jahresring 54. Jahrbuch für moderne Kunst; Walther König, Cologne), 2007, p. 29. 21 Jean Leering, “Das Museum— Ein Instrument der demokratischen Kulturpolitik?”, in: Steiner, Esche (eds.) Mögliche Museen, p. 82.

Ephemera has Many Faces. The Genesis of an Extraordinary Exhibition Venue Agnes Husslein-Arco, Alfred Weidinger

1958. Exhibition Pavilion EXPO 58 In 1958 thirteen years after the end of WWII and three years after signing its state treaty, Austria was given the chance to present itself as a neutral and at the same time international country by taking part at the Exposition universelle et internationale de Bruxelles. Similar to its 1873 concept, when the centripetal, so-called Rotunde building was the core of the Vienna EXPO, in Brussels Austria seized the approach of a nation mediating between East and West. Part of the success was also due to the bridge allusion of the exhibition venue, which was named best building of the EXPO 58 and awarded the Grand Prix 1958.¹ Soon after, it became regarded as a milestone of contemporary architecture. Leitmeritz-born Karl Raimund Lorenz and Viennese architect Karl Schwanzer won the architecture competition of 1955 led by a jury of the likes of Josef Hoffmann (died May 7, 1956) and Clemens Holzmeister.² Given the knowledge of the sketches for the spectacular Belgian contribution (Atomium) in 1957 the jury as well as the Austrian government representative for the 1958 World’s Fair, industrialist

Manfred Mautner Markhof, decided in favor of Schwanzer’s design. The latter had left his mark in the early 1950s with his exhibition designs in Chicago (1950), Vienna and Paris (1951–1954).³ With the glass-steel pavilion he created for Synthetics Plant Heinrich Schmidberger on the occasion of the Vienna Fair in 1953, Schwanzer ignited a new era of Austrian architecture. Based on the clear structures of this temporary, glass-steel exhibition hall, Schwanzer developed an industrial facility for the EXPO 58 which, with its massive girders, alluded to Austria’s leading role in the steel industry. The crude manufacturing of VOEST standard steel beams with their rough welded seams, nuts and bolts, as well as their crude finish with an antirust coating and grey paint common in industrial architecture show a certain proximity of Schwanzer’s ideas to buildings of the so-called first modern era. Trained as an artist and a blacksmith, French architect Jean Pouvé, whose central aim was to convert industrial production engineering to architecture, was one of Schwanzer’s role models. Between 1935 and 1939 Pouvé designed and realized the Maison du Peuple de Clichy which was regarded as the pinnacle of functionality. Thanks to its simple technical finishing of customary

Karl Raimund Lorenz, Design of the Austria pavilion, EXPO 58, 1957

Karl Schwanzer, Steel scaffold during the erection of the Austria pavilion in Brussels, 1957

54

55

Karl Schwanzer, Pavilion for Synthetics Plant Schmidberger, 1953

building materials and glass façade structured with superimposed steel it may well be compared to Austria’s World’s Fair pavilion. Moreover, Prouvé had picked up the idea of modular construction and the possibilities of spatial modification at the Maison Tropicale in 1951, a string of thought that became relevant to Schwanzer at the end of 1957. The architectural theories of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe formed the second constant in Schwanzer’s early works. This rings especially true for the regular, clear structures of the glass and slim steel constructions and for the dominating volume and the great importance of light. In contrast to Mies van der Rohe, and based on a very specific form of aestheticism, i.e. perfectionism, Schwanzer supported the already mentioned crude manufacturing and robust finishing of all metal parts. True to the motto “Technology in the service of Man—Progress of Man by Progress in Technology” the pavilions of the EXPO 58—installed like futuristic spatial sculptures—reflected the unlimited possibilities of this new construction method. The bold hanging constructions symbolized movement and illustrated overcoming gravity. Airiness and transparency dominated the interior. Instead of mighty halls with pillars or domes as apotheoses of industrial progress or imperial dreams of power, the impression of the search for a new freedom of architecture dominated the exhibition area. The common formal principle was the waiving of the static unity of supporting walls and roofs, and the concentration of power on less static points. Schwanzer’s 42,7 × 42,7 meter large and 14 meter high pavilion, which rests on only four pillars, was designed in this respect and thanks to its clarity was one of the most radical buildings at the World’s Fair.⁴ It only revealed its true potential to visitors when they entered the exhibition space from the two lavish perrons. With crafty modelling of light and space the architect managed to connect the in- and exterior areas as well as the terrestrial with the aerial level in an open structure. Known photographs of the room unit of the exhibition designed by Schwanzer demonstrate the means by which he created several perceivable atmospheric interior rooms.⁵ The opaque, waved plastic plates with which he covered the entire external façade created a vastly homogeneous, shadeless light. Relating to the sensitivity of the exhibited pieces, he left parts of the glassed surface to the courtyard uncovered, while he enshadowed other areas with the afore mentioned plates. All inserted walls floated between the ceiling and the wooden floor, the inclining light swirled about

Karl Schwanzer, Exhibition space, Austria pavilion EXPO 1958 Jean Prouvé, Maison du Peuple de Clichy, 1935–39

the shaped tubes of the construction and thus made the volume of the intendedly planned interior rooms perceivable. Against this background, the entire exhibition furniture was characterized by a floating theme and even the chairs in the music hall and cinema were not the common four-legged design, but as reduced as possible, resting on one pillar each.⁶ In view of this stringent implementation of an idea, it is not surprising that sculptor Rudolf Hoflehner also used a translucent, forged iron construction for his (destroyed) piece “Schatzkammer,” which weighed several tons and met this premise perfectly.

1958. Vienna Museum of Modern Art or New Gallery of Linz?

Rudolf Hoflehner, “Schatzkammer,” Austria pavilion EXPO 1958

Karl Schwanzer, Austria pavilion EXPO 1958

Karl Schwanzer, Perrons, Austria pavilion EXPO 1958

56  Perspectives, Agnes Husslein-Arco, Alfred Weidinger

57

Months before the World’s Fair (opening April 17, 1958) the reigning Austrian minister of education, Heinrich Drimmel, stated that the Austrian pavilion should later be used as the Vienna Museum of Modern Art. The extensive and high exhibition hall, an open air exhibition of sculptures, and the cinema which could be used as a lecture hall, were, “a merely ideal basis for a Museum of Modern Art,“ in which other forms like music or experimental art and cultural movies could also be on display.⁷ The Albertinaplatz (former Philipphof) and the square ahead of Votivkirche were named most frequently as a possible location. The idea of situating the museum next to the Upper Belvedere Palace seemed inadequate due to its long distance from the city centre and was quickly abandoned. Discussions of the feasibility of the project caused a stir in Linz in April 1958, as the notable building should serve VÖEST, as the main contributor to the construction, as a competitive exhibition centre.⁸ Alternatively, Walter Kasten suggested using the building as the home for his New Gallery of Linz – the Wolfgang Gurlitt-Museum. The building authority, however, turned down the acquisition of the premises since it could not be used as a museum.⁹ The demolition or recycling of structural components used in these essentially ephemeral World’s Fair pavilions were both considered legitimate options, and the building’s components were dismantled during January and February of 1959. Only Austria, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia decided to dismount and re-erect their World’s Fair pavilions on other locations with different functions.¹⁰ Thus the Yugoslav pavilion, created by Croatian architect Vjenceslav Richter is the building

for the St. Paulus School (Sint-Pauluscollege) in Wevelgem, Belgium.¹¹ Karl Schwanzer’s pavilion however, is the only venue that still serves its exhibition function.

1959–1962. Museum of the 20th Century in the Schweizergarten Moving the World’s Fair pavilion to an estate next to Schweizergarten on Arsenalstraße and changing its function caused a number of considerable intrusions. Although the entire construction from the Brussels edifice was kept and reinstalled in Vienna, Schwanzer decided to expand the exhibition space, which was originally situated only on the upper level, by integrating the open area on ground level. Thus he closed large parts of the open air space below the four-pylon-placed pavilion with large glass walls and anchored the seemingly floating level firmly in urban ground. Schwanzer aligned his concept of the newly-created museum space with Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and also possibly with the sketches of steel and glass construction bungalows that by American architect Pierre Koenig drew for the Case Study House Program.¹² He was equally inspired by the so-called Farnsworth House (erected in Illinois in 1951) and the 1957 planned Bacardi office building in Santiago de Cuba by its monumentality and close relation to nature. Schwanzer’s building characteristically differed from Mies van der Rohe’s eight exterior vertical beams, as its four pylons were now located inside. After both projects failed to be realized, the Bacardi project in 1958 due to the Cuban revolution, and the Schäfer Museum in Schweinfurt two years later for budget reasons,¹³ Mies van der Rohe was finally able to realize this building style with the New National Gallery WestBerlin in 1968. Hence, Schwanzer’s Museum of the 20th Century in Vienna is the earliest realized premise of its kind. The idea for a one-room-museum was an act of necessity, but also a possible examination of the theories of American architect and exhibition planner Philip Johnson, who studied with Walter Gropius and Marcel Breuer. His Glass House, erected in 1949 in New Canaan, Connecticut, in which Johnson separated only the plumbing unit in a masoned core, was basically the prototype of all one-room-buildings. Schwanzer’s lack of compromise to not fill his pavilion, now located in Vienna, with the common museum facilities on ground level is congenial. To host these features, he planned and realized an annex

like that in Brussels. For the EXPO 58 he carefully manoeuvred the adjoined building (cinema, kindergarten, etc.) underneath the overhanging space of the pavilion. In Vienna though, the different climate longed for a positive fit, which severely affected the floating theme. The unique impression the former pavilion (which was still based on four pillars) made on the visitors was now only obvious when coming from the annex on Arsenalstraße or from the east, i.e. from the Schweizergarten. The functional tract, which had turned from an individual building (Brussels) to a subordinate annex of the new museum (Vienna), including the entry hall and a cinema, was placed in a hardly developed lower level for the erection of bathrooms, a common room and a cafeteria. The Museum of the 20th Century in the Schweizergarten opened on September 20, 1962.

1978. “20er-Haus” – Extension Soon after the completion of the exhibition building, affectionately dubbed “20er-Haus” by the Viennese, severe shortcomings in operating the museum became apparent. Although in 1958/59 the idea of founding a museum was in the fore during the pre-planning phase, the project participants lacked the experience and vision to meet the required parameters. The safetyrelated and climatic standards were determined internationally during the museum’s first decades of operation, operation then became a standard for the acquisition of items on loan. Founding director Werner Hoffmann and the planner were in good company, however, as Frank Lloyd Wright’s Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in New York (another one-room-museum established in 1959) also lacked vital functional areas after its opening. Contrary to the Guggenheim-Museum, which apart from its translucent dome was lit artificially, Schwanzer’s glass building enjoyed enough daylight naturally. The detached position, which made the 20er-Haus unique on the list of museums, allowed extraordinary exhibitions of interior and conceptual art, but hindered the exhibition of light-sensitive media like photographs or works on paper. This crucial limitation severely influenced the exhibition program and urged architects Gerhard Krampf¹⁴ and Martin Schwanzer¹⁵ to propose an annex design in 1978. The concept, which was presented in the course of Karl Schwanzer’s exhibition “Ordnen, Planen, Gestalten, Formen, Bauen” ¹⁶ at the 20er-Haus, kept the museum

58  Perspectives, Agnes Husslein-Arco, Alfred Weidinger

in its original form. Using the given terrain and the terrace towards the Schweizergarten¹⁷ an approximately 2.000 sqm additional air-conditioned room¹⁸ would be added.¹⁹ The new level would be accessed via two perrons in the eastern wing of the museum. According to the concept, natural light was limited to a glass portal facing the Schweizergarten and several light domes and two areaways on the northern and southern wall of the existing museum. The interesting project was presented to the officials of the ministry, but not realized for budget reasons.

Industrial Ruin in 2001 and Clubbing Location in 2002 After 293 exhibitions and nearly 40 years of operation, the 20er-Haus was replaced by the Museum of Modern Art Stiftung Ludwig in 2001, an exhibition space in the Museumsquartier, and the 20er Haus was closed to the public due to safety concerns. Following numerous discussions regarding future use of the premises, the Austrian Gallery took over the abandoned building in 2002 and generated revenue from renting it out for clubbing.

Martin Schwanzer, Gerhard Krampf, Model for the expansion of the Museum of the 20th Century, 1978

59

2003. Architecture Competition Attempting to, “find a concept for the refurbishment and extension of the existing basic fabric suitable for the intended use, ensuring the prerequisites of monument conservation, the fire protection requirements, building equipment and energy-efficient optimisation,“ a two-phased open architectural plan competition began on March 10, 2003.²⁰ A total of 85 architects participated in phase one. A decisive factor for the subsequent project development was the utilization concept of the Austrian Gallery, which required, “providing half of the existing exhibition space as an event venue“ ²¹ This dramatic reduction of exhibition space, together with the current fire protection requirements, led to architectonic designs which were in opposition to the idea of a one-room-museum. Both the demanded implementation of fire protection requirements and the condition to bisect the exhibition space caused a separation of upper and ground level or led to radical concessions of the existing exhibition space. Those architects who aimed for a return to the 1958 pavilion design planned annexes on the open area for the required functional extension. On July 7, 2003, following several bargaining rounds, the jury finally named the following candidates as qualified for the second stage: Architektur Mikado – Ulrich Burtscher (Vienna), Werner Neuwirth (Vienna), Arge Gerhard Balser (Frankfurt am Main) with Andreas Thomczyk (Stuttgart, Vienna), Arge Dietrich/Untertrifaller (Bregenz)²² with Michael Schluder and Vasko + Partner (Vienna), Arge Oliver Kaufmann and Maximilian Wanas (Vienna), EMBT Enric Miralles and Benedetta Tagliabue (Barcelona),²³ Adolf Krischanitz (Vienna), Peter Hanousek and Michael Kleyhons (Vienna) and Stephan Braunfels (Berlin). Beside the already published drafts by Adolf Krischanitz and contributions by Peter Hanousek,²⁴ Werner Neuwirth,²⁵ Arge Gerhard Balser²⁶ and EMBT.²⁷ I would like to go into detail regarding four of these final round projects:

1. Oliver Kaufmann – Maximilian Wanas architects, Vienna.²⁸ This project proposal preserved the vast spatial impact of the basement exhibition rooms of the former pavilion. The necessary expansion area was foremostly located in a developed lower level that was sealed off with a glass wall on its eastern side facing the Schweizergarten. The two levels were connected by an extension of the existing perron. 2. Architektur Mikado, Vienna (Ulrich Burtscher, Doris Burtscher, Thomas Emmer, Peter Kaserer, Markus Tomaselli).²⁹ A demanding design which freed the EXPO-pavilion of all annexes and applied a floating theme to move it to the centre of attention again. In contrast to Brussels, the formerly open areaway on the upper floor was covered with mulch. Mikado wanted thereby to generate additional exhibition space of approximately 250 sqm. All annexes (ferroconcrete) were orientated on a lined pattern parallel to Arsenalstraße, which lays the premises open to the Schweizergartenstraße. 3. Arge Dietrich/Untertrifaller (Bregenz)³⁰ with Michael Schluder and Vasko + Partner (Vienna). According to the explanatory report, the appearance of the 20erHaus, including the open area, would stay the same. The desired functional rooms would be placed in a subterranean extension between Karl Schwanzer’s annex and Arsenalstraße. The rooms would be lit from the areaway. The porter’s office, the art handling room for art works as well as the staff entrance would be located in another lower building south-west of the museum; the depots would be below the parking lot. The ground level of the 20er-Haus would be made adaptable for multi-use with mobile walls and the courtyard of the upper floor glassed for noise control. 4. Stephan Braunfels, Berlin.³¹ Braunfels’s design is dominated by a high functional annex on Arsenalstraße with which he refers to the urbanistic situation of the museum between Schweizergarten and the former Südbahnhof train station. “The typology of the construction and the characteristics of the complex of buildings by Karl Schwanzer, characterised by a linear sequence of open areas and buildings, is picked up,

60  Perspectives, Agnes Husslein-Arco, Alfred Weidinger

Oliver Kaufmann – Maximilian Wanas, Museum of the 20th Century, Schweizergarten, Visualization for the architecture competition 2003

Architektur Mikado, Museum of the 20th Century, Schweizergarten, Visualization and plan for the architecture competition 2003

Arge Dietrich/Untertrifaller, Museum of the 20th Century, Schweizergarten, Visualization for the architecture competition 2003

61

Stephan Braunfels Architekten

Ansicht Nordwest M 1 / 200 2.Obergeschoss M 1 / 200

Luftraum Schacht

Ausstellungsraum 1330 m²

Schacht

Schacht

Brücke 38 m²

begebares Depot 192 m²

Foyer 82 m²

Aufzug

Büro wiss. Mitarbeiter 32 m²

Luftraum

Galerie Museumsshop 47 m²

Bibliothek und Lesesaal 96 m²

Galerie 52 m²

Aufzug

WC 12 m²

Büro nichtwiss. Mitarbeiter 21 m²

Büro nichtwiss. Mitarbeiter 21 m²

Büro Kurator 21 m²

Büro Kurator 21 m²

Flur 51 m²

Schacht

Schacht

Teeküche 14 m²

Büro 32 m²

Büro wiss. Mitarbeiter 32 m²

Büro wiss. Mitarbeiter 32 m²

Büro nichtwiss. Mitarbeiter 21 m²

Flur 51 m²

1. Obergeschoss M 1 / 200

Erneuerung und Erweiterung

Museum des 20. Jahrhunderts 3/6

reinterpreted and continued with the expansion.“³² In this context the new wing—similar in length to the 1960 annex and in height to the pavilion—is an additive individual extension, which still allows differentiation between old and new as witnesses of their time. According to the architectonic concept the public areas—main entrance, entrance hall and museum shop—clearly distinguish themselves by lavish openings cut into the otherwise closed streetbound façade welcoming the visitors. The first floor is assigned to the art library and administration, while the second hosts a multifunctional walkable depot and several offices. In Braunfels’s design a glass bridge connects the second floor of the new functional building with the World’s Fair pavilion.

im Schweizergarten

Stephan Braunfels, Museum of the 20th Century, Schweizergarten, Visualisation and plan for the architecture competition 2003

Wien 3

The design of Schwanzer disciple Adolf Krischanitz was ranked top in the appraisal meeting of the jury on November 12, 2003. The competition caused several controversies.³³ On March 24, 2003 a mailing by IG-Architektur, which Friedrich Achleitner and Roland Rainer belonged also to, pointed out procedural shortcomings and others in regard to content.³⁴ Based on the severe criticism against the initiators and the selection procedure the AzW Architekturzentrum Vienna held a round table on May 26, 2003, at which the responsibility of the state as awarding authority was discussed. All participants identified the Burghauptmannschaft as the major problem. Their officers had the stolen responsibility for assigning, planning, and realizing the building as well as the invitation of tenders from the Bundeshochbau. The significance of the building as a historic monument had not been adequately estimated back then and the initiators dispensed with a representative of the State Office for Historical Monuments as well as an urban and landscape architect when composing the jury.

2003. Save the “20er Haus,” the “21er” and Terminal 21

Poster group “Terminal 21,” 2003

62  Perspectives, Agnes Husslein-Arco, Alfred Weidinger

Another initiative was that of Hannah and Martin Schwanzer, who organised a sit-in at the 20er-Haus from November 28–30, 2003.³⁵ The media-effective protest denounced the architecture competition and the announcement of the results, as well as the missing program of the new museum. The closing down of the 20er Haus was not the main reason for

63

their renitence, but rather their belief that its new owner was not in favor of contemporary art. The occupants feared that allowing the 20er-Haus to be run by the Austrian Gallery Belvedere would mean commercialization at the expense of contemporary art. In this context the statement of former director Gerbert Frodl, who said he was only interested in using the upper level, which was originally designed as an exhibition space, as a storage room, and would rent out the ground level “to whoever,” ³⁶ caused a particular stir among the artists. During the “Save the 20er-Haus” campaign more than 80 artists, among them Valie Export, Walter Pichler, Franz West, Heimo Zobernig and Erwin Wurm, were invited to spontaneously express their ideas on contemporary art in the dilapidated exhibition hall. Amer Abbas (kunstbuero, Vienna) curated the show supported by the artist Johnathan Quinn and Ana Berlin (aka Bettina Andorfer).³⁷ Media artist Jimmy (aka Philipp) Zurek explained the artistic importance of the renitence in an interview with Austrian state TV ORF, saying that, “one day it will have to be the 21er-Haus.” ³⁸

2007. The Path to the “21er Haus” After taking office in January 2007, new Belvedere director Agnes Husslein-Arco attempted to realize the several year-old winning project of the architecture competition. Alfred Weidinger was named Belvedere’s project manager. The former Museum of the 20th Century, which had meanwhile turned into an industrial ruin, was freed of all asbestos insulation by the Burghauptmannschaft. Once the spatial and functional program was updated by the Belvedere, the plans were revised by Adolf Krischanitz (project manager: Luciano Parodi), the project was coordinated with the State Office for Historical Monuments (project manager: Wolfgang Salcher) and the cost estimate adapted. The Austrian Federal Ministry of Economy, Family and Youth, the Austrian Federal Ministry for Education, Arts and Culture and the Belvedere agreed to realize the project. The first building phase, which was carried out by the Burghauptmannschaft Austria, consisted of catering to the shell construction, as well as the recultivation and boosting the efficiency of the steel glass construction. The Austrian Federal Ministry for Education, Arts and Culture and the Belvedere were respectively in charge of furnishing the technical support system and erection of the office tower.

Adolf Krischanitz followed the pragmatic approach trying to keep as much as possible of the original fabric. The expansion area was thus located in the developed lower level. In close cooperation with the State Office for Historical Monuments all building parts were carefully restored. (Functions: cinema, entry hall, shop, bathrooms, common room, kitchen, cavernous court, tower, Wotruba exhibition & archive, Federal Artothek).³⁹ Architectonically the largest spatial expansion is the cavernous court next to Arsenalstraße, which is perfect for exhibiting contemporary art. It is thanks to the wish for maximum conservation of the historic fabric, which initiator and architect shared right from the start, that the rudimentarily conserved characteristics of the EXPO 58 pavilion and the visible elements of the adaptations to a spatially extended and closed exhibition hall between 1959 and 1962 were preserved. The two crucial perrons did not meet the fire protection requirements, which was a momentous decision and laid down in the architecture competition, but had to be accepted by the Belvedere in order not to endanger the entire project. The pair of cement stairs replacing the translucent perrons met the conditions, but anchor the upper level even more to the ground, and thus affect the reciprocal game of opacity and translucence on ground level. Moreover, the 1.5 meter large staircases are completely in opposition to Schwanzer’s idea of a dynamic opening of the building with four double gull wing doors with a total intermediate space of 7 meters at the porch and the entrance to the exhibition hall. In this context one may also point out the negative correlation of the existing norms and certifications with the views of monument conservation. One of the worst examples of this is the demolishing of the previously level area of the sculpture garden in favor of a crude, uneven, cobbled surface for appropriate drainage. A presentation of three-dimensional pieces of art like those of Werner Hofmann is thus impossible. Therefore, one may hope that the building will be extended in the future towards the Schweizergarten.⁴⁰ Karl Schwanzer already noted similar potential in his first sketches of 1959. On September 20, 2011, the new exhibition hall was opened.

2011. The “21er Haus” With the opening of the former Museum of the 20th Century at the Schweizergarten or the 20er Haus as the 21er-Haus on November 15, the former World’s Fair pavilion of 1958 presents itself in its most recent and ephemeral state. Its potential for contemporary art is still enormous and will particularly animate and guide object, interior and conceptual artists to extraordinary accomplishments. Due to the various annexes, its impact as a pavilion is only perceivable from Schweizergarten. Vienna’s currently under construction central train station opposite Arsenalstraße makes this even desirable however, and the narrow, seemingly marginal patch of grass in front of its functional wing positions the 21er Haus in the Schweizergarten. Exhibition and museum pavilions have recently been enjoying great popularity. Thus Jean Nouvel is planning one a piece at the Louvre Abu Dhabi and at the National Museum of Qatar following precisely this principle. Instead of one detached pavilion, Nouvel stages a large number of often translucent roofed buildings to meet the requirements of museum functions and individual collections. Zaha Hadid with her Chanel Mobile Art pavilion pursues the idea of a modular and thus relocatable exhibition hall, while SPAN & Zeytinoglu have erected an ephemeral Austria pavilion for the 2011 World’s Fair in Shanghai with Economic Chamber the same client architecture philosophical approach as Schwanzer used in 1958.

“21er Haus,” 2011

SPAN & Zeytinoglu Architects, Austria pavilion, EXPO 2010

64  Perspectives, Agnes Husslein-Arco, Alfred Weidinger

65

1 The Medal is in a private collection. 2 Others invited included Erich Boltenstern, Oswald Haerdtl and Otto Niedermoser. 3 We would like to thank Martin Schwanzer and Mirko Pogoreutz for giving us insight into the Karl Schwanzer archive. 4 For steel construction see H. Schön and F. Masanz, “Constructions métalliques autrichiennes à l´Exposition Internationale de Bruxelles 1958.” in: Acier Stahl Steel. Revue Internationale des Applications de l´Acier. Vol. 23, N. 3, Brussels: March 1958, p. 97–103. 5 Since 2004 the building has been a cultural heritage site. 6 In this context the entirely open showcases must also be mentioned. 7 Jorg Lampe, “Weltausstellungspavillon vor der Votivkirche? Die Bundeshauptstadt sucht einen geeigneten Platz für sein ´Museum der modernen Kunst´.” in: Die Presse, N. 2830, Vienna, January 30, 1958, p. 5. 8 “Brüsseler Ausstellungspavillon für Linz.” in: Oberösterreichische Nachrichten, 94. Vol., N. 100, Linz, April 30, 1958, p. 5. 9 Walter Kasten: “Das aktuelle Museum.” in: Linzer Aspekte 1970. Aus Anlass des 50-jährigen Bestandes einer städtischen Kulturstelle. Linz: Zeitschrift Österreich in Wort u. Bild im H. BauerVerl., 1970, p. 38–40, note p. 40. 10 Parts of the pavilion were used at different locations in Prague. The former restaurant still exists today. 11 The Yugoslav pavilion was demolished in 1958 and reerected in Wevelgem (Belgium) as a school building. 12 Case Study House Nr. 21, 1958. 13 The municipality refused the present of manufacturer Dr. Georg Schäfer to his hometown because of the maintenance costs. 14 The former chief clerk of Karl Schwanzer. 15 The son of Karl Schwanzer, who also studied in architecture.

17 The extension would have affected the parking area. 18 According to the plans, the additional exhibition space would have been 2.090 sqm. 19 The then existing storage space of 145 sqm would have been expanded by 340 sqm. 20 Quoting call for architecture competition. 21 Quoting call for architecture competition. 22 Helmut Dietrich, Much Untertrifaller, Bregenz. 23 EMBT: Enric Miralles, Benedetta Tagliabue, Barcelona. 24 Publication failed due to the architect fee. 25 Couldn’t get hold of Werner Neuwirth. 26 Gerhard Balser, Hubertus von Allwörden, Roger Bundschuh, Rolf Schloen, Frankfurt/Main. Project data was not available. 27 EMBT did not respond to our request. 28 We thank Oliver Kaufmann and Maximilian Wanas (Kaufmann. wanas architects) for providing competition documents.

35 This event was officially approved and the premises were rented by the Austrian Gallery Belvedere. 36 ORF Treffpunkt Kultur, December 1, 2003. 37 ORF Treffpunkt Kultur, December 1, 2003. 38 Thus on November 28, 2003 the “21er” group and others initiated a project at the 20er-Haus called, “Emotionalisiation of the Temporary. The inner Renitence of Fantasy,” founding their protest on the fear of a total absorption by, “the Representative and the administrating Block.“ They referred to a statement by French philosopher and writer Roland Barthes, who characterised the Representative saying, “it possesses everything except for desire.” 39 See detailled project description of the architect in: Agnes Husslein-Arco, Das 20er Haus. Austrian Gallery Belvedere, Vienna, 2009. 40 See Harald Krejci’s report on the sculpture garden, also in this publication p. 38–45.

29 We thank Doris Burtscher, Vienna, for providing competition documents and permission to reproduce a visualization. 30 We thank Dietrich Untertrifaller for providing personal documents. 31 We thank Mr. Johannes Hanf of Stephan Braunfels Architekten BDA, Berlin for making these animations and plans available to us. 32 Stephan Braunfels: Erneuerung und Erweiterung Museum des 20. Jahrhunderts im Schweizergarten. Architektonisches Konzept. Dokument für die zweite Phase des Architekturwettbewerbs. 33 Martin Schwanzer was also part of the initiative that saved the 20er-Haus. 34 IG-Architektur: Stellungnahme zum Wettbewerb. Erneuerung and Erweiterung Museum des 20. Jahrhunderts im Schweizergarten. Vienna, March 24, 2003

16 The exhibition took place between April 19 and June 18, 1978.

66  Perspectives, Agnes Husslein-Arco, Alfred Weidinger

The New Old Movie Theater at the 21er Haus Bettina Steinbrügge

68

Film and video have become the dominant media of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, having long breached the barriers that separated them from the visual arts. The lively cinema-versus-art debate is not only a contemporary phenomenon provoked by digitalization and the increase of moving pictures, it is also a retro-style product.¹ Works that straddle the boundary between art and the cinema have traditionally held places in experimental film as well as the space of the museum, but the interfaces between the two have expanded in recent years, and both the cinema and the museum respond to new filmic formats that present a challenge to one as much as the other. Filmmakers and artists of a younger generation, such as Constanze Ruhm, Sharon Lockhart, Josef Dabernig, Dorit Margreiter, Markus Schinwald, and Klub Zwei, find themselves at home somewhere between the film club, the microcinema, the gallery, and the museum. Ian White, curator of film and video at the Tate Gallery, London, and Mike Sperlinger worked with the International Short Film Festival in Oberhausen to initiate a panel debate on the question of the cinema that led to the publication of the Kinomuseum anthology, in 2008.² Setting out from the polemical question: “Is the museum failing?” they raised issues regarding the media of video and film in the museum context, noting that the cinema as well as the museum are in crisis when it comes to films and videos by artists, and need to rethink the ways they respond to such art. At the same time, more and more artists turn to film and video; films and videos by artists often quite deliberately situate themselves in the gap between a cinema that standardizes the films it shows and a museum that treats works of art as though they were fossils. The programmatic debate examined the challenges artists’ films and videos pose for these institutions, the consequences they require the cinema as well as the museum to adopt, and how both institutions deal with filmic works. If the evolution of video art had altogether absorbed the cinematic space within the exhibition room by means of the black box, a trend that has emerged since the 1990s has some artists going back to analog film production. Art projects conceived as stand-alone films are leaving the exhibition space and the museum room, returning to the movie theater and rehabilitating the cinema as a form in its own right. In a contemporary as well as a historic perspective, the Blickle Kino at the 21er Haus thus regains its fundamental purpose: to guide the discourse of film and art and their interplay into the future.

