Very enjoyable, and so nice to hear stories about real people, not the cut-outs behind the art. There was a lot packed into this talk, and some commenters here have taken issue with a couple of things, but please remember it is difficult to put in all the details when you’re pressured for time during a long presentation. He was speaking off the top of his head, not reading a script. There are always things we could have said better, or recalled in a different language or tone when we give public lectures. I would have liked to have heard more on Moholy-Nagy, but this presentation covered a lot of ground within the scope of this presenter’s experience. I found this to be so very different from the usual Bauhaus commentaries. Many thanks for uploading this!
@8:20 mention of Joseph Alber’s photo montage of Klee, Nicolas says about playing with black and white - it had to be b+w, colour film wasn’t available until 1935 and not commonly used until decades later. Just thought I’d mention. P E A C E .
Nice insights - it would be interesting to understand in more detail about the economics of the lives of the Artists in order to understand how they maintained their vision and execution of the Art in the context of what they needed to do to sustain their lives. How did they manage the balance yet produce excellence ?
I'm deeply troubled by this speaker's irresponsible version of the Kandinsky-Schoenberg rift. Schoenberg heard a rumor that Kandinsky had said something ant-semitic, but when he repeated it to Kandinsky in a letter--a year after he'd heard it--Kandinsky was horrified, mortified, shocked. And as this fellow says, it turned out that the infamous Alma had started the rumor in the first place. So why did the speaker bring it up? This is evil. Kandinsky's letter: "Dear Mr. Schoenberg, I received your letter yesterday, which shocked and grieved me extraordinarily. In earlier days I would never have been able to suppose that we--of all people--could write to each other in such a way. I do not know who, and why, someone was interested in upsetting... our purely human relationship... Who would benefit? || I love you as an artist and human being, or perhaps as a human being and an artist. In such cases I think least of all of nationality--it is a matter of the greatest indifference to me. Among my friends who have been tested through many years... are more Jews than Russians or Germans." He goes on with expressions of the warmest friendship, hopes for their reunion to discuss everything face to face, and closes, "Even if you disassociate yourself from me, I send you kindest regards and the expression of my highest esteem." (Arnold Schoenberg--Wassily Kandinsky: Letters, Pictures, Documents, ed. Jelena Hahl-Koch, trans. John C. Crawford. Faber&Faber, London: 1984, p. 77) The entire book is beautifully done in every respect: I recommend it highly.
Thank you for posting that and clearing things up. The guy giving this talk is shockingly ignorant. Don't know how someone like him ended up being Director of Albers Foundation. Sounds as if he met the Albers when he was young, and they liked him for some reason, so he got promoted.
1. I'm confused why he said Nina was Kandinsky's third wife? He was married to his cousin, then was with Munter for many years but never married her. There was another one nobody knows about? 2. I agree with another commenter here: the speaker has a much better feeling for Klee's work than he does for Kandinsky's. His commentary, for example, on Kandinsky's paintings doesn't show a lot of understanding of what he's looking at. The speaker simply doesn't capture the sensibility of Kandinsky's work, his Russian-ness, his important poetry, etc. etc. It's a fun idea to personalize the Bauhaus, which can seem somewhat... impersonal when introduced poorly. The speaker's own appreciation is charming, and his closeness with the Albers is enviable, to be sure. I know, though, that he had given short shrift to Kandinsky's genius.
I think there is a lot confusion, but no he was never married to Munter. And agree about Kandinsky, though I’ve never read anything about his actual character. I suspect he was more fun and light hatred than one might suspect.
i like your take on number 2, i only love though, that his talk draws simple attention to just how wonderful Klee is...again, because, we so often remember Kandinsky in this day and age, for good reason, -but Klee is sometimes unimposingly forgotten about, -because of his incredibly tender and unassuming style and persona perhaps; but i remember looking, alongside all his amazing art, at Klees beautiful thick volumes on 'the thinking eye', and 'the nature of nature' full of scientific little doodles, oh yes Klee was great great artist and teacher, and spiritual/intuitive colossos
@@archadeinteriors Thanks for your comment. I agree that Klee is utterly to be revered. But my experience is the reverse of his: I seem to see Klee and his work known and recognized everywhere, whereas Kandinsky is so often unknown, misunderstood, marginalized. It's hard to get a handle on him, I guess, because he worked in Germany as a foreigner, then in Russia where the archives have been closed until very recently, and then in France, which wasn't too interested during his lifetime. Still, it's good to remember that both Klee and Kandinsky were loved as teachers, and that they both died knowing that a big chunk of their bodies of work had been destroyed by the Nazis. And they loved each other for 40 years. As in: both great, great artists and teachers, and spiritual/intuitive collosi.
