Welcome to the Deep Dives, where we peel back
the layers of history, art, and well, sometimes
high stakes legal drama to find the essential
glittering truths. And today we are definitely
opening the vault. We're focusing on a figure
whose name is just synonymous with pure gilded
aesthetic pleasure, Gustav Klimt. Yeah, we're
talking about the Austrian symbolist, right?
The undisputed master of Art Nouveau. Absolutely.
His works are just instantly recognizable. That
lavish, sometimes almost, you know, excessive
use of gold. And his depiction of the female
form so uncompromised. Amazing, wonderfully frank,
and let's be honest, often shocking for its time.
You look at something like the kiss that swirling
cosmic gold -drenched embrace. It's iconic. Or
the portrait of Adele Blockbauer the bearer.
So aggressively beautiful. Right. And you see
instant decadence. You think astronomical value.
These paintings really represent the glittering
peak of Viennese fantasy agriculture. But as
the sources you shared reveal, and this is crucial,
that beauty hides immense historical complexity.
Definitely. A life steeped in controversy, profound
private contradictions. And a really complex,
often painful legacy tied directly to some of
the darkest chapters of the 20th century. So.
Our mission today really is to cut through that
gilded surface. We need to place Klimt accurately
within the context of Vienna, right? The society
that first made him. And then violently rejected
him in some ways. We need to explore the highly
secretive private world that fueled his most
distinctive creative output. And critically,
we absolutely must dedicate substantial time
to the enduring and necessary legal battles.
The fights for restitution. Yeah, those battles
can... continue to define the market, the history,
and ultimately the ownership of his most valuable
works even today. And as we navigate this, let's
keep in mind that ultimate paradox of the man
himself. This is the figure who had this lifelong
devoted companionship with Emily Fleur. His companion.
But simultaneously fathered at least 14 known
children. I mean, contradiction isn't just a
footnote in Klimt's life. No, it's absolutely
the engine of his genius. It really is. So to
understand the eventual rebel, the guy who breaks
all the rules. We have to understand the academic
prodigy first. Let's unpack that. Trace his path
from, well, genuine hardship to becoming the
establishment painter he absolutely had to be.
Before he could tear it all down. Exactly. It
really is jarring, isn't it? Trying to reconcile
the image we had, the golden demigod, the master
of luxurious texture, with the grim reality of
his origins. Gustav Klimt, born 1862 in Baumgarten,
which was basically at the suburb of Vienna then.
Right. Second of seven kids. And this was by
any measure a non -privileged start. Not at all.
The sources confirmed the family lived under
severe chronic economic pressure. Yeah. His father,
Ernst Klimt, the elder. He was a gold engraver.
Yeah, a skilled trade. But, you know, the income
was often unstable. And his mother, Anna, she
had musical ambitions herself, but they were
kind of frustrated by their poverty. And you
can really track that economic struggle through
the family's instability, can't you? Oh, definitely.
Between 1862 and 1884 alone, the Klimt family
had to move no fewer than five different times,
constantly looking for cheaper places to live
within Vienna, which was growing fast but deeply
stratified. That instability wasn't just financial,
though. It was deeply personal, tragic even.
And I think, you know, it provides the psychological
backdrop for some of the morbidity, the darker
themes that eventually infuse his symbolist works.
Absolutely. The early 1870s brought immense personal
suffering for them. His five -year -old sister
Anna died in 1874 after a long illness. Oh, wow.
And at the same time, the eldest child, Cora,
she suffered a profound mental collapse. became
intensely disturbed, obsessively religious, apparently
never fully recovered. And the mother suffered
from depression, too. Chronic, deep depressions.
Add all that up. Scholars have long argued that
this early, intimate exposure to severe illness,
death, mental disturbance, the persistent presence
of grief, it profoundly shaped Quint's eventual
artistic preoccupations. You mean his focus on
life, death, femininity. That interconnectedness.
Exactly. That lifelong focus. So even though
all three sons, Gustav, Ernst, and Georg, showed
artistic talent pretty early on. Yeah, recognizable
talent. They had to approach art not as some
lofty pursuit or luxury, but really as a path
to survival. Financial stability for the whole
family. Precisely. Art was vocational initially.