69

The Moving Picture at the 21er Haus 1 The Blickle Kino at the 21er Haus makes it a core element of its mission to foster public discourse between film and cinema, art and the sciences, and becomes involved in the debates over the history and future of the moving picture in the context of the visual and media culture of the twenty-first century. When the former 20er Haus opened in 1962, it was, by fortunate happenstance, one of the first museums to house a movie screening room. In this regard, it was far ahead of its time; but it also often came up against its limitations when the attempts were made to integrate the cinema into the museum’s programming. In the new 21er Haus, the movie theater can live up to its full potential. “Art and cinema” reappears within different terms and requires contemporary conclusions, especially regarding institutional problems.³ 2 One significant consequence of the ongoing rapprochement between art and the cinema is that playback formats are becoming an important aspect of the artist’s work. The moving picture in art has evolved to a point where reproduction in a single technological format no longer meets today’s standards. The cinema is increasingly adopting digital technology; the moving picture in art, by contrast, evinces growing differentiation, and so a work shot on film stock can no longer be presented in digital reproduction, which is to say, from a DVD. That is an entirely new development, and we foresee that it will continue. Many artists insist that their works be shown only under conditions that are adequate to them. That has important consequences also for the reception of the work and for art education, since the role the medium plays in communicating the moving picture to audiences can hardly be overestimated. The Blickle Kino will conform to all standards of contemporary cinematic technology and thus be adaptable to a wide variety of purposes. The theater’s particular strength will be the ability to play back all formats, ensuring that it will meet the presentation requirements of contemporary art in every regard.

3 With a view to the return of the structural cinema in contemporary artistic and curatorial practice, the theater’s programming will be based on embedding contemporary works in their contexts within the histories of film as well as art, uncovering interconnections and historical filiations. The 21er Haus aims to dedicate resources to the collection of contemporary Austrian film and video art; it will also devote greater energy to working with the estates of Austrian artists. That does not exclude international references however, to the extent that they are meaningful and profitable. 4 Scholarship, too, will have an important role to play. “The relationship between the moving picture and static pictorial forms has not only informed an artistic practice for many years in which the works of visual artists and film directors have left the boundaries of what were once their traditional disciplines behind with increasing ease; it has also inspired the debate between art history and film studies. ‘Media studies,’ which is more intellectually agile in this regard, is increasingly conceiving itself as an interface that, instead of reflexively assigning works of art that feature moving pictures to ‘film,’ which we must nowadays almost call a historic phenomenon, operates between the established disciplines with more open theoretical concepts, accommodating the ongoing crossover between art and the cinema and not least importantly also the Janus-faced nature of the works themselves.” ⁴ In this context, we also see collecting as an aspect of scholarship. The emphasis the Belvedere’s Research Center places on catalogues raisonnés and the estates of Austrian artists means that the archive and collection will face a rising influx of filmic works. If we conceive film scholarship in the domain of art as a form of research that should be sustained by art history as well as contemporary visual studies, this configuration will enable us to produce interesting new scholarly contributions. Another important component will be the Ursula Blickle Videoarchiv, a project launched in cooperation between the Ursula Blickle Foundation, the University of Applied Arts Vienna, and the Kunsthalle Wien. In addition to semiannual programs for the cinema drawn up by our own curatorial staff as well as visiting curators, the Ursula Blickle Videoarchiv will provide workstations with screens enabling visitors to conduct extensive research in its database and provide full and direct access to ca. 2,500 videos by ca. 900 national and international artists.

70  Perspectives, Bettina Steinbrügge

5 Pursuing its mission to bring film art to public audiences, the Blickle Kino will facilitate interdisciplinary approaches to central aspects of the multifaceted interrelation between image and sound, collecting exemplary works of art as well and bringing together cultural history perspectives that address these issues. The domain of the moving picture will be studied in its relevance for contemporary art. We will debate technological, perception-related, and media-reflective aspects of the image-sound linkage from its beginnings to the present as well as positions of filmic art in experimental filmmaking that inspire contemporary visual artists. We will assemble a panorama of these developments in which they will shed light on each other, helping us to delineate their profiles more precisely. We will also seek to introduce wider audiences to the specific features of the moving picture.

1 Stefanie Schulte Strathaus, Weder Kunst noch Kino – was passiert, wenn die Haushaltslage entscheidet, May 1st 2002, http://shortfilm.de/de/das-kurzfilmmagazin/gastbeitraege/film-kunst/ kunst-im-kino-titel-einer-kampagnemit-popcorn.html (accessed October 27, 2011). 2 Mike Sperlinger, Ian White (eds.) Kinomuseum. Towards an Artists’ Cinema (Walther König, Cologne), 2008. 3 See Stefanie Schulte Strathaus 4 Christoph Schulz, “Künstlerische Herausforderungen,” SCHNITT 51, July–September 2008.

6 The inauguration of the 21er Haus comes at a most exciting time: the relationship between the moving picture and the museum is being redefined. Hence our great delight that we have found a competent partner with whom we will collaborate on the programming for the movie theater at the 21er Haus and the screenings and events to be held there: the Ursula Blickle Foundation. For many years, the Ursula Blickle Foundation has dedicated its energies to the moving picture in the video format—with a particular emphasis on Austrian video art in its international context. The 21er Haus is pleased to initiate a partnership with Ursula Blickle, who has shown radical courage in devoting attention not so much to established and generally recognized art, but rather to new oeuvres, that await discovery.

Ursula Blickle in front of the Belvedere, 1975

71

Artist Pages Marcus Geiger Axel Huber

Hans Weigand Richard Jackson

Clegg & Guttmann Nora Schultz

Franz West Anselm Reyle

Elke Silvia Krystufek Sadegh Tirafkan

Erwin Wurm Karin Sander

Marko Lulic Mario Garcia Torres

Heimo Zobernig Michael Riedel

Elfie Semotan Charline von Heyl

Oswald Oberhuber Jürgen Klauke

Esther Stocker Daniela Comani

73

Axel Huber

Marcus Geiger

Nora Schultz

Clegg & Guttmann

Sadegh Tirafkan

Elke Silvia Krystufek

Mario Garcia Torres

Marko Lulic

MUSEUM OF REVOLUTION

Charline von Heyl

Elfie Semotan

Daniela Comani

Esther Stocker

Richard Jackson

Hans Weigand

Anselm Reyle

Franz West

Karin Sander

Erwin Wurm



Michael Riedel

Heimo Zobernig

Jürgen Klauke

Oswald Oberhuber

Retrospectives From the Austrian Pavilion to the 21er Haus. An Architectural Icon in Context Markus Kristan p. 98 Four Decades of Inspiration: The Exhibitions at the 20er Haus Matthias Boeckl p. 110 Signs of Modernism. The Corporate Identity of the Museum of the Twentieth Century in the Schweizergarten and its Genesis: From Georg Schmid to Oswald Oberhuber and Christof Nardin Rainald Franz p. 118 The Turns and Returns of Film. A Few Remarks Harald Krejci p. 134

97

From the Austrian Pavilion to the 21er Haus. An Architectural Icon in Context Markus Kristan

Every building is the product of an interplay between different forces. The most important ones among them can be grouped into several subsets, some of which require further differentiation. Of special significance for any structure is the site where it was erected, with the topographical and urban circumstances as they were present at the time of construction. The people involved in creating a building—usually led by the architect and the principal—also exercise particular influence over its ultimate appearance. The materials used, the construction, the specific uses to which a building is put, and the style of its era are crucial parameters in determining its form. In addition to such external influences however, there is a second plane: philosophical and intellectual factors likewise help shape a building’s manifest appearance. Such factors may include the tradition out of which the building grows—or the tradition it seeks to overcome. Once a building is finished, its surroundings change—or rather, are modified—over the years and decades that follow; the people in charge of it, too, change, being replaced or passing the baton to new generations. The uses to which a building is put may likewise shift. In instances where some or all of these apply, it becomes necessary to modify or renovate the building. All these as well as other specific particulars that render a building unique apply to the so-called “20er Haus” in Vienna’s Schweizergarten park.

In June 1956, Hans Löw of the Federal Press Service and Peter Weiser of the Österreichische Wochenschau, which produced newsreels, were commissioned to create an exhibition concept. It soon became apparent that a display of national accomplishments of the sort that was, and still is, customary on such occasions was inconceivable in this particular instance; due to the internationalization of the postwar era, Austria, a small country, did not have any specific and distinctive recent achievements to exhibit. The organizers therefore came up with the idea of using the show to foreground the cosmopolitan quality of Austrian cultural history; their exhibition would illustrate how the Austrian mentality, by bringing people together and embracing life, gave rise to cultural achievements that struck a balance between contraries.² If the designers of the Austrian World’s Fair pavilions during the interwar years had created “display cases,” the goal after World War II was to highlight Austria as a nation in the middle, symbolized by an architectonic “bridge.” The bridge metaphor (four steel pillars set at the corners of a square footprint supporting a cantilevered floor) perfectly suited the self-image of the young republic, undaunted by “the dark stains of the past.” Austria sought to break free of its dishonorable recent history and to demonstrate that it had emerged

The 1958 World’s Fair In 1955, architects were invited to submit designs for the Austrian pavilion at the upcoming World’s Fair. The jury convened to adjudge the competition consisted of notable architects of the prewar era: Josef Hoffmann, Clemens Holzmeister, and Max Fellerer. Among the invited contestants were “local” stalwarts such as Erich Boltenstern, Oswald Haerdtl, and Otto Niedermoser who had plenty of experience in temporary exhibition construction. In a surprising turn of events, the jury ultimately awarded the first prize to the projects of two representatives of the younger generation of architects, Carl Raimund Lorenz and Karl Schwanzer, describing their designs as being “of equal artistic and intellectual value.” In April 1956, the commissioner, Manfred Mautner Markhof, decided, “especially in view of the designs for the Dutch pavilion, with which he was familiar, to chose Dr. Schwanzer’s design, as the more distinctive one, for execution.” ¹

98

99

Karl Schwanzer on the stairs of the Austrian pavilion, Brussels World’s Fair, 1958

unscathed. In the symbolism of the pavilion, it was to appear as a country that rose above its recent history, an inviting place where citizens of other nations would come to relax.³ It is symptomatic of the atmosphere that prevailed in Austria even thirteen years after the war that its representatives would close their minds to contemporary developments in art and architecture and instead build on the achievements of the interwar years. Little wonder, then, that the structure—originally planned to be ephemeral—that would mark the end of postwar architecture in Austria was erected outside the Alpine republic. Even today, the pavilion, with its thoroughly modern appearance, stands as exemplary for the irrevocable departure from the classicism of Austria’s period of postwar reconstruction. The building’s purist conception proclaimed that the country would catch up with the prevailing international standards of the time. And it would seem that the design even surpassed this aspiration: during the Brussels World’s Fair, the pavilion was awarded a grand prix as the exhibition’s best building! Karl Schwanzer said about the need to go beyond traditional forms: “Identification, recognizability, distinction and uniqueness, ‘beauty’ are qualities of an architecture that meets criteria above and beyond mere rationality. Helping oneself from the collection of examples the past has accumulated and imitating the products of past design in the present-day statement is not a solution. To live means to step forward into the future.” ⁴

Karl Schwanzer When Karl Schwanzer was commissioned to design the Austrian pavilion in Brussels, he became the new ambassador and public face of Austrian art and material culture within the country and abroad, a role he took over from his mentor, Oswald Haerdtl, who had served in the same function before the war. It was only logical that he would do so: at the Academy of Applied Arts in Vienna, Schwanzer had worked as an assistant to Haerdtl, who had been Josef Hoffmann’s associate, and Schwanzer’s affinity for the applied arts and interior design is evident in many of his buildings.⁵ He was one of those architects who, rather than picking up in their work exactly where the prewar era had left off, made conspicuous efforts to leave that era behind. “In the local context, he was one of the most important agents

100  Retrospectives, Markus Kristan

driving the reemergence of the Austrian architecture scene, which had been marginalized by emigration, fascism, and war, onto the stage of transatlantic discourse.” ⁶ Shortly before his death, in 1975, Schwanzer described a fundamental core idea of his understanding of architecture: “Architecture must be seen primarily as giving shape to a concave space that surrounds us; a space creative man builds all around his own body as a shaped structure not only for his physical protection but also for emotional reasons.” ⁷ Early on, Schwanzer was sought after as an exhibition designer and architect of exhibition buildings: in 1951, he undertook to design the industrial exhibition to be held in Vienna, followed, in 1952, by the exposition 7 Years of Service to the People. In 1953, Schwanzer designed the pavilion of Heinrich Schmidberger plastics manufacturers at the Vienna trade fair, which was a prominent early example of the fresh start in Austrian architecture after 1945 and may be seen, in terms of architecture history, as a predecessor to the Brussels pavilion. A tall rectangular main body with glass façades for the short fronts and closed lateral walls as well as a large room without interior supports: those were the defining features of this walk-in “glass case.” The same year the World’s Fair was held, Schwanzer built Vienna’s first car elevator on Neuer Markt, another important structure whose modern façade design, set into a historic square in the old town, met with controversy. In 1960, he designed the expansion of the Kapuzinergruft or Imperial Crypt featuring an impressive prismatic-shell ceiling structure and Rudolf Hoflehner’s bronze doors. With the prestressed concrete construction of the Philips administrative headquarters in Vienna (1964), Schwanzer developed a masterwork of engineering. Other important buildings include the Austrian pavilion at the Montreal World’s Fair (1967) and the Austrian Embassy in Brasilia (1974). He first championed the idea of an administrative building on a circular footprint in 1968, and soon made international architecture history with his design for the Tower in Munich with its four suspended cylindrical volumes (1973). Creating the master plan for the Riyadh University campus (Saudi-Arabia) was his last major project.⁸

Castor & Pollux Only by comparing the Austrian pavilion with another pavilion by Karl Schwanzer that is all but forgotten—a building for the Council of Europe and the OEEC at the Cité de Coopération Mondiale⁹ on the World’s Fairgrounds—can we truly understand Karl Schwanzer’s specific architectonic accomplishment. In today’s perspective, Martin Schwanzer describes the two pavilions as “unequal brothers,” analyzing and distinguishing them as follows: “The fraternal twin pavilions were variations on the theme of steel construction. Both pavilions visibly defied gravity to create space, confidently displaying their innovative construction. They were intended to be temporary and built to be easily dismantled. One pavilion accentuated the motif of the ‘bridge,’ the other, that of the ‘roof.’ Yet each motif appeared in both pavillions emphasizing one other. Both the rawness of the architectural execution and the permeability of the boundary between the buildings and the public space enabled visitors to understand them and facilitated identification with their ideas and themes. In the Austrian pavilion, orthogonal rationality prevailed; in the European pavilion by contrast, a wide suspension roof spanned an oval ground plan without interior supports; it was delimited, without being closed off, by vertical glass surfaces. Antagonistic forces shaped a dynamic single-room structure that opened outward toward the plaza. The public space thus continued in the interior; the communal found its own place.” ¹⁰

Karl Schwanzer, Austrian pavilion, Brussels World’s Fair, 1958 (illustration from the competition proposal, 1956)

Karl Schwanzer, Joint pavilion of the Council of Europe and the OEEC, Brussels World’s Fair, 1958 (illustration from the competition proposal, 1956)

101

Karl Schwanzer, Austrian pavilion, Brussels World’s Fair, 1958 (exterior view featuring Karl Schwanzer, 1958)

Karl Schwanzer, Joint pavilion of the Council of Europe and the OEEC, Brussels World’s Fair, 1958 (exterior view, 1958)

Karl Schwanzer, Joint pavilion of the Council of Europe and the OEEC, Brussels World’s Fair, 1958 (competition model, 1956)

Karl Schwanzer, Austrian pavilion, Brussels World’s Fair, 1958 (partial exterior view, 1958)

Karl Schwanzer, Joint pavilion of the Council of Europe and the OEEC, Brussels World’s Fair, 1958 (interior view, 1958)

Karl Schwanzer, Austrian pavilion, Brussels World’s Fair, 1958 (competition model, 1956)

102  Retrospectives, Markus Kristan

103

One-Room-Museum

The Museum of the Twentieth Century at the time of its inauguration

Intermezzo I As early as 1956, the future founding director of the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Werner Hofmann, launched journalistic activities to lay the groundwork for the new museum. He published an essay in the art journal Alte und moderne Kunst that championed the idea of creating such a museum. ¹¹ Even before the exposition in Brussels had closed, the idea emerged of bringing the Austrian pavilion to Vienna and using it as a home for a museum. Here finally, was the opportunity to establish the, “gallery of the art of our time” which Otto Wagner had called for a full sixty years earlier.¹² A shrewd tactician, Schwanzer had proposed the idea of reusing the building from the outset; in the end, he presented a convincing implementation of the then-current idea of mobile architecture. Other national pavilions were dismantled and disposed of after the exposition, or sold to scrap metal dealers or industrial magnates who reused them for private purposes; the Austrian pavilion, by contrast, was described as early as January 1958 as the, “positively ideal basis for a museum of modern art.” ¹³

104  Retrospectives, Markus Kristan

To convert his Austrian pavilion into the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Karl Schwanzer developed a single-room museum: the courtyard received a roof flush with the ceiling of the upper floor; glass walls were added around the ground floor in order to gain another room with optimum lighting conditions. In the rear of the building, the glass façade offered views of the sculpture garden and surrounding park. By doing everything in his power to adapt the pavilion to its new purpose as an exhibition hall, Schwanzer responded to the concern and criticisms expressed by artists, who believed that the existing room would have been too modest in size for a museum. The former atrium now became part of the twofloor exhibition space, a far less spectacular structure than in the original conception. The resulting singleroom museum, however, proved to be perfectly suited for many years to its function as an exhibition hall for modern art. The extraordinary idea of a “one-roommuseum” was also defensible in light of the fact that the building was intended for the presentation of artifacts from a “single” century. Fifteen years before the 20er Haus opened its doors in the Schweizergarten in 1947, André Malraux had published his famous Le musée imaginaire—the English translation bears the title Museum without Walls—in which he sketches a fictional museum of reproductions; the size and material reality of the works of art become secondary because, Malraux argues, only the idea of a work can convey its import. The literal application of Malraux’s idea to architectonic space contains several fallacies; in the debate over new museum spaces and plans, the “museum without walls” nonetheless became an influential theoretical model. As Karl Schwanzer worked on redesigning the World’s Fair pavilion, the concept of the one-roommuseum became the central idea. Confining himself to a single room afforded him the opportunity to create a continuity of space and time that would be utterly different from anything possible in conventional museum buildings, where the chronological or hierarchical sequence of the enfilade is the defining pattern. The idea of the one-room-museum has more in common with the aim of creating a universal space such as palpably guided the designs and buildings of Frank Lloyd Wright (Guggenheim Museum, New York, 1956–1959), Ludwig Mies van der Rohe (Cullinan Hall, Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, 1958; Neue National-

galerie, Berlin, 1962–1968), or Le Corbusier (plans for a Mundaneum, Geneva, 1927; study for an indefinitely growing museum, 1930, 1962) than with the historism of the representative buildings along Vienna’s Ringstraße.¹⁴

The Movie Screening Room The movie screening room where films about Austria were shown during the Brussels World’s Fair merits particular attention. This room, too, was transported to Vienna and installed virtually unchanged in the basement of the 20er Haus. The movie hall was an architect’s task Karl Schwanzer had already engaged extensively before working on the plans for the Austrian pavilion; he may in fact be considered a “specialist” of this type of structure. In the early phase of his career, before he received commissions for larger projects, he created the interiors for several movie halls in Vienna. An essay about the Metropol cinema allows us to understand the ideas that guided his plans: “In designing this small movie house, special care was taken to create an actual screening room for films and to avoid any impression that it is a movie ‘theater.’ Cinematography is a technological art, and any decorative suggestion of theatricality would be misplaced. The attempt was made to find a form that would match the substance of film.” ¹⁵ In his designs for movie halls, the architect forwent any use of textile or bonded wood wool board cladding. In the screening room in the Austrian pavilion, the lateral walls were paneled with curved sheets of plywood. The convex and concave curvature of the elements enabled the architect to integrate light fixtures into the walls. This form of wall covering suggests Scandinavian architecture, which had then just become fashionable. The primary aim in designing the ceiling was to ensure good acoustic conditions. A novel type of folding chair was created for the screening room’s seating whose shape corresponds to that of the armchairs in the exhibition rooms. Another remarkable feature is the upholstery fabric: it recalls the Bauhaus fabrics designed by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and Lilly Reich.

105

The movie theater at the Museum of the Twentieth Century, wall paneling

The movie theater at the Museum of the Twentieth Century, furniture

Furniture In keeping with Schwanzer’s intention to create encompassing works synthesizing several arts, the interiors created for the Brussels pavilion included a wide range of furniture Karl Schwanzer and his assistants, particularly Norbert Schlesinger, designed for this specific purpose. Schwanzer and his assistants developed various types of armchairs and tables in order to lend a unique character and identity to each of the different sections of the exhibition. At the same time, they strove to emphasize the project’s formal cohesion by using identical or similar basic elements from one section of the exhibition to the next. In a distinctive type of armchair, for instance, they varied the upholstery covers or the treatment of the metal frame depending on where in the pavilion a particular version would be used; another variation extended the model to create a bench seat. Chairs installed outdoors had simple lacquered wooden slats instead of upholstery and a coat of lacquer over the chrome-plated metal frame. The distinctive features of this armchair include the different angles at which the coiled metal is bent as well as the four slender metal legs that support it. The armrests in combination with the supports bearing the seat and backrest form an irregular coiled-metal pentagon. Wooden elements serve as armrests. The use of coiled metal in an armchair frame places this furniture in the tradition of the Bauhaus; the best-known examples were designed by Marcel Breuer and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. The designer believed that—like the pavilion as a whole—the individual pieces of furniture should seem to be floating despite their rather massive “upper bodies,” leaving as much of the floor beneath them visible as possible. This goal was probably one reason why, for instance, the ear wingbacks in the book and music exhibitions were mounted to the walls, enabling the designer to leave out the legs altogether, taking the general principle of the designs to an extreme. Built into the “ears” of the wingbacks were loudspeakers to which music could be transmitted from the recordplayer equipment. Another armchair model—no specimens remain in today’s 20er Haus—used in Brussels appeared in the music studio and the director’s room, with different upholstery fabric in each instance. Rather than a single unit combining seat and backrest, these chairs had a narrow curved panel serving as a backrest. The support frame was made not of metal but of slender wooden

106  Retrospectives, Markus Kristan

bars of approximately square profile, a structure that lent this type of armchair an air of transparency and visual lightness. Like the wall paneling in the screening room, this chair as a whole recalls the furniture designs of Scandinavian architects such as Alvar Aalto. This particular model was probably created by Norbert Schlesinger rather than Karl Schwanzer himself, as is also suggested by its absence from the 20er Haus. The elegant music studio designed by Norbert Schlesinger was furnished with single-leg upholstered folding chairs mounted to the floor that resembled those in the movie screening room. With its characteristic squares, the fabric pattern used for the seats in the music studio directly quote designs by Josef Hoffmann and Kolo Moser, clearly indicating the tradition in which Karl Schwanzer’s work was rooted, his efforts to adopt an international style notwithstanding. Another piece that merits particular attention is the futuristic piano, which caused quite a stir at the World’s Fair. Jürgen Felsenstein, a young architect with a great interest in music employed in Norbert Schlesinger’s office, persuaded the piano manufacturers Bösendorfer to produce a novel type of instrument that departed from the familiar in many regards. Conspicuous at first glance is the unusual arrangement of the legs; rather than being supported by the customary two legs near the corners, the wide front rests on a single Y-shaped forked leg. The most striking feature of the instrument’s body is the main lid, which slopes down toward the back.¹⁶ Two versions of the piano were built: the model presented in Brussels has mahogany wood visible on the outside, while the inside partitions are coated in a light blue lacquer; the legs are painted a light gray. A new Bösendorfer logo was even designed specifically for this grand piano.¹⁷ The second version is painted with dark blue lacquer on the outside, while the mahogany remains visible on the inside. The frame is in a medium shade of gray, and the felt coverings are turquoise.¹⁸ An especially striking type of armchair, presumably an unusual design by Schwanzer’s standards, was created for the dining hall: a simple wooden chair painted with clear lacquer whose backrest is inserted into a slot in the circular seat resting on four legs. Such screwless joinery is characteristic of the emphasis on structure in Josef Hoffmann’s and Kolo Moser’s early furniture designs. The backrest consists of a slightly curved and fairly wide board that conically tapers toward the top and concludes in a narrow bent board whose shape recalls a bull’s horns.

In addition to the armchair types, the designers also created several types of table, two of which now remain at the 20er Haus. The table model set up in the dining hall is of virtually unparalleled simplicity, relying on its shape and material for its effect. The tabletop consists of laminated wood, and the four legs, set to project slightly, are conically tapered toward the floor. The second model owes its effect both to the contrast between the materials used (glass, wood, metal) and to its tectonic shape. A frame made of angular chromeplated metal bars supports a glass tabletop; the lower shelf, made of wood, projects far beyond the table’s short ends. The undersides of the projecting wood board are beveled toward the edges, adding a contrastive element to an otherwise thoroughly rectangular structure. These tables were set up in the reading room of the Brussels pavilion. Their formalized shape, with the four legs and the projecting parts, ultimately attested to the same design principle that guided the construction of the pavilion as a whole.

Intermezzo II In the late 1970s, Erhard Busek, then spokesman of cultural issues for the Austrian People’s Party, who rejected the idea of housing the Museum of the Twentieth Century at the Palais Liechtenstein, proposed the construction of a spacious extension to the museum in the Schweizergarten. Since expanding the museum’s grounds into the park was impossible due to the property situation, a proposal was on the table to add another floor to the museum below street level. Ultimately however, a “temporary” solution— and in Austria, that must be understood to mean a more or less permanent arrangement—was adopted: the museum, whose holdings had grown rapidly with the addition of the collection built by the German Peter Ludwig and his wife Irene as well as the acquisition of the collection of Wolfgang Hahn, Cologne, was given permission to expand into the rooms of the baroque Palais Liechtenstein in the Vienna neighborhood of Rossau, which had been adapted to serve as a gallery as far back as the nineteenth century. Before the Austrian pavilion was reassembled in the Schweizergarten, the Palais had in fact already been under consideration as a potential home for a “modern gallery” to be operated by the Kunsthistorisches Museum.¹⁹ In October 1992, the 20er Haus was pledged to the Österreichische Galerie Belvedere as a future

107

branch exhibition space. The Museum moderner Kunst or MUMOK, as it was now called, continued to use the 20er Haus until 2001, when it moved to its new home in the Museumsquartier and vacated the pavilion in the Schweizergarten.

Redesign In 2003, after years of negotiations, the Burghauptmannschaft, which supervises the publicly owned historic buildings in Austria, including the pavilion, invited architects to submit proposals for a redesign of the 20er Haus. Adolf Krischanitz, who had been Schwanzer’s student, won the competition. His plans focused on the building’s integration into the urban ensemble in which the structure is embedded. To improve its presence as the visitor approaches from Arsenalstraße, the plaza on that side has been lowered to form a new atrium. The façade and the bridge leading into the pavilion define an interstitial space that fundamentally changes the way the building interacts with its environment. Exposing the lower floor has achieved a precise revaluation and redefinition of the site and allows for a range of new uses. To contrast with the 20er Haus’s wide body with its prominent horizontal structural features, Krischanitz has added a five-floor tower. The other major changes optimize the existing subdivision of the floor space, remedy weaknesses regarding access to the building, and add spaces for conventions, a restaurant, and infrastructure that complement the museum’s operation, turning a singlefunction building into an open museum structure that meets contemporary standards. Thanks to a versatile exhibition system, the upper floor retains its flexibility, allowing for a broad range of uses. In order to leave the pavilion’s exterior unchanged, a second, interior layer was inserted that includes temperature and light control features. The state the building was in after fifty years required the recreation of many structural components. These measures have made it possible to bring the architectural and cultural resources the 20er Haus represents into the twenty-first century. Renamed “21er Haus,” the building will be used as a branch exhibition space in which the Belvedere will present shows of Austrian post-1945 art in its international context. A so-called “display storage facility” houses the estate of the Austrian sculptor Fritz Wotruba. The federal art lending library, too,

has moved into the building. The complex as a whole contains 73,460 square feet of floor space, of which 24,490 square feet are exhibition areas.

1 Archiv der Republik, trade section, Brussels World’s Fair 1958, report of the WFI, May 18, 1956, 1956/191.656-34. 2 See N. N., Österreich, Weltausstellung Brüssel 1958, exh.cat. (Vienna), 1958, n. p.

Finale

3 Gabriele Kaiser, “Substanzverluste/Neuansätze. Architektur in Wien 1945–1955,” in: Ernst Bruckmüller (ed.), Wiederaufbau in Österreich, 1945–1955. Rekonstruktion oder Neubeginn? (R. Oldenbourg, Munich), 2006, p. 142.

