SCHULIM KRIMPER: MASTER AND ENIGMA

Karen Finch Bachelor of Visual Art and Applied Design

Onkaparinga Institute of TAFE

Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Master of Art (Art History)

Department of History University of Adelaide

2

DECLARATION This work contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree of diploma in any university of other tertiary institution and, to the best of my knowledge, contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where due reference has been made in the text. I give consent to this copy of my thesis, when deposited in the university library, being available for loan and photocopying. Signed: Dated:

3

CONTENTS List of Figures 4 Acknowledgments 10 Abstract 11 Introduction 12 Chapter One: Literature Review 18 Chapter Two: Biography 41 Chapter Three: The Sideboards 58 Chapter Four: The Catholic Commissions 86 Conclusion 111 Bibliography 119

4

LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 1 FLER FURNITURE, Manufacturer, Australia 1946-1968 Fred LOWEN, Designer Born upper Silesia, Germany 1919 Arrived Australia 1940

Lounge chair c1963 designed 1963-64Adelaide/Melbourne Vanikoro Kauri (?), wool upholstery. Gift of Mr Don and Mrs Meredyth Sarah 2002 Art Gallery of South Australia Fig. 2 Ray and Charles EAMES Chair (670) and ottoman (671) 1956 Laminated Rosewood, metal, leather.

Photograph: Emery, M. Furniture by Architects, Harry N. Abrams Inc, NY 1983, p.93. Fig. 3 Ray and Charles EAMES ESU 400 c1952 Laminated plywood, angle iron.

Photograph: Sollo, J and N. American Insiders Guide to Twentieth Century Furniture, Octopus Publishing Group Ltd, UK, 2002, pg. 158.

Fig. 4 Kaare KLINT Deck chair 1933 Teak

Photograph: Honour, H.Cabinet Makers and Furniture Designers, G.P. Putnams and Sons, NY, 1969, p. 289.

Fig. 5 Alvar AALTO Armchair 1947 Bent Laminated wood, webbing.

Photograph: Emery, M. Furniture by Architects, Harry N. Abrams Inc, NY, 1983, p. 40. Fig. 6 FUNCTIONAL PRODUCTS, St Peters, Sydney, manufacturer Australia 1947-1986 Douglas B. SNELLING, designer Born England 1916 Worked Australia 1942-1977 Died Hawaii 1985

Chair [Snelling Line] 1952 Wood, wood frame, cotton upholstery (replacement) Gift of Dr Marlis Thiersch 1991 Art Gallery of South Australia Fig. 7 Mark STRIZIC Born Germany 1928 Arrived Australia 1950

Schulim Krimper c1968 Photograph: Strizic M, Krimper, Gryphon Books, Victoria, Australia, 1987.

5

Fig. 8 Schulim KRIMPER (1893-1971) Sideboard c1948 Walnut, brass, glass. Private collection Photograph: Karen Finch Fig. 9 Schulim KRIMPER Born Romania 1893 Arrived Australia 1939 Died 1971 Sideboard 1947 Queensland blackbean (Castanospermum), brass Purchased 1948 National Gallery of Victoria Fig. 10 Schulim KRIMPER (1893-1971) Sideboard 1955 New Zealand Kauri, oak, silver ash, brass, glass Purchased from the Krimper family, 1981 Powerhouse Museum Fig. 11 Schulim KRIMPER (1893-1971) Sideboard c1957 Queensland blackbean, brass Private collection Photograph: Karen Finch Fig. 12 Schulim KRIMPER (1893-1971) Sideboard (Detail) c 1957 Private collection Photograph: Karen Finch Fig. 13 Schulim KRIMPER (1893-1971) Sideboard (Detail) c 1957 Private collection Photograph: Karen Finch Fig. 14 Schulim KRIMPER (1893-1971) Sideboard c early 1960s Oak, brass, ceramic tile Private collection Photograph: Karen Finch

6

Fig. 15 Schulim KRIMPER (1893-1971) Sideboard (detail) c early 1960s Private collection

Photograph: Karen Finch Fig. 16 Schulim KRIMPER (1893-1971) Sideboard (detail) c early 1960s Private collection Photograph: Karen Finch Fig. 17 Schulim KRIMPER (1893-1971) Sideboard c1964-66 Teak, brass Private collection Photograph: Karen Finch Fig. 18 Schulim KRIMPER (1893-1971) Sideboard (detail) c1964-66 Private collection Photograph: Karen Finch Fig. 19 Schulim KRIMPER (1893-1971) Sideboard (detail) c1964-66 Private collection Photograph: Karen Finch Fig. 20 Schulim KRIMPER (1893-1971) Sideboard c1967-8 Oak, brass Private collection Photograph: Karen Finch Fig. 21 Schulim KRIMPER (1893-1971) Sideboard c1967-8 Oak, brass Private collection Photograph: Karen Finch Fig. 22 Schulim KRIMPER (1893-1971) Sideboard (detail) c1967-8 Private collection Photograph: Karen Finch

7

Fig. 23 Schulim KRIMPER (1893-1971) Sideboard 1969-70 Walnut, brass Private collection Photograph: Karen Finch Fig. 24 The Cathedral Church of St Mary c1961 Photograph: Andrews B. The Cathedral Church of St Mary, Hobart Unpublished manuscript, 2002. Fig. 25 Schulim KRIMPER (1893-1971) Cathedra c1958-60 Teak, brass Photograph: Karen Finch Fig 26 Schulim KRIMPER (1893-1971) Cathedra c1958-60 Teak, brass Archive, Cathedral Church of St Mary, Hobart. Fig. 27 Schulim KRIMPER (1893-1971) Cathedra c1958-60 Teak, brass Photograph: Karen Finch Fig. 28 Schulim KRIMPER (1893-1971) Screen c1958-60 Teak Archive, Cathedral Church of St Mary, Hobart. Fig. 29 Schulim KRIMPER (1893-1971) Screen (detail) c1958-60 Teak Photograph: Karen Finch Fig. 30 Schulim KRIMPER (1893-1971) Screen c1958-60 Teak Photograph: Karen Finch

8

Fig. 31 Schulim KRIMPER (1893-1971) Ambo c1958-60 Teak Photograph: Cathy Murrowood Fig. 31 Schulim KRIMPER (1893-1971) Altar rails c1958-60 Teak Photograph: Cathy Murrowood Fig. 33 Schulim KRIMPER (1893-1971) Screen (detail) c1958-60 Teak Photograph: Karen Finch Fig. 34 Schulim KRIMPER (1893-1971) Pews c1966 Teak Photograph: Karen Finch Fig. 35 Schulim KRIMPER (1893-1971) Pews (detail) c1966 Teak Photograph: Karen Finch Fig. 36 Schulim KRIMPER (1893-1971) Organ console c1966 Teak Photograph: Karen Finch Fig. 37 Schulim KRIMPER (1893-1971) Ambo c1966 Teak Photograph: Karen Finch Fig. 38 Schulim KRIMPER (1893-1971) Chapel doors c 1966 Teak Photograph: Karen Finch

9

Fig. 39 Schulim KRIMPER (1893-1971) Chapel doors (detail) c 1966 Teak Photograph: Karen Finch Fig. 40 Schulim KRIMPER (1893-1971) Chapel doors (detail) c 1966 Teak Photograph: Karen Finch Fig. 41 Schulim KRIMPER (1893-1971) Chapel doors (detail) c 1966 Teak Photograph: Karen Finch Fig. 42 Mark STRIZIC Born Germany 1928 Arrived 1950 Schulim Krimper 1968 Wallan 2002 Gelatin-silver photograph South Australian Government Grant 2004 Art Gallery of South Australia

10

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank you to my supervisors, Robert Reason for the initial suggestion of Krimper as a topic and

his support during the research process and Dr Cathy Speck for her support and assistance

through the research and writing of the thesis.