Stopped at the accusation that Ehrlich was a Nazi. Seriously do your research before holding a lecture, videographing and uploading it for the public to see your inaccuracies.
I am shocked he didn't talk much about Schlemmer and his vision and thinking... The way he talked about these great men's wives is similar to a celebrity gossip magazine.... Why the Anglo-Americans place so much importance on personal relationships/gossips is beyond me - you would imagine it is about the pure pictorial brilliance of Bauhaus and their ideology - this video makes it sounds like it is about gossipy trivial and it was endorsed by a highly rated art centre in London....! Please - give us less about people, more about art.
This man has about as much academic rigour as Wikipedia! He gets a number of facts wrong: Kandinsky did not marry Gabrielle Munter; the Berlin Olympics were in 1936 not 1938; the Meisterhäuser in Dessau are not all still there - some have been restored, but some were destroyed by bombing and only "sculptural shell" type buildings, marking the form of the former buildings have been erected. Worst is his accusation that Franz Ehrlich willing made the "Jedem das Seine" gates at Buchenwald concentration camp, and that the wording was his idea. Ehrlich was a communist and was a prisoner in Buchenwald. He was forced to make the gates, and as a snub to the Nazis he used the famous Bauhaus font for the text, as the Nazis hated anything to do with the Bauhaus. Walter Gropius did some design work for the Nazis, but this guy didn't mention that. He also claims that a former, unnamed, Bauhaus person made the ovens at Auschwitz but I don't think that is true, as they were made by a family firm, Topf and Söhne, in Erfurt, Germany. There is a comprehensive museum on site of the former factory, and no mention of anyone from the Bauhaus being involved. I wouldn't trust his gossipy second-and third-hand hearsay about the antics of the Bauhaus characters either.
Although a lightweight approach to the subject it is good to have another perspective. I found it a little frustrating that the lecturer always stopped short of mentioning the radical socialist ideas prevalent at the Bauhaus. Things make more sense if you know this. See the 1999 interview with Wilfred Franks on the World Socialist Web Site.
That’s quite the analogy Given that fact that the day and age of an ‘insurance salesman’ was practically 50 odd years ago. I know this because there are loads of Dale Carnegie lectures that were practically created for that specific job. In the 30s-40s insurance salesman used to go door to door guilting new fathers onto buying life insurance. Door to door salesman is a long lost art form.
Why do they not get sb better suited for this talk? Germany would be the place to look for these people obviously. The dominating American perspective on whatever European much too often bores me for several reasons.
Oh, wait, at the end, narrator mentions Anni's focus on Minoan and Mycenean figurines...both she and her husband focused on, I dunno, old art...their times in Mexico tells the tale, Anni's study of pre-Columbian textiles in Peru...her designs lifted from such, Joseph's from Mitla, Mexico...one German museum had a huge collection of Peru textiles, and it was a general focus of German study from like the late 19th Century...from sometime forward, like 1740, scientific enquirey turned to archaeology, anthropology, and such...and artist's thinking too...like a bunch of Indiana Jones after some special artifact...in compitition with the Nazis...the Bauhaus was the "hunt"...😉
+Athanasios Panousakis ότι πεις... Although I still don't understand the reason why you prefer to 'offend' someone instead of simply replying with your own view instead...
I just hate this style of lecturing, it feels like he is talking to demented people who dont really care, if he talks about Bauhaus, Leopards, Saturn or Brad Pitt.
Very enjoyable, and so nice to hear stories about real people, not the cut-outs behind the art. There was a lot packed into this talk, and some commenters here have taken issue with a couple of things, but please remember it is difficult to put in all the details when you’re pressured for time during a long presentation. He was speaking off the top of his head, not reading a script. There are always things we could have said better, or recalled in a different language or tone when we give public lectures. I would have liked to have heard more on Moholy-Nagy, but this presentation covered a lot of ground within the scope of this presenter’s experience. I found this to be so very different from the usual Bauhaus commentaries. Many thanks for uploading this!
This was a really great lecture not just for the subject matter but for the great clarity in which Nicolas Fox Weber spoke.
I come back and watch this wonderful video every year or so. Love the Kandinsky and Klee stories
Fantastic talk. The tiniest details really brought the era and the artists' personalities to life.
A beautiful glimpse into a brilliant era of art and design. I've never been to a lecture but I found this gripping, thank you for posting it.
Excellent. What a great speaker. Thank you so much!!! USA
@8:20 mention of Joseph Alber’s photo montage of Klee, Nicolas says about playing with black and white - it had to be b+w, colour film wasn’t available until 1935 and not commonly used until decades later. Just thought I’d mention. P E A C E .
I watched with very much pleasure the story of this interesting periode.
Thank you Mr. Fox.
