Meidner in Flames

Figure 1 (click for additional info)

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Ludwig Meidner’s two-sided work Burning City (Figures 1 and 2) is in many ways is a departure from the works of Emil Nolde and Ernst Ludwig Kirchner.  Kirchner’s View from the Window (Figure 3) and Nolde’s A Church by a Harbor (Figure 4) both have a sort of realism about them, despite their expressionistic tendencies. They depict structures likely found in their urban surroundings. The expression in both these pieces is rooted less in the content, but how they choose to portray it. Their expressionist use of color, gesture, and composition allude to a distaste of the city. The disharmony Kirchner and Nolde create in their paintings is representative of their mostly negative outlooks. Meidner on the other hand approaches the subject of the city with a much heavier hand. He creates an imagined space in the wake of great destruction. His city is collapsing in on itself. The content of the painting points towards an emotional understanding of the city. The formal elements of the painting on the other hand, have a strong conceptual framework, one described in detail by the artist. In this work Meidner balances a number of strong stylistic tendencies with an intense focus on personal expression.

In the years following the creation of this piece Meidner made the shift towards becoming a more serious writer. With the onset of World War I and his conscription into military service, he could no longer paint, so he found a new outlet. In his writing, Meidner provides insight into his earlier works and the context surrounding them.[1] He speaks of the extreme emotional nature of his pieces. These writings are introspective and give important insight into both his mental state and also the rational behind the more formal qualities of his works. His use of color, treatment of form, and other aesthetic considerations are all rooted in his complex relationship with the city.

Meidner wished to capture what he believed to be the essence of urban turmoil in his paintings. To do so involved moving beyond simply capturing the city as he thought an Impressionist like Camille Pissarro or Claude Monet would.  “Painting in the open air is all wrong. We can’t record instantaneously all the accidental and disorganized aspects of our motif and still make a picture out of it.”[2] Kirchner held a similar sentiment. “Objective construction is futile,” he continues “since a passing taxi, a bright or dark evening dress transforms the entire laboriously achieved construction.”² In his work this construction took the form of a “purely linear scaffolding.”[3] Kirchner found this abstraction as the most suitable way to portray the city. Instead of trying to capture every detail he would distill the complex forms into line. In View from the Window this manifests itself as the strong “lines of force” in an otherwise stark rendering. Kirchner dealt with the ephemerality of the city through his active use of mark, whereas Meidner took a much more labored approach to representing the city.

In “An Introduction to Painting Big Cities” Meidner breaks down his process into an exploration of light, point of view and straight line. Each of these characteristics plays a distinct role, ones clearly visible in Burning City. Meidner comments that the light of cities is nothing like light found in nature. “Between high rows of houses a tumult of light and dark bind us. Simple planes of light rest on walls. Light explodes over a confused jumble of buildings.”[4] On the recto, or the front side, these planes of light have a clear presence in the cityscape. The artificial yellow light has a palpable presence. It bathes the collapsing city, filling it with energy, standing in stark opposition to the cool night sky. The contrast of color and tone fracture the painting. On the reverse side (verso) light plays an altogether different role. The buildings in the middle ground and foreground are all bathed in a uniform, soft light. There is no longer a sense of a clear emanating source. Meidner removes these fractured planes of light, making the explosive imagery he refers to in his text less apparent. This turns focus to the soft red glow in the back of the painting, which alludes to the red foreground of the recto. Meidner’s use of light and color bring the two sides of the same scene together in a subtle, yet understandable way.

In the text, he goes on to write about the use of a clear focal point in his city works. The focal point for him is the climax of the design. At this point everything should be rendered in great detail, he even recommends using a small brush. Closer to the edge of the painting objects should be shown in a more general fashion, to emphasize this singular point.[5] On the recto of Burning City the focal point is the glowing cityscape. The sharp, angular forms are filled with an unexpected amount of detail. Each window is delicately outlined with a black frame and explosions are carefully dispersed amongst the base of the buildings. The cities surroundings are more painted more generally, especially the sky which is rendered in thick strokes of black. The people cowering at the bottom are shown in less detail, despite being closest to the picture plane. This formal break down of the focal hierarchy shows that despite the energy of this piece, there was still a rigorous compositional framework.

Straight line was Meidner’s final tool for achieving the turbulent effect he strove for. “Are not our big-city landscapes all battlefield filled with mathematical shapes. What triangles, quadrilaterals, polygons, and circles rush out at us in the streets. Straight lines rush past us on all sides. Many pointed shapes stab at us.”[6] Meidner obviously had an intense interest in the geometric nature of the city.  Living in Berlin, he was likely reacting against the strong linearity of the architecture. The language he uses to describe it is very telling of his resentment of urbanity. He does not glorify these structural forms like the Futurists; he sees them as violent and troublesome.[7] They stab at his psyche. In both the front and back of his painting we see the buildings rendered in a wild, geometric fashion that makes the city uninhabitable. The way these forms interact and bisect evoke a sense of confusion. In the midst of the turmoil of the scene, no order can be found in the lines of the city.

“An Introduction to Painting Big Cities” shows Meidner’s rational for stylistic decisions, but it gives little insight into his choice to create such an unsettled scene. This can most likely be attributed to his fragile mental state. In 1912 Meidner’s work became more troubled.[8] He expressed himself in a wild and explosive manner, no longer tied down by typical sensibilities.[9]  In his one his wartime writings he reflects on this period. “I too was for a long time without comfort, ruined, Godless, a captive of all the errors and moods of the moment, alone and anxious as an ally cat…”[10] All the anxiety and fear he felt at the time he channeled into Burning City. The choice to create an apocalyptic scene likely mirrors his mental collapse. On the back (verso) this is most evident in his choice to include what appears to be a self-portrait. The main figure closely resembles a number of his self-portraits, including Night Visage (Figure 5), 1913. By adding himself he is no longer predicting a widespread catastrophe, but his own demise surrounded in urban surroundings.

Many interpret Meidner’s apocalyptic scenes as foreshadowing the start of World War I. The sort of visual language he uses is very similar to that of wartime works. This can be seen in the many striking similarities to the works of George Grosz. In his work The Funeral, Dedicated to Oskar Panizza (1917-1918) (Figure 6), we see a similar apocalyptic feeling brought about through many of the same techniques as Meidner. It has the same contorted, geometric treatment of the buildings. It also uses a similar brash palette to the front of Burning City. The incredibly charged red in both gives the scenes a hellish feel that combines with a dark blue from intense contrast. Although this comparison is compelling, Meidner’s take on the city is purely imagined while Grosz’s work is in reaction to very concrete images of war. In his work Meidner wasn’t predicting future events. He was painting a scene that represented his internal conflict.

The intensity of Meidner’s pre-war work makes these pieces incredibly captivating. His distinctive treatment of form and light give his voice a strong presence. Burning City is a work that’s hard to digest. Its violent energy and complex narrative come together in an almost incomprehensible way. The understanding gained from the piece is an emotional one, not an intellectual one. Meidner’s destructive tendencies were his way of projecting anxiety onto the canvas. Both sides of the work create an experience based deeply in personal expression. The approach Meidner took to painting the city is unlike that of Kirchner and Nolde, but it is undeniably effective in conveying his brooding message.