gse_menu_A1
Oskar Kokoschka
Galatea 1953. Oil on canvas. 35 7/8" x 28" (91.1 x 71.1 cm). Wingler XXVI.

The Woman Question

Gustav Klimt, Egon Schiele and Oskar Kokoschka

March 14, 2017 - June 30, 2017

ARTISTS

Klimt, Gustav

Kokoschka, Oskar

Schiele, Egon

ESSAY

At the turn of the twentieth century, “the woman question” was widely debated in Europe and the United States. Though discussions of woman’s intrinsic nature recur throughout Western intellectual history, the industrial revolution had given the issue exceptional urgency. The decline of the agrarian economy forced many poor women into low-paying menial jobs or prostitution. A bourgeois woman expected to receive material support from her husband, but if she failed to marry, was widowed or divorced, she had no meaningful professional options. Demands for equal pay, expanded educational opportunities, property and voting rights fueled the fin-de-siècle women’s movement.

 

This challenge to the patriarchy provoked a particularly volatile reaction in Austria-Hungary. The Viennese capital had experienced enormous growth in the second half of the nineteenth century, attracting immigrants from across the vast multinational Empire. Ethnic tensions, housing shortages, poverty and income inequality rose dramatically and could not adequately be remedied by the moribund Habsburg court or its ossified bureaucracy. As the Empire began to fragment, gender became an overarching preoccupation that subsumed subordinate conflicts involving national identity, socioeconomic class and political ideology. From scientific thinkers such as Sigmund Freud and Richard Krafft-Ebing to self-proclaimed “experts” like Otto Weininger, from the playwright Arthur Schnitzler to the artists Gustav Klimt, Egon Schiele and Oskar Kokoschka, Vienna’s leading intellectuals were seemingly obsessed with sex.

 

To this day, no one has succeeded in fully teasing apart the intertwined strands of sex (which is biological) and gender (which is socially constructed). Attempts to answer the “woman question” are invariably shaped by the biases of a given time. Men tend to define “femininity” in accordance with their own agenda, and women, likewise influenced by patriarchal surroundings, are often complicit in these efforts. Both Freud and Vienna’s bourgeois feminists thought that female identity is rooted in motherhood. Marianne Hainisch, founder of the League for Extended Women’s Education and the Federation of Austrian Women’s Associations, declared that women are superior to men owing to an innate propensity for “devotion, self-sacrifice and humility.” Hainisch’s acolyte, the progressive educator Eugenie Schwarzwald, wanted to lead humanity back to “the primal mother.” Freud categorically insisted that women devote themselves to raising children. Female intellectual or professional ambition, he averred, was symptomatic of unhealthy penis envy.

 

Science has frequently been used to muster ostensibly objective evidence in support of subjective gender stereotypes. Charles Darwin believed women are inferior to men, and misogynistic writers such as Weininger (whose 1903 tract Sex and Character was a bestseller) happily expanded on this notion. Evolution, it was said, gave women smaller bones and brains than men, making them inherently weaker and stupider. Just as hermaphroditic life forms gradually evolved into creatures with two distinct genders, theorists suggested that the human sexes had become more sharply differentiated over time. Gender parity came to be associated with the threat of devolution or degeneration, and human progress with male dominance.

 

Under the larger rubric of the fin-de-siècle “woman question,” female sexuality received special scrutiny. For centuries males had been associated with civilization, culture, spirituality and intelligence, and females with primitivism, nature, lust and instinct. Now this dichotomy was given a Darwinian spin: females were not just creatures of nature, they were consumed by their biological imperative. “Woman is devoted totally to sexual matters, that is to say, to the spheres of begetting and reproduction,” Weininger noted disdainfully. More progressive thinkers, opposed to the constraints of bourgeois morality, were delighted by such allegations of rampant nymphomania. Writing about Klimt’s nudes, the critic Hermann Bahr enthused that, “everything about the woman belongs to lust.” The architect Adolf Loos and his cronies, writers Peter Altenberg and Karl Kraus, believed woman’s sole purpose was to inspire man with her sensuous allure. Yet Loos and Kraus shared Altenberg’s opinion that “woman sucks us dry, spiritually.” Even liberal views of female sexuality were often tinged with misogyny.