At 14, that's 1876, Klimt enters the Vienna Kunstgebirge.
The School of Applied Arts and Crafts. Right.
Geared toward decorative industrial arts. He
studied architectural painting there until 1883,
and he proved remarkably good at the conservative
classical training they provided. So his goal
wasn't revolution at this point. Not at all.
His main artistic aspiration then was to replicate
the huge success and high society patronage enjoyed
by Vienna's top history painter, Hans McCart.
His early work is strictly academic, historically
styled, impeccably rendered. just what was expected.
And this academic route, it quickly developed
into a professional enterprise, didn't it? Yeah.
Which is key for understanding the sheer volume
of work he produced in the next decade. By 1880,
yeah, he, his younger brother Ernst, and another
student, Franz von Masch, formed the Kunstler
Company, the company of artists. But it wasn't
some bohemian collective, right? No, no. It was
a highly successful commercial venture. They
specialized in large -scale architectural and
interior decoration, and they got major commissions
quickly. averaging connections from their professors.
How did that work? Well, they were recommended
to Fellner and Helmer, a big Viennese firm that
specialized in building theaters. And that partnership
basically made them the go -to architectural
painters for the whole region. What kind of scale
are we talking about? It sounds like they were
defining the look of public architecture across
Central Europe. Oh, they're working on a monumental
scale. Interior murals, vaulted ceilings for
theater projects, in places as far apart as Fumimi
and Bucharest. Also Carlsbad. And closer to home,
too. Yeah. Locally, they did significant work
on the interior murals for the staircases of
the new Berg Theater in Vienna and the ceiling
panels for the Kunsthistorisches Museum. And
the Berg Theater work specifically. What was
that like? For that project, Klimt focused on
scenes like the altar of Dionysus, historical
theatrical figures, all done in that rich historical
style, exactly what the establishment expected
and, frankly, loved. And that work brought him
the absolute pinnacle of state recognition, which
is such a key turning point when you think about
what comes later. Definitely. In 1888, for the
Berg Theater contributions, Emperor Franz Joseph
50 himself awarded Klimt the Gold Cross of Merit.
Then in 1890, he followed that up with the prestigious
Kaiser Prize Award for his painting, Audience
at the Old Berg Theater. So by age 28, Klimt
was established, decorated, financially successful,
a pillar of the Viennese art world. And this
level of establishment success is precisely what
makes his later rebellion so consequential. Exactly.
But 1892. Yeah. That marks a devastating pivot
point. Personally, artistically, it seems like
it just ripped away his security, his professional
structure. Yes. That year, the family's fragile
stability just collapsed. Within 12 months, his
father died of a stroke. Oh, no. And shortly
after, his brother Ernst, who was, you know,
an integral part of the Künstler company, died
suddenly from pericarditis. The clump was left.
Klimt, as the most established remaining son,
was forced to take immediate and complete financial
responsibility, not just for his mother and sister,
but also for his widowed sister -in -law and
her child. That period of grief, that overwhelming
responsibility, it sounds like it directly stalled
his productivity, didn't it? It did. The emotional
and financial burden was immense. It led to a
period of grief. minimal artistic output. And
it's probably no coincidence that when he reemerged
from this tragedy, he began radically developing
the symbolist style that would soon define him.
So historians argue this internal rupture, this
sort of betrayal by life and stability. Yeah.
That's what triggered the shift. That's the argument,
yes. It pushed him toward finding a deeper, more
personal artistic expression, moving away from
the safe historical narratives he'd mastered.
And the introduction of that figure, Nuda Veritas,
Naked Truth, around this time. Often interpreted
as his denunciation of that superficial, gilded
society that masks, you know, deep -seated problems.
He was starting to look for something truer.
So that internal rupture, that search for Naked
Truth, it culminated, organizationally at least,
in the establishment of the Vienna Secession
in 1897. This wasn't just a gradual change in
style, was it? It feels like a revolution against
the very conservatism he himself had just been
decorated for. It was absolutely a conscious,
organized schism. Klimt was a founding member
and the first president of the secession. They
broke away from the established academic body,
the Society of Austrian Artists. And their aims
were pretty ambitious, weren't they? Idealistic
even. Very. They wanted to provide a real exhibition
space for unconventional young artists. They
wanted to actively bring the best foreign avant
-garde art like French Impressionism symbolism
to what was then a fairly insular Vienna. And
crucially, showcase their own members' innovative
work. Exactly. And the sources note something
fascinating here. They weren't actually unified
by a single style. Oh, right. That's vital. Yeah.
