ID 1412801

Word Count: 2.044

Discuss the role of the Secession building designed by Joseph Maria
Olbrich. In what ways can the buildings changing exhibition practices and
the buildings design be understood in term of the Secessionist motto
above the door: To every age its art, to art its freedom?

Let us consider the ideals of the Secession for a moment, take into account the resulting
requirements and convert them into fixed parameters. The result is, like in a calculation, a
certain sum. This sum is what the designer expressed artistically. []
- Hermann Bahr on Joseph Maria Olbrichs Secession building

In 12 November 1898, the Secession building was complete and opened its doors
to the public as an iconic exhibition and institutional space which embodied the key
concepts of the influential Secession art movement in Vienna. On the faade right
above its doors, there was displayed the belief which guided the young artists: Der Zeit,
ihre Kunst. Der Kunst, ihre Freiheit (To every age, its art. To art, its freedom). The
motto bestowed by art critic Ludwig Hevesi revealed the importance of freedom in their
art practice as well as the need for artists to create art relevant to their own time
1
.
This idea of freedom was developed within the Secessionists production and is
represented by the buildings design and exhibition display, with aims of breaking away
from traditional art practices perpetuated by the art institutions of Vienna at that

1
WHALEN, Robert Weldon. Sacred spring: God and the birth of modernism in fin-de-sicle Vienna.
Cambridge: Eerdmans Publishing Co. 2007, p.113

period, including exhibition practices, thus exploring new modernist plastic and
conceptual possibilities in their art production.
Before further analyzing the significance of the Secession building, it is extremely
important to emphasize that Secessionist artists did not produce one specific style, but
engendered a plurality of different aesthetic orientations and tendencies, which can
contribute to the understanding of their belief in artistic freedom, such as lecturer
Leslie Topp reinforces by stating that their () emphasis was on artistic integrity and
purity, not on schools or styles
2
.
The Secession building can be understood as a representative of the Secession key
concepts, firstly regarding the revival of the art scene in Vienna with the
comprehension of a variety of mediums, thus diminishing the boundaries between art
and other disciplines such as architecture and design; secondly, in reference to the
possibility of presenting foreign art to the public in their exhibitions, such as French
impressionism and the influence of Japanese art (the 6
th
Secessionist exhibition in
1900 was dedicated to Japonisme); and finally, constituting an institution independent
of commercial means, therefore permitting experimentation and the possibility of
exploring creative freedom in exhibitions.
These key issues are better indicated in a letter of termination written by the
Secessionists to the Kunstlerhaus Genessenschaft, which alongside the Akademie de
bildende Kunste (The Academy of Arts) constituted the conservative art institutions in
the Ringstrasse of Vienna:
These ideas now culminate in the realisation of a necessity: the necessity to
establish a contact between the artistic scene in Vienna and the ever-
progressing art scene outside of Austria. Furthermore exhibitions need to
be freed of commercial interests and organised according to purely artistic

2
TOPP, Leslie Elizabeth. The Secession Building: Multiple Truths and Modern Art In Architecture and
truth in fin-de-sicle Vienna. Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 34

standards, so that a pure and modern concept of art can be taught to the
broader public. Finally, a higher understanding of art needs to be
awakened in higher circles.
3

Regarding the matter of seeking a synthesis of the arts, the creation itself of the
Secession building can be understood as iconic of freedom in art with a
Gesamtkunstwerk (total work of art), for it involved the collaboration between
architect Joseph Maria Olbrich with architect Josef Hoffman and artist Koloman
Moser, as illustrated by Robert Whalen in his book: Josef Olbrich designed the
Secession building, but it was Moser who enlivened its severe geometry with a frieze
(now destroyed) of garlanded maidens and stylized owls. Moser was a participant in
and ornagizer of all major secession shows.
4
In a declaration written in the first issue
of the Secessionist magazine Ver Sacrum, this dialogue between different art
disciplines and the importance of the applied arts can be observed: We know no
distinction between high art and handicraft
5
.
The Secessionists aimed to reach the masses through their showcases and even
their exhibition practices revealed the concept of freedom, represented by flexible
possibilities, moveable furniture and elements which guaranteed different exhibition
layouts and permitted a variety of mediums to be displayed. As described by the Vienna
Secession website:
[]Olbrich saw the need for a versatile exhibition place that could
accommodate the groups vision of Gesamkunstwerk, that is, where all
disciplines of the arts could be exhibited simultaneously. Olbrich

