self portrait with peacock waistcoat, 1911.
I must see new things and investigate them. I want to taste dark water and see crackling trees and wild winds.
my love for egon schiele's work is a big one, a love that is simultaneously easy to explain as it is difficult. i've expressed why i like his art a few times already, so i won't bore you with a dissertation again. this post is just purely for appreciation for his oeuvre, and maybe adding a bit of background to the pieces that are my favourites. the self-portrait above is my absolute favourite one. it embodies egon schiele fully, the smug look on his face, the v-sign, the elevation of himself by using a halo, his spindly fingers that are so typical for his work. the dark and heavy use of colours and how they are applied in such a chaotic way, but still managing to create a coherent depiction of him, able to pull you into his facial expression.
i will categorize his work a bit, not aiming for completeness ( leaving out his architectural work or still lives, for example, not because i don't like them, but rather because of it not leaving as heavy an impression as his work containing humans and humanity ).
.the self.
self portrait with hands on chest, 1910.
this portrait of schiele has several details that do it for me. i like the crazy hair for example, the outrageous colours! especially considering the time he drew this sketch in, 1910! no one had blue hair back then! it feels weirdly visionary and also really flamboyant. i also like the observant face, which in the same way does not observe a thing before him, but rather inside him, reflecting something. that little smile on his lips, how the corner of the mouth slightly curls up a bit... it might get a girl swooning 😂 when i look at this picture it makes me think of another human being i really like: rami malek, rising star of the current movie landscape. there's definitely a resemblance, or is it really just me making that connection? oh, and did i mention the hands? i might have a little hand fetish there, so don't judge.
self-portrait with chinese lantern plant, 1912.
in this picture i like the incorporation of nature, with the chinese lantern plant adding that special something when it comes to the overall subdued use of colours. it adds a nice contrast and it softens up the slightly uncomfortable, but strangely curious facial expression that egon has here. i really love the very visible brush strokes in this picture, it adds a dimensionality that almost makes you want to reach out and touch this for the structure alone.
.women.
sitting woman with legs drawn up, 1917.
egon schiele is well-known for his depictions of women, whether in naked form or fully clothed attire. this part of his work is actually rather controversial to many, some say his art is rather shocking and brutal, bordering on pornography, others praise it for the rawness and honesty it depicts. my own personal stance is that he was a man who loved women, he loved what they personified, mothers, sisters, friends & lovers. i think of the women he drew and painted as the real stars of his work, because he took their vulnerabilities and turned them into something enormously powerful, sort of empowering them. in the early 1900s women were still living quiet and private lives, they were still not allowed to express themselves freely and openly. additionally, no one dared to draw women as stern and daring, provocative and angry, as schiele did, especially in a time where women were often shown as these soft and tender elves, without edges and character. a lot of women were merely an object in paintings, rarely a person with emotions and feelings. you can see these discrepancies in schiele's work as well, sometimes thinking that his voyeuristic tendencies reveal uncomfortable situations, but then you look into the eyes of these women and you see that they were part in the creation themselves, they were open to this experience and they were willing to give these glimpses of themselves. and there is no fear in their eyes. if at all, you mostly see a fierceness, or sometimes a blasé demeanor, as if they're saying: why are you so shocked, these are just bodies, and bodies should not be tabooed or hidden or scandalized or whatever.
backview of a seated female nude with red skirt, 1914.
i really just love how wonderfully fragile he painted bodies ( not just women's, also men's ). of course, our bodies can be strong and we can train them to excel in certain disciplines, but in the end, despite our will to strengthen them, there comes the time when our bodies will become vulnerable again. and i feel very strongly that schiele also shows us this aspect in his art, that we are mortal and breakable and unfortunately violative. but you also get the sense that he doesn't view it as something we should be ashamed of, instead he shows us that we should own that as another strength.
two girls, laying in entwined position, 1915.
what's remarkable about this piece is the contrast between a very real looking nude woman and her puppet-like fully clothed counterpart. it's as if schiele is telling you to look behind the facade of our exteriors and see what's left when everything gets stripped to the bare minimum. the naked woman's body is drawn so elegantly, it's actually really rare with schiele. he often draws bodies very crooked and abstract, but in this one, while still showing his tendency to experiment with strange positions, it's actually executed really beautifully. i also love the use of colours here, so bright and alluring, drawing attention to patterns and erotic details.
miss beer, 1914.
it's pretty obvious what i love about this painting: the patterned dress of friederike beer-monti, a muse that can be traced in gustav klimt's work, too. she looks like she's dancing one of those expressive dances that started to begin to pop up everywhere and would turn into what we now view as modern dance. it's such a colourful and rich painting.
