Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

For a brief moment, around 1900, many philosophers, theorists and artists, believed that the arts, meaning architecture, sculpture and painting as well as the so-called applied arts, had the power to transform daily life. The arts were given a social mandate, to reform ‘all the conditions of human life, a symbiosis of art and life, with the express aim of overcoming the outdated conditions of the nineteenth century and achieving the humanist vision of a cultivated and spiritually fulfilling existence’. 1 Forging a link between art and society evidently promised cultural and spiritual rejuvenation as well as economic regeneration. Those in search of national and regional identity—identities threatened by new political alliances, industrialization and urbanization—also saw art as a means of reasserting cultural differences and even supremacy. Across Europe, this development in the arts was dubbed Art Nouveau (New Art) and Jugendstil (Youth Style) in German-speaking regions, while in Barcelona it was lauded as Catalan Modernisme. 2 As the embodiment of social regeneration this New Art signalled reform. This could only be achieved by unifying all the arts, a synthesis expressed as the Gesamtkunstwerk or total art work. 3 The concept of Art for Life’s Sake was embodied in the House Beautiful, an epithet coined from Clarence Cook’s The House Beautiful: Essays on Beds and Tables, Stools and Candlesticks. 4 German scholar Jakob von Falke (1825–93) deemed it a ‘woman’s aesthetic mission’ to create a beautiful home, as an appreciation of the ‘lesser or industrial arts’ would cultivate good taste. 5 Falke declared art had the power to refine manners, to ‘divert our thoughts from low and vulgar things’; ‘it humanizes us and idealizes our life’. 6 In England William Morris (1834–96) hoped ‘everyman’s house’ would ‘be fair and decent, soothing to his mind and helpful to his work’. 7 Wallpapers and textiles were now deemed to be works of art, becoming the remit of the artist rather than just the manufacturer. Leading architect Joseph Maria Olbrich (1867–1908), titular head of the Darmstädter Künstlerkolonie, foresaw a ‘house of work’ where artists and craftsmen would work alongside one another ‘until both would, so to speak grow together as a single person’. 8 But the real challenge lay in convincing the public, converting them to the ethos of the New Art and stimulating a demand for well-designed and crafted commodities.

In England, one of the first nations to industrialize, the catalysts for change were John Ruskin (1819–1900) and William Morris. For Morris, who gave his first public lecture on the Decorative Arts in 1877, architecture or the ‘art of house-building begins it all’; it stood to reason that ‘if we want art to begin at home […] Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful’. 9 As beauty was a ‘positive necessity of life’, he was determined to transform the world with beautiful things. 10 In Germany, Alfred Lichtwark (1852–1914), first director of the Kunsthalle Hamburg, fostered Museumspädagogik (museum education) in order to inform and elevate the taste of the public; by buying and commissioning modern art he also hoped to transform the Kunsthalle into a leading institution. In Munich and Vienna the revolt came from below, led by artists, designers and architects who were frustrated by conservatism. But in the German principality of Hesse-Darmstadt innovation came from above; Ernst Ludwig Grand Duke of Hesse and by Rhine (1868–1937), ‘the most artistically gifted of the German monarchs’, was the agent for reform. 11 His intervention, providing stipends for artists and underwriting exhibitions, was an exemplary reform programme of royally aided nation construction. Frank Müller recognizes ‘Cultural Kingship’ as a common contemporary phenomenon, as the German crowned heads still wielded considerable influence over the arts and culture. 12 Ernst Ludwig, ‘more artist, writer and composer than statesman or soldier’, made cultural policies the centrepiece of his activities. 13 The Grand Duke patronized a Darmstädter Renaissance, his civic programme cultivating a strong local identity rooted in modernity; Hesse-Darmstadt was moulded into a distinct and credible Fatherland.

In this chapter I intend to show why Ernst Ludwig embraced Jugendstil in order to rejuvenate his principality and as a means of nation building. By exploring his birthright and international connections, it can be shown he was familiar with developments in England and France as well as further afield in Germany. I argue he embraced the Arts and Crafts in order to achieve cultural and economic reform. His outlook was not retrogressive; he hoped the artists and designers he summoned to create the Darmstädter Künstlerkolonie would revive the fortunes of local industries. He also recognized the potential of an alliance of the Arts and Crafts to forge a distinct identity for his principality. Above all he wanted Hesse-Darmstadt to be a beacon of modernity. I also hope to establish the position of Hesse-Darmstadt within the newly created Kaiserreich; commentators have recognized Ernst Ludwig as an exemplary German citizen. His nation building clearly began at home, in Hesse-Darmstadt, but his allegiance was to Germany. His vision was essentially pan-German; all the artists called to Darmstadt were German nationals, except for one foreigner, the Viennese architect Olbrich. It could be said that his reform programme revealed the shortcomings of the Kaiser and the German princes who were not striving to bring Germany into the twentieth century. In the vanguard of reform, both regional and national, Ernst Ludwig promoted a modern Germany. Various initiatives in Weimar and Hagen may have been inspired by Ernst Ludwig’s Darmstädter Künstlerkolonie; in the opening years of the twentieth century Jugendstil became a pan-German phenomenon.

Ernst Ludwig: A Modern German Prince

Ernst Ludwig had a remarkable vision for his principality when he came to power in 1892. Annexed by Prussia in 1866, becoming one of the 25 federal states which made up the German Empire, the nationhood of Hesse-Darmstadt had been eroded. The Grand Duke was determined to put Hesse-Darmstadt back on the map by personally leading an artistic renaissance. He built on past precedents, as traditionally patronage had been state-based with artists and musicians depending on German princes for their livelihoods. Ernst Ludwig also needed to ensure his popularity; as Franz Müller argues, he needed to win the loyalty of his subjects, to achieve ‘successful salesmanship’. 14 He needed, like Prince Regent Luitpold of Bavaria, to be indelibly associated with his kingdom, to create the ‘cult of monarchy’. Ernst Ludwig’s concerted attempt to generate a public culture was predicated on a ‘cosy monarchical loyalty and regional belonging’. 15 His programme of cultural reform was intended to create a distinct and credible Fatherland: ‘In this enterprise strong local identities—the famous notion of Heimat—and regional monarchies were tied into a symbiotic relationship.’ 16 As Abigail Green argues, state level and national level were interconnected; ‘interest in the particular Fatherland was an expression of interest in the greater, national Fatherland’. 17