Naturalists, realists, symbolists, they all coexisted
within the secession. Their unity was more philosophical,
a shared commitment to the Gesamtkunst work.
The total work of art. Right. The idea that all
art forms, painting, furniture design, architecture,
were equally important and should be integrated.
Their symbol was Pallas Athena, the Greek goddess
of wisdom and arts. And Klimt painted her in
1898, didn't he? in a very radical way yeah armor
-clad but defiantly modern not some dusty classical
figure they even got government land to build
their iconic exhibition hall the one that still
stands with the motto to every age its art to
every art its freedom it really felt like a moment
of true cultural liberation was happening it
was a soaring moment definitely but It was about
to crash head -on into the conservative sensibilities
of the establishment via the infamous university
paintings. Ah, yes. This commission is arguably
the most important controversy of Klimt's entire
career, isn't it? It really defined his move
from public darling to private rebel. Absolutely.
Let's dedicate some time to this because it's
crucial. He was commissioned back in 1894, actually,
to create three huge faculty paintings, Philosophy,
Medicine, and Jurisprudence. And these were meant
to decorate the ceiling of the University of
Vienna's Great Hall. Correct. So what was the
expectation and how did Klimt ultimately fail
to meet it? Well, the expectation must have been
straightforward, academic. Allegory, right? Idealized
figures representing the noble pursuit of knowledge.
Exactly. Think sanitized, classical, reassuring.
What they got. While Klimt was now operating
under the influence of his secessionist ideals,
his personal trauma. He wasn't playing by the
old rules anymore. Not at all. When he finally
presented the works around 1900, he delivered
something entirely different. Shockingly different.
Instead of noble pursuits, he depicted this horrifying,
almost chaotic vision of the human condition.
Precisely. Take medicine, for example. Instead
of some idealized Aesculapius figure. The god
of healing. Right. Instead, he showed this horrifying
vertical column of swirling, nude, emaciated
bodies representing the cycle of suffering, birth,
decay, culminating the figure of death. Wow.
And he included a nude female figure, Hygieia,
the personification of hell, but she's looking
away from this chaotic mass, sort of detached
aloof. And philosophy was similar. A similarly
vast, undefined, disturbing mass of intertwined,
drifting humanity, lost in the cosmos, questioning
everything, not exactly celebrating academic
certainty. This wasn't just an aesthetic disagreement
then. This was a deliberate, philosophical, and
social affront. especially in Vienna at that
time. A society terrified of its own underlying
chaos. Absolutely. And particularly sensitive
to depictions of disease and unchecked sexuality,
you know, given the prevalence of syphilis then.
So the reaction wasn't just critical. Oh, it
was hysterical. The works were condemned by the
press, university professors, political figures,
religious leaders. They were called pornographic,
perverse, unfit for a temple of science. How
many professors protested? More than 80 faculty
members signed a petition demanding the work
be rejected. Klimt had basically transformed
traditional allegory into this explicitly sexual,
disturbing, deeply pessimistic view of humanity.
And the result was, well, absolute defeat for
Klimt in the public sphere, wasn't it? But at
the same time, it kind of cemented his identity
as this uncompromising artist. It was terminal
for his public career. Klimt renounced the assignment.
He returned the 4 ,000 gulden advance he'd received.
He gave the money back. Yep. And the paintings
were never installed in the Great Hall. This
episode decisively marked the end of his collaboration
with the state. He never accepted another public
commission after that. He chose freedom, defiance,
over state patronage. He did. And the tragic
final chapter for those paintings. It's a horrifying
coincidence of history, really ties them right
back to the collapse of the very empire that
had both fostered and then rejected him. What
happened to them? It's one of the great losses
in modern art history. In the chaotic final days
of World War Two, May 1945. All three of the
faculty paintings, philosophy, medicine, jurisprudence,
were being stored in a place called Schloss Immendorf.
