Hamburg Germany  - September, 1997

Being in Germany, I would by necessity miss my second art class. But all was not lost in terms of art, because I had an opportunity to complete my required museum visit, and Germany is a wonderful place to experience art. I visited an array of museums and churches, all of which could serve to provide an experience of original art from every age. In just over a week, I visited at least a dozen major "Doms", four museums, Rathauses, and other forms of architecture. In a city like Hamburg, which was almost totally destroyed during World War II, one has the chance to experience reconstructed, restored, and original art side by side. The good news is that much art was stored and protected during the war. The bad news is that much art was destroyed along with the ancient buildings that housed it. In most cases it does not take an expert to distinguish restored, reconstructed, and original art. In cases like the columns in a Gothic church, modern technology cannot compete with medieval patience, attitude towards time, and cheap labor, so the hand fitted stone joints are usually reconstructed as concrete with painted-on joints. In other less obvious cases the original art has a "feel" to it that is hard to explain and yet it is almost obvious. I visited two art museums in downtown Hamburg that housed ancient art, the Museum of Arts and Crafts and the Hamburger Kunsthalle. I have chosen to write on the visit to the Hamburger Kunsthalle, which houses art from some of the churches that were destroyed during the war.

The most unique work in the Gallery is that of Master Bertram, who was the earliest German painter whose name and work are known and confirmed by written sources. Since Hamburg may be the only place in the world where one can see an original Bertram, it seems appropriate to concentrate this study on his work. I will compare his work with that of later artists who are also represented in the Kunsthalle. From 1367 until his death in 1415, Bertram’s name appears in Hamburg documents more often than that of any other painter. From 1373 on, he is described as a Master, and in 1410 he was Elder of the Office of Painting. His workshop was the most prominent one of its time in Hamburg. So I must conclude that Bertram was a respected artist of the time. A quick check in art history books in the United States and an Internet search turned up a blank for me. This leads me to conclude that Bertram does not enjoy the fame of many other medieval painters outside Germany. I therefore relied only on the materials that I collected while at the Kunsthalle, most of which were in German.

The most spectacular piece in the museum is the High Alter of St. Peter’s Church (See Figure in Appendix). This magnificent altarpiece has an intriguing history. Produced by Bertram in 1383, the polyptich has three different aspects. that open up to 180 by 720 centimeters. It is a combination of oil on wood and wood sculpture. On normal days, only the painted outer wings were opened, while the innermost shrine was only seen on major feast days. St. Peter’s Church, the oldest church in Hamburg, dating to the twelfth century, was the main church of Hamburg in the sixteenth century. The church has had an extremely difficult life, having been destroyed more than once. After a fire nearly destroyed it in 1731, the City Church of Grabow acquired the altarpiece. The wings were removed and painted over during the baroque period and were used in a different part of the church. The front panels that covered the altarpiece were apparently discarded. For nearly two hundred years the original altarpiece was forgotten. While researching the works of Bertram, Friedrich Schlie, a Hamburg art patron, traced them to Grabow in 1900. At the time, the Kunsthalle’s first director recognized the importance of the piece and began negotiations to purchase it for the museum. During the process, he, quite by accident, discovered the panels, which had long since been dissociated from the altarpiece, and being of Baroque style, were no longer remembered as belonging with it. After purchasing all of the parts he had the panels restored by removing the baroque painting and reassembled them with the altarpiece. The cover panels were never recovered.

When approaching this piece one experiences the same type of awe as when entering the Sistine Chapel and seeing the incredible work of Michaelangelo on the ceiling. The sheer number of paintings and sculptured figures and the amount of detailed work that went into the piece are enough to leave one with a certain amount of inspiration. In the first open position, 24 painted panels can be seen. The continuing narration, symbolizing the entire Christian concept of history was probably designed by a knowledgeable theologian. Time goes from left to right and top to bottom with God creating the world in the upper left panel. God creates light, the world, animals and plants in the first five panels and Adam in the sixth panel. In the next few panels the temptation occurs and Eve eats the forbidden fruit in panel twelve. The next long time period is represented by the patriarchs Noah, Abraham, and Isaac. Abraham agrees to kill his son in God’s name but is halted by an angel. Noah builds an arc. Moses receives the Ten Commandments. The lasts six scenes represent the childhood of Christ. In the lower right panel the three Magi present the Christ child with gold, frankincense, and mur.

The style of Bertrams’s paintings is similar to the 14th century Bohemian art. The images have a somewhat flat appearance, partially due to the gold background. There is a blend of dimensions, with many of the figures appearing partially three-dimensional and partially two-dimensional. In the Admiration of the Magi, for example, one can see a blend of skills both developed and immature. The faces of the people and Mary’s cloak are brilliantly done, although the faces are a bit large for the bodies. The crowns, which one would assume are easy to paint, appear flat and unconvincing, as though they don’t belong. Notice the perspective in the floor. This perspective is not an accurate linear perspective and is not used as effectively as in later years. The multiple vanishing points are located in the bottom third of the picture with none of them being centered on anything important. Because of the obvious skills demonstrated by Bertram in these pictures one can conclude that he is using some abstraction and symbolism. Or one could conclude that he is just not very good at painting. Being the most important painter, one would expect him to have been considerably talented. But then we are not totally sure what a talented artist in the twelfth century was really trying to accomplish. Maybe reality was not one of the main goals.

There are a number of striking features in Bertram’s work, some of which follow convention and some of which are unique. One example of convention is the absence of a penis on the Christchild. Many painters chose to represent Christ as being above the need for a penis as though Christ had no need to be sexed at all. Unfortunately, this subject is usually avoided in today’s discussion of religious painting so much of the significance is missed. The church has evolved to associate sex with evil to such an extent that Christ could not own a penis because that would have made him evil. And then today, a discussion of Christ’s penis would not be politically correct, so this aspect of ancient religious painting will continue to be largely ignored.

Bertram’s treatment of haloes is interesting in these pictures. His haloes are transparent and they contain intricate details. God’s halo is made up of several rings of golden lacework. The haloes of Mary and the Christchild are made up of rings of golden beads. Bertram’s treatment of Eve is somewhat puzzling. Her proportions are incorrect showing oversized hands, and a more male like body with almost no breasts. An over sized finger points to the serpent who has persuaded her to taste of the forbidden fruit. Why does Bertram’s eve have no breasts, a short thick neck, a head that is 20% too large, and hair that looks like a wig. Take an apple and attempt to hold it in the position Eve holds it. It is not possible. I would conclude that Bertram completed this entire picture without using a model. Perhaps it was okay to depict a nude eve but not okay to use a contemporary nude model for a religious work of art. Or perhaps, as contemporary interpretations explain, Bertram deliberately avoided an accurate likeness, since that would have been too pagan and sacrilegious.

The second open position reveals a heavenly host divided into several areas including Apostles, prophets, martyrs and virgins standing under filigreed curtains. This view includes intricate carvings that give the piece and incredible richness and beauty. One can make no mistake that this artist has put his mind, body, soul, and many hours of painstaking labor into this work.

It is interesting to compare Bertram’s paintings with those of later artists that can be seen in the Kunsthalle. In particular, the treatment of women by different artists through several centuries tells an interesting story about society. Forty years later (1424) Master Franke painted an altarpiece for the St. Thomas Church, oil on wood, also displayed by the Kunsthalle. This piece is equally important from a historical point of view, containing the earliest surviving depiction of the murder of St. Thomas of Canterbury. In England, the king had the power to cover up this murder and probably destroyed anything that commemorated such a shameful deed. But in Germany, such a painting could survive. Franke seems to have developed a more polished skill than Bertram. His linear perspective is quite accurate with vanishing point located on the soldier who is about to strike the fatal blow. On the other hand his halo for St. Thomas is simple with no design, just a golden bubble around his head.