There are a number of personnel at various institutions to whom I am indebted for their interest in

this project and active support in assisting me in a variety of ways. Particular thanks to Terence

Lane and Jennifer Phipps at the National Gallery of Victoria for their time and for access to the

Gallery Archive and Krimper furniture in the NGV collection. Susan Faine at the Jewish Museum

of Australia. Cathy Murrowood, Liturgy Co-ordinator at the Cathedral Church of St Mary, Hobart.

Sr. Maureen Bourke, Principal, and Jane Carolan at St Marys College, University of Melbourne.

A special thank you to Miguel Mirrielles, through whom I was able to meet the private collectors

who hold significant collections of Krimpers furniture, who were, without exception,

overwhelmingly interested, supportive and generous with their time and homes. None of them

wished to be named, but their assistance was invaluable and their interest and support in this work

has been beyond all expectations and has been a very great privilege.

Thank you to Karen Magee for the vast amount of time spent in discussion during the writing of the

thesis, and Liz McNeill for absolutely essential technical assistance in preparation of images.

Thanks also to Helen Tversky-Steiner for editorial assistance.

Finally, thank you to Jonathon Moore for his support and patience throughout the project.

11

ABSTRACT Schulim Krimper has come to be regarded as Australias premier modern cabinet-maker, a position

he achieved during his lifetime. Regardless of this status, he has remained an enigmatic figure

whos work has never been stylistically categorised.

It is my contention that there are a number of factors, which have contributed to this situation.

Krimper was a migrant to Australia, a refugee escaping Hitlers regime in the 1930s. I will examine

his position within the Australian furniture scene within the context of his displacement from a

familiar cultural setting. It is my belief that this, in combination with the particular tradition in

which he was trained are the, possibly, most critical factors in his work remaining unique in the

Australian environment.

The literature review discusses the small amount of literature in existence, with particular reference

to statements of influence in Krimpers work. Chapter Two is a biographical study intended to set a

background for the development of both Krimpers work practice and his personality. Discussion of

his work is centred in chapters Three and Four, the former being a chronological analysis of a

selection of sideboards made between 1947 and 1969, and the latter a discussion of the two large

commissions executed for the Catholic Church between the late 1950s and mid 1960s.

The thesis concludes that Krimpers unique style in the Australian was due to his isolation from

both the European environment and his deliberate choice to maintain a practice in which very little

of changing work practices within cabinet-making including the development of much modern

mechanisation in the industry set him apart from his contemporaries in the Australian scene.

Ultimately, Krimper remains an enigma, whos work continues to stand alone as an example of a

tradition from Europe not replicated to the same extent by any of his contemporaries.

12

Introduction

What makes the work of Schulim Krimper (1893-1971) unique amongst the work of

modern Australian furniture makers and designers? He is regarded as, perhaps, the most

important designer maker of the twentieth century. However, despite the accolades

accorded to him both in his lifetime and since his death, he remains an enigmatic and

mysterious figure, much admired but little known.

In many ways, Krimper was very much the alien in the Australian scene as Government

terminology would have suggested. Via his ethnicity, he was part of a very small minority

population. His training, under traditional European standards and methods had no

equivalent in Australia. Neither had local craftsmen the opportunity of exposure to the

range of furniture styles and traditions offered in the journeymans period enjoyed by

Krimper in the years between his apprenticeship and settling in Berlin in the early 1920s.

Circumstances further amplified his isolation. Taken out of the familiar context of the

European scene, where a man of his training and background had a very well defined

position, he found himself in a country without such a rich tradition. The local population

were more inclined to view him as an ordinary carpenter, with an attitude with which they

had little sympathy, than a highly skilled craftsman. The local community, both gentile and

assimilated Anglo-Jew alike, were not favourably disposed to the influx of European Jews

who were viewed, largely, through a lens which defined them within the stereotype of the

Polish Jew of the shtetl.1

His age on arrival in Australia in 1939 was also a factor. Like so many of the refugees, he

had to start his business, in a strange place with few resources, in middle age he was

13

forty six, an age by which, in the normal scheme of things he should have been already

well established with a stable of workers and apprentices.

It is unusual for a man of Krimpers background not to have left a school. It is my belief

that, given both circumstance and age, he was simply not prepared to take on the

responsibility and load of training young boys. The rigours of the type of training and

expectations of the master were also sharply at odds with the Australian ethos:

In the days of the guilds, the achievement of skill and transition from apprentice to journeyman to master kept pace with the human lifespan.2

This concept of training still existed in the European setting with apprentices incorporated

into their masters household. Some years then, could be spent by the young practitioner

after his apprenticeship, travelling as broadly as possible to experience as much of different

masters as he could, prior to being ready to set up his own business. Australia, as isolated

as it was, offered little in the way of opportunities for young apprentices beyond their

initial training other than employment with the same teacher, or another similar. In

interview, Terence Lane, Senior Curator at the National Gallery of Victoria said:

These guys in Australia did have a kind of apprenticeship, but it wasnt the thoroughly traditional apprenticeship that went back to the middle ages that Krimper and Prenzl3 before him had. All the years of apprenticeship and then the masterwork and the journeymans years. You know, travelling around Europe and just looking at things, working in other peoples studios. The apprenticeship system here was just a pale reflection of that. Also, the Australian temperament was different too. Id be very surprised if any of them [Australian boys] could have knuckled under the way those European boys had to4

So the workshop he did set up was that of the established craftsman, employing only

experienced workmen.5 His exacting standards and complete intolerance of mediocrity led

to a high turnover of workmen, even when he employed European-trained men who were

more familiar with his methods. There were a couple of men who worked for him, on and

14

off, for the majority of the time the workshop existed, but, given the hours they worked,

there was little opportunity for them to pursue their own work. Consequently, there has

been no direct line of inheritance of the Krimper style, and no one to carry it on. So even

the work that is available to the Australian researcher is restricted to the period of the St

Kilda workshop.

Stylistically beyond a cursory glance at the available literature of the time Krimper

maintained his isolation, largely ignoring the work of other furniture makers and designers,

both local and international.6 Terence Lane says of both Krimper and other local

practitioners7 that:

they werent working in a vacuum, and they did know what was happening overseas and they always had, since the late nineteenth century, early twentieth century. Probably right through the nineteenth century, people like Robert Prenzl were in receipt of the latest magazines from EuropeKrimper would have subscribed to these magazines, or had access to them. There were always people travelling between Europe and Australia so he would have been well-informed about what was happening over there.8

The majority of evidence points to Krimper having made a decision that, having learned

the technical aspects of his craft, his goal was to find his own voice within that craft. Then

again, it could be that this was the track he was already on before he left Germany. At this

time, little is known of his European work. The Nazis would have seized much of what

was made for Jewish clients when their owners were forced to leave their homes and this

makes it exceptionally difficult to trace any such work. Berlin was comprehensively

bombed in the closing stages of the war, so little, in fact, may still be in existence.