Retreating German forces deliberately set fire
to the castle to prevent the works from falling
into Allied hands. Oh, my God. They were incinerated.
Completely destroyed. Along with 10 other significant
works by Klimt, including one called Schubert
at the Piano. We only know them today from black
and white photographs. That's heartbreaking.
So that whole period forced Klimt to really solidify
his defiant stance. We see that symbolic inclusion
of Nuda Veritas, the naked truth. Right. In works
like the 1898 Palace Athene and the 1899 painting
of the same name. It's an obvious nod to the
kind of honesty the establishment just couldn't
handle. And he wasn't quiet about it either.
He actively articulated that stance. Famously.
He placed that quote by Friedrich Schiller right
on the frame of the 1899 Nuda Veritas. Which
says, If you cannot please everyone with your
deeds and your art, please only a few. To please
many is bad. Wow. That's basically his personal
manifesto, isn't it? Absolutely. A statement
of isolation, defiance, marking the moment he
decided his allegiance was only to his own vision
and to his small circle of enlightened patrons.
And he didn't lose his sense of humor about it
all either. That anecdote about the painting
Goldfish, it shows his resentment was still bubbling
away. Oh, yeah. The painting features a very
prominent naked woman showing her, well, her
backside quite ostentatiously. And Klimt wanted
to call it. To my critics. maliciously he was
only talked out of it by his friends who were
worried about the you know legal and social fallout
he was actively trolling the critics who'd savaged
his university paintings that defiance you see
it again in the beethoven freeze right completed
in 1902 for the 14th vienna secessionist exhibition
a tribute to the composer The Frieze was another
temporary Gesamtkunstwerk installation, celebrating
the union of painting, sculpture, architecture.
It was monumental, dense with symbolism. And
included that portrait of Beethoven that looked
like someone else. Exactly. It bore a clear facial
resemblance to the celebrated but often contentious
contemporary composer Gustav Mahler, who was
director of the Vienna Chord Opera at the time.
So Klimt was affirming his allegiance to the
contemporary visionary artists of Vienna. Rejecting
the dead hand of the past. Precisely. So it's
clear by the early 1900s, Klimt had completely
turned his back on state approval. He chose the
path of the defiant insider, creating art for
a selective, wealthy group of patrons. A group
that would soon fund his defining golden phase.
And that defiant path led him straight into what
became his most recognizable and frankly commercially
successful period. The golden phase. Which started
when? It really began in the late 1890s, but
it truly codified his style from about 1900 onward,
marking his move from, say, symbolist outrage
to symbolist opulence. And when we talk about
gold here, we're not just talking about paint
color, are we? We mean actual metal leaf. That's
a huge technical shift. It is a massive shift.
What was the core inspiration for embracing this
incredibly lavish use of materials? Yeah, where
did that come from? Well, the shift seems twofold.
Aesthetic and experiential. The main artistic
inspiration came directly from his travels, particularly
trips to Venice and Ravenna. Ah, the mosaics.
Exactly. Those cities are famous for their Byzantine
mosaics, created using gold and silver tesserae.
They give surfaces this rich, shimmering, eternally
stable texture. And that profound experience
with Byzantine art clearly influenced his transition
to using actual gold leaf, not just yellow paint.
And that led to flattening the space, emphasizing
pattern. Right, developing a style characterized
by flattening the spatial dimension and emphasizing
decorative, abstract patterning. Okay, so was
the gold purely an aesthetic choice? Or was this
luxurious material also maybe a deliberate, calculated
provocation? against the very establishment that
had just rejected his work as immoral. I think
it was probably both, and that's what makes it
so clever. By using gold, he embraced luxury,
which definitely appealed to his new patrons,
wealthy industrialists. Right. He was creating
these private icons of beauty sexuality for a
select few. Exactly. Art that celebrated opulence.
It kind of turned the tables on the critics who'd
called his previous work ugly. He proved he could
command the most expensive material and create
staggering beauty. It's not on the state's terms
anymore. And the peak works of this phase are
just cultural touchstones, aren't they? Portrait
of Adele Bloch Bauer I from 1907. And The Kiss,
1907 -08. Everyone knows The Kiss. But we can't
forget the elaborate stocklet frieze, right?
