The Usually Awesome Vienna Blog

On one of our earliest tours in Vienna we had gone through the Belvedere area and admired its stunning Baroque (with a touch of Neo-classical) decor, but only today did we have a chance to get inside. I got at the site early and had a double-shot of espresso at the nearest cafe, and was totally ready for what I anticipated as a very, very long tour through further ages of art! At one time, this palace was the palace of Prince Eugene of Savoy, a wondrous place where he could admire the view of Vienna, muse over his victories, and hold balls (such as in the room pictured above, with its gorgeous ceiling). Now, those, it's been turned into a very impressive museum.

It's been two weeks since we went to the Kunsthistorisch Museum (see August 9), but in a lot of ways this place felt like a continuation of that tour. The KHM tour had mostly featured Renaissance and early Baroque art, while this place mostly specialized in the late Baroque and early Modern pieces.

Lighten Up

So, one of the more interesting rooms in the museum was just full of heads, like above. Frowning, pouting, squinting, puckering - all sorts of faces were being made by these realistic heads. It was unsettling, to say the least, but also awkwardly hilarious. And there's a story behind it.

These faces are called the "64 Canonical Grimaces" (though there were only about 40-something in the room), and were the creations of the 18th century sculptor Franz Xaver Messerschmidt. This guy mostly worked in Vienna, and by all means had success, but later in his years he began to fervently work on these strange, distorted heads.

Why? Well, he was suffering. He was possibly an undiagnosed paranoid-schizophrenic, and had been suffering from head pains and delusions. He took a great interest in the arcane and necromantic, to the point that he believed he was being visited and haunted by an ancient spirit late in the night, and the only respite from these visitations was to recreate the classic 64 Grimaces of the field of physiognomy in sculture-form.

Did it work? I dunno. But I've been feeling like there's something behind my shoulder for the past couple hours...

Good Ol' Prince Eugene

Left: Nice try. We know that's just you wearing a wig, Weird Al.

Okay, so that's actually Prince Eugene of Savoy, the man behind the Belvedere. I've been hearing about this guy all the time. He's one of Vienna's heroes. Has paintings everywhere. The entire street around this place is named after him.

See, when he was only in his early 20s, he was one of the main minds behind the defense of Vienna during its siege by the Ottoman Turks in 1683. This was just the beginning; for nearly forty more years he fought for the Holy Roman Empire - and mostly won. He's up there with Fred the Great of Prussia (though, perhaps a bit below him) in terms of military successes.

After the siege of Vienna was thwarted, Eugene spent the next few years further kicking Ottoman butt and regaining lost Hungarian territory. During the endless wars with France, he continually snatched victory - or at least a standoff - from certain defeat even when faced with superior numbers.

Also, he was reportedly very ugly and buck-toothed. But that's great, too. People made fun of his appearance only for him to wallop them in battle; what could be sweeter revenge?

Empress's New Groove (Sorry, that was terrible)

Onto the nineteenth century! Emperor Franz Josef ruled Austria-Hungry for 68 years, from 1848 (age 18) all the way to the middle of World War I. His wife was Empress Elisabeth, often called by her nickname, Sisi.

Naturally, the marriage between them was arranged, but was rushed even by royal standards: Josef was originally to marry her older sister, but took an interest in Sisi instead (she wasn't that into him). At 16, she was married to the 23 year old emperor.

Sisi lived the royal life of an Empress, but I don't think it would be a stretch to say she wasn't the happiest or stablest person. She was constantly obsessing over her appearance and weight - in fact, by modern psychological standards, she was most certainly anorexic and bulimic. She preferred to be sewn into her clothes rather than bear the imperfections of creases, and kept to a strict diet that often consisted of raw meat.

Also, Franz Josef gave her syphilis after contracting it on one of his unsuccessful Italian campaigns. Not only did this probably affect her mental health and marriage - it also made her infertile.

In 1889, her only son and heir to the Hapsburg throne Rudolf later killed himself and his lover in a hunting lodge (he also was possibly suffering from syphilis). After this, she distanced herself from public life even more.

Her end was not good. In 1898, an Italian anarchist stabbed her. It wasn't necessarily a fatal wound, but she refused to let her doctor remove her corset, such was her aversion to revealing her unprotected body. She bled to death over a few days.