15

It could be said that Krimper simply never adapted to the changes brought to his life

through his experience of being uprooted from his European base. In his book, Living in a

New Country, 1992, Paul Carter posits the following:

Two antithetical assumptions are commonly made about persons who remove themselves from one place to another: either that they bring with them intact the culture of their home country and, as far as they are able, impose it on their new surroundings; or else that new- comers experience arrival in the new land as a form of rebirth and, with a minimum of regret, shrug off their former identity, swiftly assimilating to the ways of the new host culture.9

Based on my research, I will elaborate on this hypothesis throughout the following

chapters. Krimper was no writer, so there exist none of the files of correspondence and/or

diaries, which would have provided the researcher with valuable primary material. The

notebooks from his workshop were destroyed after the death of his wife in 1981; so even

records of his work practice have been lost. Therefore, it is difficult to establish how

Krimper may have viewed his own position as a cabinetmaker in the wider context. It also

becomes very difficult to develop an analysis of his work in a way that would be true to

Krimpers intentions.

Also to be considered is the cult of individuality within the arts, to be treated with due

caution, but not dismissed. Obviously, the majority of practitioners intend that the product

of their endeavours be unique and special, so to suggest that Krimper is unclassifiable

simply because of his uniqueness would be tenuous. The clearest option seems to be to

look further at his circumstances the historical, geographical and ethnic considerations -

in an effort to understand why it is that he can be seen to not fit neatly into any particular

position. It may, in this way, not be possible to make a case for an actual positioning of his

work in the traditionally accepted sense, but I wonder if Krimper, who worked so hard to

maintain his air of unique individuality, would have wanted to be definitively categorised.

16

The most striking aspect of Krimpers work in Australia was his isolation. While it is rare

for anyone in a creative field to work totally in a vacuum, Krimper did find himself in a

situation that came very close. Similarities can be found with designer Walter Burley

Griffin, whose work was, in effect, a direct transplant of the Chicago school.10 As such, it

had a design context within the American scene, but in fact, he was located in Australia, so

it becomes regarded as unique within the Australian milieu. The circumstances that

brought Krimper to Australia at a time, which was significant in interrupting what would

have been a more to be expected sequence of career steps, together with his temperament,

produce a strong possibility of self-imposed isolation. In addition, the social environment

in which he found himself almost guaranteed the specificity of his clientele to some

degree, and the potential for furthering that isolation became magnified.

It is my contention that Krimper remains unique in the field of Australian furniture making

due to this combination of circumstances, and this makes it very difficult to confine him

within the bounds of a particular style. I do not intend to attempt to place him definitively

in an international context as that is beyond both the time and size restrictions of this

thesis. However, I will attempt to make an analysis of his developing style in the period of

the St Kilda workshop to demonstrate the effects of his transplantation, which have

resulted in the conundrum he continues to present to those who would attempt to confine

his work within any one particular style.

17

1 Shtetl: (Yiddish) Small Jewish community in Eastern Europe; village. Rutland, S. Edge of the Diaspora. Two Centuries of Jewish Settlement in Australia, Second Edition, Brandl & Schlesinger, Australia, 1997. Typically, the inhabitant of these types of communities was viewed as rural, uneducated, backward socially and religiously this being the region in which the Chassidim evolved the now ultra-orthodox end of the Jewish religious spectrum, characterised visually in the men by long payot (side-locks), broad black hats, long black coats and dangling tzitzit (ritual fringes) whose religious practices lend themselves to the ecstatic, mystical realms of the Kabbalah. 2 Rowely, S. Craft and Contemporary Theory, Allen and Unwin, Australia, 1997, p. xxi 3 Robert Prenzl (1866 -1941). Cabinetmaker of German extraction who settled in Melbourne in 1888. 4 Terence Lane. Interview with the author, 13th May 2004. Melbourne, Victoria. 5 I did have the great good fortune to meet with a man who was the exception to this now retired, he was employed by Krimper for six months as a fourteen year old with a view to being trained as an apprentice. In interview, he recounted what he experienced as Krimpers indifference to his training, saying that he remembered spending more time helping Mrs Krimper with shopping and child-minding than working with either Krimper or the other workmen. This was, of course, very much in line with Krimpers experience as an apprentice, where the young boys did become part of the Masters household to some degree, as character was being formed as well as skill. However, without the cultural understanding of the situation, and being endowed with a healthy desire for more hands on experience, the then teenager left Krimper for an apprenticeship with a local furniture factory where he was trained in carpentry. He sees, in retrospect, that Krimper was attempting to replicate his own apprenticeship experience, but had no way of understanding this at the time. 6 In a 1982 interview, Miriam Reidy Krimpers daughter said that Krimper didnt like Featherstones furniture. Also, that there were a number of books in the Krimpers personal library on furniture largely of the Bauhaus style. Miriam Reidy. Interview with Terence Lane, May 1982, Melbourne. National Gallery of Victoria Archive. Dr Ernst Fooks, architect and designer, also said that Krimper wasnt interested in the work of other cabinetmakers. Dr Fooks. Interview with Terence Lane, July 1982, Melbourne, National Gallery of Victoria Archive. 7 Some of those working at the time in Melbourne were Fred Ward, Grant Featherstone, Clement Meadmore and Fred Lowen. 8 Terence Lane. Interview with the author, 13th May, 2004. 9 Carter, P. Living in a New Country. History, Travelling and Language, Faber and Faber, London, 1992, p.98. 10 Terence Lane in interview with the author, 13th May 2004.

Chapter One. Literature Review

Schulim Krimper (1893-1971) occupies a unique position among Australian craftsmen. Not

only did he attain recognition from both clients and the personnel of Australian national

galleries from the earliest days of his workshop in Melbourne, his work has endured in both

private and public collections11 as an example of craftsmanship of the highest order. Despite

this, little has been published about either the man or his work. Krimper himself always

intended for a book to be published outlining his work but while he was largely instrumental in

the process of developing the ideas for this work, the project was not realised until well after

his death.

The resulting book, Krimper published in 1987, is a photographic essay of his work by Mark

Strizic with accompanying text by Terence Lane, then Curator of Decorative Arts at the

National Gallery of Victoria. It is a beautiful publication with the best of Strizics black and

white images of the furniture arranged into categories and simply captioned. Lanes text is an

outline of Krimpers training, life in Europe, migration to Australia, establishment of the

business in St Kilda and subsequent patronage of the National Gallery of Victoria. The

photography and text occupy quite distinct sections of the book itself and remain separate unto

themselves. Lane sets up the notion that Krimper, from the beginning, was able to step into a

gap in the Australian market:

The demand for well-designed, mass-produced furniture in the contemporary style was met by a group of young designersIn retrospect it is easy to see that an opening also existed for a craftsman who could supply one off pieces in the contemporary idiom for those who wanted and could afford something different. With his broad, traditional training and exposure to the modern style of northern Europe, Schulim Krimper was in a good position to step into this opening.12

18

He also makes it quite clear that, despite the recognition of the National Gallery of Victoria,

the bulk of Krimpers clientele remained among the European Jewish community13. This

would have contributed considerably towards the maintenance of a level of autonomy when it

came to design and working methods, although this is a notion that Lane does not pursue.