In conclusion, let us consider the words of the creator of the 20er Haus, the architect Karl Schwanzer. In one of his last essays, published in 1975, the European year of monument protection, he championed contemporary architecture with a characteristic argument: “The fear of the pickaxe destroying what does not deserve to exist in order to make room for the new must give way to confidence in the skills of the architects of our time. They have a right to create monuments to the present for the world of tomorrow that will be no less significant than the models of the past.” ²⁰ The fate of the 20er Haus, which has, in fortynine years, become an architectural monument, has been a different one: rather than falling to the wrecking ball, the building—which is quite the opposite of “undeserving”—has been rehabilitated; faithful to the original details, Krischanitz has made cautious modifications. The new tower symbolizes the right of today’s generation of architects to create monuments for tomorrow—a right that, one hopes, will be theirs for another forty-nine years to come!

4 Karl Schwanzer, “Architektur von heute – Baudenkmäler von morgen?” in: Alte und moderne Kunst 20, special issue (Vienna), 1975, p. 71. 5 Schwanzer himself taught at the Vienna University of Technology starting in 1959. Among his students were future renowned architects such as Adolf Krischanitz, Gernot Nalbach, Laurids Ortner, Boris Podrecca, and Günter Zamp Kelp; he also supported the formation of the architecture associations Haus-Rucker Co, Coop Himmelb(l)au, Missing link, Salz der Erde, and Zünd up. 6 Otto Kapfinger, “Tanz der Module,” in: Leonie Manhardt (ed.), Karl Schwanzer—drei Bauten, photographs by Sigrid Neubert (Springer, Vienna), 2005, p. 27. 7 Schwanzer, “Architektur von heute,” p. 71. 8 See Alexander Krauß, “Schwanzer, Karl,” in: Neue Deutsche Biographie 23 (2007), p. 796–7, available online at www.deutsche-biographie. de/sfz118047.html (accessed July 27, 2011).

The 21er Haus, view toward the Belvedere

9 The Cité also included the pavilion housing the representations of the United Nations, the Benelux countries, and the European Coal and Steel Community; see “Europa und die Weltausstellung,” Sindelfinger Zeitung, September 11, 1958. 10 Martin Schwanzer, Castor & Pollux. Europa-Pavillon und Österreich-Pavillon von Karl Schwanzer auf der Weltausstellung 1958 in Brüssel, unpublished manuscript, Vienna, February 2011, p. 2. 11 See Alte und moderne Kunst 1 no. 3, September–October, 1956.

108  Retrospectives, Markus Kristan

109

12 See Studio International 170 (London), 1965, p. 90. 13 “Weltausstellungspavillon vor der Votivkirche?“ In: Die Presse, January 30, 1958 (JL). 14 On the one-room-museum see Agnes Husslein-Arco, “Das 20er Haus,” in: Husslein-Arco (ed.), 20 > 21 (Belvedere, Vienna), 2009, p. 7. 15 “Lichtspieltheater,” Der Bau 1–2 (1950), p. 14. 16 See Rudolf Hopfner, Meisterwerke der Sammlung alter Musikinstrumente (Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna), 2004. 17 This instrument was acquired by the Belvedere and is currently on display on the premises of Bösendorfer piano manufacturers. 18 This piano is on display in the collection of musical instruments at the Kunsthistorisches Museum. 19 See Kunst der letzten 30 Jahre (Gesellschaft der Freunde des Museum Moderner Kunst, Vienna), 1979. 20 Schwanzer, “Architektur von heute,” p. 71.

Four Decades of Inspiration: The Exhibitions at the 20er Haus Matthias Boeckl

110

On September 20, 1962, the Museum of the Twentieth Century opened in the former Austrian pavilion designed for the 1958 Brussels World’s Fair, which had been rebuilt in the Schweizergarten near what is today Vienna’s central railway station and adapted to its new purpose as a museum. The day marks a turning point in the Austrian republic’s official relationship with modern art. When the museum was founded in 1959, the federal government demonstrated its determination to integrate the country into a European cultural identity, leaving the exclusive focus on Austrian culture that had dominated government cultural policy since 1914, if not even earlier, behind. In 1903—the monarchy was still in place—the Modern Gallery had been established at Vienna’s Schloss Belvedere; but as early as 1912, that institution had been compelled to constrain its program to Austrian art, and after 1918, it had been renamed the Austrian Gallery.¹ For the first time since then, the republic now created a sustainable and representative public museum for international modern art. In comparison with other countries, this (second, successful) foundation of Austria’s museum of modernist art came rather late. Since the dawn of the era, many European metropolises had seen the emergence of major private collections of modern art. To the extent that they survived the two World Wars, they generally entered public property as parts of existing museums or as independent foundations. Some museums of modern art were created by breaking up older collections and establishing independent institutions. Important landmarks in the history of collections specializing in modernism that still exist today include the foundation of the Czech National Gallery, Prague (1918), the Museum of Modern Art, New York (1929), the Musée national d’art moderne, Paris (1947), and the Musée d’art moderne de la Ville de Paris (1961). When it comes to building a dedicated home for a museum of modernism by contrast, Vienna’s 20er Haus, designed by architect Karl Schwanzer, is a pioneering achievement, with few predecessors other than New York’s MoMA (built in 1938 based on designs by Philip L. Goodwin and Edward Durell Stone) and the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum (built in 1959 based on designs by Frank Lloyd Wright). Mies van der Rohe’s Nationalgalerie in West Berlin did not open until 1968; Renzo Piano and Richard Rogers’s Centre Pompidou in Paris, in 1977; Busmann & Haberer’s Museum Ludwig, Cologne, in 1986; and Stephan Braunfels’s Pinakothek der Moderne, Munich, in 2002.

111

All these houses provide considerably more floor space, and rooms much better suited to a museum, than the adaptation of an exhibition pavilion could possibly have offered. Yet despite its spatial and functional limitations, the 20er Haus successfully served for almost two decades (1962–1979) as an unpretentious showcase for the permanent presentation of a collection on the upper floor and ambitious temporary exhibitions on the ground floor. For another twenty years, it was one of Vienna’s most exciting and flexible venues for major exhibitions (1980–2000).

Whither Austrian Modernism? The Modern Gallery created in 1903 at the initiative of the group around Klimt was devoted to the domestic and international art of the time. Sixty years later, the newly founded museum created a somewhat confusing situation: there was now a house for Austrian art (the Belvedere) as well as one for international modern art (the 20er Haus). The confusion arose from the question—surely an essential one for the artists it concerned—of who was in charge of domestic modern art: the Belvedere, as the home of Austrian art, or the 20er Haus, as the institution presenting international modern art? In retrospect, the question may seem academic; but at the time it created a serious dilemma for modern artists who had built national reputations, such as Herbert Boeckl or Albert Paris Gütersloh. For their entire careers they had been confronted by the question of Austria’s existence as a sovereign state (disintegration of the monarchy in 1918; the “Anschluss” in 1938; the Austrian Independence Treaty of 1955); along with other members of the country’s elites, they had fought for decades to secure its survival. Accordingly, they identified strongly with the idea of Austria’s cultural autochthony; their art was often inspired by, and related to, local circumstances, and so they preferred to present it in an exclusively “Austrian” national gallery.² Exhibitions mixing or confronting local modern art with international paradigms are now the unquestioned standard in museums everywhere. At the time however, many artists in Vienna, but also the directors of the Austrian Gallery, rejected them as misleading because they could have called the independence of the domestic art production into question and, by consequence, Austria’s cultural and ultimately even national independence. The fears members of that generation

harbored were rooted in their own very real experience of intense anti-Austrian political propaganda during the first half of the century, which countenanced a German rather than separate Austrian identity. By contrast, Fritz Wotruba, who was in 1960, the country’s only artist to have built a solid international reputation (if you disregard Oskar Kokoschka, who had emigrated long before), was unconcerned by this delicate question of “jurisdiction.” Thanks not least importantly to the contacts he had established while in exile in Switzerland between 1938 and 1945, he had been able to present a solo show in the newly created Musée national d’art moderne, Paris, and a special exhibition at the Venice Biennale as early as 1948. Since then, his many presentations on the international stage had earned him a permanent place in the modernist canon, and so he was no longer dependent on a national museum. It makes sense that Werner Hofmann would devote the first solo exhibition of an Austrian artist, held in 1963, the second year of the 20er Haus’s existence, to this sculptor. As Wotruba’s example demonstrates, the directors of the museums at the Belvedere and the 20er Haus found a very pragmatic solution to the “problem” of domestic modern art: both houses now brought exhibitions of Austrian artists; the Belvedere merely forwent adding international presentations. If Austria’s artists had at first been apprehensive, this practice ultimately proved to be to their benefit: they had a choice between two museums, which also improved their chances of gaining public recognition. Their choice was guided by the “profiles” of the two houses, which were then limned in keeping with the conventional conception of modernism. According to a dogmatic view that was still widely held around 1960, abstract art was more “progressive” than “representational”, and so the 20er Haus initially presented abstract and Surrealist contemporary artists almost exclusively. Influential artists accordingly preferred the more “progressive” 20er Haus for their appearances—whether their own art was in fact compatible with the museum’s “abstract” context or not. Others had to make do with the more “conservative” Belvedere. Illuminating examples include the retrospectives of the oeuvres of Fritz Wotruba (1963) and Herbert Boeckl (1964³ and 1966), both of whom had previously maintained close ties with the Austrian Gallery, at the new 20er Haus. The younger generation of artists too, found itself under the sway of this latent polarization: creators of abstract art favored the 20er Haus (Andreas Urteil, 1963; Josef Mikl, 1964; Wander

112  Retrospectives, Matthias Boeckl

Bertoni, 1964; Wolfgang Hollegha, 1967; Arnulf Rainer, 1968), whereas the Vienna School of Fantastic Realism, which had first been presented at the Belvedere in 1959, did not gain a foothold at the 20er Haus until 1971, when the museum, now under Schmeller’s leadership, showed the work of Arik Brauer.

Foundations of Modernism: The Era of Werner Hofmann (1959–1969) These examples highlight the question of the underlying philosophy that guided the 20er Haus’s programming. Spanning almost forty years, the history of Austria’s only exhibition hall for international art of the twentieth century is divided into four equally long phases: its directors, Werner Hofmann, Alfred Schmeller, Dieter Ronte, and Lóránd Hegyi, each drew up the exhibition program for a decade, and so each brought new inspiration to Vienna’s art world. The founding director, Werner Hofmann, was perfectly aware when he launched his acquisitions campaign in 1959 that his foremost goal must be to fill in the enormous gaps in the collection that had opened up after the 1912 moratorium on international modern art purchases. Thanks to Hofmann’s excellent network in the Paris art world, he was able to buy numerous important works for the collection which now constitute the foundation of the section documenting classical modernism at Vienna’s MUMOK. The exhibition program of Hofmann’s tenure, from 1962 to 1969 however, is evidence of a set of emphases that differed by degrees: nineteen projects on classical modernism and twenty-six exhibitions of contemporary art document a clear preponderance of the art of the day over the history of modernism. The structure of the exhibitions and the contents they presented are likewise revealing: Hofmann held sixteen thematic and group exhibitions, whereas twenty-nine shows were monographic, devoted to individual artists. Thirtyone exhibitions, or a full 68 percent, were devoted to international issues and artists; fourteen, to domestic art. Further significant details of the early 20er Haus’s profile emerge when we superimpose these groups; for instance, no fewer than one third of all forty-five exhibitions of Hofmann’s tenure presented art that was both international and contemporary.⁴ That is a higher rate than during the first internationalization campaign in the Viennese art world the Klimt group conducted with ambitious shows at the Secession, Galerie Miethke, and the Kunstschau between 1898 and 1909 that routinely

included works by associated foreign artists, though usually in combination with products of domestic art. In terms of substance, there can be no doubt that those of Hofmann’s exhibitions had the most significant impact that constituted the first presentation in Vienna of specific tendencies in art, or even the first time a certain chapter in art history was written. These include Art from 1900 to Today (the inaugural exhibition of 1962), Idols and Demons (1963), Pop etc. (1964), Sculptures: From Rodin to the Present (1966), and Paris, May ’68 (1968)—presentations that first familiarized Viennese audiences with the broad outlines of modernism, the Surrealist tradition, Pop art, the outlines of modern Object art, and the 1968 revolution as an art project. The shows devoted to individual artists, also presented a series of “classics,” most prominent among them František Kupka, Paul Klee, Antoni Tàpies, Otto Gutfreund, Charles Rennie Mackintosh, Wilhelm Lehmbruck, Hans Hartung, Roberto Sebastian Matta, Fritz Wotruba, Franz Kline, Adolf Loos, Herbert Boeckl, Emil Nolde, and Fernand Léger. In some instances, the exhibitions marked the first time these artists’ works were shown in Vienna. As one of Europe’s leading intellectuals of the period, Hofmann was able to frame several patterns of the interpretation of modernism that continue to define the discourse on art in many points even today. The quality of his work led the Kunsthalle in Hamburg to offer him their director’s post, to which he was appointed in 1969.

Removing the Boundaries of Art: The Era of Alfred Schmeller (1969–1979) Hofmann’s successor, Alfred Schmeller, was a very different personality, as his exhibition programming demonstrates. Unlike Hofmann, who had been a curator at the Albertina before taking office at the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Schmeller looked back on a career as an art journalist and monument preservationist when he took the helm at the 20er Haus. As the Art Club’s secretary and an editor of the journal magnum, Schmeller had been building a closely-knit network in artists’ circles since 1947; as the Burgenland’s leading monument conservation official, he was familiar with government-run art institutions and on a good footing with Social-Democratic cultural policymakers such as Fred Sinowatz, the then minister of education, and the head of the City of Vienna’s Department of Culture,

113

Gertrude Fröhlich-Sandner. In geographical terms, the 20er Haus’s perspective progressively narrowed down what was going on in the Arts in Austria, the Burgenland, and southern Europe; conversely, the concept of art itself was expanded broadly: besides presenting monographic and thematic exhibitions of contemporary art, Schmeller opened the museum to architecture, folk art, cartoons, technology, children’s art, music, art schools and publications, and furniture design. Schmeller also brought wider audiences to the museum by collaborating with the “Arena” of the Wiener Festwochen.⁵ Other legendary innovation were the seminars and exhibitions he held in the “clubroom,” which would later be used as a library. He was also the first to open the museum’s doors to international visiting curators (see for instance, Harald Szeemann’s exhibitions Bachelor Machines, 1977, and Monte Verità, 1979) and presentations of the collections of other international museums. This radical expansion of the concept of art and the exhibition program was in keeping with the era’s museological zeitgeist. Representatives of French museums such as Pierre Gaudibert of the Musée d’art moderne de la Ville de Paris proposed, for instance, thought that the contemporary art museum should be an open structure offering information rather than serve the ambitions of art historians.⁶ Yet whether these actions were no more than “shooting stars,” and how lasting the impact of this strategy of openness to local art world really was, is a question that requires a look at the collections and the long-term effects of Schmeller’s contacts. During Hofmann’s tenure, the museum had been able to build at least a respectable core collection representing the most important positions of modernism, and to establish close ties with France. During Schmeller’s tenure, by contrast, the classical modernism collection did not see any major new purchases; the museum’s international contacts spread wore widely to Yugoslavia, Germany, Italy, and the US. Only ties with individual artists in the US and with New York’s MoMA, which presented its collection at the 20er Haus in 1979, proved to be somewhat sustainable and useful to local artists. A look at the artistic positions that now dominated the program is revealing. If Surrealism, Abstract Expressionism, and the Informel had clearly reigned supreme during Hofmann’s tenure, Schmeller preferred Object art, Land art, and multiples, naïve art, popular art (caricatures and comic strips), Fantastic Realism, photography, and all branches of art—including film,

music, design, literature and architecture—other than painting and sculpture. Yet none of the exhibitions in these fields succeeded in setting new international standards, something that Hofmann’s Idols and Demons or Pop etc., for instance, had done. Some of Schmeller’s projects were nonetheless recognizably innovative, stimulating new developments in Vienna or closing gaps in art history, including Haus-RuckerCo: Live (1970), Beginnings of the Informel in Austria (1971), Walter Pichler (1971), Jacques Lipchitz (1971), Cornelius Kolig (1971), Albert Paris von Gütersloh (1975), Claes Oldenburg (1976), Andy Warhol (1976), Bachelor Machines (1977), New Objectivity and Realism (1977), Donald Judd (1977), and Bruno Gironcoli (1977). If Hofmann’s tenure had been dedicated to “learning” the basics of modernism, Alfred Schmeller sought to present current Austrian contributions to the international art debate that had grown from this foundation. His emphases were on architecture and all artistic strategies that crossed the boundaries between genres. During the ten years of his leadership, there were no fewer than thirteen exhibitions and publications examining issues of architecture, Land art, and design, almost seven times as many as Hofmann’s tenure had produced; nine of them were in-house productions or presented Austrian artists.⁷ By contrast, Schmeller did not present a single exhibition of works by the best-known pioneers of modernism such as Paul Cézanne, Pablo Picasso, Wassily Kandinsky, or Constantin Brancusi; as under Hofmann, showing such art was obviously beyond the institution’s, and the country’s, means. Even the creation of the Museum of Modern Art in 1979 could no more than partly correct this fundamental deficit, which had hobbled Vienna’s art world since World War I.

Professionalization: The Era of Dieter Ronte (1979–1989) The third decade in the 20er Haus’s museological history brought a surge in professionalism, and the museum added a second venue, the Gartenpalais Liechtenstein. Schwanzer’s building “lost” its monopoly as Vienna’s only permanent exhibition site for international modern art, a position that had defined the museum’s character. The major gaps that impaired the public collection of modern art were well known; and it was primarily for this reason that, in 1977, the Wiener

114  Retrospectives, Matthias Boeckl

Künstlerhaus organized an exhibition of contemporary art from the holdings of German collectors Irene Ludwig and her husband Peter. The Künstlerhaus’s president, Hans Mayr, and the minister of science, Hertha Firnberg, subsequently persuaded the Ludwigs to send a part of their collection to Vienna on permanent loan. With the addition of these works to the 20er Haus’s holdings as well as the acquisition of the collection of Wolfgang Hahn, the museum needed much more space. Therefore the Gartenpalais Liechtenstein, located at the other end of the city, was temporarily rented for the presentation of these collections in 1979; the Austrian Ludwig Foundation was created in 1981. The 20er Haus henceforth served “only” as a temporary exhibition venue; both houses operated under the joint label Museum of Modern Art, and Dieter Ronte was appointed the institution’s new director. Ronte changed the 20er Haus’s profile no less decisively than Alfred Schmeller had after the end of Hofmann’s tenure. Since the collection was now on display at the Gartenpalais Liechtenstein, the entire 20er Haus was available for temporary exhibitions. This provided a new opportunity to create expansive installations, some of which would make Viennese exhibition history.⁸ In terms of substance too, Ronte’s tenure evinced different emphases than the two preceding periods. Hofmann had taught the foundations of modernism; Schmeller had expanded the concept of art; Ronte now introduced Art Brut,⁹ retrospectives of the works of modern and contemporary classics based on solid art-historical research,¹⁰ selected art movements and periods,¹¹ photography,¹² and major thematic exhibitions¹³ to Vienna’s art discourse. By engaging recent tendencies in art, Ronte was able to make up for a historic omission in 1989—twenty-seven years after the emergence of Viennese Actionism, a Nitsch retrospective finally paid tribute to this movement, which now constitutes one focus of the MUMOK’s collections. To avoid a similar embarrassment with regard to the New Painting of the 1980s, the museum presented the pioneering show Simply Good Painting as early as 1983; Hacking at Ice, an exhibition of the second “wild” surge, followed in 1986. Other lasting merits of Ronte’s tenure include the presentation of the historic roots of New Painting in the work of Maria Lassnig, who showed her first major museum retrospective at the 20er Haus in 1985, and the beginnings of a more in-depth exploration of domestic modernism. Now this venture also devoted attention to important Austrian artists who, living beyond the country’s borders, had been largely neglected by Austrian historians of mod-

ernism (Raoul Hausmann, 1981; Frederick Kiesler: Architect, Painter, Sculptor, 1890–1965, 1988). Austrian scholarship on the country’s émigrés slowly got under way, in the realm of art as well as elsewhere.

Globalization: The Era of Lóránd Hegyi (1990–2001) The political sea change of 1989 brought new possibilities and perspectives for the arts as well. Under Hofmann, the museum had been clearly oriented toward Paris; during Schmeller’s tenure, the programming had accentuated the art of southeastern Europe; Dieter Ronte had shifted the focus back toward the West. Now the pendulum swung back eastward. When the official in charge, minister of science Erhard Busek, appointed Hungarian art historian Lóránd Hegyi, the decision was meant to be seen as programmatic. Hegyi’s collection policies took a global view and placed thematic foci that clearly reflected the new emphases.¹⁴ His exhibition programming however, was not limited to “Eastern art” but was in fact quite diverse, adequately representing new media¹⁵ as well as Concrete art¹⁶ and the global debate.¹⁷ The museum also introduced presentations of the modernist “classics,” a popular format that had become customary on the international stage.¹⁸ Important thematic shows examined the concept of the picture (Image Light: Painting between Material and Immateriality, 1991) and Situationism (Situationist International, 1957–1972, 1998). Hegyi also persistently maintained the foci of the collection Dieter Ronte had begun to build (Viennese Actionism, émigré artists, New Painting, and New Sculpture).¹⁹ To assess the exhibition program of Hegyi’s tenure however, we also need to take into account the profound changes in the underlying framework of cultural policy. Since the course for the Museum of Modern Art had been set during Ronte’s tenure, Lóránd Hegyi came too late to exert any influence over the future site and construction of the new planned building. The debate over a central site for the museum—after all, the partition into the 20er Haus and the Gartenpalais Liechtenstein in 1979 had been no more than a temporary solution—had begun in 1983, with a utilization study of the former Viennese imperial stable commissioned by the minister of science, Heinz Fischer. Between 1986 and 1990, a two-stage architectural competition was held to determine the future design of the area, now called MuseumsQuartier, which is located in the immediate vicinity of the Kunsthistorisches Museum and

115

the Museum of Natural History. In 1991, the Austrian Ludwig Foundation committed another large group of works to the Museum of Modern Art which, not unlike other institutions to which the German collectors had generously donated their art, such as the Ludwig Múzeum, Budapest, was renamed on the occasion: it was now the Museum of Modern Art Foundation Ludwig. After a heated public debate which led to changes in to the dimensions of Laurids and Manfred Ortner’s winning design, the complex, housing several museums and art initiatives, was built between 1997 and 2001.²⁰ Although the new building contained less exhibition space than the Museum of Modern Art Stiftung Ludwig’s two previous locations combined, Karl Schwanzer’s well-worn building had served its time as an exhibition hall. The final show, held in 2000, was not an in-house production but a transfer from the Kunstmuseum Bonn. Its title, tellingly enough, was Zeitwenden, or Turning Points; it presented an expansive panorama of art at the turn of the millennium. The particular experimental atmosphere of the improvised Museum of the Twentieth Century, which had for almost four decades enchanted exhibition organizers and art lovers with the freedoms it provided for the arts, was, for the time being, a thing of the past. Eleven years later, it is now back with fresh élan, in a building whose urban context is utterly changed as a new neighborhood rises around the central station and the Belvedere.

1 As Werner Hofmann described it, the, “upper middle class cosmopolitanism of the turn of the century was superseded in the years before the First World War by a strong emphasis on national and traditionalist ideals.” Quoted in Agnes HussleinArco, “The 20er Haus,” in: HussleinArco (ed.), 20 > 21 (Belvedere, Vienna), 2009 n. p. [p. 4]. 2 “The Austrian Gallery at the Upper Belvedere as it is now possesses a profound meaning. It shows Austrian painting as selfsupporting. Nowhere else can one see Austrian painting in the same way, with its many positive and dark sides. If we care for the further development of painting in this country, if an art of painting is to emerge here in the future that will enjoy the respect of the world, then we need the courage to retreat and reflect. The separation between Austrian and foreign pictures has created an unambiguous situation.” (Herbert Boeckl to Karl Garzarolli, director of the Belvedere, May 11, 1955; Belvedere, Vienna, archive, Zl. 103/1955.). 3 In 1964, on the occasion of his 70th birthday the minister of education had offered Boeckl an Exhibition in the state gallery of his choice. The daily press relayed the resulting conflicts in detail—one newspaper titled: “Blood on the carpet. Difficulties surround Birthday Exhibition for Herbert Boeckl” (newspaper clipping, spring 1964, archive of H. W., Vienna).—After much hesitation and extensive tactical deliberations, Boeckl ultimately chose the international option—the new Museum of the Twentieth Century. 4 Hans Hartung (1963); Roberto Sebastian Matta (1963); Franz Kline (1964); Pop etc. (1964); Victor Brauner (1965); Art in Freedom (1965); Arshile Gorky (1965); Robert Müller (1965); Gyula Derkovits (1967); Kinetica (1967), Paris, May ’68 (1968); New Figurative Art USA (1969). 5 Starting in 1970, the Wiener Festwochen produced the Festwochen-Arena, or short Arena, an alternative program of events featuring contemporary productions in the fields of music, dance, theater, and literature. From 1970 to 1973, these events were held at the Museum of the Twentieth Century.

6 See Pierre Gaudibert, L’action culturelle. Intégration et/ou subversion (Casterman, Paris), 1972. 7 Adolf Loos for Young People (1970); Walter Pichler (1971); Alternatives in Public Housing (1975); The Road: The Shape of Living Together (1973); Missing Link (1973 and 1978); The Wine Cellars of Heiligenbrunn, Burgenland (1974); For Example: Eisenstadt (1974); Karl Schwanzer (1978). 8 See, for instance, Boris Podrecca’s design of the exhibition Frederick Kiesler: Architect, Painter, Sculptor, 1890–1965 (1988). 9 Johann Hauser and Oswald Tschirtner (both 1980); Dubuffet: Retrospective (1980); The Artists of Gugging (1983). 10 Giovanni Segantini, 1858– 1899 (1981); Arnulf Rainer (1981); Bruno Taut, 1880–1938 (1981); Raoul Hausmann (1981); Karl Prantl: Sculptures, 1950–1981 (1982); Christian Ludwig Attersee: werksquer (1982); Maria Lassnig (1985); Rudolf Bauer, 1889–1953 (1985); George Grosz: The Berlin Years (1985); Günther Brus: The Survey (1986); Gerhard Richter: Paintings, 1962–1985 (1986); Otto Dix (1987); Ivan Meštrović: Sculptures (1987); Frederick Kiesler: Architect, Painter, Sculptor, 1890–1965 (1988); Johannes Itten (1988); Oswald Oberhuber: Collections (1988); Hermann Nitsch: The Sculptural Oeuvre. Retrospective, 1960–1988 (1989); Max Weiler: The Inner Figure. Retrospective, 1933–1989 (1989); Bruno Gironcoli: Sculptural Works, 1980–1990 (1990); Sandro Chia (1984); Daniel Spoerri in Vienna (1990). 11 The Art Club in Vienna: Witnesses and Documents of a New Beginning (1981); Paris, 1960– 1980: Panorama of Contemporary Art in France (1982); American Impressionism (1982); La sovrana inattualità: Italian Sculpture of the 1970s (1982); Simply Good Painting (1983); Hacking at Ice (1986); Expressive: Central European Art since 1960 (1987); Erika Giovanna Klien: Viennese Kinetism (1987); Wirklichkeiten: Aspects of a Group (1988).

116  Retrospectives, Matthias Boeckl

12 History of Photography in Austria (1983); The Nude Photograph: Views of the Body in the Age of Photography (1985); Raoul Hausmann: Against the World’s Cold Eye. Photographs, 1927–1933 (1986); Ernst Haas: Ending and Beginning (1986); Helmut Newton: Portraits, Pictures from Europe and America (1988); Imogen Cunningham: Frontiers. Photographs, 1906–1976 (1988); The Inside of Sight: Surrealist Photography of the 1930s and 1940s (1989). 13 The Tendency toward the Total Work of Art: European Utopias since 1800 (1983); The Dream of Space (1984); 1984: Orwell and the Present (1984); Art with a Mind of Its Own: Recent Art by Women (1985); Viennese Divan. Sigmund Freud Today (1989). 14 See Lóránd Hegyi, “Die achtziger und neunziger Jahre. Strategien der Dekonstruktion und die Wende zu einer anthropologischen Kunstbetrachtung,” in: Die Sammlung. Museum moderner Kunst Stiftung Ludwig Wien (Vienna), 2001, p. 353ff. 15 Nam June Paik: Video Time— Video Space (1992); VALIE EXPORT: Split:Reality (1997). 16 Reductionism: Abstraction in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, 1950–1980 (1992); Günther Uecker: Uecker in Vienna (1992); František Lesák: Morning, Noon, Evening—Study after a Pictorial Motif in Claude Monet (1992). 17 Roman Opalka: Trace of Time. 1965/1–∞ (1993); Makom: Contemporary Art from Israel (1993); Détente (1993); Remarks on Europe in 1994 (1994); Aquilo: Contemporary Scandinavian Art (1995); Ákos Birkás: In the Head (1996); Haim Steinbach: 0% (1997); Aspects/ Positions: Fifty Years of Central European Art, 1949–1999 (1999). 18 Picasso: The Ludwig Collection (1994). 19 Rudolf Schwarzkogler: Life and Work (1992); Hermann Nitsch (traveling exhibition, 1994); Wolfgang Paalen: Between Surrealism and Abstraction (1993); Erwin Wurm: 22 (1994); Hubert Scheibl: vice (1998); Maria Lassnig (1999); Lois Weinberger: Progression (2000). 20 See Matthias Boeckl (ed.), MuseumsQuartier Wien. Die Architektur (Springer, Vienna), 2001.

Signs of Modernism. The corporate identity of the Museum of the Twentieth Century in the Schweizergarten and its genesis: From Georg Schmid to Oswald Oberhuber and Christof Nardin Rainald Franz

118

When the “Museum of the Twentieth Century” was founded, its first director, Werner Hofmann, laid out its mission. The “museum of a century” was to be a stage for all articulations of modern art, from the visual arts to music, from literature to film, as well as for theoretical engagements with art history. The design concept supporting the communication of these various forms of content was to be no less comprehensive than the new museum’s mission to present art. For the first time in post-World War II Austria, a museum was given the opportunity to develop a unified and distinctive visual identity, building on a genuinely Viennese tradition of modernism.