3
Letter written by members of Secession. Cf. CARL, Klaus H. Art of Century: Viennese Secession.
Parkstone International: 2012, p.90

4
WHALEN, Robert Weldon. Op. cit, p.280

5
BRANDSTTTER, Christian. Introduction: the Wiener Werksttte 1903 -32. Wonderful Wiener
Werksttte: design in Vienna, 1903 1932. London: Thames & Hudson, 2003, p.7
incorporated moveable interior partitions and columns which meant that
each exhibition could have its own unique layout. This created enough wall
space for paintings to be hung at eye level and ample floor space so that
sculpture and painting could be paired in the same exhibition.
6

The location itself of the Secession building can be comprehended as a
representative of their ideals, both symbolic and controversial
7
, for example its
nearness to the food market (or Naschmarkt) in Karlsplatz, where the common people
would attend, alongside with its site implantation slightly off the Ringstrasse, which
can be suggested as a negation to the Historicism and tradition perpetuated by other
art buildings in that area such as the Academy of Arts and the Kunstlerhaus. What can
be suggested as controversial towards its location is the fact that it is still close to the
institutional artistic area, not literally and spatially breaking away from these
surroundings.
An important artistic aspect regarding the design of the Secession building is
the functionalist modern influence of Olbrichs mentor Otto Wagner. The young
Secession architect had worked previously for Wagner on the Stadtbahn project, during
which he had contact with Wagners ideals of coherence between functionality and
form, where the task of art and therefore modern art too, remains always the same.
Modern art must represent to us Moderns our abilities, our actions, forms that we
ourselves have created
8
. Nonetheless, critic Robert Whalen points out that at the very
same time, Wagner insisted that the technological and the functional had to be
transformed from dead things into living forms.
9


6
A History In Vienna Secession Graphic Arts in Vienna and Germany 1895-1920. (2012). Retrieved
April 21, 2014, from http://www.theviennasecession.com/vienna-secession/
7
Ibid.
8
WAGNER, Otto. Modern Architektur. Vienna: Anton Schroll, 1896 In WHALEN, Robert Weldon. Op. cit,
p.283
9
WHALEN, Robert Weldon. Op. cit, p.284
By observing the architectonic elements of the Secession building, we can
understand Olbrichs combination of modern functionality with classical repertoire, a
combination of decorative elements with structured rigor. Aspects of proportion, pillars
and ornaments of mythical references to female iconography (such as allegorical
gargoyles on the entrance as sculptures of architecture, painting and sculpture),
suggests that the design of the Secession building does not entirely deny classical style,
but absorbs it and develops it generating a confluence of function and form in an
exploration of artistic freedom.
Hermann Bahr is well known as a critic close to the Secessionists and one of
which defended their beliefs. In a description of the Secession building
10
, Bahr reveals
the functional aspects of Olbrichs design, commenting that the house of the Secession
does not want to be a palace or a temple but rather a room that is able to arrange works
of art to best effect possible. The artist did not ask himself How can I design this so
that it looks the most impressive? but rather How can this serve its purpose, its new
mission, our needs?. Bahr continues discussing the importance of freedom in
exhibition practice:
[] the building also has been designed with utmost wisdom to meet the
requirements to efficiently exhibit art. The designer has not forgotten that
art is inexorably changing and has planned for the future, for the coming of
applied art that is slowly replacing two-dimensional art. Furthermore, he
has planned for the eventuality of sudden change. If necessary, everything
can be quickly as if done by magic re-arranged to perfectly suit new
requirements. Everything has been done with utmost dedication to
purpose.
By the end of his description, Bahr states that one can assume that the Secession
building is either truthful, in questions of logical functionality, as well as it is

10
BAHR, Hermann In CARL, Klaus H. Art of Century: Viennese Secession. Parkstone International: 2012,
p.93 - 95
decorative. This reveals the question of Olbrichs design as a materialization of the
coexistence between a logical functionality and mythical/ethereal ornamentation,
suggesting the building as an embodiment of plurality and freedom. As Topp
comments:
This single building was simultaneously described as embodying a
rational, pragmatic attention to purpose, an honest coming to terms with
modern realities and a higher, metaphysical truth derived from subjective
artistic inspiration. These were not competing characterizations of the
building, but were all promulgated by Olbrich and the Secessionists
themselves.
11