His summation of the development of Krimpers style states that the early work, while

restricted by the war-time regulations, was heavily influenced by indigenous furniture styles

of Germany and Austria14, those being the Biedermeier furniture of the early nineteenth

century and peasant, or folk furniture. Regarding Biedermeier, he says, With its severely-

reduced forms and broad, flat surfaces serving to highlight figured veneers of fruitwood and

other pale timbers.15

Sigrid Sangl, in Biedermeier to Bauhaus, 2000, sums up the philosophy behind Biedermeier as

one which rejected the excesses of the earlier Rococo Style and turned instead to a more spare

and moral simplicity espousing the values of family, modesty and comfortable

informality.16 Ornate forms with complex decorative motifs gave way to simpler, broader

shapes with expansive, flat planes used by the craftsmen to experiment with veneers, often

creating intricate patterning. Initially, the abandonment of many earlier decorative elements

was due to difficulties in obtaining exotic materials after the Wars of Liberation (1813-15).

Forced to make do with indigenous timbers and simpler bronzed fittings being made in

Vienna, cabinetmakers discovered that careful placement and combinations of different

veneers could create interesting effects. Eventually, this became the outstanding feature of the

furniture. The term Biedermeier is associated with a literary figure a fictitious character

that was created in the mid 1850s to portray all that was representative of the typical

German citizen17 A series of comic poems were published in a Munich newspaper and soon

19

grew into a model for living. Ultimately, the name has come to be associated with the furniture

and fabrics used by the middle class of the period between 1815 and 1848.

I would agree with Lanes link to Biedermeier as far as the simplicity of form is concerned.

However, for the Biedermeier craftsmen, this was a device to highlight the use of complex

veneer techniques, which was a feature of their work. Krimper, on the other hand, utilised the

simplicity of form to exploit the possibilities of solid timber and was not known to make use of

veneers. The identification of peasant furniture as a source for Krimpers inspiration is held by

a number of individuals18, but I consider it to be slightly tenuous19, with the exception,

again, of a certain simplicity of form.

The other major influence Lane cites is the Deutsche Werkbund. The Deutsche Werkbund

was formed in October 1907 by a group of designers and manufacturers, following the

Deutsche Kunstgewerbeausstellung (German Arts & Crafts Exhibition) in 1906. The founding

members were committed to both the recognition and revitalisation of traditional techniques

and craftsmanship, but also to fostering collaboration between different disciplines in order to

create accessible, appropriate buildings, furniture and crafts for the changing lifestyles of the

twentieth century. Simplicity of form, truth to materials and economy of production were all

key features of the style aspired to by members of the Werkbund. From the earliest days,

members looked to ways that traditional techniques could be adapted to new technologies

without compromising quality in order to produce items that would have the same longevity

as their handmade counterparts.20

The possible fusion of traditional methods with emerging technology had been a

preoccupation of German architects, designers and craftsmen since the turn of the century.

The Jugendstil movement of the late nineteenth century had focused on simpler, less

20

commercial values, utilising motifs from nature as inspiration for many of their designs.21

While producing elegant, fluid pieces of a highly organic nature, the Jugendstil craftsmen did

not produce work, which could be mass-produced, the carved ornamentation requiring the

work of individual craftsmen. Technological and economic changes in the new century

prompted designers and architects to ask new questions:

What were the forms of the future? How could a home be designed to meet the requirements of modern living? Would it ever be possible to create objects of quality through mass- production? Was hand production the sole guarantee of superior goods, or was there no avoiding the use of machinery in the manufacture of furnishings?22

Ultimately the debate was the cause of dissent among the members of the Werkbund.

Hermann Muthesius and Ernst Naumann pushed for standardisation while others, including

Bruno Taut, Henry van der Velde and Walter Gropius23, argued the case for individualism.

Escalating needs for consumer items after the havoc wreaked by the First World War led to an

acceptance of industrial production with the inevitable standardisation involved. Throughout

these upheavals, the central ethos of simplicity, affordability, and quality combined with

production of aesthetically pleasing projects remained central to the work of Werkbund

craftsmen.24

The Werkbund was eventually disbanded in 1934. Attempts to revive its existence in 1947

were unsuccessful. As a movement, if it is possible to regard it as such, it bridged the gap

between the Jugenstil, the branch of Art Nouveau, which emerged in Germany in the 1890s,

and the Modern Movement, as epitomised by the work of the Bauhaus practitioners. The

Deutsche Werkbund and the Bauhaus were both attempting to bring together art and craft.

Terry Smith writes of their attempts that:

Their relevance here is that, by mid-century, they had failed in their hopes for a widespread art-craft fusion It has been said that the Arts and Crafts movement of which all the celebrated

21

fusions, such as the Bauhaus, were instances - ended when the architects left, leaving the crafts high and dry.25

Krimper arrived in Berlin in the early twenties by which time the Werkbund was well

established and very active. He could not have failed to be aware of their work and ideals26

and no doubt those concepts had some effect on the formation of his ideas. The simplicity of

style and lack of ornamentation on the furniture of the Werkbund practitioners bears a strong

resemblance to the work Krimper produced in Australia. Another characteristic, revealed

construction and working methods, which showed the natural qualities of the materials,

clearly influenced Krimpers use of exposed dovetails as a design feature. However, while

Krimpers work does demonstrate clear truth to his materials and practicality of design in the

majority of pieces, he could not be said to have ever held economy of either production or

purchase price as priorities in his practice. So it can be said that while his style is informed, in

part, by the aesthetic consideration of the Werkbund practitioners, philosophically, in many

ways, his approach and methods are far removed.

Terence Lanes text is, by and large, a survey of Krimpers life and work in fairly simple

terms. Given, however, the context in which it is found, as an accompaniment to Mark

Strizics photography, this is not inappropriate. It leaves little opportunity for Lane to have

followed up many of the statements he has made with any detail.

A later publication, released by the National Gallery of Australia in 1997 in relation to their

exhibition The Europeans, includes a chapter by Lane about Krimper and Fred Lowen, a

contemporary working in Melbourne. Krimper and Lowen knew each other, in fact started out

together turning small pieces on the lathe.27 They parted company soon after, Lowen moving

into mass production with his company, Fler, formed in partnership with fellow Dunera

22

associate Ernest Rodeck. Frustratingly, Lane reiterates much of his previous material on

Krimper and adds to it a similar biographical essay on Lowen. He touches on what he sees as

the key points of Krimpers success being the outstanding quality of his work:

There had long been makers of fine furniture in Melbourne, including the recently defunct Goldman Manufacturing Company but never before had there been a cabinet-maker who raised the appreciating of timber to almost religious levels.28

He states also the critical importance of both Robert Haines patronage and the support of

Krimpers wife, Elsbeth:

She was his amanuensis, business manager, sounding board for new ideas, and arbiter elegantiarum. It was usually she who selected the leathers, fabrics and other accessories he used in his work. Some said she even played a role in the design process. Certainly, it was she who provided Krimper with the emotional stability and much of the physical comfort he needed to work effectively.29

What could have been an interesting opportunity to embark on a comparative analysis of the

two men and their work does not happen. As contemporaries, arriving in Australia within the

same period30 and settling in the same place, Lowen and Krimper offer much scope for

comparison. Lowen very quickly looked to the possibilities of mass production, seizing on the

post war need for simple, inexpensive modern furniture (Fig. 1) of a smaller scale, which

would fit into the style of the austerity period. Throughout his life, he travelled and availed

himself of the latest design information, which was incorporated into his products. Both

Lowen and his company became well known, integrated components of the modern Australia,

which was emerging from the shadows of British colonial influence and style. All of these

options were available to Krimper. It is very clear, given his solitariness and insistence on

maintaining his small workshop, resisting all suggestions that he might expand, he had no

intention of ever changing his working methods or adapting to a changing time.