A modern style of design in Austria: applied graphic arts and exhibitions since the Secession Over the past one hundred and fifty years, the tension between the client’s interest in commercial benefits and the designer’s artistic ambition has propelled the rise of the poster as an innovative medium of graphic art. In Austrian poster art, those periods have been particularly productive periods of artistic innovation that have removed the barriers separating the “liberal” from the “applied” arts: the Jugendstil, the modernist avant-gardes of 1920s modernism, and the 1950s and 1960s, when the visual arts began to overlap with design. Without the art poster and the artistically designed advertising poster, the art of modernism would never have reached the wide audiences to which it has appealed in the era of “media culture.” Posters from the period have become emblems of the dawn of media culture. The “Union of Austrian Artists Secession” was founded in April 1897. One year later, Austria’s most important art reform movement began organizing exhibitions and publishing writings on art. For the art of the poster, as for so many other fields of art, this meant that information about accomplishments outside the monarchy became easily available for the first time; artists began to catch up with the tendencies of their time. The Secessionists’ desire to sharply distinguish themselves from the “Künstlerhaus,” a bastion of historicism, is especially evident in the style of their graphic work. The posters the artists’ group designed for outdoor advertising were accordingly of particular relevance. The group’s members saw the creation of a “graphical overall concept,” which was undertaken right away, as an important step on the way toward an art in tune with its

119

time. In keeping with the new concept of the “Gesamtkunstwerk” or synthesis of the arts, the Secession’s exhibition architects were also often responsible for designing the associated poster and catalogue as well as the corresponding issue of the Ver Sacrum journal.¹ A statement that appeared in the inaugural issue, published in 1898, may be regarded as programmatic in this context: “We know no distinction between ‘high art’ and the ‘minor arts,’ between art for the rich and art for the poor. Art is a common good.” ² After Gustav Klimt had designed the poster for the Secession’s first exhibition, held in the building of the Imperial and Royal Horticultural Society, Josef Maria Olbrich, Koloman Moser, Alfred Roller, Bertold Löffler, Ferdinand Andri, Adolf Böhm, and Josef Maria Auchentaller created posters that would define the look of an era. The series also illustrates the development of the Secession’s style from floral art nouveau toward decorative abstraction. Starting in 1905, when the “Klimt group” left the Secession, the “stylists” around Josef Engelhart pushed back against the previously prevalent tendencies toward geometric abstraction and asserted their preference for a painterly line in the exhibition programming and the poster designs. For its members, the Secession represented a forum that enabled them to stay in touch with artists that represented art reform efforts all over Europe. Many encounters ensued that would prove crucial for the development of Vienna’s graphical styles, including poster design.³ In a process that coincided with the establishment of the Secession, the Vienna School of Applied Arts, which had existed since 1867, had undertaken a reform of its artistic training curriculum. The artist Felician von Myrbach, who took office as the school’s new director in 1899, was familiar with modern French graphic art and had lived in Paris. Myrbach’s appointments of Alfred Roller and Koloman Moser, as well as Carl Otto Czeschka and Bertold Löffler, are indicative of his efforts to modernize the graphic arts education at the school by bringing in professors who already had practical experience creating work for clients in the art and business worlds.⁴ Besides Myrbach, Roller, and Moser, Rudolf von Larisch, who had taught at the School of Applied Arts since 1901, was an important reformer of calligraphy and typography in Vienna. Werner Schweiger writes: “It was Myrbach’s accomplishment to recognize the independence of the graphic arts and their application and to adapt them to practical purposes. Myrbach’s teachings cultivated all areas, from poster to advertisement design; he was the true reformer of the graphical arts

curriculum, and his successors Czeschka and Löffler merely carried on what Myrbach had initiated.” ⁵ Around the turn from the nineteenth to the twentieth century, this density of creative minds and institutions in Vienna inaugurated a golden age of Viennese poster art. The Secession paved the way for new artists’ groups in Austria and began attracting the public and critical attention that the modern artist’s poster and genre deserved: the “Hagenbund,” “Wiener Werkstätte,” both founded in 1903, as well as the “Neukunstgruppe” or “new art group”—an association of young students at the Academy around Egon Schiele who first exhibited their work at Gustav Pisko’s art salon on Parkring—all attached great importance to the outward presentation of their art.⁶ At the 1908 Kunstschau, students from Koloman Moser’s and Bertold Löffler’s classes at the School of Applied Arts, led by Oskar Kokoschka, designed a room dedicated exclusively to poster art. The presentation was, “[…] of such high quality that we may without hesitation recognize in it not merely the prodigious beginning of a new era in Austrian artistic illustration and book design, but even more: the beginning of a modern poster art.” ⁷ The output of Viennese poster designers before World War I was prolific, and their influence on public opinion cannot be overstated. Sample books such as Die Quelle [The Source] and Die Fläche [The Surface], published in 1903–04 as a summary of what the graphic arts education at the School of Applied Arts had accomplished and document the high standards of advertising art in early-twentieth-century Vienna.⁸ A significant characteristic of the Austrian poster boom during this period was the close collaboration between artists working for the art reform movements and smart business clients who recognized the new medium’s advertising value. Stylistic devices that proved effective in exhibition advertising posters—where the designing artist did not need to engage with the client’s wishes and faced criticism only from fellow artists and reviewers—would often soon be employed in product advertising as well. Koloman Moser, Bertold Löffler, Adolf Karpellus and Joseph Urban applied no less rigorous artistic standards to their product advertising designs than to the posters for the artists’ associations they had cofounded. Among the creations of these poster artists, the distinction between art and business advertising is a matter solely of the particular audience a given poster sought to address. The Wiener Werkstätte also perfected this idea of the union of artistic conception, craftsmanship in execution, and commer-

120  Retrospectives, Rainald Franz

Hertha Ramsauer, poster for the exhibition Larisch and his school of ornamental writing, ca. 1925

cial appeal in the domain of poster art. Even the designs of Oskar Kokoschka or Egon Schiele, which contemporary critics regarded as boundlessly radical and whose expressivity rendered them incompatible with the ornamental surface art of the Jugendstil, became part of the graphical program. In 1912, Ottokar Mascha was invited to organize the International Exhibition of Posters, the Secession’s fortieth show, which presented the first synopsis of the models Austria’s modern poster artists emulated and illustrated the influence Belgian, French, British, and American poster designs had on the local production. The Austrian art poster had become an internationally competitive product. Between 1914 and 1918, the studios of many Austrian poster artists such as Bertold Löffler and Adolf Karpellus saw the creation not of exhibition or business advertisements but rather posters promoting war bonds. The expressive quality that had distinguished Egon Schiele’s and Oskar Kokoschka’s designs was now put to the service of war propaganda. The Austrian poster art of the interwar years was characterized by a tendency toward the professionalization of poster designers as well as a growing interest in avantgarde trends in European modernism. In their works— the first brands and logos for Austria’s emerging mass consumerism—as well as their theoretical writings, graphic artists such as Julius Klinger and Joseph Binder who had studied with Bertold Löffler at the School of Applied Arts, outlined the profile of a new profession: the advertising graphic designer. Julius Klinger remarked on the tasks of the poster designer: “Unlike their predecessors, advertising graphic artists of the next generation will no longer be encumbered by a tangle of artistic prejudices; fresh and proficient craftsmen and specialists will take the stage who, rather than offering an isolated artistic service, will seek to turn

Julius Klinger, poster MEM, 1921

Hermann Kosel, poster Polish Posters, 1950

advertising into an even more broadly based economic factor.” ⁹ The polemical rejection of artistic ambition in poster design in favor of its advertising value contrasts with the fact that Austrian professional designers who created commercially successful advertising posters proved quite adept at drawing inspiration from contemporary artistic tendencies such as Cubism and abstraction and integrating such innovation into their work. Julius Klinger for instance, designed not only product advertising posters, but also a typographic poster for Galerie Würthle. Likewise, the poster Frederick Kiesler (1890–1965) designed for the International Art Exhibition held in the Secession’s rooms in 1924 features a modern fusion of the surface-design style of the Secession’s own posters with the contrastive abstract color values whose development the artists of the German Bauhaus had pioneered. Like the commercial artists, Austria’s poster artists economized by setting up studio cooperatives. The second generation of “Hagenbund” artists, including Robert Haas and Carry Hauser, for instance, founded the “Officina Vindobonensis” in

121

1925. Kurt Libesny, president of the Federation of Austrian Advertising Artists (BÖG), writes in the catalogue accompanying the The Austrian Poster exhibition, held at the Austrian Museum of Art and Industry in 1929: “The advertising designer must […] be an artist whose inspiration and imaginative resources—qualities that cannot be studied—allows him to veil the idea in a guise that makes it suitable to the mentality of the population […] The artist who works in advertising must thus be a psychologist, a philosopher, and an expert of style.” ¹⁰ The Austrian studios Cosl-Frey, Hans Neumann, and Kosel-Gibson, guided by design theorist Julius Klinger, enjoyed international renown under the moniker “Viennese group.” Other artists in Austria approached the poster as a format for original graphic art, experimenting with this vehicle of modernist artistic expression and pointedly rejecting attempts to make their work subservient to commercial purposes. Once again, these mentionable artists had studied at the School of Applied Arts and the Academy: Franz on Zülow, Anton Faistauer, Albert Paris Gütersloh, and Alfred Kubin.¹¹

The years of Nazi rule from 1938–1945 destroyed Austrian poster art as an industry whose distinctive products and ideas had earned it international success. The forced exile and murder of many eminent poster designers—Julius Klinger, for instance, whi was killed in Minsk in 1942—and the coerced political conformity imposed on poster culture under the diktat of the Reich Ministry of Propaganda no longer permitted any real artistic development.¹² Their tendency to reduce the arts to the lowest common denominator was also palpable in arts education: as early as 1935, Paul Kirnig (1891– 1955), Bertold Löffler’s longtime assistant, succeeded his teacher as the director of his class. Kirnig had not been the appointment committee’s first choice, and in the run-up to the selection, artists such as Oskar Kokoschka, Hans Böhler, Alfred Wickenburg, and Franz von Zülow had been mentioned. The favorite for the post had been Joseph Binder, a successful poster designer who operated his own graphic arts studio in Vienna and had taught in America. However, Binder declined, and emigrated to the US in 1936. In his poster designs, Kirnig employed the visual means he had developed in painting—dramaturgy of bright-dark contrasts, and the dynamism engendered by exaggerated perspectives— for the service of advertising. Like Bertold Löffler before him, he strongly favored the production of commercial advertising art in accordance with the needs of clients. After 1938, of course, this emphasis lent itself to political instrumentalization. Kirnig led the “master class of advertising, illustration, and fashion illustration art,” as it was called after the National Socialists elevated the School of Applied Arts to a Reich University during the period from 1941–1953.¹³ After the end of World War II in 1948 exhibitions such as that of the “Art Club” led by Albert Paris Gütersloh, or the International Poster Exhibition initiated by Theodor Salma enabled a new generation to engage with the artistic standards of modern poster design in Europe and the US. The martial rhetoric of the recent past is still audible in Slama’s contribution to the exhibition catalogue: “The artist possessed by the will to create conquers forever new areas of life as domains for his work. In his hands, guided by the passion to give shape, the object of utility grows into a work of art, without losing any of its use value […] As conquerors of a new domain into which art extends its agency, they are pioneers in the foremost frontline […] They face difficult challenges as they try to prove that this guidance is more easily imposed upon the will by the form their art gives to things. Even more difficult do they find it to overcome the triviality of their

122  Retrospectives, Rainald Franz

assignment, to force it to accept the shape their art lends to it […]” ¹ ⁴ As early as 1947, the Federation of Austrian Advertising Artists presented a special exhibition of the work of émigré artist Joseph Binder. The occupying powers held poster exhibitions as well: The Art of the Soviet Poster was on display in 1948 and, that same year, ERP Posters (advertising the “European Recovery Program,” popularly known as the “Marshall Plan,” which would deliver relief supplies from the US to Austria starting in 1948). As in the early days of Viennese modernism, it was the professors at the School of Applied Arts that charted the course of advertising and poster art after 1945. For Paul Kirnig’s former students, the end of the war presented the opportunity to build on the poster art of Bertold Löffler their teacher’s predecessor and to draw fresh inspiration from international developments. Rudolf Korunka, Arthur Zelger, and Wilhelm Jaruska worked in this form. Only Kirnig’s successor Paul Kurt Schwarz, who taught at the School of Applied Arts from 1954 to 1987, was a successful designer of posters for both commercial clients and the arts scene and a dedicated educator. Schwarz designed numerous posters and catalogues for Galerie Würthle. Along with the School of Applied Arts, galleries and artists’ associations¹⁵ also launched initiatives designed to lead Austria’s art back into the modernist fold after the end of the Third Reich and put artists of the war generation in touch with their students. In 1950s and 1960s Austria, the artist’s poster primarily announced the artist’s own exhibition; in this regard, too, the generation of Fritz Wotruba’s “students” returned to the roots of Austrian poster art. The style of artist’s posters of this period, designed, for instance, by Friedensreich Hundertwasser or Arnulf Rainer, seem to be defined by this recourse to early modernism, to Secessionism and Expressionism.

A new line for a new museum: Georg Schmid and the 20er Haus In 1960s advertising art, the rigorous line of Swiss graphic design coexisted in an utterly contrasting style, as an organically sprawling and frequently illustrative visual language. Against the backdrop of American and British graphic design, a new style struck roots in Austria as well. Graphic artists such as the American Milton Glaser and the British Alan Cracknell defined this new line: their flat woodcut-like figurines and

painterly-surrealistic illustrations inaugurated the return of Jugendstil elements in figurative representation and ornamental calligraphy and typography.¹⁶ Not limited to the US, the revival of turn-of-the-century art was palpable in Austria as well though on another level, that of substance: young artists, designers, and architects rediscovered Adolf Loos, Josef Hoffmann, Otto Wagner and the Secession’s advertising art as sources of inspiration. In a typically Austrian development, the “psychedelic style” in advertising art did not remain a subculture phenomenon but very quickly appeared in “establishment” design as well. The general spirit of political and aesthetic renewal made it possible for Werner Hofmann to choose Georg Schmid to design the logo and announcement posters for the newly founded Museum of the Twentieth Century.¹⁷ Schmid was a painter and architect by training: after graduating from the painting class at the Academy of Applied Arts in 1950, he had attended the architecture class of Oswald Haerdtl. Haerdtl, who had studied under Oskar Strnad and had been Josef Hoffmann’s longtime assistant, had familiarized Schmid with the tradition of Viennese design going back to the Secession era. From 1954 to 1955, Schmid held a teaching appointment for exhibition design at the Academy of Applied Arts. When Schmid was still a student, Karl Schwanzer urged him to graduate as quickly as possible because he needed him as a collaborator on several projects. Schmid, however, turned his back on pure architecture and devoted himself to graphic design. After completing his studies in 1955, he set up his own studio on Favoritenstraße. Architects came to appreciate Schmid’s skills in the fields of design and model making. He was involved for instance, in designing the appearance of the Austrian pavilion for the 1958 Brussels World’s Fair, and built the model for Clemens Holzmeister’s reconstruction of the Kleines Festspielhaus, Salzburg. Because of Schmid’s eminent architectural talent, Haerdtl wanted to bring him back to the Academy of Applied Arts, but Schmid declined, he was remarking that, “weary of arranging wash basins.” In 1954, Schmid married the graphic artist and costume designer Epi Schlüsselberger. Their joint studio Schmid/Schlüsselberger had a decisive influence on Viennese stage design, graphic art, book design, and logo culture through the 1990s.¹⁸ From 1954 until 1996, Schmid and Schlüsselberger worked as stage and costume designers for the Volkstheater and the Theater an der Josefstadt, Vienna, the Salzburger Landestheater, the Salzburg

123

and Bregenz festivals, the Thalia Theater, Hamburg, and the Schauspielhaus, Zurich. Schmid was also an extraordinarily successful graphic designer, defining the visual styles of the Europaverlag and Musikverlag Doblinger publishing houses. In 1950, he had already been awarded the State Prize of the Austrian Ministry of Education, and in 1957, he received the diploma of the 11th Milan Triennial. From this point on, his book and poster designs repeatedly earned awards from the City of Vienna, and in 1964, he was the first Austrian to be invited to join the Alliance Graphique Internationale. Schmid specialized, as it were, in designing the public images of Austrian cultural institutions. In addition to the Museum of the Twentieth Century, he also created the logos for the Rupertinum, the Kulturhaus Graz, the Vienna Philharmonic, and the Vienna State Opera, and worked for the Albertina, the Museum of Ethnology, and the Theater Museum. Schmid’s and Schlüsselberger’s illustrations are exemplary of the style of the 1960s and 1970s: two-dimensional graphical-figural representations in strong colors whose caricature-like features render them, “children’s book illustrations for adults” (Anita Kern). These works reveal a profound understanding of the graphic art of Milton Glaser, and especially of the designs of Czech-born German graphic artist Heinz Edelmann, who illustrated the animated film Yellow Submarine (1968) in collaboration with the Beatles.¹⁹ For the corporate identities of cultural institutions, in contrast, Schmid chose a style reduced to interlocking individual letters or digits. This sober and typography-dominated style also marks the point of departure for the work on the logo and posters for the Museum of the Twentieth Century.²⁰ Intertwining the letter M and the number 20 to identify the century and form a single sign was Georg Schmid’s first distinctive accomplishment for the newly created museum. This condensation of temporal and verbal information in the museum’s logo became prototypical of Schmid’s approach to the communication of content in the Museum of the Twentieth Century. At the same time, Schmid’s signet for the new museum no doubt deliberately drew on the Viennese tradition of the selective use of ornamental typography. On the one hand, the monogram interpretations of Schmid’s mentor Oswald Haerdtl, and those of Haerdtl’s mentor Joseph Hoffmann come to mind. In 1905, the Wiener Werkstätte’s catalogue featured the well-known initials of the artists as well as the craftsmen who executed their designs, which include very similar interwoven letters. We should also point out that the signets that

appear in Japanese colored woodcuts influenced these designs.²¹ Yet Schmid’s new logo can also be associated with the tradition of the school of Rudolf von Larisch, who directed the classes in calligraphy and typography at the School of Applied Arts, the Training and Research Institute of Graphic Arts, and the Academy of Fine Arts, Vienna, from 1902 to 1931. Rudolf von Larisch might as well be discussing the effect of Schmid’s logo when he writes that, “[…] lettering offers an opportunity to build something out of the letters of the alphabet, these magnificent units with their formal wealth, by ordering and arranging them […] In this fashion, such calligraphic design can produce results that,

Wiener Werkstätte program featuring monograms of the artisans and artists of the Wiener Werkstätte, 1905

124  Retrospectives, Rainald Franz

though simple, are perfect in their own way […] The path from the ornamental via the architectonic leads the proficient designer—though, we should note, ONLY the proficient designer—to the summit of rhythmicality, to the music of writing.” ²² Georg Schmid consistently applied this system of reductive design to the catalogues, posters, and signage he created for the Museum of the Twentieth Century from 1962 onward. Posters for the inaugural exhibition Art from 1900 to Today, for POP etc. or Wotruba rely on pure lettering and the contrasts between black, white, and red or red, green, and white to convey the information as distinctly as possible. The POP poster also suggests an allusive quotation of Robert Indiana’s serigraph LOVE (1964) and unmistakably plays with the serial quality of Andy Warhol’s graphic works. Schmid’s poster for the Weeks of French Cinema (1963) quotes the frame sequence of film footage: once again the serial aspect becomes a visual feature that conveys information, immediately introducing the beholder, in concert with the inscription, to the message as well as the technology underlying the artistic medium. Schmid’s reductionist and sometimes divisionist poster designs define the sober style of the announcements in perfect harmony with the clear and structive formal language of Schwanzer’s building. With its consistent application of identical aesthetic criteria to the graphical media of the exhibition poster and the catalogue, the project of the new Museum of the Twentieth Century’s corporate identity, which Georg Schmid realized in collaboration with the museum’s founding director, Werner Hofmann, and Gebrüder Rosenbaum printers (whose headquarters had been built by Oswald Haerdtl) as well as Angerer & Göschl printers, belongs to the tradition of modernist graphic design. This extends from the universal design aspirations anchored in linear art the Vienna Secessionists championed to the rigorous typography of the Bauhaus and the Swiss style in 1950s and 1960s graphic design. During the years from 1962 to 1969, a period marked by rising social and political tensions in Austria, Geord Schmid founded a distinctive modern tradition by utilizing form to express the controversial nature of the exhibits Werner Hofmann organized, such as the photographic documentation of the 1968 Paris student revolt. Yet Schmid’s style was universal in terms of the sources from which it drew inspiration. He skillfully developed identities for exhibitions of folk art as well as presentations about the oeuvre of Adolf Loos. In keeping with this catholic conception of

Georg Schmid, poster Museum of the Twentieth Century, 1963

Georg Schmid, poster for the exhibition Pop etc., 1964

126  Retrospectives, Rainald Franz

Georg Schmid, poster for the Weeks of French Film, 1963

Georg Schmid, poster for the exhibition Idols and Demons, 1963

127

Georg Schmid, poster for the exhibition Adolf Loos, 1964

Georg Schmid, poster for the exhibition Robert Müller: Sculptures, 1965

128  Retrospectives, Rainald Franz

Georg Schmid, poster for the exhibition Comic Strips, 1970

Georg Schmid, poster for the Guest performance by Merce Cunningham Dance Company New York, 1964

129

Oswald Oberhuber, poster for the exhibition Schoenberg – Webern – Berg, 1969

Georg Schmid, poster for the exhibition Folk Art of Eastern Europe, 1970

Georg Schmid, poster for the exhibition Arshile Gorky, 1965

culture, Schmid developed an open system in which the M 20 logo constituted the universal connecting element. Under Werner Hofmann’s successors Alfred Schmeller and Dieter Ronte, Schmid’s work was complemented by the poster designs of Oswald Oberhuber, which display the influence of the Informel, as well as posters created by the exhibiting artists themselves. Starting in 1968, Oberhuber designed posters advertising exhibitions at the Museum of the Twentieth Century of the work of artists such as Roland Goeschl and Arnulf Rainer. His creations also lent the institution the desired artistic flair in their graphical presentation.²³ Direct collaborations between graphic designers and artists as well as artists who contributed their own graphic design constituted another decisive feature of the Museum of the Twentieth Century’s corporate identity; by deliberately taking up design concepts of the Vienna Secession, the museum’s leadership wisely revived a great tradition from the years surrounding 1900. We might also say that the museum’s public image itself traced a historical arc across the artistic design of the century whose art the institution successfully undertook to present. Yet all these designs were consistently held together by Georg Schmid’s “chronoscript” M 20. Christof Nardin’s²⁴ modernized corporate identity for the 21er Haus deliberately emulates the building’s architectonic clarity. Nardin engages its new mission— to serve as a platform for the presentation of Austrian art between 1945 and the present in its international context—by choosing a typography that, instead of mimicking the art it advertises, takes an informative stance. We might even say that it keeps an observer’s distance. A typeface that is widely used in many countries and whose development is closely associated with modern typographic culture, it has been refined to serve the articulation of an autonomous position. Nardin’s concept represents a thoughtful approach to the task of bringing Vienna’s cultural identity as a traditional scene of modernism up to date.

The new 21er. A simple shape, distinctive and memorable

The corporate identity provides for a mixture of typefaces that trace an arc from the 1960s to the twenty-first century.

130  Retrospectives, Rainald Franz

131

1 On the development of the lithographic poster, see Rainald Franz, “Vom Peintre Graveur zum Graphic Designer. Die Lithographie als Bedingung des Künstlerplakates,” in: Walter Koschatzky (ed.), Kunstdruck Druckkunst. Von der Lithographie zum Digitaldruck (Der Apfel, Vienna), 2001, p. 129–56. 2 See Bernhard Denscher, Österreichische Plakatkunst 1898–1938 (Brandstätter, Vienna), 1992, p. 15ff.; Tagebuch der Straße. Geschichte in Plakaten, exh. cat. Wiener Stadt- und Landesbibliothek (Österreichischer Bundesverlag, Vienna), 1981. 3 See Marian Bisanz-Prakken, Heiliger Frühling. Gustav Klimt und die Anfänge der Wiener Secession 1895–1905, exh. cat. Graphische Sammlung Albertina (Brandstätter, Vienna), 1999, p. 97ff. 4 On the School of Applied Arts, see Gottfried Fliedl (ed.), Kunst und Lehre am Beginn der Moderne. Die Wiener Kunstgewerbeschule 1867–1918 (Residenz, Vienna), 1986. On Bertold Löffler, see Erika Patka (ed.), Bertold Löffler. Vagant zwischen Secessionismus und Neobiedermeier, exh. cat. Universität für angewandte Kunst (Die Universität,Vienna), 2000. 5 Werner Schweiger, Der junge Kokoschka. Kunstgewerbeschule, Wiener Werkstätte, Cabaret Fledermaus, Kunstschau 1908, exh. cat. (Oskar-Kokoschka-Dokumentation, Pöchlarn, Vienna), 1983, p. 6. 6 On the Hagenbund, see Tobias Natter, Die verlorene Moderne. Der Künstlerbund Hagen 1900–1938, exh. cat. Österreichische Galerie (Vienna), 1993. On the “Neukunstgruppe,” see Patrick Werkner, “Body Language. Form and Idea in Austrian Expressionist Painting,” in: Klaus Albrecht Schröder, Harald Szeemann (eds.), Egon Schiele and His Contemporaries. Austrian Painting and Drawing from 1900 to 1930 from the Leopold Collection, Vienna, exh. cat. Kunsthaus Zürich, etc. (Prestel, Munich), 1988, p. 40–41. 7 Wilhelm Mrazek, „Flächenkunst – der Wiener Stil um 1900,“ in: Felician von Myrbach/Josef Hoffmann/ Koloman Moser/Alfred Roller (ed.), Die Fläche, Wien 1985 (Reprint). 8 See Werner Schweiger, Aufbruch und Erfüllung. Gebrauchsgraphik der Wiener Moderne (Brandstätter, Vienna), 1988, p. 120ff., n. 7.

The poster for the opening of the 21er Haus deliberately echoes Georg Schmid’s poster from the 1960s that introduced the name

133

9 Julius Klinger, “Plakate und Inserate,” Jahrbuch des Deutschen Werkbundes (1913), p. 110. See also Joseph Binder, Colour in Advertising. The Harmony of Contrasts (The Studio Publications, London, New York), 1934. 10 Das österreichische Plakat, exh. cat. Österreichisches Museum für Kunst und Industrie (Bund Österreichischer Gebrauchsgraphiker, Vienna), 1929, p. 14. 11 Faistauer and Gütersloh had been members of the “Neukunstgruppe;” see Natter, Die verlorene Moderne and Werkner, “Body Language.” On Franz von Zülow, see Fritz Koreny, Franz von Zülow. Frühe Graphik 1904–1915 (Brandstätter, Vienna), 1983. 12 On the “aesthetic” of National Socialist poster designs in Austria, see Tagebuch der Straße, p. 219– 56; Jan Tabor (ed.), Kunst und Diktatur. Architektur, Bildhauerei und Malerei in Österreich, Deutschland, Italien und der Sowjetunion 1922–1956, exh. cat. Künstlerhaus Wien (Grasl, Vienna), 1994. 13 On the teaching and poster art of Paul Kirnig, see Gabriele Koller, “Klasse Paul Kirnig,” in: Kunst: Anspruch und Gegenstand. Von der Kunstgewerbeschule zur Hochschule für angewandte Kunst in Wien 1918–1991 (Residenz, Salzburg), 1991, p. 212ff.; Peter Klinger, “Das Plakat,” in Wieland Schmied (ed.), Geschichte der bildenden Kunst in Österreich, vol. 4: 20. Jahrhundert (Prestel, Munich), 2002, p. 348. 14 Viktor Slama, “Das Plakat als Kunstwerk,” in: Internationale Plakatausstellung, exh. cat. Künstlerhaus Wien (Vienna), 1948, p. 17–18. 15 See Robert Fleck, Secession. Das Jahrhundert der künstlerischen Freiheit, exh. cat. Secession, Vienna, and Rudolphinum, Prague (Prestel, Munich:), 1998; Der Kreis. Dokumentation einer Wiener Künstlervereinigung 1946–1980, exh. cat. Historisches Museum der Stadt Wien (Vienna), 1981; Otto Breicha (ed.), Der Art Club in Österreich. Zeugen und Zeugnisse eines Aufbruchs, exh. cat. Museum des 20. Jahrhunderts Wien (Jugend und Volk, Vienna), 1981; Wolfgang Denk (ed.), Mythos Art Club. Der Aufbruch nach 1945, exh. cat. Kunsthalle Krems (Krems), 2003; Robert Fleck,

Avantgarde in Wien. Die Geschichte der Galerie nächst St. Stephan, 1954–1982. Kunst und Kunstbetrieb in Österreich (Galerie nächst St. Stephan, Vienna), 1982; Otto Breicha, Fünfzig Jahre Galerie Würthle – Fünfzig Jahre moderne Kunst in Wien (Vienna), 1970; Galerie Würthle, gegründet 1865 (Vienna,), 1995 (ed. on occasion of the anniversary exhibition at Galerie Würthle, 1995). 16 See Anita Kern, Grafikdesign in Österreich im 20. Jahrhundert (Vienna: Pustet, 2008), p. 224ff. 17 On Georg Schmid, see the interview with Epi Schlüsselberger conducted by Rainald Franz and Anita Kern, April 2011, unpublished; Georg Schmid (1928–1998), Grafik, Malerei und Bühnenbilder (Vienna, 2003); Georg Schmid (1928–1998) (Alpbach, 2006); and most recently Christian Maryska, “Das Ende des ‘goldenen Zeitalters der Agenturlosigkeit,’” in Julia König-Rainer (ed.), 60er. Plakate aus der Sammlung der Wienbibliothek (Wienbibliothek im Rathaus, Vienna), 2011, p. 23–24. 18 See Epi Schlüsselberger, Arbeiten aus den Jahren 1948 bis 2008 (Vienna), 2008. 19 See Anita Kern, Bernadette Reinhold, Grafikdesign von der Wiener Moderne bis heute. Von Kolo Moser bis Stefan Sagmeister. Aus der Sammlung der Universität für angewandte Kunst (Springer, Vienna), 2010, p. 138ff. 20 See Kern, Grafikdesign in Österreich, p. 256ff. 21 See “Arbeitsprogramm der Wiener Werkstätte” (Vienna), 1905, reprinted in Peter Noever (ed.), Der Preis der Schönheit. 100 Jahre Wiener Werkstätte, exh. cat. Museum für angewandte Kunst Wien (Ostfildern-Ruit: Hatje Cantz), 2004. 22 Rudolf von Larisch, Unterricht in ornamentaler Schrift (Österreichische Staatsdruckerei, Vienna), 1929, p. 5. 23 See Stephan Ettl, Oswald Oberhuber. Plakate, Plakate, Plakate/ Posters, Posters, Posters. Werkverzeichnis (Springer, Vienna), 2009, p. 270ff. 24 http://christofnardin.com/ (accessed October 27, 2011).