See, now that we know the story, doesn't that make the painting of her so much more haunting? God, I love history.

Bonus: Empress Sisi apparently has a Princess Diana-like reputation in Vienna, with small museums dedicated to her and gift shops overflowing with touristy items featuring the Empress. Take from that what you will.

Make Home-Life Great Again

You know, I love learning about the big art movements - romanticism, baroque, rococo, neoclassicism, etc... But sometimes, it's the little cultural movements that really pique my curiosity.

Enter the Biedermeier era, the simultaneously progressive and nostalgic post-Napoleonic phase of the European middle-class. After decades of warfare had ended, the well-off urban families had plenty of time to think about themselves. Finally!

This was the art style of domesticity, plain and simple. You can see it in the art, at left. There was less of a focus on epic landscape scenes and historical depictions and romantic vistas and more of a liking for the cozy and homey, the quiet and proud. Individual portraits were replaced by groups of family. There was even... gasp... some depictions of genuine affection.

Take the painting below. It's a dad with his daughter and two sons, pretty much in repose. Chilling together. Loving each other. It's so... domestic. The father isn't some tall, distant patriarchal figure, but a loving dad, slouched over with his kids, enjoying their company, a slight smile on his face. And the kids are actually acting like kids - crawling around, hands grasping, playing with toys, and not looking exceedingly uncomfortable.

It was also pleasantly non-political. For the last century, everything in art and culture had become increasingly politicized. The concepts of the Enlightenment - which had been sheparded by the intellectual middle-class - basically were political values: equality, liberty, freedom, suffrage, democracy, republicanism, all that good stuff.

And during the times of war, whichever side you were on, the art reflected the battle with those values. People were fighting for more than just themselves - they were fighting for their nation! Nationalism, baby! Egalitie, forever! The success of the ideals of Athens and Rome, realized in a new century!

Then... poof. Biedermeier. Let's calm down with that revolutionn stuff. Let's not worry about the Enlightenment. Let's not worry about overarching humanistic values. Things became less universal and more personal. People didn't need to profess their love for the human race or republicanism - but they did profess their love for their family, their offspring, their own home.

It was a cozy way of life, and it set the general mood for post-Napoleonic Europe. The emerging middle class, bolstered by literacy and industrialization, could enjoy the quiet, comfy cult of domesticity, and be at peace.

Until the damn proletariat came along in the 1840s and screwed everything up.

Historical Comparisons

Learning about this period through its art really made me think about how culture becomes revolutionary and counter-revolutionary, progressive and reactionary. Things go in phases. It happened in 18th and 19 century Europe just like it happened in 20th century America.

Like, say the late Enlightenment Period and the Napoleonic Wars were parallel to the New Deal age and World War II. People recognized that a certain level of humanitarianism was necessary for the betterment of other human beings, and, one way or another, both wars helped this cause. After the Napoleonic Wars and after World War II, these values were more widespread than ever before (even though post-Napoleon, the Congress of Vienna tried to re-instate the status quo, there was no bringing back certain old-world concepts like serfdom).

In both cases, the post-war years were times of domesticity and peace. In the nineteenth century, it was this beidermeier period, and twentieth century America it was the good ol' fifties. The expanding middle class was allowed contentment, and politics took a backseat to peace and pleasure.

Then came the times of trouble, when the resentment and the inequality lying under these peace periods came to a boiling point. This was the 1840s and the 1960s-70s. In the former it was the proletariat; in the latter it was oppressed groups: blacks, gays, women. Wars were fought. Chaos set in.

But everything settled down, with some slight concessions. And a second period of peace appeared. For the nineteenth century Europe, it was the late-age of industrialization and commerce - the Gilded Age, as it was called in the USA. For the twentieth century America, it was the Republican Years - Nixon to Reagan and Bush. A new period of pleasure and calm for the reigning middle class, where they no longer had to worry about those darn oppressed groups and could just look forward to new technologies and good economy.

Now, in the nineteenth century Europe, this long period of peace eventually led up to World War I. In twentieth century America, what has it led up to? Or, rather, what is it going to lead up to?

Just food for thought.

Next.

beauty and the belvedere