23

Fig. 1 FLER FURNITURE, Manufacturer, Australia 1946-1968 Fred LOWEN, Designer Born Upper Silesia, Germany 1919 Arrived Australia 1940 Lounge chair c1963 designed 1963-64 Adelaide/Melbourne Vanikoro Kauri (?), wool upholstery. Gift of Mr Don and Mrs Meredyth Sarah 2002 Art Gallery of South Australia

In a rare scholarly critique of Krimpers work contained in a manuscript from the National

Gallery of Victoria which appears to be the text for a speech for the launch of the Lane/Strizic

book, Professor Brian Lewis writes:

24

A criticism of his work is that it sometimes shows the clash of outlook between the craftsman and the artist. The workmanship of Krimper is near perfection: every piece of timber is chosen with the craftsmans care but it is also chosen with an artists eye. No shape is formed without the craftsmans precision but the shape is the work of an artist. Doors shut and drawers run with almost disturbing ease and accuracy; every detail of material and equipment is the best that can be imagined. Sometimes one feels that the craftsman is dominant when refectory [sic] timbers such as Jarrah and Red Gum, are raised from their general utilitarian use to become choice furniture; it almost looks as if the timber had been selected to show the mastery of the craftsman - but surprisingly enough, these utilitarian timbers with all their hardness and difficulties of working show as superbly beautiful. Sometime, again, the virtuosity of the craftsman shows timber used in forms more suitable to ductile materials and whilst one is astounded at the proficiency, it adds little to the artistry.31

Professor Lewis has encapsulated very eloquently the duality of the work of Schulim Krimper.

While Krimper was trained in a deeply traditional manner in the various techniques of hand

made furniture, there is no doubt that he worked his timber, at times, in a way more akin to that

of a sculptor. However, regardless of the artist-like sensibilities of his approach to his materials,

he continued to work within the framework of cabinet making and did not, as far as it is known,

venture into the more abstract field of timber sculpture. The closest he came to this was in the

making of what he called the little things the small turned bowls and containers - but these

are still practical, useful items. Lewis is clearly in sympathy with Krimpers aims and

achievement, which is common to most of those who are familiar with the work and/or knew the

man. I find little to argue with in Lewiss text, being of much the same opinion regarding the

complexities of both Krimpers approach to his work and the finished product. It is this duality

so evident in his work that is among the factors, which make it so very difficult to make a clear

and simple classification of Krimpers position in any stylistic context.

25

These artists and craftsmen who do not stay within the understood confines of their chosen

discipline further fuel the debate of craft versus art. Sue Rowley, in the introduction to

Craft and Contemporary Theory says:

In the case of the crafts, the issue of functionality has rested on assumptions about domesticityThe formation of public and domestic domains, and the ideological perception of these as mutually exclusive, was integral to Western modernity. One aspect of post modernity that has been relatively under-theorised is our experience of significant shifts in domestic life. These shifts undoubtedly affect the way in which we use domestic and personal artefacts and therefore the meaning crafted objects have for us.32

As Rowley points out, craft necessarily pertains to the everyday object. We expect these

objects to fulfil particular functions, but their aesthetic function is secondary to the practical.

While craftsmen and artisans occupied a defined role in the days of the guilds, this was not

generally questioned. It is only in more recent times, where the craftsperson works more in the

way of the artist33, that the question of the integration of form and function has become a matter

of discussion and re-definition. Grace Cochrane makes this definition of craft in Rowleys book:

this word [craft] refers to a way of working, an attitude to production a practice, which includes a concern for materials and processes and a total understanding of the task in hand not, these days, in unquestioning tradition, but towards an imaginative end. The crafts were professions or trades, not products. People applied themselves to their craft; they didnt make it.34

Clearly, Krimper, in the European context, would have occupied a more clearly defined

position as a cabinetmaker than he did in post-war Australia. That he continued to portray

himself as an artist rather than a craftsman further blurs the issue. This is still a relatively new

area of discussion that includes a broad range of ideas, but there are still comparatively small

numbers of individuals participating in the debate. Peter McNeil attributes the paucity in

critical writing on twentieth century Australian craft to the relative weakness of the market

26

for 20th century Australian objects for much of this century.35 Although there are possible

grounds for further discussion along these lines, it is a vexed area of debate and beyond the

scope of this thesis.

Lane remains the primary source for Krimper. Archival material at the National Gallery of

Victoria reveals copious documentation of Lanes research with numerous transcripts of

interviews with collectors, Krimpers workmen, colleagues,36 Mr and Mrs Krimper and their

daughter, Miriam. This material has clearly been used by Lane as background for his work in

both books, but has not been much drawn upon since to expand the available literature.

Mainstream sources reveal only passing mention of Krimper. Grace Cochranes book, Craft

in Australia, 1992, is a broad survey of decorative arts across Australia since settlement. In

the chapter titled Reconstruction and Reassessment Cochrane sets the scene for a rapidly

changing post-war Australian environment:

During and after the war, the Labor government (1941-49) began to set social reforms in place. Energies were directed towards ensuring full employment, and material progress and development. Manufacturing industry, which had doubled in the thirties, further developed during the war to provide clothing and armaments. After the war, this expertise was turned to domestic production, and Holden cars, Hills hoists, Victa motor-mowers and numerous consumer appliances were among many post-war manufacturing successes.37

Clearly, the Australia Krimper arrived in was in a state of flux, the old order of colonial

complacency had gone, and the immediate post war period was one of rapid change. The

influx of migrants brought with them styles, tastes and traditions which were to eventually

weave themselves into the fabric of a new multicultural society:

The ideals of the Australian way of life were also endorsed in the

assimilation courses run for migrants who were expected to

become Australian as soon as possible. In spite of having their

names Australianised and their customs mocked, migrants slowly

27

began to change the sight and sound and taste of Australian life,

in ways that Australians eventually found they could not do without

(as long as there was full employment). Australians were beginning

to become sophisticated.38

Cochrane notes an increase in appreciation for the arts and an accompanying growth in art

schools and technical colleges, indication of a different awareness of the benefits of arts

education. This refers to the growing financial security of the country as it re-established itself

after the war and people began to experience the means to spend beyond the basic necessities.

Cultural life was changing fast too, partly in response to the rigours of the war years and the

social impact of many of the events in Europe and the Pacific. The new migrant population

brought not only European cultural and political ideals, but also the real face of the survivors of

the devastation. They set about making the most of a new, secure environment, building

businesses, opening restaurants, re-creating to some extent the familiar elements of their

previous lives.