.nature.
autumn tree in stirred air, 1912.
when it comes to nature, egon schiele approached it the same way as he approached everything: he created texture and form from an abstract viewpoint, simultaneously bringing forth the essence of what he wants you to look at. i will never get tired of his autumn trees ( he painted several of them ), mainly, because i LOVE autumn, but also because they remind me of spiderwebs, and that connects in my mind as a metaphor for the transcience of life. i've seen this painting with my own two eyes, and it was absolutely mesmerizing.
stylized flowers on decorative background, 1908.
another one that only develops its ingenuity when you look at the real thing hung up in a gallery. the stylized flowers start to glow fully when the light hits the golden and silver background. it is a rather three-dimensional painting and doesn't really work well on screen. i've never considered this one as striking before i saw it in schweinfurt on display. i totally fell in love with it then.
small tree in late autumn, 1911.
another autumn tree, another one of the paintings i have actually seen in real life. here i love the strong brushstrokes of the soil the tree is standing on and the grey/brown contrasts. i could actually stare at this painting all day long, it feels so soothing to me. schiele's landscape and nature paintings are actually very dark and hovering, gloomy and ominous. oftentimes you get the notion that the nature work he did was in fact a depiction of his state of mind.
chrysanthemums, 1910.
these were also embroidered with gold pigments and looked way better in reality than they will look on screen. i really like how reticulate and ramiform the chrysanthemums are.
.bonds.
squatting couple ( the family ), 1918.
this painting is one of the very last ones egon schiele worked on ( it was never finished ), and it carries with it a realization that makes me quite sorrowful when looking at it. the family you see here is schiele himself with his wife edith and her nephew toni, and you get the feeling that the artist wanted to sort of manifest a reality with it, probably envisioning his personal idyllic future. egon schiele wouldn't be egon schiele, though, if he didn't hide any symbolism inside it. though we will never know what actual intent there was behind this painting, it can be said that it implies a strange forboding. the way the father leans a little bit away from mother and child into the darkness, creating a separateness. how the mother looks into the distance with eyes that are incredibly sad and reminiscing. the child full of curiousity, but holding to its mother's leg as if it doesn't want to leave her side, despite the strange things going on outside of the picture.
and now, looking at the date of the painting's creation, you will realize that it was the year when egon schiele and his pregnant wife both died of the spanish flu, turning this into a tragic last masterpiece. this painting both shows a possible future, and an untimely ending, which i think is incredible, as if schiele unknowingly knew that the idyll he was painting would stay one and never come to fruition. he painted it as a means of a more hopeful future ( the first world war had just ended ), but it's like he unconsciously ( or consciously? we don't know when the last time was he worked on it, whether he was already sick or not ) added the more sorrowful details as if he knew what was coming. the implications of that are incredible, no matter from which point of view you look at it. for some this piece might be that of a visionary seeing into the future, for others it's just a tragic idyll that egon schiele never got to experience. there's also the possibility that he just wanted to paint the holy family in his own distinctive style, which is also not too far-fetched as he often incorporated themses of spirituality and religion in his work.
i've once seen this painting during a tour inside a law office that resides in one of the many wilhelminian villas here in wiesbaden. i don't know if it was the real deal, a real schiele or just a reproduction, but that didn't deflect from fact that it made an impression on me. i hadn't known the painting prior to my discovery, but when my eyes detected it, it was love at first sight.
the embrace ( lovers II ), 1917.
the embrace is one of those paintings that shoots an arrow right through your heart and emblazes a spark in your brain! it is such an intimate and heartfelt picture, full of tenderness and trustfulness. it doesn't need a lot of words, it's just self-explanatory right from the moment you look at it and for me at least, it's an image that will never leave my mind. even though schiele's art was very promiscuous and often called pornographic, this painting is exactly the opposite of that. it shows two people in an innermost embrace, and though quite voyeuristic through the bird's eye view, it doesn't feel like one should be ashamed by watching this couple, but actually blessed to be part of this wonderful moment of togetherness between two lovers.
death and the maiden, 1915.
another embrace, but this time completely different, offers 'death and the maiden'. it came into being during a time in which schiele had to grapple with himself, the reason being his life circumstances. he got to know his later wife edith, but was still in a relationship with wally neuzil, a young woman who served as his muse for quite a while. he had a hard time letting go of this girl, but since she was of low status she wasn't his ideal choice when it came to marrying. edith harms ( her maiden name ) was much more suitable to his taste. while this sounds like a classic misogynist excuse ( it is, BUT, it was a different time back then ), the painting shows how hard it was for him to make a decision. many critics say that it's wally you can see depicted here and i stand with that notion as well. the monk - or death? ( egon ) takes her into his arms, almost wanting to coalesce with her, but she still retains a certain distance, her hands not touching his back, but instead grabbing her fingers, her facial expression being somewhat weary and nervous, as if she is uncomfortable with the embrace. wally and egon had a last meeting before they parted ways, where he offered her to spend all his summer vacations with her, but she refused to partake in that, as it felt wrong and unjust ( respecting edith as an equal woman ) and she didn't think much of a love triangle and being a mistress. with this in mind you can understand her gaze and her posture much better. the knowledge of these personal details lets the painting speak a clear language, egon mourning a lost love, wally wanting to move on and away, because of the trauma of this particular relationship that ended so ungracefully.
you can also look at this painting differently. schiele was about to be conscripted into the army ( world war 1 was raging ) and he probably felt like he was doomed for death. maybe the girl is his soon-to be wife edith, which unfortunately does not explain her uncomfortable body language, though - so i still think it's wally. the impending war was also contributing to his gloom-mongering about probably never seeing her again, in case he would die in the war. he never had to fight actively in any combat during his time in the army, though - he had the privilege to always have benevolent superiors who would arrange things in a way so that he wouldn't 'waste his abilities' in combat. but still, at the beginning of his time in the army, everything was possible, so of course not knowing what was about to happen with him definitely fed into his mindset and would therefore contribute to the mood of the painting as well.
no matter who it is, wally or edith, either way, it is an embrace of farewell. and egon/the monk basically is synonymous with death here, giving the painting a tragic atmosphere. it also again, seems like a visionary foresight. wally neuzil died of scarlet fever in 1917, only a few months after she moved away from vienna to croatia to serve as a nurse in the war.