Ernst Ludwig’s concept of constitutional monarchy was shaped by his birthright. Influenced by his mother, Princess Alice of the United Kingdom (1843–78), his grandmother Queen Victoria (1819–1901) and his five sisters, Ernie, as he was known in the family, grew up in a cosmopolitan milieu. 18 Harry Graf Kessler (1868–1937) observed the Grand Duke was simultaneously ‘English Gentleman and German Patriot’: ‘Of all the German Princes he was the one who made the impression of […] a man of the world most naturally.’ 19 Self-assurance shines through Franz von Stuck’s elegant portrait (1907), revealing something of a dandy. 20 Ernie’s sense of social justice and humanitarianism, as well as his love of the arts and music, was indubitably instilled by Princess Alice. 21 Her mother claimed Alice had ‘darling Papa’s nature, and much of his self-sacrificing character and fearless and entire devotion to duty!’ 22 Open-minded, with a progressive outlook, Alice was an ideal role model for a modern prince. Ernst Ludwig was determined to actively demonstrate his ability to reign, securing his position not by divine right but through personal achievements. Cast in a mosaic near the Municipal Exhibition Hall (1905–08) on the Mathildenhöhe, the site of the Darmstädter Künstlerkolonie, the Grand Duke declared his commitment: ‘Have respect for the old—And courage to take a chance with the new—Remain faithful to your own nature—And true to the people you love.’ 23 Theodor Heuss, first President of the Federal Republic of Germany, went so far as to declare Ernie’s liberalism ‘avant-gardist’: ‘For our youthful consciousness Hesse’s last Grand Duke Ernst Ludwig was the spiritually and intellectually most important personality among the German monarchs of his time.’ 24

Compared to the authoritarian Kaiser, Wilhelm II, Ernie’s views verged on socialism; he was dubbed the ‘Revolutionary Prince’ or the ‘Red Grand Duke’. 25 Against the conservatism of Prussia, the subnational identity of Hesse-Darmstadt was invested in cultural reform and economic development. On an international stage, the enlightenment nurtured by Ernst Ludwig was projected as German nationalism; the first exhibition on the Mathildenhöhe was entitled Ein Dokument Deutscher Kunst (A Document of German Art). This was a matter of national pride as well as economic survival. Alexander Koch (1860–1939), founder of Deutsche Kunst und Dekoration, feared German artists and craftsmen were ‘being held spellbound by a foreign language of form; the idiom of a domestic, individually German art language is in danger of being lost’. 26 Rather than copying Franco-Belgian Art Nouveau or English Arts and Crafts stylistic forms, Germany needed to develop its own, independent, modern art. This dream would be realized at Turin’s Prima Esposizione Internazionale d’Arte Decorativa Moderna (First International Exposition of Modern Decorative Arts) held in 1902. In the Hamburger Vorhalle des Deutschen Reiches (Hamburg Vestibule of the German Reich), Künstlerkolonie artist Peter Behrens expressed Germany’s cultural identity in Jugendstil forms.

By personally initiating an arts and crafts reform programme, Ernst Ludwig hoped to regenerate and transform the cultural identity of Hesse. He was clearly aware of the artistic and financial success of Morris & Co. and Liberty’s of Regent Street in London and the artistic revival in Nancy, Lorraine, following the Franco-Prussian War. Here the local economy had been turned around by fostering so-called art industries. In 1897, Ernst Ludwig commissioned Mackay Hugh Baillie Scott (1865–1945) and Charles Robert Ashbee (1863–1942) to transform two rooms in the Neue Palais (Fig. 9.1). A year later the Erste Darmstädter Kunst- und Kunstgewerbe-Ausstellung (First Darmstadt Exhibition of Fine and Decorative Art) showcased the Art Nouveau glass and furniture of Emile Gallé, the progenitor of l’École de Nancy. This transnational venture convinced Ernie that the economic fortunes of his small principality, which boasted few natural resources, could be revived by rejuvenating local industries: the seven artists/architects called to create an artists’ colony on the Mathildenhöhe in 1899 were expected to reform and stimulate local manufacturers by providing direct examples. Paid a stipend and provided with a communal studio, Ernie’s princely patronage was not an exercise in altruism. 27 By forging a Darmstadt Jugendstil ethos, nationhood could be vested in cultural progress; Darmstadt would be at the cutting edge, a beacon of German modernity. Inevitably, architect Peter Behrens (1868–1940), one of the original seven called to Darmstadt, foresaw the limitations of working in a provincial capital, leaving the Künstlerkolonie in 1903. Behrens looked beyond Ernie’s vision of unifying Art and Life in Hesse-Darmstadt; he hoped his experiential Nietzschean Stil (Great Style), a synthesis of Art and Life, could be disseminated throughout the German Empire. Behrens would lead the way forward, via the Deutscher Werkbund, to the rationality and functionality of the Bauhaus (1919–33). The seeds of Modernism were undoubtedly sown in Darmstadt.

Fig. 9.1
figure 1

‘Sitting room in the new palace, Darmstadt, designed by M. H. Ballie Scott’, in M. H. Baillie-Scott, ‘Decoration and Furniture for the New Palace, Darmstadt’, The Studio, Vol. 16, 1899, 107–115; here 111 (Image: Anne Anderson)

Full size image

The New Art: An International, National and Regional Phenomenon

In order to appreciate why Ernest Ludwig embraced Jugendstil, one needs to understand why and how the New Art emerged in Germany. In January 1896 Jugend: Illustrierte Wochenschrift für Kunst und Leben was launched in Munich, giving its name to the movement; this magazine, founded and edited by Georg Hirth, was aimed at a young, upwardly mobile generation, who, on the cusp of the twentieth century, sought to embrace modernity. Through a plethora of such specialist journals, numbering The Studio (London, 1893), Pan (Berlin, 1895) and Dekorative Kunst (Munich, 1897) artists and architects, inspired by the ideology of Ruskin and Morris, advocated a programme of Aesthetic Socialism that sought to unify art and life by reforming the applied arts. Morris, who declared it was the ‘right of everyman’ to have a ‘beautiful home’ argued convincingly that wallpapers, textiles, ceramics and even books demanded the same imaginative approach as painting and sculpture. 28 This elevated status encouraged artists to diversify: Edward Burne-Jones (1833–98), Morris’ lifelong friend, widened his portfolio to encompass designs for stained glass and tapestry. Inspired by the building of his own home, Bloemenwerf in Ukkel, the Belgian artist Henry van de Velde (1863–1957) abandoned painting in favour of designing furniture, textiles, ceramics and metalwork. Behrens followed suit, also inspired by the building of his own house for the first Künstlerkolonie exhibition in 1901.

