Sabine Brantl: The “Haus der Deutschen Kunst” [House of German Art] as a Commercial Enterprise

H

a

s der k

u

u

n

s

t

Sabine Brantl The “Haus der Deutschen Kunst” [House of German Art] as a Commercial Enterprise Lecture given on October 20, 2010, in Haus der Kunst on the occasion of the activation of the GDK Research database

Stiftung Haus der Kunst München, gemeinnützige Betriebsgesellschaft mbH PrinzregentenstraSSe 1 80538 Munich, Germany +49 89 21127 113 mail @ hausderkunst.de www.hausderkunst.de Director and Managing Director: Okwui Enwezor Financial Director: Marco Graf von Matuschka Chairman of Supervisory Board: Minister of State Dr. Wolfgang Heubisch

The House of German Art (Haus der Deutschen Kunst) was designed

by Adolf Hitler’s favorite architect, Paul Ludwig Troost, for the presentation of contemporary “German” art and was the first architectural showpiece project of Nazi propaganda. With its annual staging of the Great German Art Exhibitions [Grosse Deutsche Kunstausstellungen] the building became the central stage and symbol of official, state-directed art in the Third Reich. The exhibitions themselves were regarded as the most important showcases of German art.

These aspects – the building’s history and the functional determination of the House of German Art, as well as art and culture in the Nazi system in general – have already been the focus of research and more or less adequately explored. Largely ignored, however, has been the question of how the House of German Art was structured until the end of the Second World War. How did the exhibition operation function organizationally and economically behind the facade of art, power, and propaganda? Before we present the GDK Research database, which focuses on the Great German Art Exhibitions, we will first take a look at the House of German Art’s organizational form, its advertising strategies and economic circumstances, as well as at its accounting records. This is because my statements are based on the House of German Art’s annual reports, accounts, and accounting records. The accounting records for the years 1938 to 1944 can also be found in the database. Based on these sources, the Great German Art Exhibitions can be examined and analyzed for the first time in their entirety under the aspect of the art market.

Organization On June 19, 1933, under the aegis of the then-interior minister and Gauleiter (regional National Socialist party leader) Adolf Wagner, an institution was established under public law and was called the House of German Art – in parentheses “New Glass Palace”. As a public institution, the House of German Art fulfilled one of its legally stipulated public duties, but was organized as an independent economic operation. It had its own assets and budget and the right to hire its own employees. A statute passed in mid-July 1933 defined the purpose and goals of the institution, which were essentially “the establishment

S

t

r

e

t

c

h

y o u r

V

i

e

w

H

a

u

s d e r kunst

and administration of an art exhibition building that continued in the tradition of Munich’s Glass Palace”, as well as “the organization of exhibitions”.1 The institution’s executive management and legal representation were the responsibility of the board of directors, and appointed as its chairman was the Munich banker August von Finck, who opened this position up to useful links to the Nazi leadership. As chairman, Finck appeared as a speaker at annual gatherings, at the House of German Art’s groundbreaking ceremony, and at the opening of the Great German Art Exhibitions. Above all, however, he collected the necessary funds to build the structure – which cost a total of 9 million Reichsmark to complete – from members of the German economic and industrial establishment. Nonetheless, August von Finck had no influence over artistic issues – but all the more so did Adolf Hitler, the patron of the House of German Art, to whom the building was dedicated in accordance with Paragraph Three of the aforementioned statute. His voice was decisive in selecting the works shown in the Great German Art Exhibitions. Here the statesman became the artistcurator who, as with his cynical political actions, turned his own ideas and standards into law.

