A Description of Visual Concepts Associated with Hellenistic Sculpture

Nikolaus Geiger, sculptor, with architect Bruno Schmitz, Grabstätte Carl Hofmann, (Alter St.-Matthäus-Kirchhof Berlin), an example of late 19th. Century, German school of architecture, and sculpture monument incorporating a high level of content derived from Greek Hellenistic period influence. This stands in contrast to the majority of sculpture monuments during the 19th. Century that had declined in aesthetics, and content for much of Europe.

Above pictures of: Grabstätte Carl Hofmann, Architektur: Bruno Schmitz, Trauernde von Nikolaus Geiger, (Alter St.-Matthäus-Kirchhof Berlin), an example of late 19th. Century, German school of architecture, and sculpture monument incorporating a high level of content derived from Greek Hellenistic period influence. This stands in contrast to the majority of sculpture monuments during the 19th. Century that had declined in aesthetics, and content for much of Europe.

_________________________________________________________________

A Description of Visual Concepts Associated with Hellenistic Sculpture, Pg.1 Unfinished as of this posting:

All the content concerns here mentioned or presented with a cursory overview are meaningless without the best Early Greco-Roman, Greek Hellenistic, and Greek Classical sculpture as the primary source of study. There are many schools of later day nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first century sculpture that have dumbed down these content themes as a method of imposing artificial generic memorized inclusions to pretense content. This bastardized version of the below Greek sculpture derived content themes can be utilized when extracting from photographic sources solely, or in combination with cursory life-model use along with primarily photographic sources, or solely the life-model as the the source for the artwork. The vast majority of the second half of the nineteenth century art is a combination of cursory life-model use along with primarily photographic sources. Thus the bastardized method departing from the below descriptions of content in Greek sculpture has gained respect and admiration with multiple generations of artistic hacks that look back to photographically oriented art as their template and glory. The art since 1850 in all the venues including abstracted or highly stylistic venues departing from the obvious “realism” of photo extracted art is almost all an extraction from photographic sources or equating the same. One of the studios I studied in was and is well versed in this bastardized format of a simplified dumbed down extraction method. I was early on exposed to this retarded variant of the complex Greek sculpture derived issues described below here. The issues discussed below regarding correct elements of Greek sculpture content range beyond the simplistic concerns of Bauhaus, Bauhaus offshoots, and earlier content method contradictions. The description below also include much content subject not addressed in Bauhaus or related earlier and later contradictions in opposition to Greek sculpture. The exposure was a real benefit at a young age, though with contemporaneous extensive copies after Greek sculpture I found the alarming discrepancies with the content that was taught, the void arriving at nothing essentially approaching Greek sculpture. I also became aware of the deception of the reason for the bastardized method as a way to copy after photos and make an attempt at generic inclusions to give the photographic art seeming credibility. One of the more common surviving later methods contradictory to Greek Classical, Hellenistic, and early Greco-Roman, and aligned pre-photo European sculpture is the Bauhaus, Gerome / Barge, Art Decco, Propaganda Realism, Rodin Realism, Secessionists, Romantic Realism, etc… sculpture memorized method and it’s offshoots. The Bauhaus offshoots as well as the above prior mentioned is a disease that survives to this day enabling the inferior sculptor achieve to the eye of the ignorant viewer a semblance of order and structure. I never utilized any photographic sources during any part of my study or it’s equivalent. In making continuous studies copying Greek sculpture in drawings and sculpture I ventured to find where this bastardized method I was instructed departed as well as reconstructing the content inherent in the Greek sculpture. Thus as mentioned in my front page I threw out eighty percent of my instruction in order to move forward, that eighty percent re-addressed was informed from the careful deconstruction and reconstruction of content addressed with my copies of Greek sculpture. All the people I have known since my early days in study that have copied after Greek sculpture approached making studies after the sculpture as a bravado imitation – something akin to their habits of ignorance projected into a fluff performance to impress their peers who were equally clueless. In this type of sculpture exercise of pomp in a masturbation of unfortunate habit with clueless copies after Greek sculpture – fake grand stories can be reiterated years later on of the artists great talent. Far from a flourish of grand gestures and idiotic pretense, the serious study after Greek sculpture is arduous and requires decades of concentration in a critical process intellectually, conceptually.