The quest for unity encouraged architects to design or control all aspects of interior decor, especially furniture and lighting. Individual arts were subordinated to a common purpose, the house being transformed into a Gesamtkunstwerk. Exteriors, interiors, furnishings and even landscape were to be conceived and directed by the vision of one man—the architect. Charles Rennie Mackintosh (1868–1928) exemplifies this desire to achieve an overarching harmonization, or tout ensemble, which even extended to the choice of door handles and window catches. In their own homes, architect designers even attempted to assimilate the occupants through dress and accessories. Maria van der Velde and Margaret Macdonald Mackintosh were completely harmonized through their attire to the point where one speculates whether they were trapped in the Gesamtkunstwerk! 29

Specialist journals and international exhibitions highlight the transnational spirit of Art Nouveau/Jugendstil: by 1900 readers were aware of the cosy English Arts and Crafts houses of C. F. A Voysey (1857–1941), the glass and furniture of Emile Gallé (1846–1904), the stained glass of American Louis Comfort Tiffany (1848–1933) and the latest designs of the Vienna Secession. Although international in scope, the New Art also fostered localized responses such as the Glasgow School and Catalan Modernisme. Here a distinctive regional identity can be seen to reflect resurgent nationalism. In the Nordic countries this was expressed through National Romanticism, which drew on folk culture to articulate nationhood. Darmstadt’s distinctive Jugendstil was a similar response, asserting the principality’s unique position within the German Reich.

The global/local variations of Art Nouveau/Jugendstil were made manifest at the international exhibitions held in Chicago (1893), Brussels (1897), Paris (1900), Vienna (1900), Glasgow (1901) and Turin (1902), the latter an exemplary modern city. 30 Turin’s Prima Esposizione Internazionale d’Arte Decorativa Moderna was explicitly ‘up-to-date’: ‘Only original products that show a decisive tendency toward aesthetic renewal of form will be admitted. Neither mere imitations of past styles nor industrial products not inspired by an artistic sense will be accepted.’ 31 Generating intense competition, such global events offered ample opportunity for nationalistic drum-beating; in the run-up to the Turin exposition one French art journal foresaw ‘one of the battles in the war involving all nations for supremacy in industrial art, perhaps even a decisive battle’. 32 Responding to this battle cry, Kaiser Wilhelm II generously subsidized the mounting of the Imperial German display.

Darmstadt had its own ‘media’ activist, Alexander Koch, whose influence on the founding of the Künstlerkolonie was considerable. Educated in Cologne and Stuttgart, Koch married the daughter of Carl Hochstätter, a wallpaper manufacturer. Joining his father-in-law’s business, Koch took a keen interest in contemporary interior design, developing a number of influential trade journals. The Tapeten-Zeitung (Wallpaper News) appeared from 1888, with Zeitschrift für Innendekoration (Interior Decoration) launched two years later. Van de Velde contributed substantially to Innendekoration, again highlighting the transnational character of the New Art; for a few years a French-language edition of the journal was available. Koch himself showed a preference for British design, being especially fond of Mackintosh and Baillie Scott.

Koch’s Deutsche Kunst und Dekoration (1897) would become the platform for launching the Darmstädter Künstlerkolonie and transmitting its ethos. In the first issue Koch urged his readers to integrate art into their daily lives, echoing Morris’ clarion call that ‘everyman’ deserved a beautiful home. Like Morris he also advocated good craftsmanship and the use of high quality materials, condemning shoddy mass-produced commodities. Koch railed against the commercialization of Art Nouveau/Jugendstil so graphically seen at the Paris Universal Exposition 1900. Already the New Art had been discredited by crass exploitation and commercial imperatives. Commoditization had debased Art Nouveau; perceived as merely another style, a transient fashion, it had been taken up by the masses for the sake of keeping up appearances. The ill-informed subscribed to the trappings of the New Art without its substance. Such superficial phoniness threatened to derail genuine reform. Ideologically, the New Art required making lifestyle choices that went beyond simply selecting wallpapers and carpets; the House Beautiful promised social transformation. For Morris a ‘good house’ was the outcome of moral, aesthetic and social reform. 33

Promising so much, the English House was meticulously researched by architect Hermann Muthesius (1861–1927), who as cultural and technical attaché of the Prussian embassy in London from 1896 to 1903 was instructed to report on the English way of life, particularly architectural developments. Muthesius’ mission for the Imperial German government was tantamount to cultural espionage undertaken ‘for a divided and backward country which had become a major power’. 34 According to Dennis Sharp, Wilhelm II was personally responsible for this mission. 35 Muthesius’ final summation, published as Das englische Haus (1904–05), privileged function, advocating honesty in construction and truth to materials as alternatives to ostentatious historicism and excessive ornament. 36 The cultural superiority of Das englische Haus was not just its comfort; it was also its convenience and practicality. Muthesius also foresaw the potential of a craft revival, as higher standards would be of national economic benefit. Informed by Muthesius’ thinking, as articulated in Deutsche Kunst und Dekoration and Dekorative Kunst, Ernst Ludwig also took the high ground, ensuring the Darmstadt experiment was informed by an Arts and Crafts ethos.

Ernst Ludwig: Patron of the New Art

As patron of the Darmstädter Künstlerkolonie, Ernst Ludwig actively supported a daring experiment which broke with tradition. There was no need for artists to break away or ‘secede’ from Hessian state institutions: as Olbrich observed, as Darmstadt did not possess an academy it was not bound by ‘confined norms and standards’. 37 Darmstadt was not a battlefield, where the intensive struggle between old and new still persisted; rather it was a place free from all associations, free from ‘all regards and obligations to Art Ministries’; here new ideas would ‘take a form that doesn’t correspond to today’s usual sort, but moves far ahead and embraces the future’. 38

The artistic revolt in Darmstadt was led from the top rather than instigated from below by a disgruntled younger generation. This was not the case in Munich, Berlin or Vienna, where forward-looking artists, designers and architects inevitably had to break with tradition or ‘secede’ from conservative art institutions. Georg Hirth coined the term ‘Sezessionismus’ (Secession) to characterize this dissent. The first German artists to ‘secede’ broke away from the Munich Artists’ Association in 1892. Matters had come to a head the previous year when Prince Regent Luitpold of Bavaria had founded Prinzregent-Luitpold-Stiftung zur Förderung der Kunst, des Kunstgewerbes und des Handwerks in München, which promoted traditional history painting in the service of the state; conservative factions were opposed to impressionism, symbolism and other progressive trends in the art world. The Berlin Secession was prompted when a landscape by Walter Leistikow was rejected by the state-run Association of Berlin Artists. Similarly in Vienna, a group led by Gustav Klimt resigned from the Association of Austrian Artists, based at the Künstlerhaus, in 1897.