That was his most ambitious decorative project.
It really defined his Gesamtkunstwerk ideals
in practice. It was part of the extremely lavish
Stocklet Palace in Brussels, designed by the
architect Joseph Hoffman for a wealthy Belgian
industrialist, Adolphe Stocklet. This was where
the arts and crafts ethos of the secession became
pure unadulterated luxury. Precisely. Klimt's
contributions to the dining room, these massive
mosaics titled Fulfillment and Expectation, were
executed between 1905 and 1911. And Klimt himself
considered them the pinnacle of his work. Really?
Yeah. He publicly stated they represented probably
the ultimate stage of my development of ornament.
The complex, swirling patterns combining symbolism
and abstraction. They cemented his reputation
as the master of high -end decorative modernism.
Okay, let's pivot a bit. From the public -facing
gilded world to the the deeply intimate, highly
contradictory private world that sustained him.
The relationship with Emily Louise Fluge is just
central to the whole Klimt myth, isn't it? It
really is. Emily Fluge was his lifelong companion.
He met her in the early 1890s. She was actually
the sister -in -law of his late brother Ernst's
wife. Right. And they took annual summer holidays
together at Lake Battersea. Their connection
was one of deep, enduring intimacy. Communicate
her often through hundreds of postcards and letters.
Yet... The sources are highly consistent on this
point. Their relationship likely remained platonic.
Which stands in remarkable, almost absurd contrast
to the overt, sometimes brutally explicit eroticism
of his artwork. It does. It's a huge contrast.
She wasn't just his companion, though. She was
his collaborator in design, too, wasn't she?
Yeah. Linking him directly to the Art Nouveau
movement in fashion. Yes. Emily was a successful
fashion designer herself, a pioneering figure
in Viennese fashion, actually. She opened a successful
salon with her sisters. And Klimt was deeply
involved in designing many of the reformed dresses,
these flowing, unbound garments that she produced
and modeled. So that partnership shows Klimt's
commitment to integrating fine art and craft,
still living those secessionist ideals through
applied arts like fashion. Exactly. Further cementing
those ideals. But the contradiction remains jarring.
He's maintaining this unique, possibly asexual,
lifelong partnership, while simultaneously being,
well, sexually prolific. That's the key tension,
isn't it? While his connection to Emily provided
emotional stability, Klimt was sexually very
active. He cultivated intense, intimate relationships
with his models, and often with his female patrons,
too. And the number of children. He's reliably
documented as having fathered at least 14 children,
though, you know, due to the complicated nature
of Viennese laws back then and his very discreet
lifestyle, only four were legally recognized
after his death. And what's interesting here,
the sources mentioned his choice of models and
patrons often came from the assimilated Jewish
Viennese haute bourgeoisie. Yes, this elite clientele
was often quite progressive in their artistic
tastes, but also, tragically, often victims of
the underlying antisemitism that Klimt himself
seemed sort of immune to, or at least unaffected
by, professionally. And he was considered progressive
for his time in how he depicted women. Very much
so. He gave them an active, central, uninhibited
role in sexuality within his work. He would dedicate
about one large format portrait to a woman each
year, transforming them into these dangerous,
alluring femme fatales, engaging themes of eros,
sexuality, the cycle of life, like in The Three
Ages of Woman from 1905. Which shows the young
woman and the decaying old woman bound together.
Right, in the same composition. Stark. What about
Klimt himself, though? We imagine this master
of opulence may be surrounded by luxury, but
his personal working style sounds almost ascetic.
Deeply eccentric. He actively cultivated a private,
almost reclusive persona. He deliberately avoided
high society functions, apparently rejected jargon,
kept his conversations simple. And his working
habits. When working in his studio, which was
largely devoted to the long, painstaking process
of creation, he famously wore sandals and a long,
loose robe. Blue or gray, usually. Often with
no undergarments. Just for comfort. prioritizing
comfort and efficiency over social norms, it
seems. And his painting process was incredibly
slow, required his subjects to endure lengthy,
often tedious sittings. He also left behind one
of the most revealing statements about his desire
for anonymity, didn't he? That rare commentary
on a non -existent self -portrait. Yes. It perfectly
articulates his belief that the art should speak,
not the artist. He wrote, and I'm paraphrasing
slightly, I have never painted a self -portrait.