Hellenistic sculptors understood that each human body is different, endowed with its own unique topography. They set about extrapolating and clarifying this topography from the model. The current “traditional” methodology is totally different: It involves a rather uninformed and generic rendering of anatomy, and is keyed to light effects manipulated to arrive at an “optical realism.” Utilizing unarticulated shape, this formal approach plays out beautifully in a two-dimensional book picture, with the sculpture carefully placed so as to exploit the incidence of light. Greek sculpture has nothing to do with light effects, and everything to do with complex geometric form.

Establishing a sound artistic methodology is more difficult nowadays because art history is understood as a matter of literary critique rather than formal appraisal in any true sense. The “narrative” thus takes on a life of its own. Greek sculpture, however, has a spiritual dimension that defies the current critical wisdom. This arises from visual and conceptual elements that enable the artist to transcribe a heightened experiential state. This process is of course interactive, as it hinges as much on the viewer as on the artist’s work.

Let me now move on to a brief, slightly more technical, summary of the principles and elements of Hellenistic sculpture.

In formal terms, the Microcosm reflects the Macrocosm as specific shape patterns repeat in an ordered manner throughout a given work. The various endless combinations of these patterns, varying in intensity and degree of contrast with one another, account for much of what we might properly call “style” in sculpture. In other words, the style is a function of content, and its elements are translated from nature not capriciously, but in a carefully considered manner.

Static faceted tectonic shape “TOPOGRAPHY” exists in all natural forms including the human figure. In order to conceive of them more simply, imagine the unit of a persons head from the upper lateral (sides of the nose base) angle base of the nose, (nasion), follow these side angles outward and up (proximal) on to the outer (lateral) frontal lobes of the forehead. Following the lateral frontal lobes up (proximal), and back (posterior) in a circular pattern to the dip in the top forward third of the skull (Coronal Suture). This is an essential shape unit. The shape is dimensional, not just the outline of an area. When following the shape as it projects dimensionally forward from the defined base parameter outline just described, a series of angles comprise arriving to the most anterior projection of the frontal. One can hold a flat ruler shifting the position over the surface and count the number of turns the surface changes angle from the baseline until arriving to the most projected plane. Now conceive that the shape unit not only simply arrives to a projection along one narrow area, but that these shifting angles that comprise the dimensional shape unit are comprised of a huge number of Static faceted tectonic shape planes that are present in every part of the shape unit in all directions. These planes together comprise what amounts to a very specific shape, which is named here as a Static faceted tectonic shape. A way to relate this on a more generic level might be the concept of each facet of a more complex cut diamond with precise angled facets that arrive at the sum total of that diamond’s geometric shape. Any divergence of any single facet and all the facets redirect the formal alignment, thus changing the static geometry, and the resulting final shape. By static I mean the shape unit appears cut (cut facets), the shape appears non moving when this is not combined together with contrasting shape elements such as Forma Serpentina / Rhythmic Turning Planes. When viewing any of these facets it is noticeable that each facet has a specific asymmetric geometric outline. This outline of each facet is not generic and redundant. But the final pattern made up of all these highly variable facets that arrive to a very specific geometric shape unit do make a set shape pattern that repeats throughout the parts of the body, and head. The chin / Mentalis region would be this same shape unit pattern as the Nasion / Glabella / Frontal Projected Lobe / to the Coronal Suture but upside down with the same geometric faceting, but only as far as each of these forms project or recede to the point at which they merge with adjacent forms. So the chin / Mentalis region shape may only be 3/5 th.s Fibonacci of the segment shape of the Frontal Lobe region just mentioned. The number of faceted planes in each shape commonly coincides with Fibonacci numbers or the lesser-known sequence called gnomon, which includes all odd numbers beginning with the number 3. The static faceted tectonic shape is much of what makes an individual recognizable within a large crowd. Even identical twins possess differing static faceted tectonic shape structure! The Greek sculpture exhibits a manipulation of emphasis in the explosion outward of these patterns of faceted shape, in the relationship of these facets to the context of the work, and effect on the presence of the sculpture. When one looks obliquely beyond the contour on the surface of Greek sculpture – constant angle shifts can be observed in all directions. These shifts in angle within a small region area are aspects of the faceting. In a top quality Greek sculpture, this shifting of faceted angles can be observed as one moves one’s viewpoint (something at about an angle of 30% within the form from a contour – so one’s eyes are racking across the beginning of the interior surface at a sharp angle) , and moves incrementally around the surface. The abstraction within the buildup of the projected form is not present to this degree in any European work. This shape orientation of The static faceted tectonic shape that comprise a single form dimensionally of the specific subject is extended outward to form the compositional shape theme. The alignment of the internal shape geometry to the external composition may be a fraction of the whole geometric shape and align dimensionally in different aspects from different viewpoints. This would be integrated along with alignments to a portion of a Platonic Solid. SOME EXAMPLES: This concept is evident in the “Ludovisi Gaul killing himself & Wife” ( Rome, Pergamum Hellenistic Greek, Attalos I ) this sculpture has an emphasis abstracting the larger shapes into broad static faceted tectonic shape units, with the smaller unit shapes retaining this broad emphasis. This is a complex and less common content in the Hellenistic to this degree exhibited in this sculpture. An important example of abstraction from nature. Other sculptures that exhibit emphases on this concept are “Silenus with Baby Dionysos” each version with slightly varying emphasis on the balance of the mentioned aspect of form discussed on the page. ( Hellenistic Greek versions in Paris, France – Louvre; Rome, Italy, – Vatican; Munich, Germany, – Glyptotek ); “Hanging Marsyas Torso” ( Hellenistic Greek, Berlin, Germany, Pergamum Museum ); The lesser known “Aphrodite Torso” ( National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., Hellenistic Greek sculpture ) provides an extreme example of this concept – an unusual female work exhibiting the degree of abstraction within the static faceted tectonic shape.

Shape patterns, in turn, interact with rhythmic turning planes that Michelangelo called Forma Serpentina. These planes connect disparate areas—posterior to anterior, proximal to distal, medial to lateral—in oblique twists, one plane turning to another plane—whether muscle group, bone sequence, tendon, or fatty mass. These rhythmic turning planes align to an order arising from the shape patterns, or overall shape orientation, – unique to the model and the work of art it informs. Kinesiology is demonstrated through this concept of rhythmic turning planes in Greek sculpture. This aspect of Kinesiology makes the figure, or portrait bust appear ready to move, as in a dance, even when displaying a calm stillness in the sculpture. Often the emphasis of Rhythmic Turning Planes / Forma Serpentina subordinates the aspect of The static faceted tectonic shape. The emphasis of the Rhythmic Turning Planes is represented in very subtle aspects to extreme aspects depending on the sculpture. There are examples of both Rhythmic Turning Planes, and The static faceted tectonic shape simultaneously pushed in equal amounts – sometimes both treated in an equal subdued manner, sometimes equally pushed to extrapolated extremes. SOME EXAMPLES: The well known “Laocoön” group ( Hellenistic Greek Rhodian sculpture, Rome, Italy ) clearly illustrates this concept, but this is subordinate to The static faceted tectonic shapes of this sculpture; The “Satyr Torso” (Hellenistic Greek, Basel, Switzerland ) is extreme in this emphasis, and unusual in the development of the Running Rhythmic Turning Planes pushed to the extreme as well as the Static Fractured Planar Shape, and the Fingering Planes both also pushed to the extreme limits; The lesser known “Aphrodite Torso” ( National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., Hellenistic Greek sculpture ) provides an extreme example of this concept, like the “Satyr Torso” (Hellenistic Greek, Basel, Switzerland ) is extreme in this emphasis, and unusual in the development of the of the Rhythmic Turning Planes pushed to the extreme, as well as The static faceted tectonic shape, and the Fingering Planes both also pushed to the extreme limits;. An early simpler example is the Riace Bronze Warrior, Riace, Italy, – the one with the displacement of the hip in the step forward, creating the earliest example of dimensional movement. Kinesiology is thought to have been studied and demonstrated with this sculpture showing this understanding at the beginning of the Classical period. Thought to have been sculpted possibly by Pythagoras’s son.

Commensurate planes are planes that match as equally pitched angles on opposite locations of a mass or series of masses, viewpoints that represent an infinite number of internal – within the visual borders of the extensions of a shape, and silhouette equal angles. Imagine holding a painting frame and moving the frame as one walks around one’s viewpoint of the sculpture. The parallel sides of the frame correspond to the Commensurate Planes. Now imagine not just holding the frame vertically and horizontally, but also pivoting the frame obliquely – tilting in varying degrees away from the vertical or horizontal viewpoint, as well as pivoting one corner more than another of the frame. These positions of the various oblique viewpoints through the frame represent an infinite number of internal and silhouette equal angles. There can be many angle Planes simultaneously Commensurate from a single viewpoint. The sculpture comprises an order of importance in which alignments/viewpoints – are given dominance. In the Greek Classical Transitional to Hellenistic sculpture of Skopas, these Commensurate Planes are simplified and set from a quadrant view forming an emphasis on enlarging monumental quality of the sculpture. The undercuts are treated with depth emphasis on these quadrants. The other extreme would be mid-late Hellenistic sculpture that has both extrapolated pushed Rhythmic Turning Planes and The static faceted tectonic shape with

a great multiple number of these Commensurate Planes complimenting the form.

The following are examples of planes that all are commensurate to each other:

#a. – anterior distal alar ( front bottom turning of the nose tip ) angle – seen from a

side view – as the same angle as the #b. – anterior distal mentalis ( side view chin

– lower front projection angle ) ,

#c. – side view angle of the eye – overall angle of the eye pitch – seen from the

side view, #d. – angle of the anterior zygomatic/ maxilla meeting –

Zygomaticomaxilliary suture / inferior margin of the orbit of the eye/origin of

the Levator Labii Superioris muscle – as this proceeds down the bone angle as

seen from the side view, #e. – Upper posterior Parietal angle ( top back turning

of the skull ) ,

#f. – Posterior turning of the nostril, etc.

There are thousands of commensurate groups of angles throughout the head &

body, from every conceivable view. The concept of the point of view with

framing is demonstrated within this concern especially in Classical & Classical

to Transitional pre-Hellenistic

SOME EXAMPLES: ( Skopas ) sculpture; “Standing Hercules”, Vatican, Rome,

Italy; “Greater Herculaneum Goddess” ( Hellenistic Greek, Dresden, Germany );

“Chrysippos” ( Hellenistic Greek, London, England ).

For their part, interlacing (or fingering) planes constitute the dynamic pattern created when several shapes converge, resulting in an interlacing or fingering pattern. The edge of one static faceted tectonic shape becomes the beginning (or end ) of one or more adjacent shapes of the same kind. These planes of contact are often expressed as three-dimensional S curves, and they often proliferate along the surface of the sculpture according to the Fibonacci numerical sequence widely observed in organic nature. In order to visualize this concept, imagine three five-pointed stars sharing a convergence to each other meaning their outer arms merge, overlapping at sections of their meeting the stars arms bend and twist in S-curve directions. Now imagine these grouped stars as part of the human figure in an isolated converging shape area of several (usually three or more) adjacent static faceted tectonic shape units. Each of these patterns will most likely be asymmetrical in size & alignment. The geometric aspect and shape orientation comprised of these Interlacing Planes repeat in similar fashion according to the geometric orientation specific to the individual. An example for a larger aspect area of fingering planes would be the region where the top and side shape of the belly button region meets the next stomach shape unit above, and the medial portion of the external obliques (waist cups). The concept of Commensurate Planes / Framing is also represented by the opposing orientation of groups of these Interlacing Planes / Fingering Planes – at opposite sides, or within the larger shape mass, but positioned obliquely at contrasting positions. The geometry is as specific as any singular feature (such as the specific recognition of an individual’s nose) would be noted on a more naive basis. The outward extension of the Interlacing Planes / Fingering Planes inherent to the individual’s specific geometric theme extrapolated from these Fingering Planes of the individual subject are presented as an arabesque geometric orientation for the placement, and composition of the figure sculpture, or group figure sculpture, adapted to comprise multiple sources of geometry. SOME EXAMPLES: – “Satyr Torso” (Hellenistic Greek, Basel, Switzerland ); “Belvedere Torso” ( Hellenistic Greek, Vatican, Rome. ); The lesser known “Aphrodite Torso” ( National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., Hellenistic Greek sculpture ) provides an extreme example of this concept – an unusual female work exhibiting the degree of Fingering Planes.

Optimum attraction of masses occurs when two or more masses are displaced from each other at such a distance that a magnetic pull or opposition is present—as when two or more magnets are opposed or attracted to each other. Masses of the same size can be perceived as having different weights depending upon other properties such as implied density, shape and proportion. The displacement of two such masses could therefore result in the illusion of a much greater displacement than what exists, or likewise, a greater attraction. Fibonacci numbers again often determines the degree of displacement of all masses. The composition of the whole sculpture exhibits this played dynamic of Optimum Attraction of Shape Masses contrasting throughout in multiple instances. The amount of attraction or opposition created by the displacement of the masses determines the character of the emotional force in the composition. Patterns of geometric units play against each other in opposition or attraction, resulting in varied states of emotional conflict or stasis. This optimum attraction of masses creates activated space in a composition once the optimal displacement of both positive and negative opposing forces is achieved. SOME EXAMPLES: the “Blinding of Polyphemos Group”, (Hellenistic Greek, Rhodian, Caesar Tiberius Estate, Sperlonga, Italy ).; “Satyr and Hermaphrodite” ( Hellenistic Greek, Dresden, Germany ); “Uffizi Wrestlers” ( Hellenistic Greek, Florence, Italy ).

All these elements build on each other in order to arrive at a surface that reflects the figure’s topographical structure as well as its external solid projections in the sculptural composition. The specific Static faceted tectonic shape expanded as a schematic though usually only part of this shape is within the composition, creates a framework for the pose placement and composition of the whole sculpture together and contrasted with the characteristic shifting spiral rhythmic turning planes expanded to the composition motif. The other two main aspects are the specific interlacing (or fingering) planes set at Commensurate planes at positions to achieve Optimum attraction of masses expanded to the composition. The composition, in turn, is situated within a geometric envelope or Platonic Solid, or within a fraction of the Platonic Solid generated by the Golden Proportion (a proportion closely associated with the Fibonacci series).

The sculptural composition’s enclosure within the Platonic Solid is selective and indeed partial rather than schematic and complete, generating a vital tension. The individual subject taken from nature is thus combined with the Platonic Solid in a manner that subordinates the latter to the geometry of the individual, as inflected by and extended within the composition.

Conclusion: The majority of sculptures studied and most highly revered during the Renaissance through later European periods were Greek Hellenistic, as archaeology now has classified them. From late Archaic to Classical to late Hellenistic, the development of Greek sculpture always built on and included past process. For example, the style/content of Archaic existed in the Hellenistic period as Hellenistic neo-Archaic. Classical style thrived in the Hellenistic as Hellenistic neo-Classical. Concerning concepts and technique, these and additional other complex issues interact with each other to achieve tension versus relaxation, pathos versus ethos, etc…The effect creates an experience that is a psychic drama that can be emotionally intense and physically felt by a sensitive viewer. Many sculptures were made to occupy the naos, or interior, of a Greek temple. Appropriately, as the space that the sculpture occupied was altered by the sculpture, the sculpture became a doorway to a spiritual experience.

Schools of Greek training intended to arrive at altering the space, and experience of the viewer. This was the reason for the art forms in the Greek experience. The Greek experience established a basis to arrive at recreating a synthesized and focused aspect of this underlying order in nature. These physical elements were understood as bendable to the possibility of altering the reality of nature. This heightened nature of the sculpture was the aspect that the sculptor trained over many years in a system more sophisticated in its elements and results than anything DaVinci, or Michelangelo was able to achieve. I think Michelangelo and DaVinci are great, but when compared to the best output of the Hellenistic they are not at the same level of quality of technique, content, or the resulting experience. The artists of the European periods from the Renaissance forward were trying to reach the possibilities that the Greek artists achieved.. In general, most European artists were working in a simpler formula of copying nature or imposing arbitrary style. If one looks carefully across the surface of the better quality Greek Hellenistic sculpture, there are very complex shapes that make up the form. This form is not present to the same degree of sophistication in the best European sculpture. There was generally always a subgroup of European artists working that were involved in recreating the lineage to the Greek experience. Some of what is considered influenced from Greek sculpture in the European periods of art from the Renaissance onward is more an imitation of superficial style / outward appearance without content of form.

* * *

In conclusion, the Greeks’ experience of nature led to a quest for archetypes in which the various patterns they observed in nature, which I have just described, were distilled and recast in works of art incarnating what Goethe might call an “intensified” reality—a more exalted reality—than that arising from the quotidian experience of natural phenomena. The activation or galvanization of the surrounding space that the sensitive observes experiences in contemplating works of Greek sculpture is part and parcel of this “intensified” reality.

Great modern sculptors, Michelangelo above all, not only divined this ancient artistic teleology but reconciled it with Christian belief, for in his view the beauty of classically-informed art was a token of heavenly things and the life of the world to come. Inevitably, then, the spiritual dimension within the classical artistic tradition is integral to my own vocation.

, blogger, PBP

Nikolaus Geiger, sculptor, with architect Bruno Schmitz, Grabstätte Carl Hofmann, (Alter St.-Matthäus-Kirchhof Berlin), an example of late 19th. Century, German school of architecture, and sculpture monument incorporating a high level of content derived from Greek Hellenistic period influence. This stands in contrast to the majority of sculpture monuments during the 19th. Century that had declined in aesthetics, and content for much of Europe.

Grabstätte Carl Hofmann, Architektur: Bruno Schmitz, Trauernde von Nikolaus Geiger, (Alter St.-Matthäus-Kirchhof Berlin)

The gravesite in the style of the Italian Renaissance of engineer and entrepreneur Carl Hofmann (1836-1916) is the work of Bruno Schmitz (1858-1916). Die Marmorstatue stammt von Nikolaus Geiger (1849–1897). The marble statue comes from Nicholas Geiger (1849-1897). Das Grabmal wurde 1991/1992 im Auftrag der Stiftung Historische Kirchhöfe und Friedhöfe in Berlin und Brandenburg mit Hilfe der Stiftung Deutsche Klassenlotterie restauriert. The tomb was 1991/1992 on behalf of the Historical Foundation cemeteries and cemeteries in Berlin and Brandenburg with the help of the Foundation Deutsche Klassenlotterie restored.

The old St. Matthew’s Cemetery Berlin (Alte St. Matthäus-Kirchhof Berlin) is a historic cemetery in Berlin with many historically significant tombstones, now part of a historical monument, (Denkmalschutz). Der Kirchhof liegt zwischen der Großgörschenstraße und der Monumentenstraße im East End von Schöneberg , der Roten Insel . The cemetery is located between the Großgörschenstraße and Monument Road in the East End of Schöneberg, the Roten Insel. Wie der 500 Meter östlich liegende Kreuzberg fällt der Friedhof sanft zum Berliner Urstromtal mit dem Flusslauf der Spree ab, da er auf dem Nordabhang des Teltow angelegt ist und die namengebende Erhebung für das Dorf Schöneberg war. How the 500 meters east is Kreuzberg, the cemetery gently to the Berliner Urstromtal with the river Spree, as it is based on the northern slopes of Teltow created and the namengebende survey for the village Schöneberg.

–

Grabstätte Carl Hofmann, Architektur: Bruno Schmitz, Trauernde von Nikolaus Geiger, (Alter St.-Matthäus-Kirchhof Berlin)

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alter_St.-Matth%C3%A4us-Kirchhof_Berlin

The gravesite in the style of the Italian Renaissance of engineer and entrepreneur Carl Hofmann (1836-1916) is the work of Bruno Schmitz (1858-1916). Die Marmorstatue stammt von Nikolaus Geiger (1849–1897). The marble statue comes from Nicholas Geiger (1849-1897). Das Grabmal wurde 1991/1992 im Auftrag der Stiftung Historische Kirchhöfe und Friedhöfe in Berlin und Brandenburg mit Hilfe der Stiftung Deutsche Klassenlotterie restauriert. The tomb was 1991/1992 on behalf of the Historical Foundation cemeteries and cemeteries in Berlin and Brandenburg with the help of the Foundation Deutsche Klassenlotterie restored.
The old St. Matthew’s Cemetery Berlin (Alte St. Matthäus-Kirchhof Berlin) is a historic cemetery in Berlin with many historically significant tombstones, now part of a historical monument, (Denkmalschutz). Der Kirchhof liegt zwischen der Großgörschenstraße und der Monumentenstraße im East End von Schöneberg , der Roten Insel . The cemetery is located between the Großgörschenstraße and Monument Road in the East End of Schöneberg, the Roten Insel. Wie der 500 Meter östlich liegende Kreuzberg fällt der Friedhof sanft zum Berliner Urstromtal mit dem Flusslauf der Spree ab, da er auf dem Nordabhang des Teltow angelegt ist und die namengebende Erhebung für das Dorf Schöneberg war. How the 500 meters east is Kreuzberg, the cemetery gently to the Berliner Urstromtal with the river Spree, as it is based on the northern slopes of Teltow created and the namengebende survey for the village Schöneberg.
–

Nikolaus Geiger , sculptor, ( 1849 Lauingen / Bayern – 1897 Berlin ), Berlin, Germany, Weeping Woman, by Nikolaus Geiger

Grave Carl Hofmann, architect: Bruno Schmitz, Weeping Woman by Nikolaus Geiger, (de: Alter St.-Matthäus-Kirchhof Berlin)

English: grave of Carl Hofmann on old St. Matthew churchyard in Berlin-Schöneberg

Deutsch: Grab von Carl Hofmann auf dem alten St.-Matthäus-Kirchhof in Berlin – Schöneberg

{A very elegant and beautiful design of Architecture with the Hellenistic influenced figure sculpted by Geiger. A very satisfying monument, that I think projects / creates a successful spiritual feeling.}, blogger, PBP

Nikolaus Geiger – Neo Hellenistic / one of the most interesting sculptors of the 19th. Century (1849 Lauingen / Bayern – 1897 Berlin)- Kaiser Barbarossa, Kaiser Wilhelm – Thuringen, Germany

Nikolaus Geiger (1849-97) was a German sculptor and painter, born at Lauingen, Bavaria. He was a pupil of Joseph Knabl at the Munich Academy. In 1873 he went to Berlin and soon became known through ornamental work in the Tiele-Winckler Palace. After a visit to Italy he studied painting in Munich and in 1884 returned to Berlin, where he was awarded a gold medal in 1886, was elected member of the academy in 1893, and was made professor in 1896. St. Hedwig’s Cathedral in Berlin contains examples of his work. He produced the high-relief “Adoration of the Magi” (1894). His painting, “The Communion of the Saints,” on the ceiling of St. Hedwig’s is his most noteworthy painting. He sculpted Frederick Barbarossa for the Kyffhäuser monument; a statue of Work for the Reichsbank building in Berlin; and “Centaur and Nymph,” for the National Gallery. Geiger produced a frieze in relief for the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Monument in Indianapolis.

Nikolaus Geiger, sculptor, with architect Bruno Schmitz, Grabstätte Carl Hofmann, (Alter St.-Matthäus-Kirchhof Berlin).

Nikolaus Geiger – (1849 Lauingen / Bavaria – in 1897 Berlin) Neo Hellenistic / one of the most interesting sculptors of the 19th. Century – emperor Barbarossa, emperor Wilhelm– Thuringen, Germany In 1861 stonecutter apprenticeship in Lauingen – alongside vocational school Augsburg – leaves prematurely the apprenticeship – academy. Munich – In 1866 – in 1872 Kgl. Academy. With Joseph Knabl and in private studios active. 1873 changes after to Berlin – Modelleur for stucco ornaments. In 1878-1879 Rome – in 1880 Paris – in 1881 Vienna – in 1881 – in 1884 Munich (painting study). In 1893 member of the academy. Of the arts Berlin – in 1896 Kgl. Professor of the Berlin academy. Married with the sculptor Henny Geiger-Spiegel. – Secessions – war memorial (from 1888, Indianapolis, Indiana, U.S.A.), grave Amalie Hoffman, about 1889 (gest in 1889 – since 1882 owner engineer Hoffman, Berlin, churchyard Saint Mattew – municipality), frieze and group (1886, Berlin, Dresdner Bank) – tympanum (Vollend. In 1898 from Henny Geiger-Spiegel; Berlin, Saint Hedwigs – church);

[contact-form-7 id=”1819″ title=”Contact form 1″]