The enormous American presence during the war, particularly in Sydney and Melbourne, had

brought the United States and its culture closer to Australia. Many Australian women married

American soldiers and went back with them to the USA, forging links with the country. The

alliance between the two countries, strengthened by joint action in the War diversified into

areas of trade and cultural exchange. This led to a lively and at times contentious scene with

various groups engaging in open opposition:

Radical dissent took place in the Contemporary Art Societies, the Realist Writers Groups and the small literary magazines, as well as in the Communist Party and the numerous supportive socialist cultural groups that developed throughout the war. At the same time craftspeople, designers and historians also explored the issue of what it meant to be Australian.39

The general public, however, were more concerned with getting on with life:

The population at large had little concern for what were perceived as the arts except in a traditional sense. Once the suffering of war

28

and hardship was over, the suburban dream made room for the popular, the labour-saving and the entertaining, and this usually meant what was mass produced and advertised in magazines (or television after 1956).40

The shift to America from Europe as the centre of the modern art world was also to have its

effect. Cochrane cites the Abstract Expressionist movement, which emphasised physical

expressions of the artist,41 as a way of thinking which was to have a major influence on the

attitudes of crafts practitioners in the next few decades. Functionalism, coming from William

Morris and Augustus Pugin in England and later the Bauhaus practitioners advocated a new

simplicity of style and form, partly driven by ideas of expediency and efficiency of both

design and manufacture.

This gave way to the Organic style of Americans Ray and Charles Eames (Figs. 2 and 3) who

exploited the possibilities of moulded materials in their quest for efficient, low cost mass-

production, which still had a distinctive style. Working with moulded laminated plywood and

metal, the they created mass-produced, smaller scale pieces with fluid lines and a spare finish.

29

Fig. 2 Ray and Charles EAMES Chair (670) and ottoman (671) 1956 Laminated Rosewood, metal, leather. Photograph: Emery, M. Furniture by Architects, Harry N. Abrams Inc, NY 1983, p.93.

Fig. 3 Ray and Charles EAMES ESU 400 c1952 Laminated plywood, angle iron.

Photograph: Sollo, J and N. American Insiders Guide to Twentieth Century Furniture, Octopus Publishing Group Ltd, UK, 2002, pg. 158.

30

In Australia, Roger McLay used similar concepts in the design and execution of the Kone

chair, which went into production in 1948.42 The influence of Scandinavian design (Fig. 4) also

became important, both for its aesthetic value and the ethos of craft-based rather than

technology driven production. Danish designer, Kaare Klint (1888-1954), is said to have been

the originator of the modern Scandinavian style.43 Hugh Honour describes Klints style as

the middle road between the two extremes of inter-war furniture design the haute

ebenisterie of Ruhlman and the antiseptic modernism of Le Corbusier and the Bauhaus

designers.44 Characterising his work is its utmost simplicity and its clear evidence of cultural

ancestry. Klint taught his students to study past Danish furniture makers, believing the

essential characteristics of form and construction of the old craftsmen were crucial to the

development of simple modern pieces. In Finland, architect Alvar Aalto (Fig. 5) was

experimenting with additional materials. Sarah Payne cites him as one of the first designers to

use webbing as an upholstery material. Douglas Snelling incorporated this idea on chairs in

the Snelling Line of the 1950s.45 (Fig. 6)

Fig. 4 Kaare KLINT Deck chair 1933 Teak

Photograph: Honour, H.Cabinet Makers and Furniture Designers, G.P. Putnams and Sons, NY, 1969, p. 289.

31

Fig. 5 Alvar AALTO Armchair 1947 Bent Laminated wood, webbing. Photograph: Emery, M. Furniture by Architects, Harry N. Abrams Inc, NY, 1983, p. 40.

32

Fig. 6 FUNCTIONAL PRODUCTS, St Peters, Sydney, manufacturer Australia 1947-1986 Douglas B. SNELLING, designer Born England 1916 Worked Australia 1942-1977 Died Hawaii 1985 Chair [Snelling Line] 1952 Wood, wood frame, cotton upholstery (replacement) Gift of Dr Marlis Thiersch 1991 Art Gallery of South Australia

This range of influences being felt in Australia and the local craftspeople experimenting with

new styles offered the buying public considerable variety in the market place. However, there

33

appears to have been equally varied amounts of communication and collaboration between the

practitioners. Cochrane comments on what she sees as a lack of a cohesive craft culture in

Australia at the time:

The contemporary crafts movement in Australia between 1940 and 1963 was not in fact a movement at all, but a number of separate threads that were developed in different circumstances, by different sorts of people, with diverse backgrounds and experiences, and with different motivations and expectations. While these people consolidated their own positions, there was to be no real coherence as a movement until the mid-sixties.46

This is an opinion, which seems also to be held by Sue Rowley. Writing in her essay in Noris

Iannous edited book, Craft in Society, 1992, she states:

In the Australian craft movements formative period of the 1960s and early 1970s, critical appreciation was heavily influenced by the prevailing modernist art theory. Elsewhere, the craft revival movements were under-pinned by earlier movements and which laid the groundwork of a number of diverse approaches to craft, and to crafts relationship with art and cultureIn Australia, fewer traditions existed to underpin development of studio crafts from the 1960s.47

This is a circumstance Cochrane returned to in a lecture published in 1993. Referring to

Cochranes lecture, in the introduction to a collection of edited papers on Contemporary Craft

Theory, Peter Timms queries the concept of a movement:

Take the contemporary crafts movement itself, for example. Was it ever a movement in the sense that the people involved at the time had a sense of ideological unity and common purpose or were they more likely to have seen themselves as individual artists independent of, and occasionally in fierce competition with each other? The evidence of Graces book suggests that there were, in fact, many parallel movements in which we can see in retrospect, some commonalities.48

While Timms is referring particularly to the contemporary craft scene in Australia, it is

pertinent to note his comment referring to the tendency to retrospectively attribute

characteristics to both individual practitioners and groups. Fred Ward wrote, in 1956, that

Australia lacked a national style. He attributed the lack of a cohesive style to the fact that:

people have always tended to regard pieces of furniture not only

34

as useful but also as symbols of social standing, and this confusion has, of course, led to endless copying of the styles of the past.49

From the derivative work of the early craftsmen, Ward moves in his discussion to that of his

contemporaries. He blames the buying public for much of the bad furniture available for the

mass market50 stating that generations of uncritical patrons had led to generations of

increasingly shoddy copies of earlier styles.

This all points to a cultural environment in which Krimper could hardly help but be isolated,

certainly in the initial stages of his workshop. Chapter Five of Cochranes book entitled The

Practitioners, allocated a number of pages to furniture makers, including Krimper. She

reiterates Terence Lanes reference to the influence of historical and modern German

furniture styles:

he brought his admiration for the Biedermeier furniture style of Germany and Austria and his experience of modern styles in Europe from the German Craft Workshops, to the making of furniture in an elegant original style. He was passionate in his interest in timber and influential in his use of local timbers, which he exploited for grain, colour and figuration.51

Having made this statement Cochrane, like Lane, does not offer any discussion as to her

position on these particular influences on Krimpers style. Unlike Lane, however, she has little

opportunity in such a broad survey to elucidate on individual practitioners in any detail.