.spirituality.
dead mother I, 1910
one of the best paintings of egon schiele is definitely the dead mother. i never can decide whether i find it utterly beautiful and gorgeous or tragic and harrowing. a dead -looking and dark mother enveloping a baby ( it's still intrauterine, inside the womb ) that radiates vitality, that in itself makes you wonder what is going on there. even though the painting weighs on you heavy - it is a rather depressive one - there's also something about it, that's strangely endearing and tender. egon did not have a good relationship with his mother, he found her unloving and cold and unemotional. she had suffered through several miscarriages during her marriage to his father ( the reason behind this was probably the fact that his father had syphillis and she contracted it and infected some of her children who either died before birth, or were stillborn or contracted the disease in later years ). i think that alone must've been highly traumatic for her and probably made her a depressed woman, not able to give her surviving children more attention and the love they all deserved. schiele thought that his mother purposefully withdrew from her children, which i think of as pretty unfair of him, especially when you know what the real reason was. the connection to his mother even worsened when his father died of the aforementioned illness, he blamed her for not mourning enough for his father that he loved so much and had such an elevating image of. in this light, the painting seems rather awful, a mother he deemed as death-giving. but then you look at the tender details - despite her looking ill and sad, she stills holds the baby in an embrace that is loving, her head tilted toward the child, the hand holding the bundle tight. this is the stuff that makes you feel something. because i see that there is love, but this love can't break through the black substance that is enveloping the baby. for me, the black substance embodies the depression of the mother. her gaze tells me, she would like to love her baby, this glowing thing full of life and zest and blood and colour, but her trauma prevents her from breaching that barrier in her head.
self-seers II ( death and man ), 1911.
the final painting is one that impressed me immensely when i laid eyes on it in reality. ( i mean, most of schiele's work leaves a heavy impression on you, whether you like his work, or not ). the self-seers is almost abstract compared to other schiele paintings and drawings. for once, the way the colours are applicated on the canvas is chaotic, wild, extensive, which of course is often the case with schiele's art, but here it looks uncoordinated and almost accidental. the figures also look disassembled ( notice the hand that reaches up from nowhere or the hand that seems to be missing, and, yes, THE EYES- there are none, only holes ). also, the figures look shadowy, blurred, almost ghost-like, something that's not typical for schiele, after all his art is known to depict humanness and personhood, even if it is sometimes crooked and raw and violated. the self-seers to me are so absolutely alien and unreal and that's what's making the painting so interesting and gravitating. the self-seers show two men, one more corporeal, the other one more ghost-like, in some kind of embrace. i talked about egon schiele's father in the painting before this, how he had a very high image of him, almost as if he was some kind of raised entity and i think the ghost figure might be his father. schiele was greatly interested in occultism and spiritualistic ideas and it just feels like he basically wanted to create a memento mori for him with this. my perception is that the ghost embraces his son, stabilizing him, keeping him grounded ( it could also mean that he doesn't want to let go of him, lest he would become inexistent through forgetting ).
there's a second interpretation of this painting, one that is equally important and that i view as synonymous with the first, creating a unity. the painting is called self-seers, because it's also egon looking at egon, real person looking at ghost person, self looking at self. death for egon schiele was alway tightly connected to life, one could not exist without the other and is inherently important to comprehending life. there's something extrasomatic going on here, as if he went through an out of body experience, or as if he created an astral body for himself. the fact that the eyes of these figures are not there, more looking inwards than outwards, it is also indicating something more spiritual going on here. you could view the embrace as a formation of interconnection now, death being part of life. so this piece is definitely more deeply profound in another way than just as a father/son projection. it is completely self-reflective.
i personally connect to this one the most, because often i feel like i am watching myself from out of my body, too, asking what i am doing, making sure i am not a ghost, but something actually living, existing. sometimes that makes me uncomfortable, other times i revel in it. i am a ghost of nature, but nature is real and so are its ghosts that promenade the earth. even after they are long dead, they still can make a profound impact on you, as the legacy of egon schiele proves time and time again.
maybe even i could be on of those ghosts, who knows? despite often thinking that my impact is miniature and unimportant, who knows who will find this article and read it and create a new way to see things differently, start a new approach just by using this as a reference?
and i can only agree with egon schiele on what he thought of life and death... death is life and life is death. and that's what his art embodies to me, this exact realization.
Everything is dead while it lives.
- egon schiele
Comments