I am less interested in myself as a subject for
a painting than I am in other people, above all
women. Right. And then he says, Whoever wants
to know something about me ought to look carefully
at my pictures. It's an artist asserting complete
control over his public narrative, forcing you,
the viewer, to look at the work, not the man.
Beyond the big gilded commissions, the sources
highlight his meticulous dedication to publishing
folios of his work. Yeah. Which also expose the
full breadth of his erotic drawings. Yes. The
first folio, Das erect Gustav Klimt's, the work
of Gustav Klimt published between 1908 and 1914,
was personally supervised by Klimt himself. And
it categorized his work. Right. 50 images categorized
into the major themes he tackled. Allegorical,
erotic symbolist, landscapes, mythical, and portraits.
It was his way of defining his own oeuvre during
his lifetime. But it was the folio released just
after his death that caused a second wave of
scandal, wasn't it? Yeah. Revealing the true
frankness of his private sketches. That was Finn
von Zwanzig Hans Zeichnung, 25 drawings released
in 1919. And yeah, it contained drawings that
were highly explicitly erotic. Like what? Defections
of masturbating women, sapphic embraces, just
raw, unrestrained sexuality. These drawings were
as polarizing as his university paintings had
been two decades earlier. So who was buying these?
They found a specific niche, apparently, among
a small group of mostly male, affluent patrons
who valued private, high -end erotica. Sometimes
Klimt even provided illustrations for books like
Lucian's Dialogues of the Courtesans. Wow. Okay,
before we move on, we can't forget his landscapes.
They almost seem like a brief respite from the
the intensity of the gilded studio world. They
do offer that feeling, but they're also technically
fascinating in their own right. Klimt spent his
annual summer holidays at Lake Attersee with
the Floge family. That's where he created works
like Schloss by the Water. And the locals had
a nickname for him. They did. They called him
Waldschratt the Forest Demon, a nod to his intense,
focused dedication while painting outdoors, often
clad only in his famous robe. So why do art historians
find these landscapes so interesting? beyond
just being scenic. Well, technically, he deliberately
flattened the deep space in these compositions,
makes them look more like tapestries or decorative
patterns, which aligns them philosophically with
his work in the golden phase, actually. And there's
that theory about how he achieved that. Yeah,
what's really unique is the belief, and it's
pretty well supported, that he used a telescope
or maybe an opera glass to closely observe distant
details, like the specific texture of a tree
bark or a pattern on a house. And then translate
that high resolution pattern. onto the flat canvas.
Exactly, eliminating the traditional illusion
of depth. It's a purely modern way of seeing
and painting the world. Klimt's artistic momentum,
you know, it really continued right up until
his death. In 1911, his painting Death and Life
received first prize at the Rome exhibitions.
But he wasn't finished with it, was he? No, ever
the meticulous reviser. He went back four years
later in 1915 and dramatically reworked the background,
changed it from that bright gold of his iconic
phase to a dark, somber blue, perhaps reflecting
the, you know, the gathering gloom of the First
World War. But like so many figures of that era,
his productive life was cut brutally short. A
series of cascading medical issues in 1918. It
was swift and tragic. He suffered a stroke on
January 11th, left his right side paralyzed.
Already weakened, he then contracted pneumonia,
brought on by the devastating Spanish flu pandemic
that was raging. And he died in Vienna on February
6th, 1918. He was only 55. And his last painting
was left unfinished. Yes, The Stunning Lady with
a Fan, left unfinished on the easel in his studio.
Yet his influence was already profound by then,
wasn't it? Yeah. Especially on the next generation
of Viennese expressionists. Absolutely. His impact
on his younger peer, Egon Schiele, was immense.
Klimt had been a mentor to Schiele, actively
promoted him, and they collaborated shortly before
Klimt's death to found the Kunsthalle in 1917.
What was the goal of that? An attempt to retain
local artistic talent, prevent the exodus of
modernists going abroad during the war years,
keep the Viennese scene vibrant. And beyond Vienna,
we see his decorative style influencing international
movements too. Art Nouveau, Art Deco. Indeed.