Hitler’s personal photographer, Heinrich Hoffman, also played a central role in the selection of works. Following a preview of the first Great German Art Exhibition in early June 1937, Hitler appointed Hoffman commissioner of the annual exhibitions.2 He was supported by Gerdy Troost, the widow of Paul Ludwig Troost, who had died in 1934, and Karl Kolb, the director of the House of German Art. In 1934, the then 40-year-old Kolb was appointed manager of the House of German Art by its board of directors.3 Helped by a “small group of employees”,4 he initially was responsible for daily administrative tasks related to the construction of and fundraising for the exhibition building. Kolb, who until 1933 had held a similar position at the Bavarian Aviation Association, must have been very successful at this job. With the opening of the House of German Art on July 18, 1937, he was promoted to managing director and exhibition director. As “lord of the manor”, Kolb soon acquired a position of power within artists’ circles. Under Hitler’s authority, he regularly visited the studios of painters and sculptors in search of new talent.

In contrast, Ottmar Endres, who had been employed at the House of German Art since December 1936 as its sole art historian, enjoyed far less influence. Following his studies in Zurich and Munich, where he earned his PhD in 1934 with a paper entitled “Architecture of the Asam Brothers”, the son of the nationalist publicist Fritz Endres had most recently been employed at the Bavarian Army Museum. At the House of German Art, Endres was responsible for managing and designing the exhibition catalogues.5 An average of 50 to 60 employees worked at the House of German Art, nearly half of them in the manual and technical area or as attendants. During exhibition-free periods, this – male – segment of the workforce was responsible for setting up and taking down the Great German Art Exhibitions and providing assistance during the assessment of the submitted works. In accordance with traditional

S

t

r

e

t

c

h

y

o

u

r

V

i

e

w

Haus d

e

rk u n s t

gender roles, the female employees worked primarily as secretaries and sales help. They were responsible for meticulously recording the seemingly countless number of paintings and sculptures submitted each year and documenting their acceptance or rejection and for handling sales. Accurately labeled index cards and accounting records, as well as several Continental-brand typewriters that have survived in the Haus der Kunst’s Historical Archive, still testify to this world of order and bureaucracy. Nearly one in three employees was a member of the NSDAP.6

Advertising Strategies The high number of clerks alone makes it clear that the operation of the House of German Art was organized as an art fair, and not as a museum or collection. Regarded as the predecessors of the Great German Art Exhibitions, the collective shows in the Glass Palace – destroyed by fire in 1931 – were also sales exhibitions. So was the entire project of the House of German Art, which, with its advertising strategy, attempted to embed itself in the tradition of the “art city of Munich.”

For the groundbreaking ceremony the former plaster artist, Richard Klein, designed a poster that was distributed not only in Germany, but was also sent to all branches of German businesses abroad for advertising purposes. Klein, who was completely attuned to the Nazi view of art and soon became one of Hitler’s esteemed artists, based his design on a symbolic motif: the head of the goddess Pallas Athena, which had been considered the symbol of the “art city of Munich” since the creation of the world-famous Munich Secession poster by Franz von Stuck in 1893. The motif, which was embellished with an eagle, a burning torch, and a wreathed swastika and was intended to symbolize the “intimate connection between art and the power of the new state”,7 had such a forceful effect that it went on to be employed as the House of German Art’s “corporate logo”. Used on everything from stationery, leaflets, posters, and catalogues, it characterized the public image of the exhibition house. This strategy of a uniform image still conforms to the classic principles of advertising and marketing. At the same time, Pallas Athena also became the image used in advertisements for the Day of German Art, a three-day event, which, until 1939, was staged each year by the district administration of Munich-Upper Bavaria to celebrate the opening of the annual Great German Art Exhibition.

Additionally, the emblem adorned the cover of the definitive Nazi art magazine, “Die Kunst im Dritten Reich” (Art in the Third Reich) that had been published since 1937, reaching a circulation of 50,000 at its peak. The publication was also sold in the House of German Art. Its richly illustrated articles about the Great German Art Exhibitions also proved to be a reliable instrument of popularization, as did the countless reports in the daily newspapers. Yet, the state-controlled media campaigns were not limited to printed matter. There was also a