Janny Vermeulen/Holland
this is so lovely and this guy is really good at giving lectures!
Nicolas Fox Weber gave an excellent presentation here, I enjoyed it very much and am most impressed with his passion and communication skills.
Marvellous! Wonderful to see that making and art are a passionate way of living and thinking.
Great lecture. Thanks for humanizing the Bauhaus.
My favorite artists come to life
Excellent lecture!
Great talk! Really fleshes out the lives.
excellent
I wish I wish Mr Weber made us see longe the art and images while he was talking.
Great!!!
fascinating history
Amazing approach to this artists
amazing lecture
Nice insights - it would be interesting to understand in more detail about the economics of the lives of the Artists in order to understand how they maintained their vision and execution of the Art in the context of what they needed to do to sustain their lives. How did they manage the balance yet produce excellence ?
I figured Klee and Kandinsky would've shared a cup of coffee
very interesting..
Wonderful
I'm deeply troubled by this speaker's irresponsible version of the Kandinsky-Schoenberg rift. Schoenberg heard a rumor that Kandinsky had said something ant-semitic, but when he repeated it to Kandinsky in a letter--a year after he'd heard it--Kandinsky was horrified, mortified, shocked. And as this fellow says, it turned out that the infamous Alma had started the rumor in the first place. So why did the speaker bring it up? This is evil. Kandinsky's letter: "Dear Mr. Schoenberg, I received your letter yesterday, which shocked and grieved me extraordinarily. In earlier days I would never have been able to suppose that we--of all people--could write to each other in such a way. I do not know who, and why, someone was interested in upsetting... our purely human relationship... Who would benefit? || I love you as an artist and human being, or perhaps as a human being and an artist. In such cases I think least of all of nationality--it is a matter of the greatest indifference to me. Among my friends who have been tested through many years... are more Jews than Russians or Germans." He goes on with expressions of the warmest friendship, hopes for their reunion to discuss everything face to face, and closes, "Even if you disassociate yourself from me, I send you kindest regards and the expression of my highest esteem." (Arnold Schoenberg--Wassily Kandinsky: Letters, Pictures, Documents, ed. Jelena Hahl-Koch, trans. John C. Crawford. Faber&Faber, London: 1984, p. 77) The entire book is beautifully done in every respect: I recommend it highly.
Thank you for posting that and clearing things up. The guy giving this talk is shockingly ignorant. Don't know how someone like him ended up being Director of Albers Foundation. Sounds as if he met the Albers when he was young, and they liked him for some reason, so he got promoted.
@@rustytrawler4438 Thank you for your message. I agree.
Why oh why does the videographer concentrate on the speaker and give such short shrift to the slides?
added to watchlist :-)
interesting comments & difficult to know the truth about individuals. klee is oviously this speakers favourite
1. I'm confused why he said Nina was Kandinsky's third wife? He was married to his cousin, then was with Munter for many years but never married her. There was another one nobody knows about? 2. I agree with another commenter here: the speaker has a much better feeling for Klee's work than he does for Kandinsky's. His commentary, for example, on Kandinsky's paintings doesn't show a lot of understanding of what he's looking at. The speaker simply doesn't capture the sensibility of Kandinsky's work, his Russian-ness, his important poetry, etc. etc. It's a fun idea to personalize the Bauhaus, which can seem somewhat... impersonal when introduced poorly. The speaker's own appreciation is charming, and his closeness with the Albers is enviable, to be sure. I know, though, that he had given short shrift to Kandinsky's genius.
I think there is a lot confusion, but no he was never married to Munter. And agree about Kandinsky, though I’ve never read anything about his actual character. I suspect he was more fun and light hatred than one might suspect.
i like your take on number 2, i only love though, that his talk draws simple
attention to just how wonderful Klee is...again, because, we so often
remember Kandinsky in this day and age, for good reason, -but Klee is
sometimes unimposingly forgotten about, -because of his incredibly
tender and unassuming style and persona perhaps; but i remember
looking, alongside all his amazing art, at Klees beautiful thick volumes on
'the thinking eye', and 'the nature of nature' full of scientific little doodles,
oh yes Klee was great great artist and teacher, and spiritual/intuitive
colossos
@@archadeinteriors Thanks for your comment. I agree that Klee is utterly to be revered. But my experience is the reverse of his: I seem to see Klee and his work known and recognized everywhere, whereas Kandinsky is so often unknown, misunderstood, marginalized. It's hard to get a handle on him, I guess, because he worked in Germany as a foreigner, then in Russia where the archives have been closed until very recently, and then in France, which wasn't too interested during his lifetime. Still, it's good to remember that both Klee and Kandinsky were loved as teachers, and that they both died knowing that a big chunk of their bodies of work had been destroyed by the Nazis. And they loved each other for 40 years. As in: both great, great artists and teachers, and spiritual/intuitive collosi.