The Turns and Returns of Film. A few remarks Harald Krejci

134

Ever since its invention, and especially during the first half of the twentieth century, film has received essential impulses from the visual arts and the theater. At the same time, it emancipated itself as an autonomous medium from photography and the associated discourses on the medium’s relation to reality. In doing so it also raises the question of what, if anything, the institution of the cinema could contribute to the rapid evolution of film. Is “cinema” our name for the wide diversity of evolving filmic formats in connection with a specific site of performance, or is it a term of architecture, designating a room in which the stage has been reduced to a flat projection screen and in which the spectator is more or less strongly involved with the visual genre of film? Without digressing into the cultural history of the cinema, raising the question in this manner suggests a possible approach to a study of the role the cinema played in the development of the visual arts in 1960s Austria. Starting in 1962, one movie theater that was a source of impulses in the field under consideration was part of the newly created Museum of the Twentieth Century. Conceived as a temporary structure in a separate building attached to the pavilion, the theater presented newsreels. Quoting the convention, this practice goes back to the 1880s use of film as an entertainment medium in the framework of trade shows, fairs, and major exhibitions. In the 1920s, avant-garde film emerged within the increasingly variegated filmic genre. In the 1930s, this development led to the creation of the film department at the Museum of Modern Art, which marked a major step toward the recognition of film and its establishment within an art museum. The differentiation of film into the subgenres of documentary, experimental, and feature film as well as film-essayistic experimentation and short film was the primary factor propelling the recognition of art film as an art form in the world of museums. In his Theory of Film, which was based on studies undertaken at the MoMA and elsewhere in the late 1950s and first published in 1960, Siegfried Kracauer showed how the theoretical foundations of film were laid via the level of content.¹ Despite the growing interest in film among artists, Vienna offered very limited possibilities for experimental-film screenings. Storefronts or private apartments rented for the purpose, as well as festivals and exhibitions, many of them organized privately, served as screening venues for new filmic works. The vibrant art scenes in the US, Germany, France, and Italy also provided several Austrian artists with oppor-

135

tunities to present their filmic works in galleries or at festivals. Peter Kubelka, Marc Adrian, Herbert Vesely, and Ferry Radax for instance, were able to show their works on the international (film) stage. Wilhelm Gaube’s documentary film about the exhibitions at the former Museum of the Twentieth Century in the Schweizergarten as well as experimental films about Otto Mühl’s material actions or Günter Brus’s performances are among the many filmic articulations of the era. On the other hand, the Vienna Group around Gerhard Rühm, Friedrich Achleitner, Konrad Bayer, and H. C. Artmann sought to explore language and its potential to engender associations with a view to music and visual representation as well, creating contributions to the history of Austrian experimental film.² When the World’s Fair pavilion was adapted to serve as a museum of the twentieth century, the associated movie theater—in architectural terms, a satellite building that had its own entrance and could thus be used independently—also came to Vienna, where it is now the city’s only surviving 1950s movie screening room. In 1963—the year before the Vienna Film Museum was founded—the Museum of the Twentieth Century’s founding director, Werner Hofmann, collaborated with the Cinémathèque française, Paris, to organize a series of screenings of new French films. The event must also be seen as motivating interested audiences to consider the relevance of the reception of film to art history. The movie theater continued to be in use for screenings over the years that followed. Peter Kubelka had already participated in the 1958 Brussels presentation as a filmmaker;³ in 1967, the museum in Vienna presented works by Kurt Kren.⁴ The 1975 exhibition Art Made of Language featured films by Ernst Schmidt jr., VALIE EXPORT, and the Vienna Group, among others. Gottfried Schlemmer presented his films at the theater in 1985. Works by Hans Scheugl, Martin Arnold, Marc Adrian, Lisl Ponger, and others were shown as part of the The Light of the Periphery festival organized by Peter Tscherkassky in 1988. In 1987, Lisl Ponger organized the avant-garde film show The Shadows in the Silver, which also featured films by artists such as Linda Christanell and Dietmar Brehm. Ponger’s work was also included in the 1985 exhibition Art with a Mind of Its Own.⁵ As Hofmann recalls it, it proved impossible to use the movie theater to its fullest potential.⁶ Still, the role of the museum as a central site of critical engagement in connection with a reflection on the artistic qualities of film deserves mention; and film retained its

The movie theater of the 21er Haus

136  Retrospectives, Harald Krejci

prominent position under the museum’s second director, the avowed movie buff Alfred Schmeller, and his successors Dieter Ronte and Lóránd Hegyi. Schmeller also used the medium of film to document the exhibitions. With Hofmann still directing the museum, Wilhelm Gaube had already started producing several exhibition documentations, some of which evinced qualities of experimental film, such as the documentary about the 1967 exhibition Kinetica. Schmeller put his work on more systematic footing by buying equipment, and Gaube—who had been appointed the museum’s assistant director—produced numerous interviews with artists, including Oswald Oberhuber, Nam June Paik, Franz Ringel, Olga Neuwirth, and Walter Pichler.⁷ Before the 1960 publication of Kracauer’s Theory of Film, in the late 1950s, a new tendency had emerged in international avant-garde filmmaking that explicitly drew inspiration from the accomplishments of the 1920s. In Vienna, a group of young filmmakers and artists came to meet with increasing regularity at the Art Club’s favoured hangout, Strohkoffer, and at the Stambul. Kurt Kren, Ferry Radax, Peter Kubelka, Marc Adrian, and several other artists and junior filmmakers exchanged ideas, and some even created collaborative works. In today’s perspective, we may say that the visual arts in late-1950s and 1960s Austria drew particular profit from filmic experimentation and from the medium of film as such. We might also say that the appropriation of film as a medium of visual art shaped the characteristic trajectory of the visual arts in Austria, whose distinguishing feature is that the abovementioned artists came to regard film as one of many equally valid media of artistic expression as early as the late 1950s. When the appeal of the late surrealist imaginary of the early 1950s faded, they shifted the focus to an analysis and structure of the psychological processes of perception. Another consequence of this development of film in Austria was that film artists increasingly pushed into the institution of the museum. So the filmmakers, too, took a critical attitude vis-à-vis the cinema as an institution, ultimately abandoning it in favor of the museums. Today’s interfaces are more differentiated, giving rise to a reassessment of the cinema, but also of the museum.⁸

137

1 Siegfried Kracauer, Theory of Film: The Redemption of Physical Reality (Oxford University Press, New York), 1960. 2 For the history of Austrian film, see Alexander Horwath, Lisl Ponger, Gottfried Schlemmer (eds.), Avantgardefilm: Österreich. 1950 bis heute (Wespennest, Vienna), 1995; Elisabeth Büttner, Christian Dewald, Anschluß an Morgen: Eine Geschichte des österreichischen Films von 1945 bis zur Gegenwart (Residenz, Salzburg), 1997. 3 See Horwath, Ponger, Schlemmer, Avantgardefilm, p. 375. 4 Ibid., p. 371. 5 Ibid., p. 325 ff. 6 I am grateful to Bettina Steinbrügge for pointing me to her interview with Werner Hofmann (2011). 7 Interview with Wilhelm Gaube by Joerg Burger and Werner Schreiner (Vienna, December 17, 2001), in Wolfgang Schreiner, Bildende Kunst in Film, Fernsehen und Video. Die Künstlerportraits von Wilhelm Gaube (degree thesis, Vienna, 2002). 8 The Len Lye retrospective held at the Centre Pompidou, Paris, in 2000 and the exhibition on Kenneth Anger at P.S.1, New York, in 2009 reflect the museums’ renascent interest in film. In 2010, the Schirn Kunsthalle, Frankfurt, presented Zelluloid, an exhibition on experimental film.

Appendix Chronology of Exhibitions 1962—2000 Véronique Aichner p. 140 Author Biographies p. 191 Picture Credits p. 195 Colophon p. 200

139

Chronology of Exhibitions 1962—2000 Véronique Aichner

From 1962 to 1969, the Museum of the Twentieth Century was led by its founding director, Werner Hofmann; he was succeeded by Alfred Schmeller. In 1979, Dieter Ronte took over as the museum’s director, and Lóránd Hegyi headed the museum from 1990 to 2001. In 1979, the museum expanded to a second venue, the Palais Liechtenstein, and was henceforth called Museum of Modern Art Vienna at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century. In 1991, the museum’s name was changed to Museum of Modern Art Foundation Ludwig Vienna (MMKSLW) at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century. In 2001, when the collection moved to its current home in Vienna’s Museumsquartier, it was given the new name Museum of Modern Art Foundation Ludwig Vienna (MUMOK). Since its foundation, the museum has been by its interdisciplinary programming. In addition to the scheduled exhibitions, it was always a venue for events in the fields of music, dance, theater, literature, film, and fashion. Some of these events were initiated by other institutions. The collaboration with the Wiener Festwochen from 1963–2000 was particularly close, generating more than seventy events and exhibitions. The list of such events contained in this chronology is intended to be exemplary and not exhaustive. A particular feature of Alfred Schmeller’s tenure at the museum were the shows in the so-called “clubroom;” between 1970 and 1979, almost fifty exhibitions were on display there. Located between the foyer and the administrative offices, the clubroom was converted, under Dieter Ronte, into the library.¹ This chronology is based on a list of exhibitions kept by Domenica Lachnit-Reichhart.² Cosima Rainer gained important information in numerous conversations with opinion leaders, artists, curators and former employees of the museum, among them Markus Brüderlin, Wolfgang Drechsler, Silvia Eiblmayr, Susanne Neuburger, Oswald Oberhuber, Walter Pichler, Conny, Sabine Schmeller and the first director of the Museum, Werner Hofmann.

1 The available information on the exhibitions shown in the clubroom is incomplete with regard to exact dates; for the sake of uniformity, the dates of these shows have been altogether omitted from the present chronology. 2 Further information regarding events and exhibitions within the Wiener Festwochen were taken from the publication Wiener_Festwochen_1952–2001_ Ein Festival zwischen Repräsentation und Irritation.

140

141

1962 Art from 1900 to Today 9/21–11/4/1962 Marc Adrian, Hans Aeschbacher, Pierre Alechinsky, Horst Antes, Karel Appel, Alexander Archipenko, Kenneth Armitage, Hans Arp, Joannis Avramidis, Francis Bacon, Enrico Baj, Giacomo Balla, Ernst Barlach, Willi Baumeister, Herbert Bayer, André Beaudin, Max Beckmann, Rudolf Belling, Wander Bertoni, Guido Biasi, Max Bill, Albert Bitran, Umberto Boccioni, Herbert Boeckl, Pierre Bonnard, Constantin Brancusi, Georges Braque, Victor Brauner, James Brooks, Alberto Burri, Alexander Calder, César, Paul Cézanne, Lynn Chadwick, Marc Chagall, Eduardo Chillida, Giorgio de Chirico, Constant (Nieuwenhuys), Le Corbusier (Charles Edouard Jeanneret), Lovis Corinth, Corneille (Guillaume Cornelis van Beverloo), Wessel Couzijn, Roberto Crippa, Modest Cuixart, Alan Davie, Jean Degottex, Robert Delaunay, Sonja Delaunay, André Derain, Charles Despiau, Jean Dewasne, Walter Dexel, Otto Dix, Theo van Doesburg, Piero Dorazio, Jean Dubuffet, Marcel Duchamp, Raymond Duchamp-Villon, James Ensor, Max Ernst, Maurice Estève, Francisco Farreras, Jean Fautrier, Lyonel Feininger, Sam Francis, Ernst Fuchs, Naum Gabo, Paul Gauguin, Richard Gerstl, Alberto Giacometti, Albert Gleizes, Vincent van Gogh, Julio González, Juan Gris, Marcel Gromaire, Walter Gropius, George Grosz, Albert Paris Gütersloh, Philip Guston, Otto Gutfreund, Renato Guttuso, Shamai Haber, Hans Hartung, Rudolf Hausner, Roger Hilton,

Ferdinand Hodler, Adolf Hölzel, Carl Hofer, Rudolf Hoflehner, Wolfgang Hollegha, Alfred Hrdlicka, Fritz Hundertwasser, Wolfgang Hutter, Johannes Itten, Robert Jacobsen, Alexej Jawlensky, Philip C. Johnson, Wassily Kandinsky, Ernst Ludwig Kirchner, Paul Klee, Gustav Klimt, Franz Kline, Oskar Kokoschka, Anton Kolig, Norbert Kricke, Alfred Kubin, František Kupka, Wifredo Lam, Ger Lataster, Henri Laurens, Fernand Léger, Wilhelm Lehmbruck, Anton Lehmden, Heinz Leinfellner, Jacques Lipchitz, Maurice Lipsi, El Lissitzky, Adolf Loos, Lucebert (van Swaanswijk), Bernhard Luginbühl, August Macke, Alberto Magnelli, René Magritte, Kasimir Malewitsch, Alfred Manessier, Paul Mansouroff, Franz Marc, Marino Marini, Maryan, Frans Masereel, André Masson, Georges Mathieu, Henri Matisse, Roberto Matta, James Metcalf, Josef Mikl, George Minne, Joan Miró, Paula ModersohnBecker, Amedeo Modigliani, László Moholy-Nagy, Piet Mondrian, Henry Moore, Giorgio Morandi, Otto Mueller, Robert Müller, Edvard Munch, Lucio Muñoz, Gabriele Münter, Ernst Wilhelm Nay, Ben Nicholson, Emil Nolde, Richard Oelze, Jim Osborne, Victor Pasmore, Max Pechstein, Alicia Penalba, Constant Permeke, Antoine Pevsner, Lucio del Pezzo, Pablo Picasso, Edouard Pignon, Josef Pillhofer, Serge Poliakoff, Jackson Pollock, Arnaldo Pomodoro, Giò Pomodoro, Karl Prantl, Arnulf Rainer, Odilon Redon, Germaine Richier, Hans Richter, Fritz Riedl, Gerrit Thomas Rietveld, Auguste Rodin, Medardo Rosso, Theodore Roszak, Georges Rouault, Antonio Saura, Egon Schiele, Oskar Schlemmer, Karl

Schmidt-Rottluff, Kurt Schwitters, Emil Schumacher, William Scott, Giovanni Segantini, Jaroslav Serpan, Victor Servranckx, Gino Severini, David Siqueiros, Pierre Soulages, Chaim Soutine, Nicolas de Staël, Shinkichi Tajiri, Yves Tanguy, Antoni Tàpies, Sophie Taeuber-Arp, Wilhelm Thöny, Mark Tobey, Henri ToulouseLautrec, Andreas Urteil, Georges Vantongerloo, Victor Vasarely, Henry van de Velde, Emilio Vedova, Jacques Villon (Gaston Duchamp), Carel Visser, Maurice Vlaminck, Edouard Vuillard, Rudolf Wacker, Jaap Wagemaker, James Wines, Karl Anton Wolf, Wols (Wolfgang Schulze), Fritz Wotruba, Maurice Wyckaert

Belgian Painting Since 1900 11/19–12/15/1962 Pierre Alechinsky, Henri de Braekeleer, Jan Cox, Paul Delvaux, James Ensor, Paul van Hoeydonck, Fernand Khnopff, René Magritte, Frans Masereel, Luc Peire, Valerius de Saedeleer, Victor Servranckx, Léon Spilliaert, Henry van de Velde, Maurice Wyckaert, Rik Wouters

1963 Wilhelm Lehmbruck 1/11–2/10/1963

Opening of Art from 1900 to Today, 1962

Exhibition view of Art from 1900 to Today, 1962, ground floor

Exhibition view of Art from 1900 to Today, 1962, second floor

Federal President Adolf Schärf and Werner Hofmann at the opening of Art from 1900 to Today, 1962

Exhibition views of Wilhelm Lehmbruck, 1963

142  Chronology, 1962–1963

143

Rudolf Hoflehner 2/22–3/31/1963 Hans Hartung 4/11–5/12/1963 Exhibition in conjunction with the Wiener Festwochen Fritz Wotruba 5/17–6/25/1963 Exhibition in conjunction with the Wiener Festwochen

Matta, Josef Mikl, Joan Miró, Gustave Moreau, Henry Moore, Edvard Munch, Ernst Wilhelm Nay, Louise Nevelson, Emil Nolde, Richard Oelze, Pablo Picasso, Jackson Pollock, Arnulf Rainer, Odilon Redon, Germaine Richier, Auguste Rodin, Antonio Saura, Giovanni Segantini, Yves Tanguy, Hans Uhlmann, Andreas Urteil, Wols (Wolfgang Schulze)

→ Event

Evening concert program as part of the Wiener Festwochen in the Fritz Wotruba exhibition, directed by Friedrich Cerha, 1963

1964 Josef Mikl 1/17–3/8/1964 Franz Kline 3/16–4/12/1964 Exhibition view of Fritz Wotruba, 1963

Exhibition view of Idols and Demons, 1963

Idols and Demons 7/5–9/1/1963 Pierre Alechinsky, Horst Antes, Karel Appel, Hans Arp, Francis Bacon, Willi Baumeister, Max Beckmann, Hans Bellmer, Wander Bertoni, Umberto Boccioni, Victor Brauner, Jorge Castillo, Giorgo de Chirico, Alan Davie, Jean Dubuffet, Raymond Duchamp-Villon, James Ensor, Max Ernst, Ernst Fuchs, Paul Gauguin, Alberto Giacometti, Julio González, Rudolf Hausner, Erich Heckel, Rudolf Hoflehner, Fritz Hundertwasser, Asger Jorn, Horst Egon Kalinowski, Fernand Khnopff, Ernst Ludwig Kirchner, Paul Klee, Gustav Klimt, Oskar Kokoschka, Alfred Kubin, Wifredo Lam, Fernand Léger, Anton Lehmden, André Masson, Roberto

Roberto Sebastian Matta 9/13–10/20/1963

144  Chronology, 1963–1964

Adolf Loos 4/27–6/21/1964 Exhibition in conjunction with the Wiener Festwochen.

First shown in 1962 on occasion of the inauguration of the Austrian Cultural Center, Paris

French Film from 1900 to Today 11/4–12/4/1963

Evening concert program as part of the Wiener Festwochen in the Fritz Wotruba exhibition, directed by Friedrich Cerha, 1963

Exhibition view of French Film from 1900 to Today, 1963

Exhibition view of Adolf Loos, 1964

Andreas Urteil 12/13/1963–1/5/1964

145

Masterworks of Sculpture 7/3–9/6/1964 Alexander Archipenko, Joannis Avramidis, André Beaudin, Rudolf Belling, Wander Bertoni, Constantin Brancusi, André Derain, Eugène Dodeigne, Raymond Duchamp-Villon, Max Ernst, Otto Freundlich, Alberto Giacometti, Lorenzo Guerrini, Julio González, Karl Hartung, Rudolf Hoflehner, Robert Jacobsen, Henri Laurens, Wilhelm Lehmbruck, Jacques Lipchitz, Aristide Maillol, Henry Moore, Alicia Penalba, Auguste Rodin, Oskar Schlemmer, Andreas Urteil, Fritz Wotruba, Ossip Zadkine

Oliveira, Eduardo Paolozzi, Peter Phillips, Edouard Pignon, Michelangelo Pistoletto, Karl Plattner, Marcel Pouget, Arnulf Rainer, Robert Rauschenberg, Martial Raysse, Man Ray, Antonio Recalcati, Germaine Richier, Larry Rivers, James Rosenquist, Mimmo Rotella, Peter Saul, Antonio Saura, Wim Schippers, George Segal, Richard Smith, Daniel Spoerri, Curt Stenvert, Harold Stevenson, Shinkichi Tajiri, Wayne Thiebaud, Jean Tinguely, Bob Thompson, Jorge de la Vega, Jacques de la Villeglé, Andy Warhol, John Wesley, Tom Wesselmann, H. C. Westermann, Co Westerik

Pop etc. 9/19–10/31/1964 Woody van Amen, Horst Antes, Karel Appel, Allan d’Arcangelo, Arman, Eduardo Arroyo, Francis Bacon, Enrico Baj, Pierre Bettencourt, Peter Blake, Derek Boshier, Michel Angel Cardenas, Alik Cavaliere, César (Baldaccini), Bruce Conner, Constant, Joseph Cornell, Wessel Couzijn, John Christoforou, Dado, Alan Davie, George Deem, Gérard Dechamps, Jim Dine, Jean Dubuffet, Marcel Duchamp, François Dufrène, Hans van Eck, Max Ernst, Öyvind Fahlström, Llyn Foulkes, Adolf Frohner, Willem van Genk, Vic Gentils, Renato Guttuso, Raymond Hains, Jan Henderikse, David Hockney, Howard Hodgkin, Paul van Hoeydonck, Robert Indiana, Robert Jacobsen, Christo, Jasper Johns, Alan Jones, Horst Egon Kalinowski, Phillip King, R. B. Kitaj, Yves Klein, Willem de Kooning, Tetsumi Kudo, Bruce Lacey, Fernand Léger, Roy Liechtenstein, Maryan, Marisol, Joan Miró, Jaap Mooy, Luis Felipe Noé, Sidney Nolan, Claes Oldenburg, Nathan

Exhibition organized by the Gemeentemuseum, Den Haag, shown under the title New Realists

146  Chronology, 1964–1966

Wander Bertoni 11/11–12/8/1964

1965

Herbert Boeckl 12/18/1964–2/14/1965

Fritz Hundertwasser (later known as Friedensreich Hundertwasser) 2/20–3/28/1965

→ Event

Victor Brauner 4/15–5/19/1965 Art in Freedom—Moore, Dubuffet, Tobey 5/29–6/27/1965 World Exhibition of Photography 7/3–9/12/1965 Arshile Gorky 9/18–10/17/1965 Robert Müller: Sculptures 10/30–11/28/1965 Emil Nolde 12/11/1965–2/15/1966

1966 Franz Kafka 3/19–4/30/1966 Herbert Boeckl: Sticky Pictures 5/14–5/30/1966 Sculpture: From Rodin to the Present 6/11/1966–1/3/1967

Guest performance by Merce Cunningham & Dance Company, New York, 1964 Exhibition views of Pop etc., 1964

147

1967

1968

Wolfgang Hollegha 2/18–3/27/1967

Paul Klee 1/20–3/3/1968

E. W. Nay 4/15–5/15/1967

Antoni Tàpies 3/16–4/21/1968

Gyula Derkovits 5/26–6/25/1967

Fernand Léger 4/26–6/9/1968 Exhibition in conjunction with the Wiener Festwochen

Kinetica 7/7–10/15/1967 Mark Adrian, Josef Albers, Antonio Asis, Olle Baertling, Hartmut Böhm, Martha Boto, Sergio de Camargo, Geneviève Claisse, Lygia Clark, Gianni Colombo, Toni Costa, Carlos Cruz-Diez, Hugo Demarco, Jean Dewasne, Marcel Duchamp, Lilian Florsheim, Günter Fruhtrunk, Horacio Garcia-Rossi, Paul Julius Geißler, Karl Gerstner, Roland Goeschl, Gerhard von Graevenitz, Lily Greenham, Auguste Herbin, Georg Jung, Lajos Kassák, Richard Kriesche, Julio Le Parc, Richard Paul Lohse, Heinz Mack, Enzo Mari, Christian Megert, François Morellet, Richard Mortensen, Koloman Novak, Eric Olson, Victor Pasmore, Hermann Painitz, Helga Philipp, Ivan Picelj, Uli Pohl, Nicolas Schöffer, Francisco Sobrino, Ed Sommer, Jesús-Rafael Soto, Joël Stein, Jean Tinguely, Luis R. Tomasello, Günther Uecker, Grégorio Vardanega, Victor Vasarely, Karl Wittmann, Ludwig Wilding, Yvaral

Paris, May ’68 9/28–10/16/1968

Exhibition view of Kinetica, 1967

Oswald Oberhuber, poster for the exhibition Paris, May ’68, 1968

Arnulf Rainer 10/26–12/31/1968 Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler at the opening of Fernand Léger, 1968

Georg Schmid, poster for the exhibition Kinetica, 1967

Franz Kupka (i.e., František Kupka) 11/4–12/17/1967

Sculptures and Objects— From Medardo Rosso to Bruno Gironcoli 7/6–9/23/1968

Arnulf Rainer in his exhibition, 1968

148  Chronology, 1967–1968

149

1969 Roland Goeschl 2/15–3/23/1969

Marks on a Canvas 9/27–11/9/1969 Patrick Caulfield, Bernard Cohen, David Hockney, John Hoyland, Paul Huxley, Allen Jones, Mark Lancaster, Jeremy Moon, Bridget Riley, Richard Smith, John Walker

Folk Art of Eastern Europe 4/4–5/10/1970 Special exhibition of the Collection of Eastern European Folk Cultures of the Austrian Museum of Folk Life and Folk Art

Exhibition as part of the “English Weeks”

Exhibition view of New Figurative Art USA. Painting—Sculpture—Film, 1963–1968, 1969 Oswald Oberhuber, poster for the exhibition Roland Goeschl, 1969

1970

Otto Gutfreund 4/3–5/11/1969

Haus-Rucker-Co: Live 2/7–3/15/1970

Schoenberg—Webern—Berg: Images, Scores, Documents 5/17–7/20/1969 Exhibition in conjunction with the Wiener Festwochen Charles Rennie Mackintosh 6/6–7/20/1969 Exhibition in conjunction with the Wiener Festwochen Expressionists: The Morton D. May Collection 8/2–9/14/1969 Max Beckmann, Heinrich Campendonk, Lovis Corinth, Otto Dix, Max Ernst, Lyonel Feininger, Conrad Felixmüller, George Grosz, Erich Heckel, Carl Hofer, Alexej Jawlensky, Wassily Kandinsky, Ernst Ludwig Kirchner, Paul Klee, Oskar Kokoschka, August Macke, Franz Marc, Ludwig Meidner, Paula Modersohn-Becker, Otto Mueller, Emil Nolde, Max Pechstein, Christian Rohlfs, Karl Schmidt-Rottluff

150  Chronology, 1969–1970

Exhibition view of Folk Art of Eastern Europe, 1970

Comic Strips: Genesis, History, Narrative Structure, Impact, and Dissemination of the Picture Story 7/3–8/1/1970 Exhibition organized by the Academy of the Arts, Berlin

Georg Schmid, poster for the exhibition Marks on a Canvas, 1969

New Figurative Art USA. Painting—Sculpture—Film, 1963–1968 11/29–12/28/1969 John N. Battenberg, Richard Boyce, Robert Cremean, Richard Diebenkorn, Frank Gallo, James Gill, Robert Hansen, Paul Harris, Edward Higgins, Lester Johnson, John Paul Jones, Robert Nelson, Joseph Raffael, Robert Rauschenberg, George Segal, Andy Warhol, Tom Wesselmann

Exhibition view of Haus-Rucker-Co: Live, 1970

Exhibition view of Comic Strips, 1970

Opening of Haus-Rucker-Co: Live, 1970

151

Children Paint, Draw, Shape 11/27/1970–1/3/1971

Brief Documentation of Impressions Received by Director Schmeller During a Six-Week Study Tour of the United States Multiples

→ Events

Concert as part of Arena 70 in the museum’s sculpture garden, 1970

Children painting in the museum, 1970 Exhibition views of Comic Strips, 1970

The Era of Overflowing Vision: Man in Space 8/25–10/31/1970

Adolf Loos for Young People 11/27/1970–1/3/1971

Concert by Ravi Shankar as part of Arena 70, 1970

→  Exhibitions in the clubroom: Bruno Gironcoli Eberhard Fiebig Bohuslav Kokoschka Peter Pongratz

Exhibition view of The Era of Overflowing Vision: Man in Space, 1970

Concert by the Masters of Unorthodox Jazz, 1970

Concert as part of Arena 70 in the museum’s sculpture garden, 1970 Peter Pongratz in his exhibition in the clubroom, 1970

152  Chronology, 1970

153

Concert by Jeunesses Musicales, 1970s

Van Beethoven Environment 4/1–5/2/1971 Exhibition organized by the Neue Galerie im Kurhaus, Aachen

Walter Pichler 7/14–10/17/1971

→ Events

Walter Pichler in his exhibition, 1971

Fashion show Mini, Midi, Maxi in the museum’s sculpture garden, 1970

1971 Beginnings of the Informel in Austria: Maria Lassnig, Oswald Oberhuber, Arnulf Rainer 1/20–3/21/1971

Oswald Oberhuber, poster for the exhibition Van Beethoven Environment, 1971 Exhibition view of Walter Pichler, 1971

Erich Brauer (later known as Arik Brauer) 3/26–5/5/1971 Festival of the Socialist Youth of Austria, 1971

Exhibition view of Van Beethoven Environment, 1971 Arik Brauer with Alfred Schmeller and Bruno Kreisky at the opening of his exhibition, 1971

Walter Pichler, Reconstruction of the Museum/ Rooms Made of Cotton Fabric for the Museum of the Twentieth Century, 1971

154  Chronology, 1970–1971

155

Fashion show in the museum, 1971

Vienna School of Fantastic Realism Erich Brauer, Ernst Fuchs, Rudolf Hausner, Wolfgang Hutter, Anton Lehmden 11/14/1972–2/14/1973

→ Exhibitions in the clubroom: Wall Paintings and Architecture Models by Fritz Hundertwasser

