The Art of Rebellion
The Vienna Secession was a giant of a historical event in the art world. Prior to either of the world wars, in a lot of ways it was motivated more by the pure artistic inclinations of some key Austrian artists rather than the social and political problems that characterized the mid-1900s. The secession, which began as a movement, morphed into what we now see as a recurring event that has come to define the notion of modernity, more so abroad than in the secession’s native Austria.
When referencing the Vienna Secession, the name can refer simultaneously to two separate entities. The first would be the physical structure, the building that still stands in Vienna, Austria as a house for works of art that continue to embody the notion of artistic freedom. The architecture itself is unique in its design and representative of the ubiquitous nature of the secession’s many exhibitions over the years. But in large part, the Vienna secession refers to the group of artists that officially seceded from the Association of Austrian Artists back in the late 1800s. Gustav Klimt is widely recognized as the figurehead of the movement, mainly due to his status as a founding member of the secession and his role as an artist that managed a successful career despite the generally controversial subject material of his work. Overall, the secession’s role in history is oddly anti-historic. If anything, the purpose of the secession and its role in selecting art for display was rooted in the artists’ interests in allowing art to exist without directly relating to historical influence. Displays at the Vienna Secession were essentially “a programmatic declaration of allegiance to Modernity as opposed to tradition”; the artists’ only interest was in providing an avenue for its members reform their traditionalist practices, moving outside of the academic arena of traditional art.
While the Secession is synonymous with the notion of modernity, there is no one period of art that can be inexplicably linked with the artists who were part of the movement. Early on in the secession’s history, the curators famously displayed a collection of Impressionist art whose assembly would not be possible today, largely in part due to the taxes and various other fees that would accumulate for gathering so many masterpieces in one place. Essentially, what I believe the secessionists did was free up the world to a more open way of looking at and thinking about art. Modern art was becoming more and more expressive with every age, every movement, from Expressionism to Dada to Surrealism to completely abstract art. The goal of art shifted drastically from full-on representational (as in, capturing exactly what a photograph might) to slightly representational, to a hint of representation, to canceling out any notion of representation.
When you listen to music, are you expecting a story? If not, then why should you expect the same out of a piece of great art? People aren’t used to the idea that if something isn’t moving forward in some way, then they can’t get lost in it. Even a beautiful sunset, which appears about as unmoving yet visually stimulating as nature can get, still offers a slight sense of time passing. Finding the discipline to stand still in front of a giant canvas can be difficult. But what if you begin to imagine how the paint was applied to the canvas? The artist Wassily Kandinsky was devoted to the notion that music was not representational, but it was an expression of an artist’s soul. Think of how those brush strokes and colors would be applied. The practice becomes a symphony in itself, the way the lines and colors shift and blend into each other. If you look at a piece of abstract art and find something representational, good for you. But that wasn’t the point at all. It was to experience the notion of pure feeling as an expression of our complex natures.
A photo of the Vienna Secessionists:
Back row, left to right: Anton Stark, Gustav Klimt (seated), Adolf Bohm, Wilhelm List, Maximilian Kurzweil )with cap), Leopold Stolba, Rudolf Bacher. Front row, left to right: Koloman Moser (seated), Maximilan Lenz, Ernst Stohr, Emil Orlik, Carl Moll.
A few countries away, prior to the Vienna Secession, another artistic act of rebellion shook the art world. The most well-known artistic “impudence” (at least, in the words of the academic art world) began with artists like Éduoard Manet at the Salon de Refusés. In the midst of the classical painting and sculpture that had been defining European art for decades, Manet submitted a large genre painting (also known as a painting that depicts scenes from quotidian life) that is now considered one of his most masterful works. Le Déjuener sur l’herbe, or Luncheon on the Grass, was a shock and awe like the Parisian community had never before seen. While academic nudes, particularly the female nude, feature prominently in early classical art, this painting brought forth elements of style that were shocking and nearly offensive to many judges within the artistic world. The focal point, Manet’s favorite model Victorine Meurent, sits naked on the grass with two gentlemen dressed stylishly in a gentlemanly Parisian fashion. Victorine’s eyes bear obtusely into the viewer, like a dare, while the gentlemen converse in her midst. Any artist worth his salt in Paris in the 1800s could hardly be taken seriously if not for inclusion in the Paris Salon, the annual exhibition of art sponsored by the French government and the Academy of Fine Arts. Manet’s painting was submitted to the Salon in 1863 and ruthlessly rejected, leading Manet to display his painting in a hall for rejects, aptly titled the Salon de Refusés.
​
Delving a little deeper into the cultural climate of Paris in the mid-to-late 1800s points to a few lead-up moments into the breaking of ground that the secession defined. The dissent of the Impressionist artists, names that most people recognize even without any kind of artistic background, laid some very important groundwork for the future of modern art. Artists like Manet were revolutionary not only because they pushed the boundaries of what was expected of artists of their time; their rebellion could be taken seriously because in their early years, they had already mastered the academic styles that made their artistic license more permissible. Following the French Impressionist periods are the various 20th century periods that generally fall under the umbrella of modern art. Let’s have a look...
"Whoever wants to know something about me - as an artist which alone is significant - they should look attentively at my pictures and there seek to recognize what I am and what I want."