The Swinging is one of my favourite paintings. Was overwhelmed to see it at the Tate many years ago.
brilliant lecture
Stopped at the accusation that Ehrlich was a Nazi. Seriously do your research before holding a lecture, videographing and uploading it for the public to see your inaccuracies.
I am shocked he didn't talk much about Schlemmer and his vision and thinking... The way he talked about these great men's wives is similar to a celebrity gossip magazine.... Why the Anglo-Americans place so much importance on personal relationships/gossips is beyond me - you would imagine it is about the pure pictorial brilliance of Bauhaus and their ideology - this video makes it sounds like it is about gossipy trivial and it was endorsed by a highly rated art centre in London....! Please - give us less about people, more about art.
This man has about as much academic rigour as Wikipedia! He gets a number of facts wrong: Kandinsky did not marry Gabrielle Munter; the Berlin Olympics were in 1936 not 1938; the Meisterhäuser in Dessau are not all still there - some have been restored, but some were destroyed by bombing and only "sculptural shell" type buildings, marking the form of the former buildings have been erected.
Worst is his accusation that Franz Ehrlich willing made the "Jedem das Seine" gates at Buchenwald concentration camp, and that the wording was his idea. Ehrlich was a communist and was a prisoner in Buchenwald. He was forced to make the gates, and as a snub to the Nazis he used the famous Bauhaus font for the text, as the Nazis hated anything to do with the Bauhaus. Walter Gropius did some design work for the Nazis, but this guy didn't mention that.
He also claims that a former, unnamed, Bauhaus person made the ovens at Auschwitz but I don't think that is true, as they were made by a family firm, Topf and Söhne, in Erfurt, Germany. There is a comprehensive museum on site of the former factory, and no mention of anyone from the Bauhaus being involved.
I wouldn't trust his gossipy second-and third-hand hearsay about the antics of the Bauhaus characters either.
Thank you.
Great,thank you!
Very gossipy indeed. Not much content regarding art and design.
Although a lightweight approach to the subject it is good to have another perspective. I found it a little frustrating that the lecturer always stopped short of mentioning the radical socialist ideas prevalent at the Bauhaus. Things make more sense if you know this. See the 1999 interview with Wilfred Franks on the World Socialist Web Site.
Ahh ! I don't think so, Bye !
he delivers like he's selling life insurance.
That’s quite the analogy
Given that fact that the day and age of an ‘insurance salesman’ was practically 50 odd years ago.
I know this because there are loads of Dale Carnegie lectures that were practically created for that specific job.
In the 30s-40s insurance salesman used to go door to door guilting new fathers onto buying life insurance.
Door to door salesman is a long lost art form.
this was actually barbaric. what is this guy doing here?
Interesting lecture, but you can clearly see his favouritism for Klee and his strong dislike for Kandinsky and his 'flirtatious' wife.
He pronounced Kokoschka like Russian kakashka 💩 Regardless, amazing storyteller and captivating lecturer.
Why do they not get sb better suited for this talk? Germany would be the place to look for these people obviously. The dominating American perspective on whatever European much too often bores me for several reasons.
Oh, wait, at the end, narrator mentions Anni's focus on Minoan and Mycenean figurines...both she and her husband focused on, I dunno, old art...their times in Mexico tells the tale, Anni's study of pre-Columbian textiles in Peru...her designs lifted from such, Joseph's from Mitla, Mexico...one German museum had a huge collection of Peru textiles, and it was a general focus of German study from like the late 19th Century...from sometime forward, like 1740, scientific enquirey turned to archaeology, anthropology, and such...and artist's thinking too...like a bunch of Indiana Jones after some special artifact...in compitition with the Nazis...the Bauhaus was the "hunt"...😉
IS PARTHENON MARBLES!!! NOT ELGIN MARBLES...!
+Athanasios Panousakis is that a word? Can't find it in dictionary
+Athanasios Panousakis if that description differentiates me from you then I will accept it
+Athanasios Panousakis ότι πεις... Although I still don't understand the reason why you prefer to 'offend' someone instead of simply replying with your own view instead...
gossip and american way of understandig life and art, thumbs down
What an obnoxious remark. European?
"NO" !!!!!!!
pronounced...ekayya...not ikeeya
It it just me,or am I the only one thinking "glass of Kool-aid "
it immediately brings to mind ugly , plain industrial concrete squares and glass sameness....enough already.
I just hate this style of lecturing, it feels like he is talking to demented people who dont really care, if he talks about Bauhaus, Leopards, Saturn or Brad Pitt.
:P
Lasted 6 minutes. Not for me.
why is this so boring
+Peach King I cant stand the guy