For the most part these breakaway groups were supported by wealthy industrialists; the Vienna Secession had the backing of August Lederer and Karl Wittgenstein. A nationalistic impulse led Karl Ernst Osthaus (1874–1921), son of the Hagener banker Carl Ernst August Osthaus, to transform his home town into a leading centre for the European avant-garde; he is credited with initiating the Hagener Impuls. Collecting works by Cézanne, Gauguin, van Gogh, Hodler, and Matisse amongst others, Osthaus’ ambitions were realized in the Folkwang Museum which opened in 1902. An architectural masterpiece by van der Velde and Behrens, the Folkwang, deemed the world’s first museum for contemporary art, was hailed by Danish-German painter Emil Nolde as a ‘Beacon for western Germany’. 39 Osthaus also attempted to construct a garden suburb in Hohenhagen, Hagen-Eppenhausen. Although the First World War prevented the completion of this project, the focal point of the villa Hohenhof (1906–08), an exemplary Gesamtkunstwerk masterminded by van de Velde, was created as a residence for Osthaus. Munich-born architect Richard Riemerschmid (1868–1957) was called to design the workers’ housing complex in Walddorfstraße (1907), eighty-seven dwellings with community facilities including a kindergarten, while the Dutch artist Jan Thorn Prikker was commissioned to design a stained glass window for the main station in Hagen known as ‘The Artist as Teacher of Commerce and Industry’. Enlightened patronage transformed Hagan into a symbol of national progress.

There were other German princes besides Ernst Ludwig who realized the economic and social benefits of embracing art as the ‘Teacher of Commerce and Industry’. As early as 1860, Karl Alexander August Johann, Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach founded the Weimar Saxon–Grand Ducal Art School, engaging the painters Arnold Böcklin and Franz von Lenbach, and sculptor Reinhold Begas. His grandson and successor Wilhelm Ernst, the last Grand Duke, invited van de Velde to Weimar in 1902; the Grand Ducal School of Arts and Crafts, established in 1905, would evolve into the Bauhaus under the leadership of Walter Gropius. Although indelibly associated with the emergence of functional utilitarian Modernism, the Bauhaus programme was initially rooted in the romantic Arts and Crafts tradition.

Whether instigated by artists, entrepreneurs or even princes the zeal for reform was undoubtedly pan-German. Nevertheless Ernst Ludwig led the way as early as 1897, modernizing three rooms in the Neue Palais; Renate Ulmer regards this as ‘trend-setting’, declaring the Grand Duke to be one of the first princes to ‘bring the new style to life in his own quarters’. 40 Baillie Scott was commissioned to redecorate and furnish the dining and drawing rooms, while Ashbee was called upon to design the light fittings; both were made under Ashbee’s guidance by the Guild of Handicraft. Ernst Ludwig was able to experience at first hand the aesthetes of the handcrafted, as this ‘work possesses […] what an artist would call “feeling”. The surface of the metal bears the evidence of the tool and is delicately modelled.’ 41 This feeling was achieved, as far as possible, by granting the craftsman autonomy; each workman was ‘responsible for his own work’ with as little subdivision of labour as possible. Ideally each piece was ‘carried through by one man’. 42 Although craftsmanship was recast as art, speed was also of the essence; Ernst Ludwig wanted the rooms completed as Tsar Nicholas II, his brother-in-law, was due to visit. The Grand Duke showered Ashbee with telegrams and ‘visits from imperious German dignitaries’. 43 These new rooms were designed to impress, asserting Ernst Ludwig’s commitment to a modern lifestyle.

Writing about the project in The Studio, Baillie Scott noted the difficulties often arising when working for a private patron:

the artist who designs the decoration and furniture of rooms which are to be lived in cannot be quite so independent of his clients […] From the first he is largely influenced by the particular tastes of a particular client and the owner and occupier of a room must needs set a mark of individuality on its final effect in a thousand subtle ways. 44

All too often this influence was ‘baneful’, but in this case it was a ‘distinct artistic gain’: ‘The cultivated taste of the Royal Highnesses, the Grand Duke and Grand Duchess of Hesse, here so much influenced the final result of the decoration of the room that one is dubious in accepting the credit which belongs to the occupier’. 45 Promoting local industry, the breakfast room was furnished by Julius Glückert, a furniture manufacturer who soon recognized the potential of the New Art. A prominent patron of the Künstlerkolonie, Glückert used one of the show houses for the display of his Hofmöbelfabrik.

Jugendstil was officially introduced at the Hessian court in 1898, when the Darmstädter Erste Kunst- und Kunstgewerbe-Ausstellung (First Arts and Crafts Exhibition) was held in the Hall of Art under the patronage of the Grand Duke. Although the exhibits were transnational, with Gallé’s glass and furniture displayed in a separate room, a pan-German emphasis was perhaps intended to spur local manufacturers into action. Innovative German applied arts were represented by tapestries from the Art Weaving School Scherrebek, ornamental glass by Karl Koepping, ceramics by Max Laeuger, Theo Schmuz-Baudiss and Max Heider, and metalwork by Richard Riemerschmid. Rather than being arranged by materials, objects were presented within room settings. As Ulmer notes this presentation of ‘modern, artistically fashioned dwelling rooms and high quality craftsmanship … showed in an exemplary way the possibility of reviving old craft traditions and thereby gave impulses to the local small-scale industry’. 46 The Blaue Zimmer was dominated by the Munich school, with furniture by Wilhelm Michael and the decorative wall patterns of Otto Eckmann (1865–1902). Munich is regarded as the birthplace of Jugendstil, being the first German city to respond to the New Art. A campaign demanding the inclusion of the applied arts in the international Munich Glaspalast Exhibition (1897) led to the founding of the Vereinigte Werkstätten für Kunst im Handwerk (United Workshops for Art in Craft). The designs of Richard Riemerschmid, Bruno Paul, and Peter Behrens were fabricated by a skilled team of craftsmen; by 1899 the Vereinigte Werkstätten was a successful commercial enterprise employing more than 50 workers. The economic success of this venture would not have escaped the attention of the Grand Duke. Eleven members of the Darmstadt Artists’ Colony were drawn from Munich, numbering Peter Behrens, Patriz Huber, Paul Haustein, Henrich Jobst and Ernst Riegel. Munch would forfeit is role as pacemaker to Darmstadt, Hagen and Weimar.

Darmstädter Künstlerkolonie

Koch hoped the 1898 Arts and Crafts Exhibition would inspire in the ‘not too distant future […] an applied art exhibition in modern style with exclusively Hessian products’. 47 This hope was soon realized. Failing to establish a school of art, Ernst Ludwig conceived the idea of a freelance community of artists working alongside one another in a collegial relationship. His concept was clearly shaped by Koch, who issued a memorandum, aimed at the Grand Duke, Parliament and local industrialists, proposing a centre or school of ‘modern crafts’, a Künstler-Gewerbe. 48 Koch feared that Munich, Karlsruhe, Dresden or Berlin, would get ahead leaving Darmstadt behind; only two months later the first artist arrived in Darmstadt.

The first seven artists called to Darmstadt numbered the Viennese architect Joseph Maria Olbrich, pupil and collaborator of Otto Wagner. Painter, architect and later AEG (Allgemeine Elektricitäts-Gesellschaft) industrial designer Peter Behrens, graphic designer and painter Paul Bürck (1878–1947) and interior designer Patriz Huber (1872–1908) came from Munich. Painter, graphic and stained glass designer Hans Christiansen (1867–1938) and medallist and sculptor Rudolf Bosselt (1871–1938) arrived from Paris. Sculptor Ludwig Habich (1872–1919) was the only local man. With Olbrich the only foreigner, Ernst Ludwig assembled a pan-German group, his selection undoubtedly informed by Koch’s laudatory articles in Deutsche Kunst und Dekoration. In total, 23 artists would be appointed to the colony before its closure in 1918. The original seven were contracted for three years, their basic stipend determined by their age, marital status and reputation. From 1903 the yearly salaries were paid by the Ernst Ludwig Fund, which also received public subsidies. The artists were not precluded from deriving extra income from private commissions; the Grand Duke openly encouraged collaboration with local craftsmen and manufacturers. As the foremost architect Olbrich naturally assumed leadership of the coterie; a strong bond developed between architect and patron. Ernst Ludwig declared:

The greatest of them all was Olbrich. I met him by chance. I saw his drawings for the Secession Exhibition in Vienna and a sketch for a portable candlestick, quite personal and different from the direction at that time. I felt immediately there’s something fresh, something that suits me, something sunny that I didn’t feel for all the others. […] He was enthusiastic about my ideas and he appeared extremely sympathetic to me from the beginning. […] I felt that more levity and taste was necessary for the German spirit and that he was exactly the right man as this finesse lay in his nature. […] He helped realise many of my dreams—of which I was full. 49

The Darmstadt Zimmer was successfully shown at the 1900 Universelle Exposition Paris, encouraging a major exhibition the following year styled Ein Dokument Deutscher Kunst von bleibendem Wert (A Document of German Art with Lasting Value). A conventional exhibition with temporary structures was rejected in favour of permanent building prototypes. 50 In effect Olbrich laid out a small suburb, the seeds of an exhibition town: Ernst Ludwig’s dream of building an Acropolis on the Mathildenhöhe was realized. The House Beautiful, in Olbrich’s words a ‘space for life’, dominated, with every fitting, however humble, artistically conceived. 51 Olbrich’s vision was driven in part by Koch and Muthesius: in December 1900 Innendekoration launched an international competition for a Haus eines Kunstfreundes (House of an Art Lover), ‘a refined family dwelling’ for a ‘Kunst-Freund’. 52 The editorial announced ‘the competition is intended to help discover and promote young talents’, for those who had ‘little opportunity to appear before the public’ and every object ‘was to speak of the hopes and concerns, the dreams and desires of its creators’. 53 Only ‘genuinely artistic’ modern designs were acceptable; the goal was a ‘model home in the modern sense’ embracing the latest technological achievements. 54 Being conceived on paper, the project was not constrained by a client; however, there was a budget of 100,000–120,000 marks for the construction. This Dream House was to be judged by a top-notch jury numbering Olbrich, Christiansen, van de Velde, Hans Eduard von Berlepsch-Valendas, Otto Wagner, Alfred Messel and Paul Wallot. Adjudication took place on 16–17 May: of the 36 designs accepted, 16 made the first cut. The first prize was not awarded, as apparently no design had successfully met the brief. Baillie Scott was awarded second prize, the third slot going jointly to Leopold Bauer, Oskar Marmorek and Paul Zeroch. The results and analysis were published in June: as Mackintosh’s project, Der Vogel (The Bird), had failed to follow the guidelines it was unplaced. Despite this failing, a portfolio of Mackintosh’s Dream House was issued, alongside Baillie Scott’s and Bauer’s, as they shared a ‘distinct personal trademark’ or individuality. 55

Reflecting this ideal, eight model homes were created on the Mathildenhöhe embodying a ‘Celebration of Life’; Olbrich provided the architectural plans for all, apart from the Haus Behrens–Haus Ludwig Habich, Haus Olbrich, Haus Christiansen, Haus Keller, Haus Deiters, the Kleines Glückert Haus (Rudolf Bosselt House) and Grosses Glückert Haus. 56 Drawing on both German vernacular traditions and Mediterranean classical prototypes, each house was individually conceived. With its central double-height living hall, the Haus Olbrich was derived from English Arts and Crafts precursors. The Grosses Glückert Haus, which betrays the influence of Mackintosh in its external, graphic linear ornamentation, was conceived as a Gesamtkunstwerk. Patriz Huber supplied the interiors for the Kleines Glückert Haus (Rudolf Bosselt House) and the Haus Ludwig Habich. Olbrich had already declared his intentions:

We must build a city, a whole city! Anything less would be pointless! The government should give us […] a field, and there we shall create a world. To build a single house means nothing. How can it be beautiful if an ugly one stands next door? What good are three, five, even ten beautiful houses […] if the armchairs inside are not beautiful or the plates are not beautiful? No—a field […] then we shall show what we can do. From the overall design down to the last detail, all governed by the same spirit, the streets and the gardens and the palaces and the cottages and the tables and the armchairs and the lamps and the spoons all expressions of the same sensibility … 57

The engine of this utopia was ‘The Temple of Work’, akin to a ‘temple in a sacred grove, a house of labour, both artist’s studio and craftsmen’s workshop […]’ where labour was conceived as ‘hallowed divine service’. 58 As completed, the communal studio, the Ernst-Ludwig-Haus (1899–1901), recalls Olbrich’s Secession House (1898) an exhibition hall built for the breakaway Viennese group (Fig. 9.2). The building is approached through a ceremonial arched recess inscribed with the slogan May the artist show his world that never was and never will be, attributed to Austrian poet Hermann Bahr. 59 This is flanked by Habich’s gigantic figures of Man and Woman, embodying ‘Strength and Beauty’ and ‘Youth and Creativity’, the keystones of the new art. This provided the backdrop to the opening on the 15 May 1901, a festival conceived by Behrens and writer and theatre manager Georg Fuchs (1868–1949) with costumes reminiscent of priestly robes designed by Olbrich (Fig. 9.3). Set to music by Willem de Hann, Das Zeichen (The Sign) was inspired by Friedrich Nietzsche’s Thus Spake Zarathustra (1883–91). At the climax a priest-like character bestowed upon humanity a crystal emblematic of the New Life. 60 Das Zeichen was intended to express a new feeling for life, the yearning for beauty and desire for a noble existence. In its appeal to the soul as well as the body Jugendstil aspired to make man whole; art was to serve as a ‘cultic extension of existence, beauty to penetrate and imbue all areas of life’. 61 Pursuing a practical expression of a Nietzschean lifestyle, Behrens also designed his very own Zarathustrian villa replete with crystals, diamonds and the Edelstein that ‘radiates the virtues of a world that is not yet here’. 62 He hoped to realize Nietzsche’s vision of a ‘great style’ (Stil) despite the obvious contradiction between an elite residence for the ‘Artist as Superman’ and a habitable ‘House of the Future for Everyman’. 63 Steven E. Aschheim argues that Behrens’ social application of Nietzscheanism sought to ‘fuse beauty with power and individual will with state authority’; here Nietzsche ‘symbolised not revolutionary transvaluation but Germany’s contemporary economic and political power’. 64 Behrens’ would clothe German nationalism in Nietzschean symbolism at the 1902 Turin Prima Esposizione Internazionale d’Arte Decorativa Moderna (First International Exhibition of Modern Decorative Arts). 65

Fig. 9.2
figure 2

The Ernst-Ludwig-Haus (1899–1901), Darmstädter Künstlerkolonie, in 2015 (Image: Anne Anderson)

Full size image
Fig. 9.3
figure 3

‘Das Fest-Spiel. Festliche handlung zur eröffnung der ausstellung. Veranstaltet am 15. Mai 1901 von Peter Behrens’, in Alexander Koch (ed.), Grossherzog Ernst Ludwig und die Ausstellung der Künstler-Kolonie in Darmstadt von Mai bis Oktober 1901: ein Dokument Deutscher Kunst (Darmstadt: Verlag Alex. Koch, 1901), 61 (Image: Anne Anderson)

Full size image

Turin 1902

Appointed to the advisory committee, Koch ensured that Behrens, who fulfilled his ideal of the all-round artist, was allocated an important commission, the entrance hall of the Imperial Germania pavilion, the Hamburger Vorhalle des Deutschen Reiches. For George Fuchs the Hamburger Vorhalle, dubbed the ‘Tomb of the Unknown Superman’, was the ‘Ideal Palace of Power and Beauty’ an architectural symbol that embodied the German Empire. 66 Cloaked in architectural forms Behrens’ Nietzschean message proclaimed a new dawn; a cave-like structure, illuminated by a stained glass sunburst in the central vault, framed a richly bound copy of Thus Spoke Zarathustra displayed in a shrine-like cabinet (Fig. 9.4). The cover took as its leitmotif das Zeichen, the crystal, symbol of ‘Life as Art’, echoing the last section of Zarathustra titled ‘Das Zeichen’ (Fig 9.5):

‘This is my morning, my day begins:

rise up now, rise up, great noontide!’

Thus spoke Zarathustra and left his cave, glowing and strong, like a morning sun emerging behind dark mountains. 67

Fig. 9.4
figure 4

Hamburger Vorhalle des Deutschen Reiches, in George Fuchs, ‘Die Vorhall zum Hause der Macht und der schönheit’, Deutsche Kunst und Dekoration, Vol. 11, October/March, 1902–03, 1–43; here 15 (Image: Anne Anderson)

Full size image
Fig. 9.5
figure 5

Peter Behrens, Also Sprach Zarathustra, in George Fuchs, ‘Die Vorhall zum Hause der Macht und der schönheit’, Deutsche Kunst und Dekoration, Vol. 11, October/March 1902–03, 1–43; here 26 (Image: Anne Anderson)

Full size image

Stanford Anderson concludes that Behrens’ Palace of Power and Beauty embodied ‘the form of life of the citizens, the representational needs of the state and the whole expression of a culture’. 68 Behrens’ ambitions transcended even Ernst Ludwig’s; his Nietzschean Stil, first conceived in Darmstadt, now defined the emerging industrial order of the Reich. The New Order, a quest for synthesis, would find full expression in Behrens’ completely integrated branding for AEG.

Nationalistic, even xenophobic, Turin was nevertheless a transnational event. Koch exhibited the portfolios of Mackintosh, Baillie Scott and Bauer, which were available for purchase. Mackintosh, who was invited by Francis (‘Fra’) Newbery, organizer of the Scottish section, to draw up an overall design, travelled to Turin in late April to supervise the installation. On 1 May Mackintosh dined with Olbrich, Hans Berlepsch-Vanedas, organizer of the German section, and Walter Crane, organiser of the English section; Ernst Ludwig later joined the party. 69 Art Nouveau/Jugendstil was simultaneously an international, national and regional phenomenon. In bringing the New Art to Darmstadt, Ernst Ludwig promulgated a Darmstadt Jugendstil ethos that satisfied both local and national goals.