S t r e t c h

y

o

u

r

V

i

e

w

H au s d e r k

u

n

s

t

focus on attracting cinema advertising and moving images, which Joseph Goebbels admitted had a very special significance “in winning over the broadest stratum of people”.8 As early as 1934, one of the first “image films” – produced by the Bavaria Film AG – about the House of German Art was shown in Munich’s Ufa Palast. Reports on the openings of the Great German Art Exhibitions were an integral feature of German newsreels at the time. In addition, the Nazi propaganda leadership commissioned the director and cinematographer Walter Hege to make several longer movies about these shows, the last film being made in 1943. Thus, during the war, the openings of the Great German Art Exhibitions became not only art and political media events of the Nazi state, but also were stylized as “proof of the enduring strength of German cultural life during the war,” as one speaker remarked in 1940 in a contribution to a weekly newsreel.9 Significantly, operations in the House of German Art were conducted without restrictions during the Second World War. In February 1945, as Germany lay in ruins and the war had already been lost, Hitler ordered preparations for another Great German Art Exhibition. The Nazi leadership’s senseless “policy of perseverance” now demanded that the House of German Art employees also take part in “total war” efforts. Accordingly, “the number of employees [was to] be drastically reduced” and “only the truly creative, and thus irreplaceable, workers retained.”10 As is well known, this never came to pass.

Visitors From its opening in July 1937, the House of German Art was always very popular. On average, the Great German Art Exhibitions held between 1937 and 1943 attracted 600,000 visitors annually.11 Even the eighth and final Great German Art Exhibition, which opened on July 28, 1944, had received about 80,000 visitors by November 26, 1944. Thereafter, only sporadic counts were made. The largest crowds were recorded on Sundays and in the summer months, Munich’s high season for tourism.

On “record days” nearly 13,000 people shuffled through the House of German Art’s halls. The exhibition in 1942 was the best-visited: during an exhibition period of 34 weeks, the show attracted nearly 850,000 visitors. The lowest numbers were for the Great German Art Exhibition of 1939, which attracted just 420,000 visitors due to the significant decrease in interest in the weeks following the outbreak of war.

How are these figures to be evaluated in comparison with the number of visitors to other exhibition halls and museums? Here are some examples: In 1938, 455,325 people flocked to the Great German Art Exhibitions; in contrast, the Bavarian State Painting Collections, i.e. the Old and New Pinakothek, and the New National Gallery, tallied a total of just 212,234 visitors;12 in the Bavarian National Museum 54,400 tickets were sold.13 Even the Great Exhibitions in the Glass Palace, which were a tourist magnet in the “art city of Munich”, had only attracted approximately. 300,000 visitors annually at their peak. The House

S t r e t c h

y

o

u

r

V

i

e

w

H

a

s der k

u

u

n

s

t

of German Art also performed well in international comparisons. The nineteenth Venice Biennale of 1932, with nearly 362,000 visitors, was the most visited until well into the postwar era.14 These figures suggest that the Great German Art Exhibitions had found acceptance in the mainstream. But did people, as Joseph Goebbels enthusiastically noted in his diary, actually “stride” with “raised heart through the wide spaces of the House of German Art with a true feeling of happiness because, finally, finally, after years of terrible ruin, German art had found its way back to itself”?15 Undoubtedly, a visit to the House of German Art was a must for any “national comrade”.

Accordingly, the various Nazi organizations’ trips to the “reviews of German art”16 – as the Great German Art Exhibitions were called in Third Reich terminology – were arranged and, therefore, massive audiences were reached that did not normally visit museums and exhibitions.

Additionally, the Great German Art Exhibitions were often mandatory for pupils and students. In an interview, the painter Maria Lassnig, born in Vienna in 1919, recalled “once being hauled like cattle to Munich”.17 Yet the shows were not only regarded as a cultural obligation. They also provided a form of distraction and entertainment with an art that was perceived as easy to comprehend. Many of the works were landscapes, rural idylls, still lifes, portraits and nudes. An ostensibly perfect world. At a time when daily life quickly became characterized by the threat of bomb attacks, public Nazi terror and reports of casualties on the front, the Great German Art Exhibitions served as an illusioncharged refuge from an increasingly terrible reality. Their regular staging was generally regarded as a sign of internal security and confidence.18 In addition, the House of German Art’s visitor numbers would also have benefited from the successive war-related relocation and closure of public art collections.