Fashion show in the museum, 1971

Exhibition view of Industrial Design from Italy, 1972

Jacques Lipchitz 10/27/1971–1/2/1972

Revolutionary Architecture Étienne-Louis Boullée, ClaudeNicolas Ledoux, Jean-Jacques Lequeu, Louis-Jean Desprez 7/12–8/6/1972

→  Exhibitions in the clubroom: Plan 1945–1948. Documentation Dumont Art Books Cornelius Kolig Caritas Exhibition Ödön von Horváth Erwin Thorn: White

Rudolf Hoflehner 1/12–2/19/1972 Industrial Design from Italy 3/2–4/30/1972

Ernst Haas: Postwar Reportage 10/6–11/5/1972

156  Chronology, 1971–1973

Arena Ambros, concert by Wolfgang Ambros as part of Arena 72, 1972

→ Events

Graphic Works and Objects: Gemini G.E.L. 8/16–9/24/1972 Anni Albers, Josef Albers, John Altoon, John Chamberlain, William Crutchfield, Allan d’Arcangelo, Ron Davis, Sam Francis, John Goode, Jasper Johns, Donald Judd, Ellsworth Kelly, Edward Kienholz, Roy Lichtenstein, Man Ray, Claes Oldenburg, Ken Price, Joe Raffaele, Robert Rauschenberg, Edward Ruscha, Ben Shahn, Frank Stella, Wayne Thiebaud

Traveling exhibition: Städtische Kunsthalle Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf; Kunstverein Hannover, Hannover; Württembergischer Kunstverein, Stuttgart; Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna

1972

Symposium: Neumarkt an der Raab, Burgenland (Cultural Policy Makers and Officials Draw and Paint)

The dance company Le Grand Magic Circus in front of the museum’s entrance during Arena 72, 1972

1973 Arena Ambros, concert by Wolfgang Ambros as part of Arena 72, 1972

Tomi Ungerer 3/14–4/23/1973 Ad Reinhardt 7/18–8/28/1973

157

The Road: The Shape of Living Together 9/12–10/28/1973 Traveling exhibition: Städtische Kunsthalle Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf; Kunsthalle Nürnberg, Nuremberg; Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna

Form and Design: Fifty Years of Design Knoll International 11/8–12/2/1973

→ Event

Visitors to Arena 73, 1973

Richard Lindner 10/10–11/20/1974 Exhibition organized by the Réunion des Musées Nationaux, Paris, in collaboration with the Musée National d’Art Moderne, Paris, the Museum Boijmans van Beuningen, Rotterdam, the Städtische Kunsthalle Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, and the Kunsthaus Zürich, Zurich. Richard Hamilton: Prints 12/3/1974–1/12/1975 Exhibition organized by Wesleyan University, Connecticut, and the Petersburg Press, London/ New York

→ Exhibitions in the clubroom:

1974 C. Kolig, 1968–72 (Phase III) 3/20–5/12/1974

Exhibition views of Form and Design: Fifty Years of Design Knoll International, 1973

Kurt Schwitters 12/12/1973–3/3/1974

→  Exhibitions in the clubroom: Rudolf Richly Photography—Advertisement— Comic Strip (Children’s Painting School, Kassel) Missing Link: Angela Hareiter, Otto Kapfinger, Adolf Krischanitz

158  Chronology, 1973–1975

Alfred Manessier 5/29–6/30/1974 Exhibition in conjunction with the Wiener Festwochen

Traveling exhibition: Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; Kärntner Landesgalerie, Klagenfurt; Neue Galerie der Stadt Linz, Linz

The Wine Cellars of Heiligenbrunn, Burgenland Documentation: “The Manifesto” by Antonis Lepeniotis Emil Mayer: Photographer, 1871–1938 Traveling exhibition: Kulturhaus Graz, Graz; Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; Galerie im Taxis-Palais, Innsbruck

Creative Photography in Austria 1/15–2/16/1975 Herbert Bayer, Walter Bernhardt, Friedl Bondy, Kurt W. Erben, Hans Fleischner, Ernst Haas, Franz Hubmann, Erich Kees, Richard Kratochwill, Elisabeth Kraus, Branko Lenart jr., Otmar Thormann, Helmut Trummer, Nikolaus Walter, Felix Weber, Manfred Willmann, Gert Winkler Evil Beautiful World: Naïve Art from Yugoslavia from the Collection of Gerhard Ledić 2/26–4/14/1975 Traveling exhibition: Künstlerhaus and Kulturhaus der Stadt Graz, Graz; Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; Landesgalerie im Schloss Esterházy, Eisenstadt Alternatives in Public Housing 5/14–6/29/1975 Exhibition in conjunction with the Wiener Festwochen

Alfred Manessier For Example: Eisenstadt

The Shakers: The Life and Production of a Commune in America’s Pioneer Era 7/10–8/11/1974 Exhibition organized by Neue Sammlung München—State Museum of Applied Art, Munich Franz Ringel 8/27–10/6/1974 Exhibition in collaboration with Haus Sydow-Zirkwitz, Frankfurt am Main

1975

Exhibition view of Alternatives in Public Housing, 1975

159

Saul Steinberg: Drawings, Watercolors, Collages, Paintings, Reliefs, 1963–1974 7/4–7/27/1975 Traveling exhibition: Kölnischer Kunstverein, Cologne; Württembergischer Kunstverein, Stuttgart; Kestner-Gesellschaft, Hannover; Kulturhaus der Stadt Graz, Graz; Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna

Levi’s Pop Jeans Galerie

A parallel exhibition of New Art from Austria was held at the Von der Heydt Museum, Wuppertal Eduard Angeli 9/8–10/31/1976 Traveling exhibition: Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; Kulturhaus der Stadt Graz, Graz, as part of the 1976 Styrian Autumn

László Moholy-Nagy 8/6–8/31/1975 Third World Exhibition of Photography 9/5–10/26/1975 Art Made of Language 11/5–12/31/1976 Friedrich Achleitner, Marc Adrian, H. C. Artmann, Christian Ludwig Attersee, Josef Bauer, Heimrad Bäcker, Gottfried Bechtold, Elfriede Czurda, VALIE EXPORT, Heinz Gappmayr, Friedrich Hahn, Ernst Jandl, Fritz Lichtenauer, Friederike Mayröcker, Reinhard Priessnitz, Rainer/Roth, Gerhard Rühm, W. D. Steiger, Peter Weibel

→  Exhibitions in the clubroom: Albert Paris von Gütersloh Gerhardt Moswitzer: Drawings and Sculptures, 1963–1974 Traveling exhibition: Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; Kulturhaus Graz, Graz; Künstlerhaus Palais Thurn und Taxis, Bregenz; Kulturamt der Stadt Villach, Villach Rainer Wittenborn Exhibition organized by the Kestner-Gesellschaft, Hannover Action Under 30

160  Chronology, 1975–1977

Parallel Action: Six Artists from Wuppertal 7/28–8/26/1976 Gerd Hanebeck, Guido Jendritzko, Kahluwe, Dietrich Maus, Peter Paulus, Wil Sensen

Competition Levi’s Pop Jeans Gallery, 1975

Stefan Wewerka 11/10–11/28/1976 Andy Warhol 11/17/1976–1/11/1977

1976 Claes Oldenburg 1/21–2/29/1976 Francesco Somaini: Sculptures and Drawings, 1984–1967 3/24–5/9/1976 George Grosz: Life and Work 6/2–7/18/1976 Traveling exhibition: Kunstverein in Hamburg, Hamburg; Frankfurter Kunstverein, Frankfurt am Main; Kunstverein Braunschweig, Braunschweig; Landesmuseum Münster, Münster; Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; Badischer Kunstverein, Karlsruhe; Von der Heydt Museum, Wuppertal; Haus am Waldsee, Berlin

Henri Michaux 12/9/1976–1/16/1977 Exhibition organized by the Kestner-Gesellschaft, Hannover

→ Exhibitions in the clubroom: Walker Evans Exhibition organized by the Museum of Modern Art, New York, where it was displayed in 1971 Franz Bernhard 10 Years of Protokolle Christo Gewand Elfriede Mejchar: Photographs, 1967–1976—Simmeringer Haide and Erdberger Mais

Exhibition in conjunction with the Wiener Festwochen

161

1977 Bachelor Machines/ Les machines célibataires 2/2–2/28/1977 Traveling exhibition: Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam; Kunsthalle Bern, Berne; Biennale di Venezia, Venice; Société des Expositions du Palais des Beaux-Arts, Bruxelles, Brussels; Städtische Kunsthalle Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf; Union Centrale des Arts Décoratifs, Paris; Musée de L’Homme et de l’Industrie, Le Creusot-Montceau; Konsthall Malmö, Malmö; Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna Robert Motherwell 3/9–4/11/1977 Traveling exhibition: Städtische Kunsthalle Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf; Kulturhuset Stockholm, Stockholm; Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna New Objectivity and Realism 4/20–7/24/1977 Balthus, Max Beckmann, Volker Böhringer, Herbert Böttger, Karl Blossfeldt, Leo Breuer, Gottfried Brockmann, Edita Broglio, Cagnaccio di San Pietro, Carlo Carrà, Felice Casorati, Gisberto Ceracchini, Giorgo de Chirico, Stuart Davis, Heinrich Davringhausen, Preston Dickinson, Otto Dix, Antonio Donghi, Philip Evergood, Riccardo Francalancia, Ernst Fritsch, Giuseppe Gorni, Carl Grossberg, George Grosz, Hans Grundig, Kurt Günther, Albert Paris Güterloh, Carry Hauser, Wilhelm Heise, Florence Henri, Albert Henrich, Manfred Hirzel, Hannah Höch, Heinrich Hoerle, Carl Hofer, Edward Hopper, Karl Hubbuch, Grethe Jürgens, John Kane, Alexander Kanoldt, Franz

Kralj, Wilhelm Lachnit, Franz Lenk, Piero Marussig, Carlo Mense, Hans Mertens, Kenneth Hayes Miller, Otto Möller, Giorgio Morandi, Reinhold Nägele, Antonio Nardi, Kasper Niehaus, Richard Oelze, Georgia O’Keeffe, Ubaldo Oppi, Amédée Ozenfant, Curt Querner, Pablo Picasso, Herbert Ploberger, Anton Räderscheidt, Franz Radziwill, August Sander, Christian Schad, Otto Rudolf Schatz, Rudolf Schlichter, Georg Scholz, Georg Schrimpf, Franz Sedlacek, Gino Severini, Charles Sheeler, Fritz Silberbauer, Mario Sironi, Stanley Spencer, Niklaus Stoecklin, Ernst Thoms, Francesco Trombadori, Félix Vallotton, Eberhard Viegener, Karl Völker, Rudolf Wacker, Erich Wegner, Albert Carel Willink, Gustav Wunderwald

Museum, Amsterdam; Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna

1978

New Photography from Japan 7/14–9/17/1978

Zbyněk Sekal: Composite Images, Drawings 12/14/1977–1/29/1978 Traveling exhibition: Neue Galerie am Landesmuseum Joanneum, Graz; Museum Bochum, Bochum; Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna

Max Ernst: Books and Graphic Works 9/27–11/12/1978 An exhibition of the Institute for Foreign Cultural Relations, Stuttgart

Exhibition in conjunction with the Wiener Festwochen

Max Meinecke: Stage Designer, Director, Educator Exhibition on occasion of the 200th anniversary of the Burgtheater

Surrealism and the Experience of European Modernism in America 2/8–4/9/1978 From the collections of the Museum of Modern Art, New York: Hans Arp, Hans Bellmer, Victor Brauner, André Breton, Giorgio de Chirico, Joseph Cornell, Salvador Dalí, Paul Delvaux, Oscar Domínguez, Marcel Duchamp, Max Ernst, Alberto Giacometti, Arshile Gorky, Hannah Höch, WifredoLam, René Magritte, Man Ray, André Masson, Roberto Matta, Joan Miró, Pablo Picasso, Kurt Schwitters, Yves Tanguy From the collections of the Museum of the Twentieth Century: André Beaudin, Victor Brauner, Paul Delvaux, Oscar Domínguez, Max Ernst, Raoul Hausmann, Wifredo Lam, René Magritte, Man Ray, André Masson, Roberto Matta, Joan Miró, František Muzika, Wolfgang Paalen

Traveling exhibition: Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; Städtische Kunsthalle Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf; Musées royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, Brussels; Kunsthaus Zürich, Zurich; Sonja Henie-Niels Onstad Foundations, Oslo

Oskar Maria Graf

Donald Judd: Drawings, 1956–1976 8/3–8/28/1977 Exhibition organized by the Kunstmuseum Basel, Basel Bruno Gironcoli 9/7–10/26/1977 Traveling exhibition: Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; Städtische Galerie im Lenbachhaus, Munich; Galerie im Taxispalais, Innsbruck; Salzburger Kunstverein, Künstlerhaus, Salzburg; Kulturhaus der Stadt Graz, Graz, as part of the 1978 Styrian Autumn Adolf Wölfli 11/9–12/4/1977 Traveling exhibition: Kunstmuseum Bern, Berne; Kestner-Gesellschaft, Hannover; Württembergischer Kunstverein, Stuttgart; Moderna Museet, Stockholm; Stedelijk

162  Chronology, 1977–1979

→  Exhibitions in the clubroom: Martha Jungwirth Eduard Sauerzopf: Drawings, 1974–1977 Traveling exhibition: Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; Schloss Esterházy, Eisenstadt

Max Beckmann: The Prints Peter Skubic: Jewelry Neumarkt Square Retrospective: Pictures, Photographs, Objects, Documents American Photographers Lewis Baltz, Lee Friedlander, Ralph Gibson, Les Krims, Mary Ellen Mark, Duane Michals, Stephen Shore, Neal Slavin

Traveling exhibition: Forum Stadtpark, Graz, as part of the 1977 Styrian Fall; Galerie im Taxispalais, Innsbruck; Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna

Exhibition brought to Vienna with the assistance of the International Council of the Museum of Modern Art, New York Karl Schwanzer: Ordering, Planning, Designing, Shaping, Building 4/19–6/18/1978 Donation to the Museum 6/28–7/9/1978

163

Rudolf Kedl and Karl Blossfeldt 11/15–12/30/1978

→ Exhibitions in the clubroom: Kurt Talos, 1942–1976 Arena: Photographs Christian Schad Kurt Polke: Artphoto/Photoart Viennese Studies: Missing Link (Otto Kapfinger, Adolf Krischanitz) Karl Anton Fleck: Portrait Drawings

Toni Michlmayr: Karlsplatz— Photographs of a Destruction. Alternative Architecture from the US Traveling exhibition: Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; Ganggalerie im Rathaus, Graz, as part of the 1978 Styrian Autumn

1979 Alberto Giacometti: A Classic of Modernism, 1901–1966. Sculptures, Paintings, Drawings, Books 1/19–4/1/1979

Monte Verità—Hill of Truth. Local Anthropology as a Contribution to the Rediscovery of a Sacred Modern Topography 9/12–11/11/1979

The Museum of Modern Art, New York, Visits Vienna. American Art of the Twentieth Century 12/10/1979–1/20/1980

Miller, Robert Morris, Ree Morton, Judith Murray, Howardena Pindell, David Rabinowitch, Edda Renouf, Judy Rifka, Alan Saret, Richard Serra, Karen Shaw, Keith Sonnier, Susanna Tanger, Peter Tkacheff, Lynn Umlauf Reportage Photographers Diane Arbus, Manuel Alvarez Bravo, Robert Frank, Josef Koudelka, Homer Sykes, Shomei Tomatsu, Nikolaus Walter

Traveling exhibition: Forum Stadtpark, Graz, as part of the 1978 Styrian Autumn; Museum of Modern Art Vienna at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna

1980 Video Made in Austria 2/15–3/4/1980

→  Exhibitions in the clubroom:

Exhibition views of Monte Verità, 1979

164  Chronology, 1979–1980

Johann Hauser: Art Born from Mania and Depression 3/12–4/27/1980 Traveling exhibition: Städtische Galerie im Lenbachhaus, Munich; Museum of Modern Art Vienna at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; Kunsthalle Köln, Cologne; Kulturhaus Graz, Graz; Neue Galerie der Stadt Linz, WolfgangGurlitt-Museum, Linz Paolo Portoghesi: Projects and Drawings, 1949–1979 3/19–4/27/1980 Posters from Japan 3/28–4/27/1980 Katsumi Asaba, Kiyoshi Awazu, Shigeo Fukuda, Gan Hosoya, Takenobu Igarashi, Ishioka Eiko, Yusaku Kamekura, Yosuke Kawamura, Kazumasa Nagai, Makoto Nakamura, Tadashi Ohashi, Shigeo Okamoto, Koichi Sato, Ikko Tanaka, Harumi Yamaguchi, Tadanori Yokoo

Exhibition views of The Museum of Modern Art, New York, Visits Vienna, 1979

New York Avant-Garde Laurie Anderson, Robert Barry, James Bishop, John Fekner, Joel Fisher, Jacqueline Freedman, Frank Gillette, Michael Goldberg, Marcia Hafif, Dale Henry, Richard Landry, George McClancy, Brenda

Exhibition view of Video made in Austria, 1980

Exhibition view of Video made in Austria, 1980

165

The Interwar Years: Viennese Municipal Politics from 1918 to 1938 5/9–6/30/1980 Exhibition in conjunction with the Wiener Festwochen

Subsequently shown at the Austrian Museum of Society and Economics, Vienna Street Art USA 5/23–6/15/1980 Exhibition in conjunction with the Wiener Festwochen

Dubuffet: Retrospective 11/20/1980–1/18/1981 Traveling exhibition: Academy of the Arts, Berlin; Museum of Modern Art Vienna at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; Josef-HaubrichKunsthalle, Cologne Fascination of the Object 11/27/1980–8/11/1981

Intelligence of the Hand: Metal Design from Austria 6/24–8/24/1980 Exhibition of works by students of the master class in metal design at the University of Applied Arts, Vienna, and the master class in sculptural design in metal at the University of Art and Design, Linz Photography as Art, 1879–1979/ Art as Photography, 1949–1938 9/11–10/26/1980 Traveling exhibition: Tiroler Landesmuseum Ferdinandeum, Innsbruck; Neue Galerie der Stadt Linz, Linz; Museum of Modern Art Vienna at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna Claes Oldenburg: Mouse Museum/ Ray Gun Wing 10/15–4/1/1980 International Music Festival Vienna ’80: Integrative Tendencies in Contemporary Music 10/31–11/16/1980 The Graphical Image of Music. Musical Manuscripts from Arnold Schoenberg to the Present 10/31–11/16/1980

166  Chronology, 1980–1982

Warhol ’80: Reversal Series 4/9–5/10/1981

Meina Schellander: Presentation 33 Figure/Quant 33 11/19/1981–2/7/1982

Exhibition view of Warhol ’80: Reversal Series, 1981

Raoul Hausmann 12/3/1981–2/7/1982

80s House 5/16–6/21/1981 Exhibitions/events in conjunction with the Wiener Festwochen

1982

Harald Oroschakoff: Cage-Freedom/Project 6/11–7/5/1981 Exhibition view of Fascination of the Object, 1980

1981 Osvaldo Romberg: Mythologies from Altamira to Manet. An Emotional Analysis of Art History 2/12–3/29/1981 Traveling exhibition: Tel Aviv Museum, Tel Aviv; Museum of Modern Art Vienna at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; Neue Galerie, Ludwig Collection, Aachen

The Art Club in Austria: Witnesses and Documents of a New Beginning 11/16/1981–1/24/1982 Traveling exhibition: Kulturhaus Graz, Graz; Galerie im Stadthaus, Klagenfurt; Landesgalerie im Schloss Esterházy, Eisenstadt; Salzburger Kunstverein, Salzburg

Giovanni Segantini, 1858–1899 7/10–8/23/1981 Traveling exhibition: Museum of Modern Art Vienna at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; Tiroler Landesmuseum Ferdinandeum, Innsbruck Henri Cartier-Bresson 9/3–10/18/1981 Arnulf Rainer 9/10–10/31/1981 Bruno Taut, 1880–1938 10/22–11/29/1981 Exhibition organized by the Academy of the Arts, Berlin Tone Fink: Presentation Telephone Book 11/12/1981–2/7/1982

167

Karl Prantl: Sculptures, 1950–1981 2/4–4/4/1982 Oskar Kokoschka 2/18–4/18/1982 Art Fair 1982 4/15–4/19/1982 Ex tempore 82: Days of Free Improvisation in Music 4/23–4/25/1982 Paris, 1960–1980: Panorama of Contemporary Art in France 5/14–7/25/1982 Exhibition in conjunction with the Wiener Festwochen, in collaboration with the Association Française d’Action Artistique, the Musée national d’art moderne— Centre Pompidou, Paris, and the Museum of Modern Art Vienna at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna

American Impressionism 8/12–9/26/1982 Traveling exhibition: Musée du Petit Palais, Paris; Neue Nationalgalerie, Berlin State Museums, Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation, Berlin; Museum of Modern Art Vienna at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; Art Museum of the Socialist Republic of Romania, Bucharest; National Art Gallery, Sofia

La sovrana inattualità: Italian Sculpture of the 1970s 12/2/1982–1/9/1983 Exhibition organized by the Padiglione d’Arte Contemporanea, Milan

Provided by the Smithsonian Institution/Traveling Exhibition Service

Circles of the World: Traditional Art of the Plains Indians 1/20–3/13/1983 Traveling exhibition: Denver Art Museum, Denver; Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh; Museum of Modern Art Vienna at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; Musée du Petit Palais, Paris; Musée d’Histoire Naturelle de Toulouse, Toulouse; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; Cooper-Hewitt Museum, New York; The Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, M. H. de Young Memorial Museum, San Francisco

Bill Brandt: Photographs 9/2–11/10/1982 From the collections of the British Council Christian Ludwig Attersee: Werksquer 10/8–11/21/1982 Traveling exhibition: Museum of Modern Art Vienna at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; Frankfurter Kunstverein, Frankfurt am Main; Aargauer Kunsthaus, Aargau; Neue Galerie, Ludwig Collection, Aachen; Kunsthalle der Stadt Wilhelmshaven, Wilhelmshaven; Kulturhaus der Stadt Graz, Graz Ursula Schulz-Dornburg and F. Rudolf Knubel: The Tigris River in Ancient Mesopotamia 10/21–11/28/1982 Sculptures from 1900 to Today 10/21/1982–(closing date unknown)

1983

300 Years Later: The Turks before Vienna, 1683–1983 5/9–7/3/1983 Exhibition in conjunction with the Wiener Festwochen Alfred Hrdlicka: In God’s Name 6/9–7/3/1983 The Artists of Gugging 7/11–8/21/1983 Traveling exhibition: Museum of Modern Art Vienna at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; Salzburger Landessammlungen Rupertinum, Salzburg; Kunstamt Wedding, Berlin; Heidelberger Kunstverein, Heidelberg; Neue Galerie der Stadt Linz, WolfgangGurlitt-Museum, Linz The Tendency toward the Total Work of Art: European Utopias since 1800 9/10–11/20/1983

1984 Helmut Schober: Interstitial Areas 3/1–4/1/1984 Franz Rosei: Sculptures and Drawings 4/5–4/29/1984 1984: Orwell and the Present 5/10–6/28/1984 Helmut Mark, Thom Barth, Gottfried Bechtold, Renate Bertlmann, Miklós Erdély, Tibor Gáyor, Janós Megyik, Robert Lettner, Adam Jankowski, Birgit Jürgenssen, Cornelius Kolig, Richard Kriesche, Peter Hoffmann, Margot Pilz, Johann Plank, Hannes Priesch, Erwin Puls, VALIE EXPORT, Peter Weibel

Painters of the American West: The Anschutz Collection, Colorado, USA 1/20–3/13/1983 Simply Good Painting 3/24–4/30/1983 Siegfried Anzinger, Josef Kern, Alfred Klinkan, Gottfried Mairwöger, Peter Marquant, Alois Mosbacher, Kurt Rohrbacher, Hubert Scheibl, Hubert Schmalix, Turi Werkner

Exhibition in conjunction with the Wiener Festwochen

Richard Neutra 4/25–6/5/1983

Exhibition views of The Tendency toward the Total Work of Art: European Utopias since 1800, 1983

168  Chronology, 1982–1984

History of Photography in Austria 12/7/1983–2/26/1984 Traveling exhibition: Museum of Modern Art Vienna at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; Neue Galerie am Landesmuseum Joanneum and Künstlerhaus Graz, Graz; Neue Galerie der Stadt Linz, Linz; Stadthaus der Stadt Klagenfurt and Künstlerhaus Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt; Salzburger Kunstverein and Museum Carolino Augusteum, Salzburg; Tiroler Landesmuseum Ferdinandeum, Innsbruck

169

1985

Sandro Chia: Pictures, 1976–1983 11/16/1984–1/6/1985 Traveling exhibition: KestnerGesellschaft, Hannover; Staatliche Kunsthalle Berlin, Berlin; Musée d’art moderne, Paris; Mathildenhöhe, Darmstadt; Kunstverein für die Rheinlande und Westfalen, Düsseldorf; Museum of Modern Art Vienna at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna Walter Kaitna: Force Systems 10/26–11/27/1984

Maria Lassnig 1/17–3/3/1985 Traveling exhibition: Museum of Modern Art Vienna at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; Kunstmuseum Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf; Kunsthalle Nürnberg, Nuremberg; Kärntner Landesgalerie, Klagenfurt The penguin ballet during the Attersee Matinee, 1984

Too Rarely Shown: Painting from the Turn of the Century to the Present 12/13/1984–1/6/1985

→ Event Exhibition view of 1984: Orwell and the Present, 1984

The Dream of Space 7/26–9/23/1984 Fritz Bergler, Ernst Caramelle, Evelyne Egerer, Inge Graf, Johanna Kandl, Harald Oroschakoff, Hannes Priesch, REM, Michael Schuster, Gustav Troger, Erwin Wurm

Martin Kippenberger, poster for The Alma Band, 1984

Christian Ludwig Attersee during the Attersee Matinee, 1984

Exhibition view of The Dream of Space, 1984

170  Chronology, 1984–1985

Martin Kippenberger and The Alma Band during the Attersee Matinee, 1984

171

Art with a Mind of Its Own: Recent Art by Women 3/28–5/12/1985 Cecile Abish, Claudia von Alemann, Shelagh Alexander, Davida Allen, Helena Almeida, Lous America, Irene Andessner, Annette Apon, Ina Barfuss, Anne Bean, Cynthia Beatt, Ericka Beckman, Gretchen Bender, Pinuccia Bernardoni, Renate Bertlmann, Ania Bien, Kate Blacker, Moucle Blackout (Christiane Adrian-Engländer) Notburga Coronabless, Barbara Bloom, Lizzie Borden, Monika Brandmeier, Christiane Noll Brinckmann, Miriam Cahn, Sophie Calle, Laura Carlotta, Helen Chadwick, Isabelle ChampionMetadier, Vittoria Cherici, Linda Christanell, Veřa Chytilová, Carole Conde, Waltraut Cooper, Martine Diemer, Evelyne Egerer, Marianne Eigenheer, Claudine Eizykman, Rose English, Ingemo Engström, VALIE EXPORT, Giovanna Gagliardo, Rose Garrard, Isa Genzken, Bette Gordon, Inge Graf+Zyx, Beatrix Groiss, Silvia Guberti, Izabella Gustowska, Katja Hajek, Barbara Hammer, Isa Hesse-Rabinovitch, Susan Hiller, Kaoru Hirabayashi, Jenny Holzer, Nan Hoover, Leiko Ikemura, Nina Ivančić, Magdalena Jetelová, Birgit Jürgenssen, Johanna Kandl,

Tina Keane, Astrid Klein, Eva Kmentová, Christine F. Koenigs, Renate Kordon, Brigitte Kowanz, Metka Krašovec, Barbara Kruger, Ruth Labak, Menchu Lamas, Maria Lassnig, Sheila McLaughlin, Marie-Luise Lebschik, Loraine Leeson, Lea Lublin, Ingeborg Lüscher, Karin Mack, Nadia Magnenat-Thalmann, Jolanta Marcolla, Mara Mattuschka, Dóra Maurer, Sabina Mirri, Laura Mulvey, Bärbel Neubauer, Dore O., Muriel Olesen, Yoko Ono, Rotraut Pape, Irene Peschick, Friederike Pezold, Judy Pfaff, Adrian Piper, Marie Ponchelet, Lisl Ponger, Cora Pongracz, Sally Potter, Ursula Pürrer, Sabine Reiff, Pola Reuth, Judy Rifka, Ulrike Rosenbach, Helke Sander, Romana Scheffknecht, Angela Hans Scheirl, Meina Schellander, Anna Gabriele Schenn, Carolee Schneemann, Eva-Maria Schön, Ingeborg Strobl, Brynhildur Thorgeirsdottir, Ingrid Thulin, Lynne Tillman, Rosemarie Trockel, Isolde Wawrin, Malgruppe Weibsbilder (Lisa Endriss, Lilith Lichtenberg, Alrun Prünster Soares, Sara Rogenhofer-Reuther), Joyce Wieland, Anna Winteler, Jana Wisniewski Special exhibition: works by Silvia Eiblmayr, VALIE EXPORT, Monika Prischl-Maier

Kandinsky in Paris, 1934–1944 12/5/1985–1/26/1986 Exhibition organized by the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York George Grosz: The Berlin Years 12/11/1985–1/21/1986 Exhibition organized in collaboration with the Department of Culture of the City of Vienna

→ Event

Exhibition view of The Nude Photograph: Views of the Body in the Age of Photography, 1985

Exhibition view of Art with a Mind of Its Own: Recent Art by Women, 1985, Site-specific work by Katja Hajek on the exterior façade

Rudolf Bauer, 1889–1953 5/23–6/23/1985 Traveling exhibition: Museum of Modern Art Vienna at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; Staatliche Kunsthalle Berlin, Berlin

Time: The Fourth Dimension in Art 9/19–11/17/1985 Traveling exhibition: Société des Expositions du Palais des BeauxArts de Bruxelles, Brussels; Kunsthalle Mannheim, Mannheim; Museum of Modern Art Vienna at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna

1986

Vienna 1945: Before/After 5/30–6/30/1985 Exhibition in conjunction with the Wiener Festwochen The Nude Photograph: Views of the Body in the Age of Photography 7/11–9/1/1985 Exhibition organized by the Münchner Stadtmuseum, Munich