Franke paints a Mary that bears a striking resemblance to that of Bertram. Perhaps he had the benefit of Bertram’s painting to begin with. However, the resemblance stops after the face. Franke seems much more imaginative than Bertram. I have the impression that he was also a much more skilled artisan than Bertram, paying much more attention to details. Here, Mary’s halo is made up of golden rays of light that give her radiant energy. . The depiction of the birth of Christ departs from pictorial tradition. Franke was one of the first to illustrate the vision of St. Bridget of Sweden instead of the biblical text. Bridget had a vision of the Virgin Mary in the Grotto of Christ’s Birth in Bethlehem in which the child lies naked and shining on the ground. The heavens opened and God sent down golden rays upon his newborn son. Franke incorporates speech in his painting by streaming banners from the mouth of the virgin. "Dominus, meus, deus meus". Even the small angel in the background advises the shepherds of Christ’s birth through the same symbolism by proclaiming "Gloria in excelsis deo". Franke breaks with the traditional golden background and instead uses a star studded red background. This picture is extremely rich in symbolism.

About a century later (1559) Jan Massys painted "Flora", which is an oil painting on wood. This painting is believed to portray Flora, the goddess of spring and flowers, as the goddess of all lust. This is an extremely sensuous picture of a very sexy woman, leading me to believe it may be of almost photographic realism. Clearly, Massys had to use a model for this picture. The perfect detail from Flora’s voluptuous breasts, observed through a transparent gown, to the petals of the flowers she holds in her hands are the result of a highly skilled artist. This picture would qualify for the foldout in a Playboy magazine if characterized in terms of idealized feminine display. Interestingly enough, if this picture were painted today, it would not be acceptable to hang in the Kunsthalle. It is interesting to continue on with how later artists depicted women and what they could and could not get accepted by the community of the day.

An interesting example is "Nana" painted almost life sized by Manet about 300 years later (1877), and which also hangs in the Kunsthalle. Realizing that "Flora" was considered a fine work of art from the beginning, one might wonder why "Nana" was considered so controversial that it was refused by the Salon in Paris as being too prurient and unconventional. Flora was characterized as a goddess and nude goddesses were considered culturally acceptable; I guess they still are. But it was not okay to paint a nude ordinary woman or for that matter a young lady dressed in underclothes, conservative as they look to us today. To make matters worse, Manet places an older gentlemen just at the edge of the picture looking on, a definite "no-no". There is some speculation that Manet added this gentleman later as an afterthought, but, in fact, Manet often used this technique of have half a character in the picture. Manet was here depicting the heroine of Zola’s novel of the same name, standing in front of a mirror. The lady looks down upon the viewer as if to say, "What’s wrong? Are you jealous of the man on the couch?" The man on the couch seems quite content with his position as he enjoys her every move. Manet was absolutely magnificent in his ability to shake up the establishment with these kinds of paintings.

We are badly in need of a politically incorrect Manet for the twentieth century, who can paint the women that men love to look at today, get them rejected from the Art Museums only to be recognized as true works of art in the next century. Edgar Degas was such an artist. Among his works in the Kusthalle is "Vor dem Spiegel" (At the Dressing Table) painted in 1889. I wish Degas had come along now instead of the end of the nineteenth century. Instead, we got De Kooning…….ugh!

About 15 years later (1904), Henry Rousseau painted Eve again in a stylized fashion that is reminiscent of Bertram’s original work. Here we have come full circle with a painting that in my opinion should not be allowed to take up the valuable Kusthalle wall space. Even the snake looks like a cartoon. Eve has a rather grotesque profile with a huge nose, hair that looks like a mop, and a tummy that looks like she had already been eating too much fruit, or maybe that Adam had figured out how to sin months before eating the fruit. Although we are looking at a profile, one breast stares clumsily straight out at us. Whether Rouseau used a model here is questionable, but I would doubt it. Horrible painting; I much prefer Bertram’s "Eve".

Return to Top