The regular admission price to the Great German Art Exhibitions was 50 cents. The tickets were sold in the central Hall of Honor at tables designed by Troost’s studio. Not only were tickets on sale here, but also exhibition catalogues, postcards and color prints produced by the publisher Heinrich Hoffmann, as well as press photographs and art magazines such as – also published by Hoffmann – the journal ”Kunst dem Volke” (Art for the People) and the previously mentioned “Kunst im Dritten Reich” (Art in the Third Reich).

These printed materials ensured not only a steady popularization of the presented works, but also provided the House of German Art with another way to increase sales; in the early years, every fourth or fifth visitor purchased an exhibition catalogue and, after early 1940, every second or third.19 The demand for postcards rose steadily. In 1937, nearly 70,000 were sold at a price of 20 pfennigs, and in 1941 more than 450,000, and the number continued to rise. In keeping with the House of German Art’s purpose, according to Hitler, “Führer pictures” were also for sale, but these were discontinued in 1940, probably due to lack of interest.20

S

t

r

e

t

c

h

y o u r

V

i

e

w

H

a

u

s d e r kunst

All together, the eight Great German Art Exhibitions recorded almost 4.5 million visitors, earning the House of German Art a total of just under 4.6 million Reichsmark – almost two-thirds of its total revenues.

Sales and Buyers Furthermore, a no less impressive total sum of 1.9 million Reichsmark was earned through the sale of exhibited paintings and sculptures. For its function as broker, the House of German Art retained ten percent of an artwork’s selling price, while the artists received the remaining 90 percent. From today’s perspective this ratio may seem quite generous; at the time, however, commissions of ten percent were common at sales exhibitions. Even the organizers of shows in the Glass Palace and at the Biennale in Venice took ten percent of a sale’s proceeds as commission.21 The prices of the works for sale at the Great German Art Exhibitions ranged from about 300 to 60,000 Reichsmark.22 Small sculptures and graphic art artworks were available for much less, sometimes for less than 100 Reichsmark; the monumental sculptures by Joseph Thorak, priced as high as 200,000 Reichsmark, were the most expensive works.

The sale prices were set by the artists themselves; however, when a price was “obviously too high”, the exhibition management reserved the right to “act in consultation with the Führer’s representative for the purpose of a price reduction”, as this action was called in the exhibition regulations, copies of which were available for 50 pfennigs in the House of German Art.23 On the other hand, the responsible parties may often have ensured that particularly works by the Führer’s favorite artists fetched unusually high prices, in the event that he had announced that “his” artists should live “like princes and not in garrets, as their romantic notions of being an artist probably envisions it.”24 Presented in the eight Great German Art Exhibitions were 12,550 works of sculpture, painting, and graphics, of which more than 7,000 were sold for a total amount of almost 19 million Reichsmark. The last purchase was made on April 24,1945, six days before American troops marched into Munich.25 Hence, supply had found its demand. It appears as if a market for contemporary “German” art was able to establish itself with the Great German Art Exhibition. It must be remembered, however, that the art available on the open market in Germany – after the condemnation and disposal of so-called degenerate art, as well as the vast liquidation of Jewish-owned galleries and auction houses – was isolated from the international art market and limited primarily to art that the Nazi regime had declared to be such. At the same time, as was to be expected, the top party leadership also dominated the market as buyers.

S

t

r

e

t

c

h

y

o

u

r

V

i

e

w

Haus d

e

rk u n s t

Beginning in 1938, the economic success of the Great German Art Exhibitions was precisely recorded in the House of German Art’s accounting books. The 16 bound books, as well as two boxes of loose index cards, which were stored unnoticed until 2004 in the basement of Haus der Kunst – today’s Historical Archive – contain not only information about the works sold, their prices and dates of sale, but also provide detailed insights into the identity of the buyers, who included Nazi Party leaders and their organizations, as well as institutions, companies and individuals. In contrast to the Glass Palace exhibitions, the Great German Art Exhibitions were relatively unimportant in the acquisition policies of public collections. Thus, in the accounting records from the period 1938 to 1944, purchases by only 19 museums are listed. The State Gallery of Munich (today’s Lenbachhaus) proved to be the most significant buyer among these, purchasing a total of 35,780 Reichsmark in artworks. The Heeresmuseum (Army Museum) in Vienna ranked second, spending 14,050 Reichsmark on exhibition artworks in 1943.

Based on the number of entries, the group “private individuals” was most strongly represented. In contrast to the practices of prominent party members, there were few repeat buyers among these people. Thus, of the 1,824 recorded names, only 155, the equivalent of 8.5 percent, made purchases at no less than two of the Great German Art Exhibitions.

Every eighth buyer was based in Munich,135 people gave Berlin as their place of residence, and 105 buyers came from Austria, which had become part of the German Reich following the Anschluss on March 15, 1938.

In addition, the accounting records include a buyer from Steffisburg in Switzerland in July 1939, and, in 1938, a buyer named Mrs. William Hill, probably visiting from England or the United States, who bought silver plaques worth 125 Reichsmark.

As with visitor numbers, the impact of war did not lead to any decline in sales.

On the contrary, artworks with a total value of 75,000 Reichsmark were bought by 126 individuals at the Great German Art Exhibition in 1938; three years later, 413 buyers purchased exhibits with a total value of 575,000 Reichsmark. There was now also a demand for works with fourdigit prices. For example, the painting “Holzarbeit” (Woodwork) by Max Bergmann was bought by a private buyer in 1942 for 6,000 Reichsmark.

By the end of 1939 this trend had also become apparent in the general art market and was to continue in the coming years.26 At a time when industry was fully geared toward war production and consumption, goods were becoming increasingly rare, the need to invest in art intensified, as it promised a steady increase in value. These intensified buying patterns consequently led to higher prices.

Thus, in the 1940s it was no longer uncommon to encounter paintings costing 20,000 Reichsmark or more at the Great German Art Exhibitions.

Such works were now being sold in the same price range as excellent pieces by nineteenth-century German masters. These high-priced exhibits were generally by artists who were extremely popular with the highest

S t r e t c h

y

o

u

r

V

i

e

w

H au s d e r k

u

n

s

t

ranking party members. Given the repeatedly expressed confessions of leading Nazis on the importance of art and its particular ideological-identity function, it is not surprising that the small but powerful circle of Nazi leaders, Reich Ministers, Gauleiters and mayors constituted the best-funded clientele at the Great German Art Exhibitions. The total value of the works they purchased between 1938 and 1944 was almost 13 million Reichsmark. And nearly half of the purchases were made by Hitler alone; the accounting records list a total of 1,324 works with a total value of 6.8 million Reichsmark. In addition to numerous sculptures and graphic works, Hitler mainly bought oil paintings, helping himself to almost all the genres represented in the House of German Art exhibitions.27 The most highly prized exhibits purchased by Hitler were three paintings by the Werdenfelser painter Raffael Schuster-Woldan, each of which cost 60,000 Reichsmark in 1941; these included “Das Leben” (Life), a bombastic and allegorical representation – reminiscent of Titian and Lenbach – of the three stages of life that had already been exhibited in the Glass Palace in 1905.28 The least expensive purchase he made was the woodcut “König Heinrich” (King Heinrich) by Ernst von Dombrowski, which was sold for eight Reichsmark in 1938. Other impressions of the print were purchased by the German Labor Front, the Dresden District Air Command, the construction squad of the Naval Air Force Command in Kiel, and by an individual buyer from Hamburg. Such purchases were primarily intended to demonstrate the Führer’s inexhaustible patronage, which was aimed at directing and controlling national art, and was rarely connected to any specific use. Thus, “Die vier Elemente” [The Four Elements], a triptych

by Adolf Ziegler exhibited in 1937, was used as a programmatic wall decoration in the Führerbau in Munich; 144 exhibits were put to use as decorative objects in the extension of the Reich Chancellery in Berlin.

The majority of the exhibits, however, literally disappeared from the “market into the basement”. One “Depot Book of Paintings” alone recorded 827 oil paintings that had been stored in the House of German Art from 1941 to early 1944; eventually these were successively moved into the Führerbau in Munich and into the salt mines of Altaussee, where other spoils of Nazi art theft could also be found.29 Other members of the Nazi Party leadership spent significantly less.

Joseph Goebbels paid a total of nearly 1.2 million Reichsmark for 217 exhibited works, including “Bäuerliche Venus” (Rustic Venus) by Sepp Hilz, creator of voluptuous beauties and earthy village swains.30 Martin Bormann spent 900,000 Reichsmark on the purchases he made at the Great German Art Exhibitions, including 200,000 Reichsmark for the marble version of Joseph Thorak’s floating lovers “Francesca da Rimini”, which was exhibited in 1943 and a version of which was also purchased

by Albert Speer. Hermann Göring, who possessed the second largest art collection in the country, and Heinrich Himmler, in contrast, displayed less interest – their entire balance sheets amounted to just under 250,000 and 128,000 Reichsmark respectively. A detailed analysis of these purchases, for example with respect to motif-specific categories and preferences, will undoubtedly provide new insights into the art and acquisition policies of the Third Reich, including insights into

S t r e t c h

y

o

u

r

V

i

e

w

H

a

s der k

u

u

n

s

t

the complex personalities of the Nazi elite and their relationships to Hitler.

Concluding Observations In summary, it can be stated that – through Hitler’s efforts – the House of German Art as a commercial enterprise became the most important institution for contemporary art under the Nazis. As an “art critic”, Hitler made stipulations regarding the content and stylistic direction of the Great German Art Exhibitions and, hence, also their scope and impact on visitors. As a buyer, he spent almost unlimited sums, which influenced buying behavior at the party level, albeit in a subordinate financial framework. Thus, commissions generated from sales to Nazi officials and organizations alone constituted one-fifth of the House of German Art’s total revenues.

There were, however, also more than enough individuals, who, through their purchase of tickets, catalogs, reproductions and, to a lesser extent, artworks, enabled the enterprise to flourish. In 1948, when a financial statement and calculation report attested to an average annual profit of 700,000 Reichsmark for the House of German Art, this was largely thanks to its nearly 4.5 million visitors.31 Their motives for going to see the Great German Art Exhibitions may well have varied, from enthusiastic agreement with the Nazi state and their cultural policy to apolitical ideas of entertainment. Ultimately, these people, both as a group and as individuals, contributed to the House of German Art’s establishment and stabilization, which were just as much a part of the Nazi regime as was its inhuman repression and brutal violence.

The author has directed the Haus der Kunst’s Historical Archive since 2005. She is currently working on a dissertation on “The House of German Art as a Business Enterprise”.

S

t

r

e

t

c

h

y o u r

V

i

e

w

H

1

2

3

5 6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

S

a

u

s d e r kunst

Statutes for the House of German Art (New Glass Palace). Haus der Kunst, Historical Archive, HdDK 17.

See Jonathan Petropolous, Kunstraub und Sammelwahn. Kunst und Politik im Dritten Reich, Berlin 1999, p. 80, and Rudolf Herz, Hoffmann & Hitler, Munich 1994, p. 42.

Regarding Karl Kolb’s career, see Sabine Brantl, Haus der Kunst, Munich. Ein Ort und seine Geschichte im Nationalsozialismus, Munich 2007, p. 104 fn.4 Haus der Deutschen Kunst, Bericht über das Jahr 1935, (Munich 1936), p. 7. The House of German Art’s offices at this time were located at Maximiliansplatz 22.

See Brantl, also fn. 3, p. 105. cf. Index of employees / salaried employees of the House of German Art. Haus der Kunst, Historical Archive, HdDK 36 / 2.