Anthologies of contemporary furniture makers who have emerged since Krimper make only

passing reference to him, if at all. Michael Bogle and Peta Landman mention Krimper in the

introduction of Modern Australian Furniture; Profiles of Contemporary Designer-makers

mostly to give context to the background of the contemporary practitioners their book

surveys. The inference is that Krimper forms some part of the heritage of the more recent

furniture makers; although the authors do not go on to develop a case for this. It would, in any

case, be a difficult case to argue, as Krimper left no distinct school behind, training no

35

apprentices who might have carried on work in his tradition. Masters of their Craft, 1997, by

Noris Iaonnou, has no reference to Krimper at all. This survey of contemporary Australian

craftspeople and designers encompasses a broad range of individuals, including

a comprehensive group of furniture makers. However, Ioannou, in his discussion, offers no

references to those practitioners preceding these contemporary designer makers. Krimper

escapes any critical discussion in both these publications, clearly demonstrating the gap

between the discourse generated by the craft revival and contemporary practice, and its

antecedents in the period from the early 1900s to the 1960s.

Broadest in both information and variety have been the numerous articles, reviews and

interviews published in newspapers, journals and newsletters, both in the popular press and

the publications of various organisations. The authors come from various backgrounds and

bring a variety of biases to their writing dependent on knowledge and viewpoint, but together

this disparate collection of work provides a rich tapestry of information. Interviews with

Krimper in the local Melbourne newspapers at the times of the National Gallery of Victoria

exhibitions flesh out biographical details as different interviewers clearly drew different

memories from Krimper with differing lines of questioning. However, there continues to be a

lack of critical writing beyond the context of a newspaper review. The scholars continue to be

conspicuous by their absence.

Analysis of individual works has been done by curatorial staff of the museums, which have

been acquiring Krimper furniture in varying periods. Terence Lane has produced a detailed

analysis of the pieces in the National Gallery of Victoria collection, which was written for

inclusion in The Australian Antique Collector, 1984. The Gallery owns seven major works by

Krimper and three of his small pieces. The article gives detailed descriptions of each piece

36

following a radically condensed version of the biographical material in the previously

mentioned Lane publications. In summary Lane states:

During the 1950s and 1960s Krimpers name was synonymous with the finest in custom-made furniture. The high standards of craftsmanship on which that reputation was based are amply demonstrated by his works in the National Gallery of Victoria.52

This essay gives very clear descriptive information about the work, but with the exception of

the two quotes used in this discussion, little in the way of critical text. Again, the requirements

of the journal may have precluded this. However, Lanes final statement does beg the

question, for the researcher, of why Krimpers name was synonymous with the finest in

custom-made furniture53 and why It is fitting that Krimper should be well represented in the

National Gallery of Victoria?54 The blackbean sideboard and the cedar chest had, as Lane

says:

the distinction of being the first pieces by a contemporary cabinet- maker to be purchased by the Gallery and, as such, laid the foundation of its collection of modern Australian furniture.55

Clearly, by 1984, when the article was published, Krimpers reputation was solidly

established and well known. This was not the case at the time of those initial purchases in

1948. What then, was the motivation for the then director of the Gallery, Daryl Lindsay, to

make such a radical move? Decorative Arts, particularly large pieces of furniture, were far

from being standard purchases for any of the national galleries. The obvious answer, in

hindsight, is that Krimpers unique combination of exceptionally high quality craftsmanship

coupled with uniquely individual design elements had no parallel, either at the time or since.

This appears to be a tacet basis for Lanes statements.

Similarly, upon acquisition of a New Zealand Kauri sideboard (1955) by the Powerhouse

Museum in New South Wales, curator Anne Watson wrote an essay that appeared in the

37

January 1982 newsletter of The Australiana Society. Two years earlier than the Lane article

previously quoted, Watson says:

Krimper has long been regarded as the best cabinet maker and designer working in Melbourne since World War II and may well figure as one of the top Australian furniture craftsmen of this century.56

Again, this has been written in the early eighties, by which time there was no question of

Krimpers status. Watson does offer, at the end of her article, a glimmer of what is part of

the Krimper mystique:

In an age when mass-production techniques have all but precluded the survival of the individual furniture designer Krimper is outstanding for his refusal to capitulate to the temptations of commercialism by lowering his standards. His maintenance of a high level of design and craftsmanship continued the late nineteenth century arts and crafts tradition, and the example of his work may hopefully provide inspiration for the small group of young Australian furniture designers and craftspeople currently beginning to explore the possibilities of individually designed and crafted furniture.57

Both of these articles, with their detailed examination of particular pieces, will be drawn upon

further into this thesis when I, in turn, attempt to make a critical assessment of Krimpers work.

Further searches for relevant literature have led me to historical publications which have been

useful for their provision of much background context to Krimpers life, the environment from

which he came and the climate in Australia for migrants when he arrived in Australia just

before World War Two. The rationale of the National Gallery of Australias exhibition The

Europeans was to showcase those migr artists of the period between 1930 and 1960 who had

brought such rich expansion to art circles in Australia. This is a relatively new area of

scholarship, the end of the twentieth century bringing sufficient distance from the period of

intense activities of these New Australians making it possible to assess both their impact and

contribution to modern art and design in this country. Historians Suzanne Rutland and Hilary

38

Rubenstein both paint a bleak picture of the avenues for escape from the turmoil of Nazi

Germany, and the complexities of the social and political situation in which refugees found

themselves on arrival in Australia. This will be discussed further in the biographical chapter

of the thesis.

It is clear from the available literature that Krimper has, to date, been largely neglected. That

his position in the field of modern furniture is one of absolute supremacy is not argued, it is,

rather, fairly consistently supported. However, this seems to be contributing factor to the lack

of critical writing that exists. What has been possible to establish of his early life has been

well documented and will be pursued in the next chapter in an effort to provide a solid context

for his work in this country. How his work fits within the context of the Australian scene is a

discussion, which has much avoided by the majority of writers. I will attempt to redress this to

some degree in my discussion of both his domestic work and two large commissions executed

for the Catholic Church.

11 Public Collections: National Gallery of Australia, National Gallery of Victoria, Art Gallery of South Australia, Queensland Art Gallery, The Powerhouse Museum, The Australian Jewish Museum (Melbourne), The Cathedral Church of St Mary (Hobart), St Marys College University of Melbourne. Numerous private collections, names of collectors known withheld by request. 12 Stizic, M. & Lane, T. Krimper, Gryphon Books, Victoria, Australia, 1987, p. 17. 13 Op. cit. p. 18. 14 Op. cit. p. 19. 15 Ibid. 16 Sangl, S. Biedermeier to Bauhaus, Harry N. Abrams, NY, 2001, p. 56. 17 Sangl lists the concerns of this typical citizen as being a comfortable home, his family and good honest cooking and a disinclination to be involved in the politics of the day. Op. cit. p. 105. 18 Mark Strizic. Interview with the author, 10th May 2004. Private collector. Interview with the author, name withheld by request, 22nd June 2004. 19 Further discussion of this will be found in Chapter Three particularly in regard to the discussion about the kauri sideboard, 1955, held in the Powerhouse Museum collection. 20 Sangl, S. Biedermeier to Bauhaus, Harry N. Abrams, NY, 2000. 21 Fiell, C. & P. Design of the Twentieth Century, Taschen, 1999. 22 Sangl, S. Biedermeier to Bauhaus, Harry N. Abrams, NY, 2000. 23 Both were to be involved, after the First World War, in setting up the Bauhaus (1919-1933). Whitford, F., Bauhaus, Thames and Hudson, London, 1984. 24 Whitford, F., Bauhaus, Thames and Hudson, London, 1984. p.20. 25 Smith, T. Theoretical and museological perspectives, Craft and Contemporary Theory, Allen and Unwin, 1997, p. 22. 26 The Werkbund published yearbooks from 1912, which included articles and illustrations. In 1924 Form ohne Ornament (Form without Ornament) was published. Fiell, C. & P., Design of the Twentieth Century, Taschen, 1999.