 

Countering the image of unfettered female lust projected by Weininger, Freud and Krafft-Ebing maintained that sexual desire is not “normal” in a woman. Less incompatible than they seem, these divergent perspectives reflect a shared fear of female libido, as well as the class-based nature of contemporary sexual mores. Bourgeois girls were indeed instructed to suppress their erotic proclivities, while their brothers were encouraged to “sow their wild oats” with prostitutes, shop-girls, maidservants and the like. Viennese society affirmed the age-old split between the Madonna (exemplified by Freud’s frigid mothers) and the whore (judged “inherently wanton”). Klimt, Schiele and Kokoschka adhered in differing ways to this double standard, which influenced both their relationships with and their depictions of the opposite sex.

 

Klimt never married, but early in adulthood, he developed an abiding friendship with Emilie Flöge, a talented dress designer some twelve years his junior. It is not clear whether their relationship was sexual in nature. Some speculate that Klimt maintained a platonic distance because he had contracted syphilis. In any event, the artist had numerous liaisons with charwomen and models, whose social standing was scarcely better than that of prostitutes. He seems to have had little sustained contact with his various illegitimate children, and provided scant emotional or financial support to their mothers. Klimt was much in demand as a society portraitist, and it is tempting to imagine that he occasionally slept with the bored bourgeois ladies who were his chief clients. However there is no evidence that such was the case, and it is more likely that the class divide between these genteel ladies and the comparatively unrefined Klimt was unbridgeable. Friederike Maria Beer, who was painted by him in 1916, described the artist as animalistic. “He even smelled like an animal,” she recalled.

 

The Madonna/whore dichotomy is viscerally fleshed out in Klimt’s art. His portraits, especially the gold ones, explicitly reference Byzantine icons. The women are cloaked from neck to toe in sumptuous abstract garments that give little sense of an underlying physical body. The only reference to sexuality is coded in discreet symbols of ova and sperm, which are sometimes tucked into the folds of the dress. Nor do the sitters reveal much in the way of personality. The contemporary critic Bertha Zuckerkandl remarked approvingly that the artist did away with “any individual characteristics, so that only the typical, a sublime extract of the female type, is captured in pure style.” Weininger phrased similar thoughts more harshly: “In…the absolute female…the ground for the assumption of a soul is absent.”

 

If Klimt’s society portraits have the decorative sterility of icons, his allegorical nudes and his drawings are awash in sexuality. The female nude, of course, is a venerable subject in Western art, but female sexuality per se is a more vexed matter. Traditional paintings of nudes were created by male artists, to be seen and enjoyed by male viewers. In Freudian terms, however, masculine pleasure in such works was imperiled by castration anxiety, a consequence of the woman’s “missing” penis. The female nude therefore had to be transformed from an active threat into an inert, depersonalized object via a process of visual pruning and containment. Beauty was foremost among the devices artists used to this end. The classical female nude was unblemished, a perfect specimen of nubile flesh and soothing, voluptuous form. Often her pubic area was discreetly masked. Beyond this, by placing the nude in a mythical, historical or Biblical context, the artist could subordinate her eroticism to a higher moral purpose. The nude’s subservience was further affirmed by passivity; typically she reclined. Single-point perspective firmly pinioned her within the picture frame and distanced her from the male observer. Looking was the man’s prerogative. The female nude did not usually respond to the artist’s gaze; if she engaged with the hypothetical viewer, it was in the form of a flirtation rather than a challenge.

 

Gustav Klimt was among the first artists to explore female sexuality as a subject in its own right. And he was widely attacked for doing so. Forgoing standard historical or mythological settings in his allegories, he allowed his nudes to float freely, without any mollifying moral context. He dared depict pregnant nudes, merging the narratives of the Madonna and the whore to suggest that there are no virgin births. In many respects, however, Klimt’s nudes reflect the gender stereotypes common to his time and place. By repeatedly representing naked women as amphibious creatures in such paintings as Moving Water, he affirmed the prevalent belief that females are primitive and irrational. As evidenced by the artist’s many femmes fatales, he shared with Weininger and Freud a fear of unrestrained female libido. Female sexuality is brought under control in Klimt’s later erotic drawings. Like traditional examples of the genre, these nudes are beautiful, passive and often oblivious to the point of catatonia. There is nothing here to disturb the primacy of the male gaze.

 

Egon Schiele grew up in a household dominated by women, and he was especially close to his younger sister, Gerti. Gerti was his most important early model, but by 1910 most of the artist’s female subjects came from the Viennese underclass. These included the indigent patients of the gynecologist Erwin Graff, vagrant children and teenaged prostitutes. We do not know the names of any of these models, but two young women recur frequently in Schiele’s work from late 1910 and 1911, and it is evident that he had sexual relations with at least one of them. The artist’s first serious girlfriend, Wally Neuzil, was likewise a model. In these dalliances, Schiele conformed to then-standard bourgeois custom, which dictated that prior to marriage a young man should gain sexual experience in the demi-monde. He reclaimed his bourgeois birthright in 1915, rejecting Wally and marrying Edith Harms, the daughter of a civil servant. Edith was embarrassed to pose naked, less it seems out of prudery than because she feared being recognized by acquaintances. The artist, for his part, had difficulty assuming the role of bourgeois husband, and there is evidence that within two years of the wedding he had begun to cheat. By 1918, when Edith became pregnant with their first child, she felt isolated and estranged from her partner’s world.

 

Profoundly influenced by Klimt, Schiele picked up where the master left off in his explorations of female sexuality. But Schiele was only twenty when he executed his first artistically mature works, and emotionally he was still an adolescent. Simultaneously terrified and enthralled by the erotic potency of his lover/models, the artist granted the female nude an unprecedented degree of autonomy. Unwittingly, he violated almost every convention of the genre. The classical ideal of harmony was not just ignored, it was forcefully undermined by contorted poses and awkward cropping. Far from being passive receptacles for male desire, these nudes are bluntly confrontational, often returning the artist’s gaze. Nonetheless it is impossible to know what the women are thinking or whether these images depict their reactions to Schiele, or his reactions to them. It is not clear who is subject and who is object. The artist’s compositional strategies further undermine this distinction. Frequently, he had his model lie on a mattress placed on the floor, while he perched above her on a stool or ladder. By omitting any surrounding detail from his drawings and frequently giving recumbent figures a vertical reading, he created a profound sense of spatial dislocation. The resulting tension between the subject and the edge of the picture plane calls into question the ability of the latter to contain the former. Instead of receding comfortably into the distance, Schiele’s nudes appear to jump out at the viewer.

 

Schiele’s marriage in 1915 was accompanied by a change in his approach to female subject matter. His nudes became less disruptive, more conventionally beautiful. Though the artist was still prone to spatial dislocation, the figures were more realistic, the lines smoother, the forms rounder. At the same time, Schiele’s experiences with Wally and Edith had given him a deeper understanding of the female psyche. His later portraits of women, particularly those of the mercurial, frequently unhappy Edith, are characterized by a newly tender specificity. However, a comparison of these portraits with photos of Wally and Edith also reveals distinct differences between image and reality. The faces in Schiele’s representations are softer, more delicate, the eyes and lips more pronounced. Melding conventional idealization with a new acknowledgment of female sexual empowerment, Schiele’s later work anticipates the images of femininity that have come to dominate contemporary popular culture.

 

Unlike Klimt and Schiele, Kokoschka from the outset had difficulty relating to the opposite sex. His first significant artistic achievement, an adult fairy tale titled The Dreaming Youths, was inspired by an unrequited passion for Lilith Lang, a classmate at the Vienna School of Applied Arts. The artist’s text reveals an aggressivity that would become more pronounced in his next literary effort, Murderer, Hope of Women. By the time the play debuted at the 1909 “Kunstschau” (an exhibition of international modern art), Kokoschka had been adopted as Adolf Loos’s protégé. Clearly the young artist shared the misogynistic views of Loos’s circle. In Kokoschka’s play, the male protagonist, drained by female lust, regains his strength by killing the woman.

 

Kokoschka’s affair with Alma Mahler, widow of the composer Gustav Mahler, exemplifies the fin-de-siècle battle between the sexes. Oskar considered Alma, whom he met in 1912, his “maternal genius” and wanted to control her completely. Over a two-and-a-half- year period, he pursued her with the crazed tenacity of a stalker, bombarding her with more than 400 love letters and hovering outside her home to check on her fidelity. “I will not have any gods before me,” the artist commanded. “I won’t be diverted, you are of one mind with me and will live with me until I have pulled out by the roots everything in you that bewilders me, chills me and makes me unhappy.” Alma evidently reciprocated Oskar’s love, but she refused to bend to his dictates and ultimately felt compelled to leave him. As recounted by Kokoschka in numerous allegorical paintings, drawings and prints, the man in this story is no longer a victorious murderer of woman, but rather a martyr to female perfidy. In a final testament to the doomed affair, Pietà, Alma plays the role of the Virgin Mary, with her lover as the dead Christ.

 

For a number of reasons, the nude has a less significant place in Kokoschka’s work than in the art of Klimt and Schiele. The latter two artists were trained in the classical manner, and life drawing was central to their studio practice. Kokoschka, as a student at the School of Applied Art, focused more on decorative assignments such as posters and book illustration. Furthermore, because Klimt and Schiele had frequent sexual encounters with the demi-monde, the roles of model and lover were for them interchangeable. However Kokoschka’s early love interests, Lilith and Alma, were above him in social station. It is not clear whether Lilith, then sixteen, modeled for The Dreaming Youths. The bony, angular figure of “Li” in the illustrations is in any case improbably androgynous, the sort of “Kind-Mädchen” (child-girl) favored by Loos and his friend Altenberg. Fear of adult female sexuality continued to haunt Kokoschka’s later nudes, which are largely devoid of erotic appeal.

 

Given that Alma Mahler was generally considered the most desirable woman in Vienna—a living femme fatale—Kokoschka’s pictures of her are surprisingly unattractive. Alma herself does not seem to have posed nude. Rather Oskar used models from the School of Applied Art as “body doubles,” onto whom he projected his lover’s features. Broad in the thigh, small of breast, Alma (who had borne two children) was more mother than sex object in Kokoschka’s depictions. Her face, and in fact all the faces in the artist’s portraits of women, lack the sort of idealization seen in Schiele’s later work. It is hard to imagine falling in love with Kokoschka’s Galatea—as her original creator, Pygmalion, did in Greek myth. Kokoschka’s approach to female portraits differed not at all from his approach to male portraits. The artist’s refusal to beautify his images of women may reflect his own resentments, but the work also presages a more gender-neutral view of the female persona.

 

Gustav Klimt died of complications following a stroke in early 1918. Egon Schiele, his wife and their unborn child succumbed to the Spanish Influenza epidemic later that year. Oskar Kokoschka lived until 1980, enjoying an international renown in the immediate postwar period that eluded his compatriots until the final decades of the twentieth century. The work of all three artists remains as pertinent today as it was at the turn of the last century, because the “woman question” remains unanswered. The old stereotypes of the dangerous femme fatale and the vacuous, submissive sex object persist in the popular imagination. In our visually saturated culture, images of women are ubiquitous. Men are still the subjects of much visual practice, the ones who do the looking, while women (in the famous words of critic John Berger) “watch themselves being looked at.” Women harness their sexual powers to collude in their objectification, struggling to meet the unrealistic standards of beauty put forth by the mass media. The media’s feminine ideal fosters feelings of inadequacy not only in women, but also in men, who fear rejection and are ashamed if their mate fails to measure up.

 

Science has so far been of little help in sorting all this out. We are told that men prefer women with hourglass figures and baby-like faces because these traits signify fertility—the implication being that natural selection favors traditional gender stereotypes. Brain imaging makes it possible to track the similarities and differences between male and female sexual response, but it is hard to ascertain whether these responses are biologically predetermined or socially conditioned. Although the binary distinction between masculine and feminine, nature and nurture, seems increasingly untenable, it continues to confound. The recognition that biological sex, gender identity and sexual orientation are three different things further confuses matters. At the same time, women have yet to achieve full equality with men, and many men still find women at once threatening and alluring. The battle between the sexes has reached a stalemate, with no clear resolution in sight.