Conclusion

Ernst Ludwig’s position, within the multi-monarchical structure of the German Empire, reveals a complex federalism that combined Prussian hegemony with regional loyalties. The Grand Duke’s Darmstädter Renaissance did not conflict with the Imperial Idea. Through personal intervention, Ernst Ludwig placed modern art at the centre of Darmstadt’s public cultural policy. Given his Anglophone leanings, he was inevitably drawn to the ‘Art for Life’ ethos; the life of the citizen would be elevated by improving and beautifying their everyday surroundings. Rather than placing before the public an imitative style, the ‘exhibition town’ created by the Künstlerkolonie advocated function and utility ameliorated by beauty. Architectural spaces, uncluttered, opened out and filled with light, embodied a cultural, even ethical, enlightenment; these new ways of living were seen to reflect the health of the nation. 70 By taking a personal lead Ernst Ludwig hoped to motivate his citizens; as a practical experiment the Künstlerkolonie fostered cultural innovations. 71 His programme of re-education can be read as patriotic. Alongside other city states, Hagen and Weimar, Darmstadt led the way. On the global stage Darmstadt’s modernity would be appropriated by the Imperial German Empire.

Believing in monarchical agency, the Grand Duke led by example; when revolution engulfed the nation in 1918, he passed the harshest verdict on his fellow performers, recalling ‘[many of them] had no idea how to go with the times […] They were swept away without leaving anything behind, for they were, after all, complete nonentities.’ 72 Ernst Ludwig has left much behind; through the Künstlerkolonie, Hesse-Darmstadt is still indelibly linked to the personality and liberal ideology of its last ruler. 73 The distinctive cultural identity of Hesse-Darmstadt has been preserved, enshrined in the buildings of the Mathildenhöhe and the Sprudelhof in Bad Nauheim. By investing in modern art, the last Grand Duke achieved his ambition; today his city state is identified with Jugendstil and the emergence of Modernism.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Lord Mayor Peter Benz (1999), ‘Greeting’, in: Künstlerkolonie Mathildernhöhe Darmstadt 1899–1914 The Museum Book, Darmstadt: Insitute Mathildenhöhe Darmstadt, 7.

  2. 2.

    The term Art Nouveau is derived from Maison de l’Art Nouveau (House of New Art), a Parisian gallery opened by German art dealer Siegfried Bing in 1895.

  3. 3.

    The concept of the Gesamtkunstwerk is associated with the aesthetic ideals of composer Richard Wagner, who used the term in two essays dating to 1849. Wagner’s ‘Artwork of the Future’ was to be a synthesis or integration of the arts within the context of the theatre. This meant the unification of all works of art, overcoming the fragmentation that had occurred since antiquity.

  4. 4.

    Clarence Cook (1877) The House Beautiful, Essays on Beds and Tables, Stools and Candlestick, New York: Scribner, Armstrong and Co.

  5. 5.

    Jacob von Falke (1878) Art in the House, Historical, Critical and Aesthetical Studies on the Decoration and Furnishing of the Dwelling, translated from the third German edition by Charles C. Perkins, Boston: L. Prang and Company, 311–4.

  6. 6.

    von Falke (1878), 316.

  7. 7.

    William Morris (1882), ‘The Lesser Arts’, in: Hopes and Fears for Art: Five Lectures Delivered in Birmingham, London, and Nottingham, 1878–1881, London: Ellis & White, 1–37, here 36.

  8. 8.

    Ian Latham (1980) Olbrich, London: Academy Editions, 48.

  9. 9.

    William Morris (1882), ‘The Beauty of Life’ in: Hopes and Fears for Art, 71–113, here 110.

  10. 10.

    Morris (1882), ‘The Beauty of Life’, 75.

  11. 11.

    Müller (2016), 67.

  12. 12.

    Müller (2016), 66.

  13. 13.

    Müller (2016), 67.

  14. 14.

    Müller (2016), 63.

  15. 15.

    Müller (2016), 63.

  16. 16.

    Abigail Green (2001), Fatherlands: State-Building and Nationhood in Nineteenth Century Germany, Cambridge: CUP, Chapter 3.

  17. 17.

    Green (2001), 98.

  18. 18.

    His younger sister Alix of Hesse (1872–1918) became Tsarina Alexandra Feodorovna, Empress consort of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia.

  19. 19.

    Harry Graf Kessler (1962), Faces and Time: Memoirs [1935], Berlin: S Fischer, 219.

  20. 20.

    Penny Wilson has suggested that Ernst Ludwig married for dynastic reasons imputing he was homosexual. His first marriage to Princess Victoria Melita of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, known as Ducky, was not a success, although he was devoted to his daughter, Elizabeth until her tragic death aged eight. His second marriage, which produced the desired son and heir, appears to have been happy. See ‘Diaries and Letters – Ernst Ludwig, Grand Duke of Hesse’, http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php, accessed 11 April 2016.

  21. 21.

    Alice’s compassion for other people’s suffering established her role as the family caregiver. Befriending Florence Nightingale, she took her advice regarding cleanliness and ventilation in hospitals; she founded the Alice-Hospital in Darmstadt in 1869.

  22. 22.

    Jerrold M. Packard (1998), Victoria’s Daughters, New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 169.

  23. 23.

    Renate Ulmer (1997), Jugendstil in Darmstadt, Darmstadt: Eduard Roether Verlag, 251.

  24. 24.

    Hans-Günther Patzke (2015), ‘Grand Duke Ernst Ludwig of Hesse and by Rhine – initiator and patron of Jugendstil (Art Nouveau) in Hesse’, Reseau Art Nouveau Network, www.artnouveau-net.eu/.../GrandDukeErnstLudwig, accessed 6/12/2015.

  25. 25.

    Patzke (2015), 2.

  26. 26.

    Koch quoted in Ulmer (1997), 52.

  27. 27.

    By initiating art industries modelled on English and French precedents, Ernst Ludwig rejuvenated the local economy; Darmstadt would eventually be recast as a ville et métiers d’art. The Grand Duke’s Ceramics Factory, supervised by Jakob Julius Scharvogel (1854–1938) operated from 1904 to 1906; the Precious Glass Factory under Josef Sckneckendorf (1865–1949) commenced in 1906; while the Ernst-Ludwig-Presse, directed by Frederick Wilhelm Kleukens (1878–1956) from 1907, could be likened to Morris’ Kelmscott Press. But this alliance of the arts and crafts was no utopian dream; if a venture proved unprofitable it was closed.

  28. 28.

    William Morris (1882), ‘Making the Best of It’, in: Hopes and Fears, 115–68, here 122.

  29. 29.