His influence spread rapidly, specifically impacting
the Italian liberty style you think of artists
like Galileo Cini, Vittoria Zeccan. They created
Klimt -inspired panels for places like the Venice
Hotel Terminus. But while he was hugely influential
stylistically, his exact place in the grand sweep
of art history, that's still debated, isn't it?
It is intensely debated sometimes. We really
have to bring up that critical perspective, the
one exemplified by the Frank Woodford quote.
Remind us what he said. Woodford argued basically
that Klimt was an important artist, a very popular
artist. But in terms of the history of art, he's
a very unimportant artist in a cul -de -sac.
Ouch. What's the argument behind that? The argument
is essentially that Klimt perfected a dying aesthetic,
the secessionist art nouveau decoration, and
his style didn't really open the door to subsequent
radical movements like cubism or true abstraction.
Not in the way Picasso or Kandinsky did. He sort
of perfected something, but didn't point the
way forward. But regardless of where you place
him in the isism timeline, his cultural influence
is just undeniable. It persists today, extends
far beyond the canvas, right, into modern design
fashion. That's where his popularity becomes
just undeniable. Think of the 1972 stage designs
for the Vienna State Opera's production of Salome
directly referencing his decorative style. Or
more recently, high fashion. Oh, yeah. Designers
like John Galliano for Dior, Alexander McQueen.
They repeatedly drew on his patterns, his gold
detailing in their collections. It's instantly
recognizable. And contemporary artists today
are still consciously engaging with his iconography.
often to make statements about race and representation,
things Klimt himself never really addressed.
Exactly. There's the American photographic artist
Tawny Chapman, for instance. She uses gold leaf
overlaid on black and brown figures in her work,
and she deliberately cites Klimt's lavish portraits
of predominantly white Viennese women as a point
of reference, a point of dialogue. And Amy Sherald's
portrait of Michelle Obama. Yes. Critics recognize
the direct echo of those reformed dresses designed
by Emily Floge. in the high neckline and flowing
structure of Amy Sherald's 2018 portrait of the
First Lady. The influence is there. But if his
style defines his beauty, It really is the extraordinary
commercial value intrinsically linked to the
dark history of Nazi looting that defines his
legacy in the 21st century. This is absolutely
the crux of this deep dive. The prices his works
command are just astronomical. Back in 2003,
Landhaus in Addersea, a landscape, sold for over
$29 million. Set a record, then. But the real
watershed moment was a portrait of Adele Blockbauer
I, the woman in gold. That painting, acquired
for the Neue Galerie New York by Ronald Lauder
in 2006 for $135 million. Which at the time was
the highest price ever paid for any painting,
right? Surpassing Picasso. For a moment, yes.
It demonstrated that Klimt's work wasn't just
fine art, it was a high -stakes asset class.
Blue chip. And that trend just continues. Most
recently, June 2023. Lady with a fan. His final
unfinished painting from 1918 sold for UK $85
.3 million. That's over US $108 million, making
it the highest priced artwork ever sold at auction
in Europe. These staggering figures are entirely
tied to the decades long global legal battle
for justice, for restitution. They really are.
And the core of this legacy, the case everyone
knows, is the Maria Altman case. Republic of
Austria v. Altman. a legal saga that captured
the world's attention, inspired films like Woman
in Gold. We need to get into the detail here
because it set crucial legal precedent. Okay,
tell us about it. This was the Battle of Maria
Altman. She was the 82 -year -old niece and heir
of Ferdinand and Adele Blockbauer, and she fought
the Austrian government to recover five specific
Klimt paintings that had been looted by the Nazis
after the Anschluss, the annexation of Austria
in 1938. And these paintings were in Austria.
Yes, they were considered national treasures
in Austria, displayed in the Austrian gallery,
and the government fiercely resisted returning
them for decades. What were the main legal hurdles
she had to overcome? It seems impossible to sue
a foreign country. Well, the primary hurdle was
exactly that, the question of sovereign immunity.
Altman was living in California, so she had to
sue the Republic of Austria in U .S. courts.
This took years of legal maneuvering. Including
a Supreme Court case. A landmark 2004 Supreme
Court ruling, yes. Where the U .S. court upheld
its jurisdiction under an exception to the Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act. They argued the property
was taken in violation of international law,
which was huge. So what happened after that?