Margaret Bourke-White: Photographs, 1930–1954 2/7–3/2/1986 Exhibition of the Austrian Photography Archive in collaboration with the department of culture, Embassy of the United States of America The museum lobby during the exhibition Time: The Fourth Dimension in Art, 1985

Exhibition view of Art with a Mind of Its Own: Recent Art by Women, 1985

172  Chronology, 1985–1986

Concert as part of the exhibition Maria Lassnig, 1985

173

Günther Brus: The Survey 2/10–3/9/1986 Traveling exhibition: Museum of Modern Art Vienna at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum

of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; Städtische Galerie im Lenbachhaus, Munich; Städtische Kunsthalle Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf On Drawing: Aspects of Graphic Art, 1960–1985 1/13–4/27/1986 Carl André, Siegfried Anzinger, Avigdor Arikha, Richard Artschwager, Christian Ludwig Attersee, Alice Aycock, Ubaldo Bartolini, Donald Baechler, Georg Baselitz, Jean-Michel Basquiat, Joseph Beuys, Jean-Charles Blais, Peter Blake, Bernhard Johannes Blume, Mel Bochner, Claudio Bravo, Stanley Brouwn, Günter Brus, Werner Büttner, Michael Buthe, Luis Caballero, Miriam Cahn, Ernst Caramelle, Sandro Chia, Abraham David Christian, Christo, Francesco Clemente, Chuck Close, William Copley, Enzo Cucchi, Walter Dahn, Hanne Darboven, Richard Diebenkorn, Jim Dine, Martin Disler, Jiří Georg Dokoupil, Helmut Federle, Dan Flavin, Adolf Frohner, Gérard Garouste, Marco Gastini, Raimund Girke, Bruno Gironcoli, Michael Gitlin, Antony Gormley, Ludwig Gosewitz, Richard Hamilton, Keith Haring, Michael Heizer, Eva Hesse, David Hockney, Antonius Höckelmann, K. H. Hödicke, Alfred Hofkunst, Alfred Hrdlicka, Leiko Ikemura, Raimer Jochims, Jasper Johns, Donald Judd, Howard Kanovitz, Ellsworth Kelly, Ronald B. Kitaj, Jürgen Klauke, Pierre Klossowski, Willem de Kooning, Jannis Kounellis, Milan Kunc, Robert Kushner, Maria Lassnig, Jean Le Gac, Barry Le Va, Sol LeWitt, Roy Lichtenstein, Markus Lüpertz, Urs Lüthi, Robert Mangold, Brice Marden, Nicola de Maria, Walter de Maria, Carlo Maria Mariani, Agnes Martin, Kenneth Martin, Peter Mell, Mario Merz, François

174  Chronology, 1986–1987

Morellet, Robert Morris, Walter Murch, Bruce Nauman, Hermann Nitsch, Oswald Oberhuber, Albert Oehlen, Claes Oldenburg, On Kawara, Luigi Ontani, Meret Oppenheim, C. O. Paeffgen, Giulio Paolini, Claudio Parmiggiani, A.R. Penck, Walter Pichler, Sigmar Polke, Patrick Procktor, Isabel Quintanilla, Markus Raetz, Arnulf Rainer, Robert Rauschenberg, James Rosenquist, Dieter Roth, Susan Rothenberg, Gerhard Rühm, Edward Ruscha, Robert Ryman, Fred Sandback, Richard Serra, Tomas Schmit, Jan J. Schoonhoven, Bernard Schultze, Rudolf Schwarzkogler, Joel Shapiro, Manfred Stumpf, Norbert Tadeusz, Ernesto Tatafiore, André Thomkins, Werner Tübke, Richard Tuttle, Cy Twombly, Emilio Vedova, Franz Erhard Walther, Andy Warhol, William Wegman, Max Weiler, Turi Werkner, John Wesley, William Wiley, Otto Zitko, Zush Traveling exhibition: Frankfurter Kunstverein, Frankfurt am Main; Kassler Kunstverein, Kassel; Museum of Modern Art Vienna at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna Hacking at Ice 5/10–7/13/1986 Herbert Brandl, Gunter Damisch, Josef Danner, Hubert Scheibl, Otto Zitko

Exhibition organized by Kunsthalle Bern, Berne Raoul Hausmann: Against the World’s Cold Eye. Photographs, 1927–1933 5/26–7/6/1986 Exhibition of the Austrian Photography Archive Traveling exhibition: Museum

of Modern Art Vienna at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; Neue Galerie im Landesmuseum Joanneum, Graz; Neue Galerie der Stadt Linz, Wolfgang-GurlittMuseum, Linz; Fotografische Sammlung Museum Folkwang, Essen; Frankfurter Kunstverein, Frankfurt am Main Frederick Kiesler: The 1924 Space Stage. A Reconstruction 6/19–8/5/1986 Gerhard Richter: Paintings, 1962–1985 8/1–9/21/1986 Traveling exhibition: Städtische Kunsthalle Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf; Neue Nationalgalerie, Berlin State Museums, Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation, Berlin; Kunsthalle Bern, Berne; Museum of Modern Art Vienna at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna Irina Cerha: My Father 10/26–11/9/1986 Kurt Kocherscheidt: Paintings, 1976–86 11/20/1986–1/18/1987

Traveling exhibition: Morat-Institut, Freiburg im Breisgau; Museum of Modern Art Vienna at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; Kulturhaus der Stadt Graz, Graz; Moderne Galerie und Graphische Sammlung Rupertinum, Salzburg; Badischer Kunstverein, Karlsruhe; Stedelijk van Abbe Museum, Eindhoven Ernst Haas: Ending and Beginning 10/9–11/16/1986

175

1987 Daedalus 11: Velocity and Disappearance. Paul Virilio 1/22–1/24/1987 Maria Lugossy 1/29–2/20/1987 Since 1970: Austrian Art in the Museum 2/5–3/15/1987 Friedrich Achleitner, Robert Adrian X; Eduard Angeli, Siegfried Anzinger, Ruedi Arnold, Christian Ludwig Attersee, Gottfried Bechtold, Wolfgang Böhm, Erwin Bohatsch, Herbert Brandl, Günter Brus, Gunter Damisch, Josef Danner, Wolfgang Denk, Inge Dick, Georg Eisler, Wolfgang Ernst, VALIE EXPORT, Tone Fink, Karl Anton Fleck, Heinz Frank, Ernst Fiedrich, Adolf Frohner, Heinz Gappmayr, Bruno Gironcoli, Rudolf Goessl, Franz Grabmayr, Franz Graf, Brigitte Kowanz, HausRucker-Co, Günter Zamp Kelp, Laurids Ortner, Manfred Ortner, Klaus Pinter, Wolfgang Herzig, Karl Hikade, Hans Jascha, Hildegard Joos, Martha Jungwirth, Walter Kaitna, Johanna Kandl, Herwig Kempinger, Josef Kern, Alfred Klinkan, Kurt Kocherscheidt, Cornelius Kolig, Brigitte Kordina, Richard Kriesche, K.U.SCH. (Renate Krätschmer, Jörg Schwarzberger), Maria Lassnig, Bernhard Leitner, František Lesák, Gottfried Mairwöger, Friederike Mayröcker, Josef Mikl, Missing Link (Otto Kapfinger, Adolf Krischanitz), Alois Mosbacher, Walter Navratil, Edgar Neogy-Tezak, Hermann Nitsch, Oswald Oberhuber, Gerald Obersteiner, Harald Oroschakoff, Hermann Painitz, Max Peintner, Friederike Pezold, Walter Pichler,

1988

Klaus Pinter, Johanna Plank, Markus Prachensky, Hannes Priesch, Arnulf Rainer, Franz Ringel, Franz Rosei, Gerhard Rühm, Hubert Scheibl, Hubert Schmalix, Zbyněk Sekal, Peter Sengl, Heinz Stangl, Hans Staudacher, Thomas Stimm, Ingeborg Strobl, Mario Terzic, Heinz Tesar, Walter Vopava, Manfred Wakolbinger, Peter Weibel, Max Weiler, Turi Werkner, Franz West, Reimo Wukounig, Erwin Wurm, Robert Zeppel-Sperl, Otto Zitko, Leo Zogmayer

Helmut Newton: Portraits, Pictures from Europe and America 2/4–4/4/1988

Johannes Itten 9/5–10/11/1988 Traveling exhibition: Museum of Modern Art Vienna at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; Kunsthaus Zürich, Zurich

Erika Giovanna Klien, 1900–1957 3/29–5/17/1987 Otto Dix 5/8–6/28/1987 Exhibition in collaboration with the Department of Culture of the City of Vienna Ivan Meštrović: Sculptures 6/4–7/19/1987 Traveling exhibition: Neue Nationalgalerie, Berlin State Museums, Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation, Berlin; Kunsthaus Zürich, Zurich; Museum of Modern Art Vienna at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna Hans Hollein 9/11–10/26/1987 Exhibition organized by the Centre de Création Industrielle, Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris

Oswald Oberhuber: Collections 9/15–10/26/1988 Exhibition held in both houses of the Museum of Modern Art Vienna. Exhibition view of Hans Hollein, 1987

Expressive: Central European Art since 1960 11/30/1987–1/26/1988 Magdalena Abakanowicz, András Baranyay, Jerzy Bereś, Akos Birkás, Edward Dwurnik, Miklós Erdély, Adolf Frohner, Izabella Gustowska, Władysław Hasior, Magdalena Jetelová, György Jovánovics, Ivan Kožarić, Ferdinand Kulmer, Maria Lassnig, Józef Lukomski, Karel Malich, Jiří Načeradsky, Karel Nepraš, Predrag Nešković, Hermann Nitsch, Ladislav Novák, Oswald Oberhuber, Mića Popović, Arnulf Rainer, Branko Ružić, Rudolf Schwarzkogler, Djuro Seder, Adriena Šimotová, Otakar Slavik, Aleš Veselý

Exhibition view of Helmut Newton: Portraits, Pictures from Europe and America, 1988

Frederick Kiesler: Architect, Painter, Sculptor, 1890–1965 4/25–6/19/1988 Exhibition in conjunction with the Wiener Festwochen

In collaboration with the Depart– ment of Culture of the City of Vienna, the Federal Ministry of Science and Education, the Wiener Festwochen, and the Whitney Museum of American Art, New York Wirklichkeiten: Aspects of a Group 6/30–9/4/1988 Wolfgang Herzig, Martha Jungwirth, Kurt Kocherscheidt, Peter Pongratz, Franz Ringel, Robert Zeppel-Sperl

In collaboration with the City of Vienna

176  Chronology, 1987–1988

Imogen Cunningham: Frontiers. Photographs, 1906–1976 6/30–8/21/1988 In collaboration with the Imogen Cunningham Trust, Berkeley, California

177

Art from 1900 to 1950 from the collections of the MMK 10/26/1988–3/7/1989 Paths to Abstraction: Eighty Masterworks from the Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection 11/11/1988–1/15/1989 In collaboration with the Department of Culture of the City of Vienna

Traveling exhibition: Museum of Modern Art Vienna at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; Villa Vauban, Luxembourg; Haus der Kunst, Munich

1989 Hermann Nitsch: The Sculptural Oeuvre. Retrospective, 1960–1988 1/27–3/28/1989 Homage—Demolition 3/16–4/30/1989 Mike Bidlo, Ronnie Cutrone, Braco Dimitrijević, Erró (Gudmundur Gudmundsson), Rainer Gross, Christof Kohlhöfer, Vitaly Komar & Alexander Melamid, Alexander Kosolapov, Milan Kunc, Martha Laugs, Martin Lersch, Sherrie Levine, Nicolas A. Moufarrege, Gerard Päs, Elaine Sturtevant, Ulrich Tillmann & Wolfgang Vollmer

Traveling exhibition: Neue Galerie, Ludwig Collection, Aachen; Wilhelm-Hack-Museum, Ludwigshafen; Städtisches Museum Gelsenkirchen, Gelsenkirchen; Hedendaagse Kunst, Utrecht; Provinciaal Museum Hasselt, Hasselt; Museum of Modern Art Vienna at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna The Inside of Sight: Surrealist Photography of the 1930s and 1940s 4/13–5/21/1989 Viennese Divan: Sigmund Freud Today 5/28–7/16/1989 John Armleder, Richard Artschwager, Christian Ludwig Attersee, Miquel Barceló, Ross Bleckner, Louise Bourgeois, James Brown, James Lee Byars, Sandro Chia, Francesco Clemente, Robert Combas, Gunter Damisch, Jiří Georg Dokoupil, Carroll Dunham, Eric Fischl, Heinz Frank, Gilbert & George, Rodney Graham, Keith

178  Chronology, 1989–1991

Haring, Claudia Hart, Hans Hollein, Pierre Klossowski, Barbara Kruger, Cornelius Kolig, MarieJo Lafontaine, Roy Lichtenstein, Markus Lüpertz, David McDermott & Peter McGough, Nicola de Maria, Robert Morris, Bruce Nauman, Walter Obholzer, Mimmo Paladino, Walter Pichler, Anne & Patrick Poirier, Arnulf Rainer, Edward Ruscha, David Salle, Hubert Scheibl, Julian Schnabel, José María Sicilia, Keith Sonnier, Starn Twins, Antoni Tàpies, Ernesto Tatafiore, Meyer Vaisman, Thomas Virnich, Franz Erhard Walther, Andy Warhol

Max Weiler: The Inner Figure. Retrospective, 1933–1989 12/1/1989–1/28/1990

1990 In Focus: The Collection 2/9–4/1/1990 Bruno Gironcoli: Sculptural Works, 1980–1990 5/7–7/1/1990

Exhibition in conjunction with the Wiener Festwochen

Exhibition view of Bruno Gironcoli: Sculptural Works, 1980–1990, 1990

Exhibition view of Viennese Divan: Sigmund Freud Today, 1989

Time Suspended: Henry Fox Talbot’s Invention of Photography 8/3–8/20/1989 Edward and Nancy Kienholz: Works from the 1980s 9/28–11/12/1989 Traveling exhibition: Kunsthalle Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf; Museum of Modern Art Vienna at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna

Signs in Flux 7/16–9/9/1990 Tomás Císařowský, Jiří David, Stanislav Dviš, László Fehér, Seiichi Furuya, Johanna Kandl, Irwin Retroprincip, Vlado Martek, Sándor Pinczehelyi, Mladen Stilinović, Peter Weibel

Traveling exhibition: Galerie Hlavního Mešta Prahy, Prague; Muzej Suvremene Umjetnosti, Zagreb; Pécsi Galéria, Budapest; Museum of Modern Art Vienna at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna

179

Daniel Spoerri in Vienna 9/20–11/18/1990 Traveling exhibition: Musée national d’art moderne—Centre Pompidou, Paris; Musée Picasso, Antibes; Museum of Modern Art Vienna at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; Städtische Galerie im Lenbachhaus, Munich; Musée Rath, Geneva; Kunstmuseum Solothurn, Solothurn Dance—Photography. Rapprochements and Experiments, 1880–1940 12/2/1990–1/27/1991 Naftali Avnon, Arthur Benda, Alexey Brodovitch, Erich Consemüller, Atelier d’Ora, František Drtikol, Atelier Elvira, Hugo Erfurth, T. Lux Feininger, Hans Holdt, Rudolf Jobst, Edmund Kesting, Rudolf Koppitz, Franz Löwy, Man Ray, Adolphe de Meyer, Barbara Morgan, Alfons Mucha, Eadweard Muybridge, Karel Paspa, Jane Reece, Théodore Rivière, Atelier Robertson, Charlotte Rudolph, Isaiah West Taber, Josef Anton Trčka, Umbo, Wanda Wulz

1991 Japanese Art of the 1980s 2/14–4/7/1991 Yae Asano, Toshikatsu Endo, Katsura Funakoshi, Hajime Ikegay, Emiko Kasahara, Kazuo Kenmochi, Satoko Masuda, Shiro Matsui, Tatsuo Miyajima, Yasumasa Morimura, Tomoharu Murakami, Katsuhito Nishikawa, Hitoshi Nomura, Shinro Ohtake, Hiroshi Sugimoto

Exhibition organized by the Frankfurter Kunstverein, Frankfurt am Main, in collaboration with the Japan Foundation, Tokyo Image Light: Painting between Material and Immateriality 5/2–7/7/1991 Exhibition in conjunction with the Wiener Festwochen

Arnold Schoenberg: The Visual Art 9/20–11/17/1991 Traveling exhibition: Museum of Modern Art Foundation Ludwig Vienna (MMKSLW) at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; Museum Ludwig Köln, Cologne; The Whitworth Art Gallery, University of Manchester, Manchester

La Scena: Contemporary Art from Northern Italy 12/12/1991–2/2/1992 Stefano Arienti, Antonio Catelani, Marco Cingolani, Daniela De Lorenzo, Mario Dellavedova, Marco Formento, Massimo Kaufmann, Amedeo Martegani, Marco Mazzucconi, Liliana Moro, Bernhard Rüdiger, Ivano Sossella, Adriano Trovato

1992 Nam June Paik: Video Time— Video Space 2/28–4/12/1992 Traveling exhibition: Kunsthalle Basel, Basel, and Kunsthaus Zürich, Zurich; Städtische Kunsthalle Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf; Museum of Modern Art Foundation Ludwig Vienna (MMKSLW) at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna

Exhibition views of Image Light: Painting between Material and Immateriality, 1991

Reductionism: Abstraction in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, 1950–1980 5/6–6/28/1992 Poland: Stefan Gierowski, Zbigniew Gostomski, Henryk Stażewski, Ryszard Winiarski Czechoslovakia: Václav Boštík, Stanislav Kolíbal, Karel Malich Hungary: Krisztián Frey, Tamás Hencze, Dezsö Korniss, István Nádler Günther Uecker: Uecker in Vienna 7/9–9/20/1992 Exhibition held in both houses of the Museum of Modern Art Foundation Ludwig Vienna (MMKSLW). František Lesák: Morning, Noon, Evening—Study after a Pictorial Motif in Claude Monet 10/19–11/22/1992 Rudolf Schwarzkogler: Life and Work 12/9/1992–1/31/1993 Traveling exhibition: Museum of Modern Art Foundation Ludwig Vienna (MMKSLW) at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; Národní galerie v Praze, Prague; Musée national d’art moderne—Centre Pompidou, Paris; Frankfurter Kunstverein, Frankfurt am Main

Marta Pan 7/17–9/8/1991 Exhibition views of Arnold Schoenberg: The Visual Art, 1990

Exhibition view of Nam June Paik – Video Time – Video Space, 1992

1993 Roman Opalka: Trace of Time. 1965/1–∞ 2/16–4/4/1993 Traveling exhibition: Neues Museum Weserburg, Bremen; Musée d’art moderne de la Ville

180  Chronology, 1991–1993

181

de Paris, Paris; Städtische Galerie Lenbachhaus, Munich; Museum of Modern Art Foundation Ludwig Vienna (MMKSLW) at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna Makom: Contemporary Art from Israel 4/26–6/13/1993 Ido Bar-el, Nurit David, Gideon Gechtman, Tamar Getter, Uri Katzenstein, Motti Mizrachi, Moshe Ninio, Sigal Primor, Daniel Sack, David Shvili, Micha Ullman Confrontations: New Acquisitions, 1990 –1993 6/25–9/12/1993 Marina Abramović, Christian Ludwig Attersee, Mirosław Bałka, Alain Balzac, Georg Baselitz, Guillaume Bijl, Anna und Bernhard Blume, Erwin Bohatsch, Herbert Brandl, Michael Buthe, Antonio Catelani, Bruno Ceccobelli, Alan Charlton, Allan McCollum, Josef Danner, Gunter Damisch, Gianni Dessi, Thomas Deyle, Braco Dimitrijević, Caroline Dlugos, Ugo Dossi, Joseph Drapell, Heinrich Dunst, Christian Eckart, Manfred Erjautz, Helmut Federle, László Fehér, Ian Hamilton Finlay, Dan Flavin, Gloria Friedmann, Adam Fuss, Giuseppe Gallo, Jakob Gasteiger, Gideon Gechtman, Franz Graf, Tamás Hencze, Jörg Immendorff, Alfredo Jaar, Birgit Jügenssen, Ilja Iossifowitsch Kabakov, Uri Katzenstein, Károly Kelemen, Mike Kelley, Herwig Kempinger, Michael Kienzer, Milan Knížák, Brigitte Kowanz, Karl Kowanz, Bertrand Lavier, Camill Leberer, Inés Lombardi, Karel Malich, Joseph Marioni, Helmut Mark, Marco Mazzucconi, Motti Mizrachi, Alois Mosbacher, Nikolaus Moser, Otto Muehl, Bruce Nauman, Paloma Navares, Moshe

182  Chronology, 1993–1995

Ninio, Hermann Nitsch, Kenneth Noland, Oswald Oberhuber, Gina Pane, Graham Peacock, Philippe Perrin, Franz Pichler, Gerwald Rockenschaub, Peter Sandbichler, Sean Scherer, Eva Schlegel, Hubert Schmalix, Michael Schuster, Hartmut Skerbisch, Rudi Stanzel, Herwig Steiner, Rini Tandon, Ernesto Tatafiore, Marco Tirelli, Patrick Tosani, Micha Ullman, Ben Vautier, Jean-Luc Vilmouth, Walter Vopava, Manfred Wakolbinger, Lois Weinberger, Christopher Wool, Erwin Wurm, Otto Zitko, Heimo Zobernig, Leo Zogmayer

1994

Exhibition held in both houses of the Museum of Modern Art Foundation Ludwig Vienna (MMKSLW).

In collaboration with Mutualité Française

Wolfgang Paalen: Between Surrealism and Abstraction 9/23–11/7/1993

Remarks on Europe in 1994 1/20–2/27/1994 John Armleder, Christian Boltanski, Braco Dimitrijević, Noël Dolla, Ugo Dossi, László Fehér, Fischli & Weiss, Franz Graf, Rebecca Horn, Herwig Kempinger, Bertrand Lavier, Aldo Mondino, Nam June Paik, Mimmo Paladino, Giulio Paolini, A. R. Penck, Philippe Perrin, Goran Petercol, Michelangelo Pistoletto, Jaume Plensa, Haim Steinbach, Ben Vautier, Franz West, Erwin Wurm

Traveling exhibition: Museum of Modern Art Foundation Ludwig Vienna (MMKSLW) at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; Académie des Beaux-Arts, Paris

Exhibition view of Remarks on Europe in 1994, 1994 Exhibition view of Wolfgang Paalen: Between Surrealism and Abstraction, 1993

Détente 11/18/1993–1/9/1994 Rudolf Fila, Arnulf Rainer, Milan Knížák, Tony Cragg, Stanislav Kolíbal, David Rabinowitch, Karel Malich, Yves Klein, Adriena Šimotová, Nancy Spero, Zdeněk Sýkora, Matt Mullican, Jiří Valoch, Joseph Kosuth

Picasso: The Ludwig Collection 3/11–6/19/1994 Traveling exhibition: Museu Picasso, Barcelona; Museum Ludwig Köln, Cologne; Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Nuremberg; Ludwig Museum Budapest, Budapest; Museum of Modern Art Foundation Ludwig

183

Vienna (MMKSLW) at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna Painting Figures 7/7–9/18/1994 Francesco Clemente, Jörg Immendorff, Per Kirkeby, Malcolm Morley, Hermann Nitsch, Cy Twombly Exhibition 9/29–11/27/1994 Anna und Bernhard Blume, Walter de Maria, VALIE EXPORT, Gilbert & George, Richard Hoeck, Maria Lassnig, Piero Manzoni, Bruce Nauman, Pino Pascali, Gerwald Rockenschaub, Cindy Sherman, Hartmut Skerbisch, William Wegman, Peter Weibel, Heimo Zobernig Erwin Wurm: 22 12/8/1994–1/15/1995 Traveling exhibition: Museum of Modern Art Foundation Ludwig Vienna (MMKSLW) at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; Kunstmuseum St. Gallen, St. Gallen; Kunstverein Freiburg, Freiburg

1995 Aquilo: Contemporary Scandinavian Art 1/28–3/12/1995 Claude Viallat 4/1–5/14/1995

Noël Dolla: Abstraction Humiliated 4/1–5/14/1995 Michelangelo Pistoletto: Time-Spaces 6/1–9/10/1995

1996 Franz West: Pro Forma 3/16–5/19/1996 Traveling exhibition: Museum of Modern Art Foundation Ludwig Vienna (MMKSLW) at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; Kunsthalle Basel, Basel; KröllerMüller Museum, Otterlo; Národní galerie v Praze, Prague; Muzeum Sztuki w Łodzi, Łódź

Turin; Musée d’art moderne, Villeneuve d’Ascq; Museum of Modern Art Foundation Ludwig Vienna (MMKSLW) at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna VALIE EXPORT: Split:Reality 4/25–6/15/1997

Exhibition view of Coming up: Young Art in Austria, 1996

Ákos Birkás: In the Head 9/21–11/10/1996

Exhibition view of Franz West – Proforma, 1996

Exhibition views of Michelangelo Pistoletto: Time-Spaces, 1995

Raymond Hains: Accents, 1949–2005 9/28–10/29/1995 Self Construction 11/24/1995–2/25/1996 Vito Acconci, Manfred Erjautz, Joseph Kosuth, Brigitte Kowanz, Robert Morris, Nam June Paik, Dubravka Rakoci, Constanze Ruhm, Michael Schuster, Roman Signer, Robert Smithson, Ingeborg Strobl, Matta Wagnest, Peter Weibel

184  Chronology, 1995–1997

Coming up: Young Art in Austria 6/11–9/15/1996 Siegrun Appelt, Oliver Croy, Carla Degenhardt/Franzobel, Thomas Feuerstein, FOND, G.R.A.M., Eva Grubinger, Richard Hoeck, Andreas Holzknecht, Christian Hutzinger, Instinct Domain, Thomas Jocher, Irene Kar, Michael Kienzer, Sylvia Kranawetvogl, Sigrid Langrehr, Hugo Markl, Bele Marx, Maja Vukoje, Barbara Wagner, Herwig Weiser, Ronda Zheng

Abstract/Real 11/23/1996–1/12/1997 Txomin Badiola, Lillian Ball, Alain Balzac, Lolly Batty, Torie Begg, BP, Pedro Cabrita Reis, Tony Carter, Helen Chadwick, Jordi Colomer, Grenville Davey, Noël Dolla, Heinrich Dunst, Christian Eckart, Mikael Fagerlund, Dominique Figarella, Alex Hartley, Pello Irazu, György Jovánovics, Clay Ketter, Jiří Kovanda, Brigitte Kowanz, Bertrand Lavier, Motti Mizrachi, Miquel Mont, Liliana Moro, Masato Nakamura, Julian Opie, Pascal Pinaud, Jaume Plensa, Patrick Raynaud, Werner Reiterer, Rui Sanches, Cédric Teisseire, Richard Wentworth, Rachel Whiteread, Yukinori Yanagi, Christina Zurfluh

1997 Alighiero Boetti, 1965–1994 1/31–3/31/1997 Traveling exhibition: Galleria Civica d’Arte Moderna e Contemporanea,

185

Exhibition view of VALIE EXPORT – Split:Reality, 1997

The View from Denver: American Contemporary Art from the Denver Art Museum 7/5–8/31/1997 Manfred Wakolbinger: Sputnik 9/19–10/26/1997 Hermann Nitsch: 40th Painting Action with Blood and Red Paint 10/31–11/9/1997 Haim Steinbach: 0% 11/22/1997–1/11/1998 Traveling exhibition: Museum of Modern Art Foundation Ludwig Vienna (MMKSLW) at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; John Hansard Gallery—University of Southampton, Southampton

1998 Jean-Jacques Lebel: Pictures, Sculptures, Installations 1/31–3/15/1998 Traveling exhibition: Museum of Modern Art Foundation Ludwig Vienna (MMKSLW) at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; Ludwig Museum Budapest, Budapest; Galerie der Stadt Kornwestheim, Kornwestheim; Fondazione Antonio Mazzotta, Milan; Fondazione Morra, Naples

Félix González-Torres 9/12–11/1/1998 Traveling exhibition: Sprengel Museum Hannover, Hannover; Kunstverein St. Gallen, St. Gallen; Museum of Modern Art Foundation Ludwig Vienna (MMKSLW) at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna

Situationist International, 1957–1972 1/31–3/15/1998 Siegfried Anzinger 4/1–5/31/1998 Arte Povera: Works and Documents from 1958 to Today from the Goetz Collection 6/19–8/30/1998 Giovanni Anselmo, Alighiero Boetti, Pier Paolo Calzolari, Luciano Fabro, Jannis Kounellis, Mario Merz, Giulio Paolini, Pino Pascali, Giuseppe Penone, Michelangelo Pistoletto, Emilio Prini, Gilberto Zorio

Traveling exhibition: Neues Museum Weserburg, Bremen; Kunsthalle Nürnberg, Nuremberg; Kölnischer Kunstverein, Cologne; Museum of Modern Art Foundation Ludwig Vienna (MMKSLW) at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; Konsthallen Göteborg, Göteborg; Sammlung Goetz, Munich

Exhibition view of Félix González Torres, 1998

Constanze Ruhm: “… time and not the end of desire …” 9/12–11/1/1998 A projection in the movie screening room

Constanze Ruhm: „… Time and not the End of Desire …“ in the museum’s movie screening room, 1998

Hubert Scheibl: vice 11/13/1998–1/10/1999

186  Chronology, 1998–1999

1999 The New Collection (2): Towards the Museumsquartier 2/3–3/7/1999 Joke Robaard: Cut-off Suit 2/3–3/7/1999 In the movie screening room

Pascal Pinaud, Jaume Plensa, Marjetica Potrč, Annie Ratti, Lois Renner, Rui Sanches, Ruth Schnell, Nebojša Šerić-Šoba, Andres Serrano, Michaela Spiegel, Jessica Stockholder, Rosemarie Trockel/ Carsten Höller, Eulàlia Valldosera, Martin Walde, Lois Weinberger, Richard Wentworth, Franz West