According to the index of employees, 18 of a total of 56 employees who worked at the House of German Art until December 31, 1940, were members of the Nazi party. Three employees did not respond. Also, corresponding to the importance of the House of German Art in Nazi cultural policy, all strategically important positions, from caretaker to director, were filled with party members. a.h. (Alexander Heilmeyer), Die Künstler bei der Arbeit, in: Münchner Neueste Nachrichten, October 7, 1933. Haus der Kunst, Historical Archive, HdDK 54/2.

Cited by: Reiner Ziegler, Kunst und Architektur im Kulturfilm 1919-1945, Constance 2003, p. 243.

Opening of The Great German Art Exhibition in 1940, German newsreel No. 517 (1940), Federal Archives, Berlin.

Reich Ministry for Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda at the House of German Art, February 5, 1945. Haus der Kunst, Historical Archive, HdDK 50.

See Haus der Kunst 1937-1997. Eine historische Dokumentation, edited by Sabine Brantl, (Munich, 1997), p. 86.

Compilation of the number of visitors to the Bavarian State Painting Collections for the years 1932-1939, Bavarian State Painting Collections Archive, File No. 12/3. Thanks go to Dr. Andrea Bambi for her support during my research.

Statistisches Handbuch der Stadt München, ed. by the Statistisches Amt der Stadt München, Munich 1954, p. 230.

See Robert Fleck, Die Biennale von Venedig. Eine Geschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts, Hamburg 2009, p. 107.

Cited by: Mathias Schreiber, Ein Hauch von Todesnähe, in: Der Spiegel 25/2001, p. 160.

Otto Thomae, Die Propaganda-Maschinerie. Bildende Kunst und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit im Dritten Reich, Berlin 1978, p. 26.

Maria Lassnig über Leben. Interview with Holger Liebs, in: Süddeutsche Zeitung, 11./12./14.04. 2009, p. V1/8.

Heinz Boberach (ed.), Meldungen aus dem Reich. Die geheimen Lageberichte des Sicherheitsdienstes der SS 1938 – 1945, Volumes 1-17, Herrsching 1984. Here: Volume 5, p. 1485 and Volume 9, p. 3397.

t

r

e

t

c

h

y

o

u

r

V

i

e

w

Haus d

e

rk u n s t

19 See the audit reports of the House of German Art analyzed by

the author. Haus der Kunst, Historical Archive, HdDK 19.

20 Only 26 “Führer pictures” were sold at the 1940 “Great German

Art Exhibition”.

21 See Horst Ludwig, Kunst, Geld und Politik um 1900 in München,

Berlin 1986 and Fleck, fn. 14, p. 39.

22 The following statements are based on the information in the

accounting books of the House of German Art. Haus der Kunst,

Historical Archive, HdDK 24.

23 Great German Art Exhibition 1941 in the House of German Art in

Munich, Exhibition Rules, Regulation 37, Haus der Kunst,

Historical Archive, HdDK 34/2.

24 Arno Breker, Im Strahlungsfeld der Erinnerungen, Preussisch

Oldendorf 1972, p. 100.

25 Sale of the oil painting “Heller Tag” (Bright Day) by Josef

Steib (Catalogue No. A397) to a private individual for 5,000 Reichsmark.

26 See Angelika Enderlein, Der Berliner Kunsthandel in der Weimarer

Republik und im NS-Staat, Berlin 2006, pp. 127-154.

27 See Ines Schlenker, Hitler’s Salon, Bern 2007.

28 The painting was declared in the catalog as unsalable. The

owner of the painting was the City of Frankfurt, which sold it

to Adolf Hitler. The painting was delivered in 1942 to the

“Führerbau” on Munich’s Arcisstrasse and was confiscated

after the war by the Americans. Until 1998 it was stored in

the main customs office of the City of Munich; it is now part of

the permanent collection of the German Historical Museum in Berlin.

29 See Depot Book of Paintings, Haus der Kunst, Historical Archive,

HdDK 45/1.

30 Bought in 1939 for 15,000 Reichsmark.

31 Financial statement and calculation report on the Haus der

Kunst, 2.11.48, p. 2; private collection.

S t r e t c h

y

o

u

r

V

i

e

w