Eventually, the Austrian government agreed to
binding arbitration in Vienna to avoid dragging
it through U .S. courts further. And the arbitration
passed the national courts. Yes. And resulted
in a verdict in 2006 that Austria was legally
compelled to return all five paintings to the
Altman heirs. A stunning victory for Altman.
All five, which included both portraits of Adele
Blockbauer. Portrait of Adele Blockbauer, the
first and Adele Blockbauer, the second, plus
three landscapes. And the subsequent sale of
these restituted works was monumental. Netted
Altman and her co -heirs over $327 million. Wow.
And Adele, I went to Ronald Lauder. Right, to
the new gallery to remain on public view, which
was Altman's wish. But the remaining four were
auctioned off to maximize the financial return
for the heirs. And those sales generated huge
numbers themselves, didn't they? Oh, yeah. Adele
Blockbauer II alone sold for $88 million. Birch
Forest went for $40 .3 million. Houses in Unterach
on Lake Adder sold for $31 million. These auctions
really demonstrated the market's willingness
to pay a premium for works carrying the moral
weight of restitution. It proved that legal justice
was, in a sense, financially achievable. And
the Altman case, while famous, was just one example,
right? This issue is much wider and continues
today. We've seen ongoing restitution efforts
across Europe. Absolutely. Take the case of Rose
Bushes Under the Trees, painted around 1905.
It was owned by Nora Stiasi, a Jewish collector
tragically murdered by the Nazis. She had been
forced to sell the painting below value after
the Anschluss. And where did it end up? Decades
later, it was discovered hanging in France's
National Collection, specifically the Musée d
'Orsay in Paris. After intense advocacy, the
French Minister of Culture announced in 2021
that the painting would finally be restituted
to Stiasi's heirs. Amazing. Major move for France.
And even recent market discoveries keep bringing
up this historical debt. A perfect example is
that 2023 agreement involving Ronald Lauder again.
He agreed to both restitute and repurchase Klimt's
The Black Feather hat. Which I belong to. Irene
Baran before she fled the Nazis. The painting's
provenance, its ownership history, was tracked
through the notorious Nazi art dealer Friedrich
Wels. It just shows how deeply entwined the art
market remains with this network of stolen goods.
And finally, there's that incredibly poignant
rediscovery you mentioned. The portrait of Prince
William Nill Nordei Dawona. From 1897. Yes, this
is a remarkable piece. Shows a young African
dignitary. It was basically lost to history after
WWII. Eventually, it was tracked to the collection
of a Viennese Jewish collector, Ernestine Klein,
who was forced into exile in 1938. And Klein's
studio. Coincidentally, had been Klimt's own
former studio. The portrait recently became subject
to a restitution settlement with Klein's heirs.
It just underscores that every time a Klimt surfaces,
whether it's famous or forgotten, it inevitably
carries the weight of WWII displacement and these
complex ownership battles. So Klimt's trajectory.
It takes us from this academic prodigy raised
in poverty through the rebellion and defiance
of the secessionist years. Into the glorious
sexually charged mastery of the golden phase.
And finally, into this complex 21st century legacy
defined by astronomical wealth, yes, but also
by these enduring legal battles for moral justice.
Knowing Klimt today means recognizing that his
work isn't just a record of aesthetic genius,
is it? It's really a powerful cultural lens focused
on the entire turbulent history of his era. The
glittering. peak of Fantasiak La Vienna. The
political and social collapse that followed.
And the history that, through decades of legal
challenges, still dictates where his work resides
today. It's inseparable. Absolutely inseparable.
Which brings us to a final thought for you, our
listeners, to consider. What's fascinating here
is the intersection of morality, justice, and,
well, staggering amounts of money. When you look
at the hundreds of millions generated by Klemp's
art post -restitution, the immense financial
value placed on paintings that were violently
stripped from their rightful owners, what does
this contemporary astronomical price tag really
say about the lingering moral and cultural debt
society is still actively paying for the lives
and art lost during the Nazi era? And maybe how
does that sheer financial weight Now redefine
the historical significance of the artwork itself.
Beyond the gold leaf, beyond the initial controversy,
does the price tag become part of its meaning?
Something to think about.