Maria Lassnig 3/26–6/6/1999 Traveling exhibition: Museum of Modern Art Foundation Ludwig Vienna (MMKSLW) at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; Museé des Beaux-Arts de Nantes—Fonds Régional d’Art Contemporain des Pays de la Loire, Nantes

Bernard Frize: Size Matters 10/22–11/29/1999 Traveling exhibition: Carré d’Art, Musée d’art contemporain de Nîmes, Nîmes; Museum of Modern Art Foundation Ludwig Vienna (MMKSLW) at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna; Kunstverein St. Gallen, St. Gallen; Westfälisches Landesmuseum für Kunst und Kulturgeschichte, Münster

Uli Aigner: Well Done 6/24–8/22/1999 In the movie screening room

Deadlock/Totpunkt—A/B 1999 10/22–11/29/1999 In the movie screening room

La casa, il corpo, il cuore: Construction of Identities 6/24–10/10/1999 Absalon, Rafael Agredano, Ana Laura Aláez, Txomin Badiola, Richard Billingham, Pedro Cabrita Reis, Sophie Calle, Eugenio Cano, Maurizio Cattelan, Daniel Chust, Victoria Civera, Rochelle Costi, Danica Dakić, Christina Dimitriadis, Orshi Drozdik, Róza El-Hassan, Gloria Friedmann, Gideon Gechtman, Susy Gómez, Antony Gormley, Maria Hahnenkamp, Ilse Haider, Jane Harris, Alex Hartley, Mona Hatoum, Christine & Irene Hohenbüchler, Christian Hutzinger, Birgit Jürgenssen, Massimo Kaufmann, Katarzyna Kozyra, Lee Bul, Tracey Moffatt, Muntean/Rosenblum, Paloma Navares, Flora Neuwirth, Avis Newman, Gabriel Orzco,

Aspects/Positions: Fifty Years of Central European Art, 1949–1999 12/18/1999–2/27/2000 Bosnia and Herzegovina: Braco Dimitrijević, Jusuf Hadžifejzović, Nebojša Šerić-Šoba Montenegro: Miodrag Durić Dado, Branko Filipović-Filo, Petar Lubarda Yugoslavia/Serbia: Marina Abramović, APSOLUTNO, Mrdjan Bajić, Vera Božičković-Popović, Radomir Damnjanović Damnjan, Goran Dordević, Piet Mondrian, Dušan Otašević, Neša Paripović, Raša Dragoljub Todosijević, Milica Tomić Croatia: Ivo Gattin, Tomislav Gotovac, Gorgona, Grupa šestorice autora, Sanja Iveković, Ivana Keser, Julije Knifer, Vlado Kristl, Dimitrije Bašičević

187

Mangelos, Dalibor Martinis, Goran Petercol, Ivan Picelj, Aleksandar Srnec, Mladen Stilinović, Goran Trbuljak Macedonia: Aleksandar Stankovski & Branislav Sarkanjac, Žaneta Vangeli Slovenia: Emerik Bernard, Janez Bernik, Marina Gržinić/Aina Šmid, IRWIN, OHO (Milenko Matanović), Marko Peljhan, Marjetica Potrč, Gabrijel Stupica, Apolonija Šušteršič, VSSD—Veš slikar svoj dolg? Austria: Siegfried Anzinger, Christian Ludwig Attersee, Herbert Boeckl, Herbert Brandl, Günter Brus, VALIE EXPORT, Bruno Gironcoli, Franz Graf, Maria Hahnenkamp, Christine & Irene Hohenbüchler, Alfred Hrdlicka, Friedensreich Hundertwasser, Michael Kienzer, Kurt Kocherscheidt, Peter Kogler, Brigitte Kowanz, Richard Kriesche, Elke Krystufek, Maria Lassnig, Otto Muehl, Muntean & Rosenblum, Hermann Nitsch, Oswald Oberhuber, Walter Pichler, Arnulf Rainer, Gerwald Rockenschaub, Hubert Schmalix, Rudolf Schwarzkogler, Peter Weibel, Lois Weinberger, Franz West, Wiener Gruppe (Achleitner, Artmann, Bayer, Rühm, Wiener), Fritz Wotruba, Gregor Zivic, Heimo Zobernig Poland: Magdalena Abakanowicz, Paweł Althamer, Mirosław Balka, Krzysztof M. Bednarski, Andrzej Dłuźniewski, Edward Dwurnik, Stefan Gierowski, Zuzanna Janin, Maria Jarema, Tadeusz Kantor, Katarzyna Kobro, Edward Krasiński, Mariusz Kruk, Zofia Kulik, Zbigniew Libera, Jarosław Modzelewski, Teresa Murak, Roman Opalka, Włodzimierz Pawlak, Mikołaj Smoczyński, Henryk Stażewski, Andrzej

188  Chronology, 1999–2000

Szewczyk, Alina Szapocznikow, Leon Tarasewicz, Ryszard Winiarski, Krzysztof Wodiczko, Andrzej Wróblewski Slovak Republic: Milan Dobeš, Rudolf Fila, Stano Filko, Daniel Fischer, Jozef Jankovič, Július Koller, Alex Mlynárčik, Ilona Németh, Roman Ondák, Peter Ronai, Rudolf Sikora, Laco Teren, Jana Želibská Czech Republic: Jiří David, Milena Dopitová, Tomáš Hlavina, Magdalena Jetelová, Ivan Kafka, Milan Knižák, Jiří Kovanda, Stanislav Kolíbal, Karel Malich, Mikuláš Medek, Karel Nepraš, Jiří Surůvka, Zdeněk Sýkora, Jitka Válova, Květa Válová Hungary: Imre Bak, Emese Benczúr, Ákos Birkás, Imre Bukta, Tibor Csernus, Róza El-Hassan, Miklós Erdély, László Fehér, Péter Forgács, Krisztián Frey, Tibor Hajas, István Haraszty, Tamás Hencze, György Jovánovics, Károly Kelemen, Ilona Keserü, András Koncz, Béla Kondor, Éva Köves, Dezsö Korniss, László Lakner, Tamás Lossonczy, Dóra Maurer, István Nádler, Gyula Pauer, Sándor Pinczehelyi, Erzsébet Schaár, János Sugár, Endre TÓT, Tibor Vilt Exhibition held in both houses of the Museum of Modern Art Foundation Ludwig Vienna (MMKSLW).

2000 Lois Weinberger: Progression 3/10–4/24/2000

Exhibition view of Lois Weinberger: Progression, 2000

Merce Cunningham 5/5–6/12/2000 Exhibition in conjunction with the Wiener Festwochen

In collaboration with Fundació Tàpies, Barcelona; Fundação de Serralves, Porto; Castello di Rivoli, Turin; and the Museum of Modern Art Foundation Ludwig Vienna (MMKSLW) at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna

Exhibition view of Merce Cunningham, 2000

189

Exhibition view of Merce Cunningham, 2000

Turning Points 7/5–10/1/2000 In collaboration with the Künstlerhaus

Traveling exhibition: Kunstmuseum Bonn, Bonn; Museum of Modern Art Foundation Ludwig Vienna (MMKSLW) at Palais Liechtenstein and the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna

Author Biographies Véronique Aichner Véronique Aichner studied art history and Romance philology at the University of Innsbruck. In 2007, she completed the postgraduate program in “art & economy” at the University of Applied Arts Vienna. After working at Gabriele Senn Galerie, Vienna, from 2007 to 2010, she joined the Belvedere in 2010 as an assistant curator of contemporary art. → p. 140

Mathias Boeckl Art historian, art theorist, and publicist Matthias Boeckl studied at the universities of Salzburg and Vienna and did his habilitation at the University of Innsbruck. He teaches at the University of Applied Arts Vienna, is chief editor of the journal architektur.aktuell, and is a member of many art-award juries. Among his many publications are monographs on the painters Jean Egger, Herbert Boeckl, Gerhild Diesner, Otto Rudolf Schatz and Soshana, on the architects Frederick Kiesler, Günther Domenig, Gernot Hertl, Otto Prutscher, and Andreas Treusch, as well as works on the theme of art migration (Wien–Paris: Van Gogh, Cézanne und Österreichs Moderne and Austrian Roots of Modern Architecture in the United States). → p. 110

Rainald Franz Art historian Rainald Franz is deputy director of the Library and Kunstblättersammlung at MAK,

191

the Austrian Museum of Applied Art/Contemporary Art, Vienna. He has curated several exhibitions, is author of many publications, and organized the 2008 Symposium Leben mit Loos in Vienna. Since 2007 he has been president of the International Committee for Museums and Collections of Decorative Arts and Design (ICDAD). Among his research focuses are modernera architecture and the histories of ornamentation, arts and crafts, and early design. → p. 118

Werner Hofmann The Vienna-born art historian, art theorist, and writer Werner Hofmann was founding director of the Museum of the Twentieth Century, Vienna, from 1962 to 1969, and director of the Hamburger Kunsthalle from 1969 to 1990. He taught as a visiting professor at several renowned universities. His best-known publications include monographs on Caspar David Friedrich, Francisco de Goya, and Edgar Degas. In 2008, he received the distinguished Aby M. Warburg Award of the City of Hamburg. → p. 8

Agnes Husslein-Arco Since 2007 Agnes Husslein-Arco has been director of the Belvedere in Vienna. She is an art historian and curator of many exhibitions on classical modernism and contemporary art, as well as an author and editor of academic publications. In 1981 she opened the Vienna branch of Sotheby’s, where she directed its commercial operations until 2000. In addition, from 1988 she assumed the management of Sotheby’s branches in Buda-

pest and Prague. In the 1990s, Husslein-Arco was director of European development at the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum; from 2001 to 2003, director of the Rupertinum in Salzburg; and from 2003 to 2005, the founding director of the Museum der Moderne Salzburg. From 2002 to 2004 she organized the construction of the Museum of Modern Art in Kärnten (MMKK). → p. 6

Harald Krejci Harald Krejci studied art history, art pedagogy, and Italian philology at the Universities of Augsburg and Munich. Starting in 2000, he worked for Galerie Krobath and later for the MUMOK and the Kunsthalle Wien, before becoming the head of scholarship at the Kiesler Foundation archive, Vienna, where he worked on the estate of Frederick Kiesler. In 2008, he was an assistant to Kari Jormakka, professor of architecture theory, for the exhibition archidiploma2008. Krejci has curated and organized exhibitions on Kiesler at the MMK, Frankfurt am Main, and the Drawing Center, New York, and on Maurizio Sacripanti at the Kiesler Foundation, Vienna. Since 2009, he has worked at the Belvedere, where he curated the 2011 exhibition DYNAMICS! Cubism, Futurism, KINETICISM. His research foci include the art of the interwar years, abstraction in Vienna, and émigré artists, with a particular emphasis on New York and London. He is working on catalogues raisonnés of the oeuvres of Marc Adrian and Curt Stenvert. → p. 38, p. 134

192  Author Biographies

Markus Kristan Markus Kristan, born in 1957 in Vienna, studied art history, archaeology, and history at the University of Vienna; in 1987–88 he was on the staff at Dehio, the inventory of Austrian monuments, after which he taught at the Graphische Lehr- und Versuchsanstalt Wien. Since 1993 he has worked with the architecture collection at the Albertina. Among other things, he has written many publications on Austrian architectural history of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries; on Carl König, Oskar Marmorek, Adolf Loos, Joseph Urban, and Ernst Epstein; as well as on trade fairs in Vienna and buildings by Austrian architects in Europe. → p. 90

Cosima Rainer Cosima Rainer is a curator of contemporary art at the Belvedere, 21er Haus. Rainer studied philosophy as well as theater, film, and media studies at the University of Vienna; in 1996–97, she completed the De Appel Curatorial Training Programme in Amsterdam. She previously held appointments at Depot. Kunst und Diskussion, the Wiener Kunstverein, and the Generali Foundation, Vienna; since 2004 she has been a lecturer at the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna. Since 1997, she has curated exhibitions and written for publications in Austria and abroad, including Lucie Stahl & Běla Kolářová at the Stadtgalerie Schwaz in collaboration with the Kölnischer Kunstverein (2011), making and art at the Stadtgalerie Schwaz (2011), See This Sound. Promises of Sound and Vision at the Lentos Kunstmuseum, Linz (2009), … Concept

Has Never Meant Horse at the Generali Foundation, Vienna (2006), Pop Projektionen (in collaboration with Alice Koegel) at the Filmbar, Museum Ludwig, Cologne (2004), and hell-gruen. 30 Kunstprojekte im und um den Düsseldorfer Hofgarten organized by the Düsseldorf Ministry of Culture (2002). → p. 26

Bettina Steinbrügge Bettina Steinbrügge studied art history, English philology, and comparative literature in Kassel. From 2001 to 2007, she was the artistic director at Halle für Kunst Lüneburg, while also teaching at the University of Lüneburg and the university’s art space. In 2009, she began teaching at the Haute École d’Art et de Design, Geneva. She has also been a member of the programming board of Forum Expanded, a division of the Berlin International Film Festival (Berlinale), since 2007. Until the fall of 2011, she is a curator at La Kunsthalle Mulhouse, where she realized the exhibitions The End of the World as We Know It and L’Idée de nature, among others. She has been a curator of contemporary art at the Belvedere since 2011. Bettina Steinbrügge publishes regularly on issues in contemporary art; her research currently focuses on concepts of the museum in the twenty-first century, forms of artistic critique, and, perhaps most importantly, intersections between art and film. → p. 46, p. 68

Alfred Weidinger After working at the Albertina as a curator and assistant director,

193

Alfred Weidinger joined the Belvedere in Vienna as the new head curator and assistant director in 2007. His research focuses on the art and photography of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. His publications include Oskar Kokoschka. Die Zeichnungen und Aquarelle, 1897–1916 (Salzburg: Galerie Welz, 2008) and Gustav Klimt. Kommentiertes Gesamtverzeichnis des malerischen Werkes (Munich: Prestel, 2007). → p. 54

Picture Credits l.= left, r.= right, t.= top, b.= bottom, c.= center 9/21/2011. Markus Oberndorfer → p. 12–23

Museums provide rules for the play of interpretation. Werner Hofmann

František Kupka, Nocturne, 1910/11, oil on canvas, 66 × 66 cm, MUMOK, Vienna/© VBK, Vienna, 2011 → p. 9, t. l. University of Applied Arts Vienna, art collection and archive → p. 9, t. r. František Kupka, Nocturne, 1900, illustration of René Puaux’s Nocturne, published in an unidentified document (tf. 771/27. pet. fol., p. 101), Kupka collection at the Bibliothèque nationale de France, Cabinet des Estampes, Paris, © VBK, Vienna, 2011 → p. 9, t. l. Michail Larionov, The Smoker, 1912, pencil, plaster, nails, paper, wood, cotton wool on wood, 75 × 23 cm, MUMOK, Vienna/© VBK, Vienna, 2011 → p. 11, t. from: Musikblätter des Anbruch (1925) → p. 11, b. Wrestling over the right museum. Cosima Rainer

Belvedere, Vienna → p. 27, t. Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna → p. 27, b. from: The studio. An illustrated magazine of fine and applied art, vol. XXXII, London 1904, p. 351 → p. 29, b.

195

Société des nations, Office international des musées, and Institut international de coopération intellectuelle (eds.), Muséographie. Architecture et aménagement des musées d’art. Conférence internationale d’études, vol. 2 (Madrid), 1934, p. 446–47, Reproduced in Kristina KratzKessemeier, Andrea Meyer, Bénédicte Savoy, eds., Museumsgeschichte. Kommentierte Quellentexte 1750–1950 (Reimer, Berlin), 2010 → p. 30, l. Sprengel Museum, Hannover → p. 31, r. Artemis Zurich → p. 32, t. Michel Join, Paris, photo: Alexander Fils → p. 33, t. Stedeljik Museum, Amsterdam → p. 34, t., p. 33, b. Nederlands Fotomuseum, photo: Ed van der Elsken → p. 34, b. Harald Szeemann Archive → p. 35, r., p. 35, l. Andrea Fraser/Courtesy Friedrich Petzel Gallery, New York → p. 36 The sculpture garden— a matter of context. Harald Krejci

Fritz Wotruba Privatstiftung, photo: Heimo Kuchling → p. 41, t. r., p. 41, t. l. Office Krischanitz Architects → p. 41, t. l. Archive of the Kröller-Müller Museum, Otterlo → p. 41, b. l. The Museum of Modern Art, New York/ Photo Scala, Florence, 2011 → p. 41, b. r. Adalbert Komers-Lindenbach; Marino Marini, Il Miracolo, 1954/© VBK, Vienna 2011; Wessel Couzijn, Fliegendes, 1957/©VBK, Vienna 2011 → p. 42, b.

Adalbert Komers-Lindenbach; Hans Arp, Idol, 1950/©VBK, Vienna 2011; Robert Jacobsen, Eisenplastik, 1955/56/©VBK, Vienna 2011; Carel Visser/©VBK, Vienna 2011 → p. 42, b. l. Adalbert Komers-Lindenbach; Wander Bertoni, Das große C, 1955/©VBK, Vienna 2011; Carel Visser/©VBK, Vienna 2011 → p. 42, b. r. Adalbert Komers-Lindenbach; Max Bill, Konstruktion aus einem Kreisring, 1940/41, executed in 1957/58/©VBK, Vienna 2011; Henry Moore, Parze, 1957/©VBK Vienna 2011; Josef Pillhofer, Kopf, 1952/©VBK, Vienna 10/24/2011 → p. 43, t. Belvedere, Vienna → p. 43 c. l., p. 43, c. r. MUMOK, Vienna → p. 42, b. r., p. 43, b. l. documenta archive/Günther Becker → p. 45, b. The Museum as … / of… / for… How contemporary art has changed the museums. Bettina Steinbrügge

Estate of Karl Schwanzer c/o Martin Schwanzer, photo: Maria Wölfl → p. 55, b. l. from: Acier Stahl Steel, vol. 23, March 1958/Österreichisches Staatsarchiv, Archiv der Republik, Zl. 235624/1958 → p. 55, r. Reproduction of a postcard, photographer unknown → p. 56, t. Estate of Karl Schwanzer c/o Martin Schwanzer, photo: Maria Wölfl → p. 56, c. from: Geschäftsstelle des Regierungskommisärs f. d. Weltausstellung in Brüssel, Österreich, Weltausstellung Brüssel 1958 → p. 56 b., p. 57 t. l., p. 57, t. r. ÖNB, Vienna, photo: Josef Stummvoll → p. 57, b. l. Estate of Karl Schwanzer c/o Martin Schwanzer, photo: Martin Schwanzer and Gerhard Krampf → p. 59 kaufman – wanas architects, Vienna → p. 61, t. Architektur Mikado, Vienna → p. 61, c. l., p. 61, c. r.

Rosalind Nashashibi/Lucy Skaer, Flash in the Metropolitan, 2006, 16 mm film, 3′ 25″, courtesy the artists and doggerfisher → p. 48

dietrich/untertrifaller architects, Bregenz → p. 61, b.

Pierre Huyghe, The Host and the Cloud, 2009/10, Picture taken on October 31, 2009, courtesy of Marian Goodman Gallery, New York and Paris, photo: Ola Rindal → p. 51

Estate of Karl Schwanzer c/o Martin Schwanzer → p. 62, b.

Ephemera has many faces. The genesis of an extraordinary exhibition venue. Agnes Husslein-Arco, Alfred Weidinger

University of Technology, Graz; From: Sezession Graz, 70 Jahre Sezession Graz, Feldkirchen 1993, p. 72 → p. 55, t. l.

196  Picture Credits

Stephan Braunfels architects BDA, Berlin → p. 62, t. l., p. 62, t. r., p. 62, c. r.

Estate of Karl Schwanzer c/o Martin Schwanzer, photo: Johnathan Quinn → p. 65, t. The new old cinema at the 21er Haus. Bettina Steinbrügge

Rainer Blickle → p. 71

Artist pages

Marcus Geiger Axel Huber → p. 74, p. 75 Clegg&Guttmann Nora Schultz → p. 76, p. 77

Photo: La photographie documentaire, Brussels → p. 102, b. l. Adalbert Komers – Lindenbach → p. 104 MUMOK, Vienna → p. 104, t., p. 105, b.

Elke Silvia Krystufek Sadegh Tirafkan → p. 78, p. 79

Belvedere, Vienna/Johannes Stoll → p. 108

Marko Lulic Mario Garcia Torres → p. 80, p. 81

Signs of Modernism. The corporate identity of the Museum of the Twentieth Century in the Schweizergarten and its genesis: From Georg Schmid to Oswald Oberhuber and Christof Nardin, Rainald Franz

Elfie Semotan Charline von Heyl → p. 82, p. 83 Esther Stocker Daniela Comani → p. 84, p. 85 Hans Weigand Richard Jackson → p. 86, p. 87 Franz West Anselm Reyle → p. 88, p. 89 Erwin Wurm Karin Sander → p. 90, p. 91 Heimo Zobernig Michael Riedel → p. 92, p. 93 Oswald Oberhuber Jürgen Klauke → p. 94, p. 95 From the austrian pavillion to the 20er Haus. An architectural icon in context. Markus Kristan

Estate of Karl Schwanzer c/o Martin Schwanzer, Photo: Wolfgang Pfaundler → p. 99 Photo: Maria Wölfl → p. 101, t., p. 102, b. r., p. 103, t., p. 103, b. Photo: unknown → p. 101, b. Photo: Gert Schlegel → p. 102, t. l. Photo: Publifoto, Milan → p. 102, t. r.

197

Hertha Ramsauer, poster for the exhibition Larisch und seine Schule für Ornamentale Schrift (Larisch and his school of ornamental writing), ca. 1925, 33 × 48.4 cm, photo: MAK/Georg Mayer → p. 120 Herrmann Kosel, poster Polnische Plakate (Polish Posters), 1950, 118 × 84 cm, photo: MAK/Georg Mayer → p. 121, l. Julius Klinger, poster MEM, 1921 126 × 95 cm, photo MAK/Georg Mayer → p. 121, r. Program of the Wiener Werkstätte featuring monograms of the artisans and artists of the Wiener Werkstätte, 1905 14 × 9 cm, photo: MAK → p. 124 Georg Schmid, poster Museum of the Twentieth Century, 1963, 83 × 59 cm, photo: MAK/Georg Mayer → p. 125 Georg Schmid, poster for the exhibition Pop etc., 1964, 84 × 59 cm, photo: MAK/ Georg Mayer → p. 126, l. Georg Schmid, poster for the Wochen des französischen Films (Weeks of French Film), 1963, 84 × 59 cm, photo: Belvedere, Vienna/Johannes Stoll → p. 126, r. Georg Schmid, poster for the exhibition Idole und Dämonen (Idols and Demons), 1963, 84 × 59 cm, photo: Belvedere, Vienna/Johannes Stoll → p. 127, l.

Georg Schmid, poster for the exhibition Adolf Loos, 1964, 84 × 59 cm, photo: MAK/Georg Mayer → p. 127, r. Georg Schmid, poster for the exhibition Robert Müller – Plastiken (Robert Müller: Sculptures), 1965, 84 × 59 cm, photo: Belvedere, Vienna/Johannes Stoll → p. 128, l. Georg Schmid, poster for the exhibition Comic Strips, 1970, 84 × 59 cm, photo: MAK/Georg Mayer → p. 128, r. Georg Schmid, poster for the Guest performance by Merce Cunningham Dance Company New York, 1964 84 × 59 cm, photo: MAK/Georg Mayer → 129, l. Oswald Oberhuber, poster for the exhibition Schoenberg – Webern – Berg, 1969, 84 × 59 cm, photo: MAK/Georg Mayer → p. 129, r. Georg Schmid, poster for the exhibition Osteuropäische Volkskunst (Folk Art of Eastern Europe), 1970, 84 × 59 cm, photo: Belvedere, Vienna/Johannes Stoll → p. 130, l. Georg Schmid, poster for the exhibition Arshile Gorky, 1965, 84 × 59 cm, photo: MAK/Georg Mayer → p. 130, r. Christof Nardin → p. 131, t., p. 131, b., p. 132 The turns and returns of film. A few remarks. Harald Krejci

MUMOK, Vienna → p. 136 Chronology of exhibitions 1962—2000. Véronique Aichner

Adalbert Komers-Lindenbach → p. 142, t., p. 142, b., p. 143., b. r., p. 144 ÖNB, Vienna → p. 143, t. l., p. 143, c. l., p. 142, b. l., p. 158, t. l.

198  Picture Credits

IMAGNO/Barbara Pflaum → p. 143, t. r., p. 151, b. r., p. 152, b. l., p. 154, t. l., p. 155. c. l., 155, t. r., p. 155, c. r., p. 155, b. r., p. 156, l., p. 158, b. l.

Oswald Oberhuber, poster for the exhibition Van Beethoven Environment, 1971, 84 × 59 cm, Photo: Belvedere, Vienna/Johannes Stoll → p. 154, b. r.

MUMOK, Vienna → p. 144, t. r., p. 144, b. r., p. 145, t. l., p. 145, b. l., p. 145, t. r., p. 146, t. r., p. 146, b. r., p. 147, t., p. 147, c., p. 147, b., p. 148, t., p. 151, t. l., p. 152, t. l., p. 152, c. l., p. 152, b. r., p. 152, r. 3/4, p. 153, r 4/4, p. 154, b. r., p. 159, p. 164, t. r., p. 164, b. r., p. 166, p. 167, p. 170, t. l., p. 173, t. l., p. 173, b. l., p. 173 r., p. 176, p. 177, p. 181, p. 182, p. 183, p. 184 b. r., p. 184, r., p. 185, l., p. 185, r., p. 186, t. r., p. 189, t. l., p. 189, b. l., p. 189, r.

Walter Pichler, Umbau des Museums/ Räume aus Bauwollstoff für das Museum des 20. Jahrhunderts (Reconstruction of the Museum/Rooms Made of Cotton Fabric for the Museum of the Twentieth Century), 1971 → p. 155, b. l.

Kurt Gerlach → p. 145, b. r. Georg Schmid, poster for the exhibition Kinetika (Kinetica), 1967, 84 × 59 cm, photo: MAK/Georg Mayer → p. 148, b.

Carmela Haerdtl → p. 156, r. Gretl Geiger → p. 157, l., p. 157, t. r., p. 157, b. r., p. 158, r. Levi’s Pop Jeans Galerie → p. 160 Archive Harald Szeemann → p. 164, t. l., p. 164, b. l., p. 169, t., p. 169, b.

Peter Baum → p. 149, l., p. 149, b. r., p. 151, b. l., p. 154, b. l., p. 155, t. l.

GRAF+ZYX, Grauer Raumtransmitter, 1984, photo: MUMOK, Vienna → p. 170 b. l.

Oswald Oberhuber, poster for the exhibition Paris Mai ’68 (Paris, May ’68), 1968, 84 × 59 cm, photo: MAK/Georg Mayer → p. 149, t. r.

IMAGNO/Didi Sattmann → p. 170, r., p. 171, t. l., p. 171, b. l., p. 180, t. l., p. 180, b. l.

Oswald Oberhuber, poster for the exhibition Roland Goeschl, 1969 84 × 119 cm, photo: Belvedere, Vienna/Johannes Stoll → p. 150, l. Georg Schmid, poster for the exhibition Marks on a Canvas, 1969, 84 × 59 cm, photo: Belvedere, Vienna/Johannes Stoll → p. 150, r. Archive Günter ZAMP Kelp, Berlin → p. 151, c. l.

Estate Martin Kippenberger, Galerie Gisela Capitain, Köln → p. 171, c. l. Margherita Spiluttini → p. 172, l., p. 179, p. 180, t. r., p. 180, b. r., p. 184, t. l. Johann Klinger → p. 178 Constanze Ruhm → p. 186, b. r.

Udo Marton → p. 151, t. r., 165, l., 165, r. Video: M. Praml/Photo: Grauer → p. 152, t. r. Erwin Reichmann → p. 153, t. l., p. 153, b. l., p. 152, r. 1/4, p. 153, r., 2/4

199

Colophon 21er Haus. Back to the Future— a retroperspective look at a museum Published on the occasion of the opening of the 21er Haus on November 15th 2011. Publication Edited by Agnes Husslein-Arco, Cosima Rainer and Bettina Steinbrügge Editing Véronique Aichner, Cosima Rainer, Bettina Steinbrügge Project Management Ute Stadlbauer Intern Cathrin Mayer Copy Editing Catherine Brooke Penaloza Patzak Translations Gerrit Jackson, Harold Ian Miltner Graphic Design Christof Nardin, Agnes Steiner/ Bueronardin Lithography Pixelstorm, Vienna Picture editing Véronique Aichner Print Ueberreuter Print GmbH Printed and bound in Austria

© 2011 Belvedere, Vienna, the authors & Revolver All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without written permission by the publisher.

200 

Revolver Publishing Immanuelkirchstr. 12 D–10405 Berlin Tel.: +49 (0)30 616 092 36 Fax: +49 (0)30 616 092 38 [email protected] www.revolver-publising.com ISBN: 978-3-86895-202-5 Acknowledgements Peter Baum, Stefan Bidner, Ursula Blickle, Jörg Burger, Michael Clegg, Daniela Comani, Wolfgang Drechsler, Silvia Eiblmayr, Juliane Feldhoffer, Mario Garica Torres, Wilhelm Gaube, Marcus Geiger, Roland Goeschl, Inge Graf, Martin Guttmann, Charline von Heyl, Werner Hofmann, Axel Huber, Christoph Huber, Richard Jackson, Die Wiener Festwochen (Judith Kaltenböck), Volker Kirchberg, Jürgen Klauke, Karola Kraus, Elke Silvia Krystufek, Domenica LachnitReichhart, Marko Lulic, Gerald Matt, Simone Moser, Heike Munder, Susanne Neuburger, Oswald Oberhuber, Walter Pichler, Herbert und Katja Rainer, Erwin Reichmann, Anselm Reyle, Michael Riedel, Karin Sander, Nicolaus Schafhausenm, Conny Schmeller, Sabine Schmeller, Petra Schmögner, Nora Schultz, Elfie Semotan, Esther Stocker, Sadegh Tirafkan, Peter Vukics, Hans Weigand, Vitus Weh, Franz West, Erwin Wurm, Günther Zamp Kelp, Heimo Zobernig