 

The present exhibition recapitulates, in abridged form, The Women of Klimt, Schiele and Kokoschka, which Galerie St. Etienne co-director Jane Kallir curated for the Belvedere Museum, Vienna, in 2015-16. We would like to warmly thank the many lenders who made it possible to reassemble that show on American soil. The Galerie St. Etienne’s exhibition coordinator, Courtney Donner, also provided invaluable contributions to the project. Copies of the catalogue for the Belvedere exhibition (240 pages, 231 color illustrations, hardcover) may be ordered for $60.00, plus $15.00 for domestic handling & shipping; New York residents, please add sales tax. Checklist entries are accompanied by their citations in the Belvedere catalogue and their catalogue raisonné numbers, where applicable.


../assets/gallery/exhibitions/exhibition_001085.xml

CHECKLIST

GUSTAV KLIMT (Austrian, 1862-1918)

 

1. Woman with Fur Collar

1897. Oil on cardboard, mounted on wood. Signed, lower right. 14 1/4" x 7 3/4" (36 x 19.7 cm). Weidinger 112. Private collection.

 

2. Tragedy

1897-98. Pencil and black chalk on soft, heavy tan wove paper. Estate stamp, lower right. 18" x 12 3/8" (45.7 x 31.4 cm). Study for the drawing of the same title, published in Ver Sacrum, March 1898 (Strobl 340). Strobl 337.

 

3. Woman Resting in Armchair

1897-98. Blue and brown chalk on tan wove paper. 12 5/8" x 17 1/2" (32.1 x 44.5 cm). Strobl 3323.

 

4. Moving Water

1898. Oil on canvas. Signed, lower right. 21" x 26 1/8" (53.3 x 66.4 cm). Weidinger 128. Private collection.

 

5. Standing Nude Girl with Bowed Head

1902. Black chalk on heavy, soft tan wove paper. Estate stamp, verso. 17 5/8" x 12" (44.8 x 30.5 cm). Study for the mural Beethoven Frieze (The Suffering of Weak Mankind) (Weidinger 153). Strobl 758.

 

6. Adele Bloch-Bauer (Seated, Frontal)

1903. Black chalk on tan wove paper. 17 3/4” x 12 3/8” (45.1 x 31.4 cm). Study for the painting Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I (Weidinger 184). Strobl 1116. Private collection.

 

7. Adele Bloch-Bauer (Seated, Left Arm on Armrest)

1903. Black chalk on tan wove paper. 17 3/4” x 12 3/8” (45 x 31.5 cm). Study for the painting Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I (Weidinger 184). Strobl 1123. Belvedere exhibition, 2015-16, No. 11 (ill. p. 68). Private collection.

 

8. Pregnant Woman and Man

1903-04. Blue crayon on heavy tan wove paper. 17 5/8" x 12 1/8" (44.8 x 30.8 cm). Study for the painting Hope I (Weidinger 171). Strobl 958. Belvedere exhibition, 2015-16, No. 50 (ill. p. 110).

 

9. Standing Pregnant Woman, Facing Left

1903-04. Black chalk on soft, heavy tan wove paper. 17 5/8" x 12 3/8" (44.8 x 31.4 cm). Study for the painting Hope I (Weidinger 171). Strobl 3508. Belvedere exhibition, 2015-16, No. 52 (ill. p. 112).

 

10. Woman with Tilted Head and Closed Eyes

1904-05. Pencil on cream wove paper. 21 3/8" x 13 3/4" (54.3 x 34.9 cm). Strobl 1206.

 

11. Portrait Sketches

1907-08. Pencil and red pencil on cream wove paper. 22” x 14 5/8” (55.9 x 37.1 cm). Strobl 1922. Private collection.

 

12. Three Female Nudes, Standing

Circa 1908. Pencil on simile Japan paper. 22 1/4" x 14 5/8" (56.5 x 37.2 cm). Strobl 1712. Belvedere exhibition, 2015-16, No. 116 (ill. p. 184). Private collection.

 

13. Nude Lying on Stomach

1910. Blue pencil on simile Japan paper. 14 3/8” x 21” (36.5 x 53.3 cm). Strobl 1967. Private collection.

 

14. Reclining Nude with Raised Knees

1912-13. Pencil on simile Japan paper. Estate stamp, lower left. 14 1/4” x 22 1/8” (36.2 x 56.3 cm). Strobl 3675a. Private collection.

 

15. Embracing Couple

1913. Pen and ink on simile Japan paper. Estate stamp, verso. 22 1/4" x 14 5/8" (56.5 x 37.2 cm). Strobl 2444. Belvedere exhibition, 2015-16, No. 95 (ill. p. 157). Private collection.

 

16. Seated Nude with Hand at Cheek

Circa 1913-14. Pencil on simile Japan paper. Estate stamp, lower right. 22 1/2" x 14 3/4" (57.2 x 37.5 cm). Study for the painting The Virgin (Weidinger 214). Strobl 2242. Belvedere exhibition, 2015-16, No. 112 (ill. p. 188). Private collection.

 

17. Lovers

1914. Pencil on cream wove paper. Estate stamp, lower right. 22" x 14 1/2" (55.9 x 36.8 cm). Strobl 2452.

 

18. Standing Woman Facing Front (Friederike Maria Beer)

1916. Pencil on cream wove paper. Estate stamp, verso. 22 1/2” x 14 3/4” (57.1 x 37.5 cm). Study for the painting of the same subject (Weidinger 228). Strobl 2543. Private collection.

 

19. Seated Semi-Nude

1916-17. Pencil on cream wove paper. 22 1/2” x 14 3/4” (57 x 37.5 cm). Strobl 2966. Private collection.

 

20. Two Girls in Profile

1917. Pencil on simile Japan paper. Estate stamp, lower left. 22" x 14 5/8" (55.8 x 37.2 cm). Study for the painting Girlfriends II (Weidinger 236). Strobl 2817. Belvedere exhibition, 2015-16, No. 87 (ill. p. 150). Private collection.

 

21. Two Reclining Female Nudes

1917. Pencil on thin cream wove paper. Estate stamp, lower right. 14 3/4" x 22 1/2" (37.5 x 57.2 cm). Study for the painting Girlfriends II (Weidinger 236). Strobl 2818.

 

22. Portrait of a Girl with Braids

1917-18. Pencil, chalk, red and blue pencil on cream wove paper. Estate stamp, lower left. 22 3/8" x 14 3/4" (56.8 x 37.5 cm). Study for the painting The Bride (Weidinger 252). Strobl 3052.

 

23. Johanna Staude (Female Bust, Frontal)

1917-18. Pencil on cream wove paper, mounted on greenish paper. Signed, lower left, and inscribed on mount. 19 3/4” x 12 3/4” (50.1 x 32.5 cm). Study for the painting of the same subject (Weidinger 248). Strobl 2726. Belvedere exhibition, 2015-16, No. 34 (ill. p. 88). Private collection.

 

OSKAR KOKOSCHKA (Austrian, 1886-1980)

 

24. Two Studies of Lilith Lang in Profile

1907. Pencil on brownish paper. Studies of the same subject (Weidinger/Strobl 187a), verso. 12” x 11 7/8” (30.4 x 30.2 cm). Related to the illustrations for The Dreaming Youths (Wingler/Welz 22-29). Weidinger/Strobl 187. Private collection.

 

25. The Dreaming Youths

1906-08. Illustrated book with eight color lithographs and three line engravings. Numbered XII inside back cover. 9 5/8" x 11 3/4" (24.4 x 29.8 cm). One of 275 copies (from a total of 500 printed by the Wiener Werkstätte in 1908) published in 1917 by Kurt Wolff. Wingler/Welz 22-29.

 

26. Semi-Nude Reclining Woman (Bertha Eckstein-Diener)

1910. Watercolor, gouache and pencil on brownish paper. Initialed, lower right. 12 1/8” x 17 3/4” (30.8 x 45 cm). Weidinger/Strobl 320. Belvedere exhibition, 2015-16, No. 137 (ill. p. 204). Private collection.