The critic continues this discussion further on, finally reinforcing the
Secessionist motto represented significantly by the buildings design:
To the Age Its Art. To Art Its Freedom was written over the door of the
Secession building, and the building itself was inspired by this tolerance,
the belief that to be true to the modern age meant to be various,
heterogeneous.
12

The exploration of freedom in the Secession building can also be represented by
the fact that it displayed art from several foreign artists, defying conservative practices
of traditional institutions that focused mainly in Historicism and classical mythical
themes, thus assuming art outside of Vienna/international art as influential and
allowing public contact with these new art practices.
Bahr wrote about the importance of foreign artists to the Secession movement,
stating that they wanted art that is not a slave to foreign influences but at the same

11
TOPP, Leslie Elizabeth. Op. cit., p.29
12
Ibid., p.62
time is neither afraid nor hateful of them
13
. This revealed the Secessionist beliefs that
modernizing cities demanded another visual culture, not the ones perpetuated by
traditional and conservative themes. As Klaus H. Carl comments to reinforce their
relationship with international art: four non-resident artists were invited into the
Secession: Fernand Khnopff (1858-1921) from Belgium, Max Klinger (1857-1920) from
Germany, the Swiss artist Ferdinand Hodler (1853-1918), and Jan Toorop from the
Netherlands [].
14

The final aspect of the Secessionist building which represents artistic freedom is
the fact it was a financially independent institution, which aimed not to be controlled
by the demands of the art market, but a place for artistic experimentation. Despite that
in fact there were economic aspects regarding the building, once it was financially kept
by middle class bourgeoisie investors (the Wittgenstein family) and the art works
displayed in the Secession exhibitions were on sale, what is important to understand is
that a marketing logic was not the main purpose of the Secessionist production.
The Secession members actually opposed the seemingly economic focused
production of the traditional Viennese art institutions and in fact criticized the
Kunstlerhaus for preference given to unadventurous, commercially-successful artists
under the leadership of the conservative Eugene Felix (president)
15
one can point out
Bahrs criticism towards the difference between true artists and makers, which would
only reproduce the acceptable and more sellable historical style, thus debating about
the marketing nature of works of art:
Business or art is the question behind our secession. Should Viennese
artists remain businessmen, or are they allowed to become artists?
Whoever is of the opinion that paintings are items of merchandise like

13
BAHR, Hermann In CARL, Klaus H. Art of Century: Viennese Secession. Parkstone International: 2012,
p.72

14
CARL, Klaus H. Op. cit., p.92
15
TOPP, Leslie Elizabeth. Op. cit., 31
trousers or cigars should remain in the Association. But whoever seeks to
reveal through painting or drawing configurations of their innermost being
will go to the Union. The dispute is not over the right aesthetic, but rather
between two different ways of thinking the economic way of thinking and
the artistic way of thinking.
16





BIBLIOGRAPHY

BRANDSTTTER, Christian. Introduction: the Wiener Werksttte 1903 -32.
Wonderful Wiener Werksttte: design in Vienna, 1903 1932. London: Thames &
Hudson, 2003
CARL, Klaus H. Art of Century: Viennese Secession. Parkstone International: 2012
HOLME, Charles (Ed.). The Art-Revival in Austria In The Studio. London: Summer
edition, 1906.
MCGHIE, Alistair (Ed.). Secession: Modern art and design in Austria and Germany
1890s-1920s. Canberra: Thames &Hudson. National Gallery of Australia, 2000.
TOPP, Leslie Elizabeth. The Secession Building: Multiple Truths and Modern Art In
Architecture and truth in fin-de-sicle Vienna. Cambridge University Press, 2004
WHALEN, Robert Weldon. Sacred spring: God and the birth of modernism in fin-de-
sicle Vienna. Cambridge: Eerdmans Publishing Co. 2007
WOOD, Paul and HARRISON, Charles (Ed.). Art in Theory 1900-1990. Oxford:
Blackwell, 1998

www.theviennasecession.com

16
BAHR, Hermann. Our Secession In WOOD, Paul and HARRISON, Charles (Ed.). Art in Theory 1900-
1990. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998, p.914 - 916