Illustration: Friedrich Wilhelm Kleukens. Esther, c1910.
Friedrich Wilhelm Kleukens was a German graphic designer and typographer who produced a particularly strong series of graphic pieces during the early part of the twentieth century. Although not obviously textile based, graphic design work does use many of the principles of textile design, particularly within the realm of surface pattern and in this particular period of the early twentieth century, there was a concerted attempt to blur the lines between art, architecture and the applied and decorative arts. Therefore, it was perhaps logical for disciplines that could easily accommodate each other, to do so.
The three pieces of work shown in this article are all by Kleukens and were produced around about 1910. What is particularly interesting about all three pieces is the level of pattern involved in the layout. There is no white or dead space allowed, all border areas being dominated by a repeat motif, so much so that in many respects the figurative illustration itself can be seen to be dwarfed, floating on a sea of repeat pattern.
These immaculately conceived and executed graphic pieces of work show the detailed skill that Kleukens used to illustrate particular ideas and observations concerning the specific work they were to represent. He has no area uncommitted and has produced work that fills the frame with variety, detail and a sense of dynamism, features that keep the observant eye interested in all aspects of the worked area and not just the central theme.
Illustration: Friedrich Wilhelm Kleukens. Goethe's Hermann und Dorothea, c1910
Although commercial graphics and illustration by its very nature, has a duty to convey the meaning, message or ideal of a company, event or writer, it is interesting how often this remit can be individually and personally interpreted by the graphic artist and illustrator. Some artists followed the line very closely, while others were seemingly so obscure as to make the reference to the intended work seem disassociated, with the work then becoming much more associated with the name of the artist. It is sometimes very hard not to wander from the theme, expanding individual creativity at the expense of the client. However, Kleukens seems to have hit the right balance with a contemporary evaluation that is both individual and therefore addresses his own creative path, the sensibilities and expectations of a contemporary audience, as well as being suitably aware of the intended reference points of the work he was to illustrate.
Interestingly, although the figurative work shown in the three pieces does correspond significantly to the Jugendstil version of the larger Art Nouveau movement, there is also an element that pre-figures the early Art Deco period, particularly the European highly decorative version. This is not to say that artists such as Kleukens were founders of the Art Deco movement as such, but it is important to remember that successive movements often have their predecessors to thank for their initial juvenile phases. We tend to see Art Nouveau and Art Deco as particularly separate decorative periods largely as a result of the First World War being a convenient breaking period between the two. However, if the war had not happened then the shift from Art Nouveau to Art Deco would have appeared to be much more organic in nature and the point where one style ended and other began would have been much more difficult to pinpoint.
Illustration: Friedrich Wilhelm Kleukens. Hohe Lied, c1910.
At any rate, Kleukens three graphic pieces would have been considered by 1910 to be a little late for fully blown Art Nouveau pieces and therefore could be seen, to a certain extent at least, as transition pieces, moving away from the more obvious accoutrements of Art Nouveau or Jugendstil. That these pieces should also be seen as individual to Kleukens and his mastery of the graphic arts should also be accepted. The creativity of the individual artist should always be laid above that of a particular decorative style or movement, and although there is no reason why a particular artist or designer should not be associated with a given period, they should perhaps not be entirely submerged within that decorative period. In the same way, many contemporary artists, designers and crafts people would not wish to be subsumed within a generalised contemporary decorative movement, but would wish for at least a modicum of individual creative freedom and original distinctiveness. That this is clearly the case for Kleukens, seems a forgone conclusion.
Further reading links:
