Lot Essay
In 1933 the Nationalist Socialist party came to power in Germany. Beckamnn was forced to leave his teaching post at the Städelsche Kunstinstitut in Frankfurt, and his work was declared 'degenerate' and removed from museums. As a result, he decided to move to Berlin, where the metropolis offered him a greater chance of privacy and anonymity.
During 1935, Beckmann executed a small group of still lifes (the present work, and Göpel nos. 426 and 428) which allow the spectator a rare glimpse into the Artist's private surroundings. In Rote Tulpen und Feuerlilien, as in many of his works, Beckmann has included a play on words, here on the vase (see also Göpel 426 and lot 119). Göpel has suggested that the lettering stands for JUNIP(erus), a brand of schnapps from Lyon which Beckmann favoured.
Friedhelm W. Fischer has remarked of Beckmann that he "could make a world out of a few objects. Nothing was insignificant to him, and in his eyes every detail and every chance encounter had a meaning and a relevance of its own. Consequently, his still-lifes, even when apparently based on a chance arrangement of everyday objects, are seldom genuinely 'still'...his delight in the sensual presence and poetic beauty of objects is no less manifest than his desire to discern hidden metaphors in all that is visible." (F. W. Fischer, Max Beckmann, London, 1973, p. 44).
During 1935, Beckmann executed a small group of still lifes (the present work, and Göpel nos. 426 and 428) which allow the spectator a rare glimpse into the Artist's private surroundings. In Rote Tulpen und Feuerlilien, as in many of his works, Beckmann has included a play on words, here on the vase (see also Göpel 426 and lot 119). Göpel has suggested that the lettering stands for JUNIP(erus), a brand of schnapps from Lyon which Beckmann favoured.
Friedhelm W. Fischer has remarked of Beckmann that he "could make a world out of a few objects. Nothing was insignificant to him, and in his eyes every detail and every chance encounter had a meaning and a relevance of its own. Consequently, his still-lifes, even when apparently based on a chance arrangement of everyday objects, are seldom genuinely 'still'...his delight in the sensual presence and poetic beauty of objects is no less manifest than his desire to discern hidden metaphors in all that is visible." (F. W. Fischer, Max Beckmann, London, 1973, p. 44).