 

27. Lotte Forchheimer-Kriser

1912. Charcoal and pencil on brownish paper. 16” x 13” (40.5 x 33.1 cm). Weidinger/Strobl 412. Private collection.

 

28. Female Nude in Dance Pose

1912. Charcoal on tan wove paper. 17 3/4" x 12 1/2" (45.1 x 31.8 cm). Study for the painting Two Nudes (Lovers) (Winkler/Erling 91; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston). Weidinger/Strobl 461.

 

29. Reclining Nude

1912-13. Pastel on brownish paper. 12 3/8” x 17 3/4” (31.3 x 45 cm). Private collection.

 

30. Kneeling Woman with Raised Arms, Facing Left

Circa 1913. Black chalk on light brown paper. Initialed, lower left. 17 1/2" x 11 7/8" (44.5 x 30.2 cm). To be included in the forthcoming catalogue raisonné by Alfred Weidinger.

 

31. Crouching Female Nude with Raised Arms

1913. Charcoal on tan wove paper. Signed and inscribed “Dies ist ein Original/aus meiner Jugendzeit/(1908-10?)” (This is an original work/from my youth/[1908-10?]), lower right. 15 1/2" x 11 3/4" (39.4 x 29.8 cm). Weidinger/Strobl 478.

 

32. Seated Female Nude, Facing Left

1913. Watercolor and black crayon on cream wove paper. Initialed, lower right. 17 1/2" x 12 1/4" (44.3 x 31.2 cm). Weidinger/Strobl 632. Belvedere exhibition, 2015-16, No. 138 (ill. p. 205).

 

33. Pietà – "It is Enough"

1914. Charcoal on yellowish paper. 18 1/2" x 12 3/4" (47 x 32.4 cm). Drawing for plate 11 from the lithographic cycle O Eternity, Thou Word of Thunder, "Bach Cantata" (Wingler/Welz 68). Weidinger/Strobl 656. Belvedere exhibition, 2015-16, No. 98 (ill. p. 160).

 

34. Standing Nude Girl

1919. Pen and ink on cream wove paper. Signed, lower right. 26 3/8" x 16 1/2" (67 x 41.9 cm). Belvedere exhibition, 2015-16, No. 74 (ill. p. 133).

 

35. Portrait of a Woman with Hand at Chin

Circa 1920-22. Charcoal on buff paper. Signed, lower right, and dedicated to Carl Moll, upper right. 27 3/4" x 19 5/8" (70.5 x 49.8 cm). Private collection.

 

36. Two Girls

Circa 1921. Watercolor and gouache on paper. 26 7/8” x 19 3/4” (68.2 x 50.1 cm). Private collection.

 

37. Reading Girl

Circa 1921. Watercolor and gouache on paper. 19” x 25 3/4” (48.3 x 65.5 cm). Private collection.

 

38. Girl on Red Sofa

1921. Watercolor on machine-made Bütten paper. Signed, lower right. 26" x 19 1/2" (66 x 49.5 cm).

 

39. Seated Girl in Green Dress

Circa 1922. Watercolor and gouache on paper. 27” x 20” (68.8 x 50.6 cm). Private collection.

 

40. Seated Woman with Raised Right Hand (Mary Mersen)

1931. Sanguine on cream wove paper. Signed, lower right. 22" x 17 1/2" (55.9 x 44.5 cm). Private collection.

 

41. Annie Knize

1933-34. Pencil on paper. 19 1/4” x 21 5/8” (49 x 54.9 cm). Private collection.

 

42. Galatea

1953. Oil on canvas. 35 7/8” x 28” (91 x 71 cm). Wingler XXVI.

 

EGON SCHIELE (Austrian, 1890-1918)

 

43. Portrait of Gerti Schiele

1909. Pencil on heavy cream wove paper. Signed and dated, lower right. 18 1/8" x 12 1/2" (46 x 31.8 cm). Kallir D. 293a.

 

44. Baby

1910. Pencil on paper. Initialed and dated, lower right. 22” x 14 1/2” (55.9 x 36.8 cm). Kallir D. 392.

 

45. Girl with Raised Arms.

1910. Gouache, watercolor, and charcoal on paper. Signed and dated, lower right. Estate stamp, verso. 17 3/4” x 12 1/2” (45.1 x 31.8 cm). Kallir D. 491. Belvedere exhibition, 2015-16, No. 18 (ill. p. 74). Private collection.

 

46. Mother and Child

1911. Gouache and pencil on paper. Initialed and dated, lower right. 21 1/4” x 13 3/4” (54 x 35 cm). Kallir D. 751. Belvedere exhibition, 2015-16, No. 57 (ill. p. 116). Private collection.

 

47. Seated Female Nude

1911. Pencil on thin cream wove paper. Signed and dated, lower right. Schiele estate stamp and pencil drawing, Seated Girl (Kallir D. 801), verso. 22 1/8" x 14 3/4" (56.2 x 37.5 cm). Kallir D. 852. Belvedere exhibition, 2015-16, No. 3 (ill. p. 50).

 

48. The Red Host

1911. Watercolor and pencil on paper. Signed and dated, lower right, and titled, upper right. Estate and export stamps, verso. 18 7/8" x 11 1/8" (48.2 x 28.3 cm). Kallir D. 972. Belvedere exhibition, 2015-16, No. 97 (ill. p. 159). Private collection.

 

49. Elisabeth Lederer, Seated, with Hands Folded

1913. Gouache and pencil on thin cream wove paper. Signed and dated, lower right. 19" x 12 3/4" (48.3 x 32.4 cm). Kallir D. 1232.

 

50. Standing Woman in Green Shirt

1914. Gouache, watercolor and pencil on thin cream wove paper. Signed and dated, lower right. 19" x 12 5/8" (48.3 x 32.1 cm). Kallir D. 1544.

 

51. Reclining Nude with Raised Legs

1914. Black crayon on paper. Signed and dated, lower right. 19” x 12 3/4” (48.3 x 32.4 cm). Kallir D. 1562.

 

52. Crouching Woman

1914. Gouache and pencil on paper. Signed and dated, lower center. Lampl collector's stamp, verso of mount. 12 1/8" x 17 3/8" (30.8 x 44.1 cm). Study for the painting Young Mother (Kallir P. 273) and the etching Sorrow (Kallir G. 6). Kallir D. 1612. Private collection.

 

53. Woman Holding Flower (Edith Schiele)

1915. Pencil on wove paper. Black crayon drawing, Houses in Landscape (Kallir D. 1807), verso. 18 1/4" x 12 3/8" (46.4 x 31.4 cm). Kallir D. 1715. Private collection.

 

54. Seated Couple (Schiele with His Wife)

1916. Pencil and black crayon on paper. Signed and dated, lower left. 19 1/8” x 13 3/8” (48.6 x 34.1 cm). Kallir D. 1856. Private collection.

 

55. Reclining Woman with Green Stockings

1917. Gouache and black crayon on paper. Signed and dated, lower right. Arnot collector's stamp and export stamp, verso. 11 1/2" x 18 1/8" (29.2 x 46 cm). Kallir D. 1995. Belvedere exhibition, 2015-16, No. 128 (ill. p. 195). Private collection.

 

56. Woman with Hat and Veil

1918. Black crayon on paper. Signed and dated, lower right. 18 3/8” x 11 3/4” (46.7 x 29.8 cm). Kallir D. 2221. Private collection.

 

57. Two Reclining Nudes

1918. Black crayon on cream wove paper. Signed and dated, lower center. 18" x 11 5/8" (45.7 x 29.5 cm). Kallir D. 2270.

 

58. Seated Female Nude, without Head

1918. Black crayon on paper. Signed and dated, lower center. 18 1/4” x 11 5/8” (46.3 x 29.5 cm). Kallir D. 2357.

 

59. Reclining Woman

1918. Charcoal on paper. Signed and dated, lower right. Estate stamp, verso. 11 5/8" x 18 1/4" (29.5 x 46.4 cm). Kallir D. 2427. Belvedere exhibition, 2015-16, No. 131 (ill. p. 198). Private collection.