    Anne Anderson (2010). ‘She weaves by night and day, a magic web with colours gay’: trapped in the Gesamtkunstwerk or the dangers of unifying dress and interiors’, in: Alla Myzelev and John Potvin (eds.), Fashion, Interior Design and the Contours of Modern Identity, Aldershot: Ashgate, 43–66.

  30. 30.

    The headquarters of Fiat Automobiles was established in Turin in 1899.

  31. 31.

    Richard A. Etlin (1989), ‘Turin 1902: The Search for a Modern Italian Architecture’, The Journal of Decorative and Propaganda Arts, vol. 13, Stile Floreale Theme Issue (Summer) 94–109, here 95.

  32. 32.

    Roderick Conway Morris (1994) ‘Turin 1902’, International Herald Tribune, 17th December 1994, accessed 12/1/2016.

  33. 33.

    Morris (1882), ‘The Lesser Arts’, in: Hopes and Fears, 1–37.

  34. 34.

    Dennis Sharp (1988), ‘Mackintosh and Muthesius’, in: Patrick Nuttgens (ed.), Mackintosh and his Contemporaries, London: John Murray, 8–17, here 15.

  35. 35.

    Sharp (1988), 15.

  36. 36.

    Muthesius was not the first to coin the expression Das englische Haus; Robert Dohme, curator of the Prussian royal art collection, published a book bearing the same title as early as 1888.

  37. 37.

    Joseph M. Olbrich (1900), ‘Unsere nächste Arbeit’, Deutsche Kunst und Dekoration, 6, 366–69, here 366.

  38. 38.

    Olbrich (1900), 366–67.

  39. 39.

    Osthaus Museum Hagen, www.saatchigallery.com/museums/museum-profile/Karl Osthau, accessed 12 April 2016.

  40. 40.

    Ulmer (1997), 22.

  41. 41.

    M. H. Baillie Scott (1898), ‘Some Furniture for the New Palace, Darmstadt’, The Studio, 14, 91–96, here 94.

  42. 42.

    Baillie Scott (1898), 94.

  43. 43.

    Alan Crawford (1985), C.R. Ashbee Architect, Designer and Romantic Socialist, New Haven and London: Yale PU, 78.

  44. 44.

    M. H. Baillie Scott (1899), ‘Decoration and Furniture for the New Palace, Darmstadt’, The Studio, 16, 107–15, here 107.

  45. 45.

    Ballie Scott (1899), 107–8.

  46. 46.

    Ulmer (1997), 56.

  47. 47.

    Ulmer (1997), 57.

  48. 48.

    Gerda Breuer (ed.) (2002), Haus eines Kunstfreunde, Mackay Hugh Baillie Scott, Charles Rennie Mackintosh and Leopold Bauer, Stuttgart: Axel Menges, 19. Hilary J. Grainger (2004), ‘Darmstadt, Germany’, in: R. Stephen Sennott (ed.) Encyclopedia of Twentieth Century Architecture, Vol.1, A–F, New York and London: Fitzroy Dearborn, 343.

  49. 49.

    Eckhart G. Franz (ed.) Ernst Ludwig Grossherzogs von Hesses und bei Rhein, Erinnertes, Darmstadt: Eduard Roether Verlag, 1983 (reprint), 115. Following Olbrich’s premature death, Albin Müller (1871–1941) assumed leadership of the Künstlerkolonie.

  50. 50.

    Some of the buildings were temporary: the ticket booths, flower house, theatre, restaurant and the art gallery were swept away. But the eight houses and the studio complex remained permanent fixtures.

  51. 51.

    Breuer (2002), 23.

  52. 52.

    ‘Entscheidung des Wettbewerbes zur Erlangung von Entwürfen für ein herrschaftliches Wohnhaus eines Kunstfreundes’, Innen-dekoration, 12, 1901, 109–13.

  53. 53.

    Breuer (2002), 11 and 7.

  54. 54.

    Breuer (2002), 13.

  55. 55.

    Breuer (2002), 15. Published as Meister der Innen-Kunst: Haus eine Kunstfreundes.

  56. 56.

    Olbrich’s dominance caused some resentment; three founding members left after their contracts expired in 1902—Bürck, Huber and Christiansen. Behrens withdrew the following year. Appointed director of the Applied Art School in Düsseldorf he also secured a position for Bosselt. Johann Vincenz Cissarz, Paul Haustein and Daniel Greiner were appointed in their place. It was this team which staged the second exhibition on the Mathildenhöhe in 1904. Despite economic ups and downs, alongside the comings and goings of the artists, more exhibitions followed in 1908, 1914 and even 1918.

  57. 57.

    Latham (1980) 48; Herman Bahr (1901), Ein Dokument deutscher Kunst: die Ausstellung der Künstler-Kolonie in Darmstadt, 1901, Munich: Festschrift [Ernst Ludwig, dem Großherzog von Hessen und bei Rhein], 6.

  58. 58.

    Latham (1980), 48.

  59. 59.

    Ulmer (1997), 89.

  60. 60.

    Wilhelm Holzamer’s mystic Lebensfeier or Life Ceremony, commissioned by Ernst Ludwig, also expressed the idealistic spirit of the Künstlerkolonie.

  61. 61.

    Ulmer (1997), 92.

  62. 62.

    Steven E. Aschheim (1981) The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany: 1890–1990, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 33.

  63. 63.

    Aschheim (1981), 34.

  64. 64.

    Aschheim (1981), 34.

  65. 65.

    The exhibition was organized by artists and architects of the Circolo Artistico di Torin, under the patronage of King Vittorio Emanuelle II, who hoped to stimulate the renewal of Italian art and architecture.

  66. 66.

    Stanford Anderson (2000) Peter Behrens and the New Architecture of the Twentieth Century, Cambridge and London: MIT, 33. The central motif does indeed look like a sepulchre but the two guardian figures are guarding a fountain.

  67. 67.

    Anderson (2000), 33.

  68. 68.

    Anderson (2000), 33.

  69. 69.

    ‘Turin Decorative Art Exhibition’, Glasgow Herald, 27 February 1902, 7.

  70. 70.

    Olbrich (1900), 366–9.

  71. 71.

    Franz (1983), 111–34.

  72. 72.

    Franz (1983), 8.

  73. 73.

    “We have to build a town, a whole town.”–The Darmstadt Artists’ Colony on the Mathildenhöhe, International Conference, 17–19 April 2016.