39

While Krimper chose not to speak of direct influences when interviewed later in life, it is difficult to imagine that, as a young man just starting out, he would have been impervious to the activities of other craftsmen in his new city of Berlin. 27 Mark Strizic, interview with the author 10th May 2004. This is not supported by other literature, but Strizic was quite definite in his statement that the two had spent some time together in the beginning. 28 Lane, T. Schulim Krimper and Fred Lowen: Two Melbourne Furniture makers, The Europeans: migr artists in Australia 1930-1960, Australian National Gallery, 1997, p.65. 28 Lane, T. Schulim Krimper and Fred Lowen: Two Melbourne Furniture makers, The Europeans: migr artists in Australia 1930-1960, Australian National Gallery, 1997, p.65. 29 Lane, T. Op. cit. p. 66. 30 Fred Lowen was a passenger on the ship Dunera, and upon arriving in Australia was interned in the Tatiara camp for enemy aliens on the Hay Plains. He settled in Melbourne after the war. 31 Lewis, B. Unpublished manuscript, undated, National Gallery of Victoria Archive. 32 Rowley, S. Craft and Contemporary Theory, Allen and Unwin, Australia, 1997, p. xvi 33 Craft, as understood by the guildsmen and later by William Morris, was the product of craftsmen who were an integrated part of any community. Contemporary crafts practice often has the practitioner secluded in a studio making objects for display in a gallery rather than for everyday use. Timms, P. How craft theory subverts craft practice, The Art of Craft Criticism, publisher and date unknown. 34 Cochrane, G. Keeping content: craft, history and curatorship, Craft and Contemporary Theory, Allen and Unwin, 1997,p. 53. 35 McNeil, P. Rarely Looking in: The writing of Australian Design History c 1900-1990, Designing Australia. Readings in the History of Design, Ed. Bogle, M., Pluto Press, Australia, 2002. p. 20. 36 The term colleague is used in its broadest sense. Krimper was the head of his small workshop and his workmen were certainly, despite their expertise, subordinate to him and not to be seen in the same category as a colleague. However, in a notable few rare cases, Krimper worked with architects on a collaborative basis, with the work of both informing the other. 37 Cochrane, G. Craft in Australia, University of NSW Press, 1992, p. 58. 38 Ibid. 39 Cochrane, G. Op. cit. p. 60. 40 Ibid. 41 Ibid. 42 Bogle, M. Roger McLay and the Kone Chair, Designing Australia. Readings in the History of Design, Pluto Press, Australia, 2002, p.155. 43 Honour, H. Cabinet makers and Furniture Designers, A. P. Putnam & Sons, NY, 1969, p. 287. 44 Ibid. 45 Payne, S. Douglas Snelling and Functional Products, Designing Australia. Readings in the History of Design, Pluto Press, Australia, 2002, p. 159. 46 Cochrane, G. Op. cit. p.64. 47 Rowley, S. Warping the Loom: Theoretical Frameworks for Craft Writing, Craft in Society. An Anthology of Perspectives, Ed. Noris Ioannou, Fremantle Arts Centre Press, WA, 1992, p. 167. 48 Timms, P. What are the crafts and how do they operate in our culture today?, The Nature of the Beast: Writings on Craft, Craft Victoria, 1993, p. 3. 49 Ward, F. The Problems of Furniture Design, Designing Australia. Readings in the History of Design, Ed. M. Bogle, Pluto Press, Australia, 2002, p. 149. 50 Ward, F. Op. cit. p. 150. 51 Cochrane, G. Op. cit. p. 191. 52 Lane, T. Krimper Furniture in the National Gallery of Victoria, The Australian Antique Collector, 27th Edition, January-June, 1984, p. 46. 53 Op.cit. p. 44. 54 Ibid. 55 Op.cit. p. 46. 56 Watson, A. A Sideboard by Schulim Krimper, The Australiana Society Newsletter, January, 1982, p. 13. 57 Op cit, p.14.

40

41

Chapter Two. Biography

Schulim Krimper (Fig. 7) was, by most accounts, a solitary creature. Biographical information

about this man is scanty. The Krimpers kept to themselves, their focus was their business in St

Kilda. Interviews with collectors reveal a man whom many of them found intriguing but not

necessarily likeable. Terence Lane paints an eloquent portrait:

Even in his earliest days, a certain mystique surrounded Krimpers name. Many of his customers were in awe of him and his demeanour did little to put them at ease. When they visited the workshop he was rarely to be found at work. Wearing a black French beret, a smock or dustcoat and, when the mood took him, a monocle, he emerged mysteriously from the office. He preferred to be known as Krimper and rarely used his first name. Prospective clients were carefully assessed before he agreed to work for them. Customers had to place themselves entirely in his hands and had little or no input into the design of their pieces or even into the choice of timbers used. Price was never discussed. It was he who decided exactly what would be made.If the existing furniture displeased him, he issued an ultimatum: either the offending pieces were removed or the job would not proceed. Visits to the workshop to check on the progress of the job were discouraged, and Krimper would not brook interference.58

Fig. 7 Mark STRIZIC Born Germany 1928 Arrived Australia 1950 Schulim Krimper c1968 Photograph: Strizic M, Krimper, Gryphon Books, Victoria, Australia, 1987.

He was not given to small talk, or reminiscences. He kept no journals. The notebooks from his

workshop, mostly concerned with the business side of his work practice were destroyed

following the death of his wife. He maintained a level of distance from his clientele

preserving his self-made position of master craftsman. When interviewed by newspaper

journalists following his exhibitions with the National Galley of Victoria, he talked minimally

of himself and his life. However, when speaking of his work, of timber, his designs and his

42

43

love of working with wood, it is possible to read between the lines and get some sense of the

man himself:

Theyre glad when I say goodbye in those timber yards, laughs Krimper. I must buy what I love. How could I leave a piece of wood like this behind?

He rubs some mellow walnut. It is a lovers caress. Exquisite,

exquisite59 Further on he comments:

Death will comeWe should show the next people we are not parasites only eating and drinking leave beauty for them to see.60

While not speaking directly of himself, these comments offer a glimpse of a sensitive, sensual

man. Through these fragments, ostensibly about the wood and his work, rather than himself, we

see that he was deeply moved by his materials and equally determined to do them justice. This

is congruent with the level of his craftsmanship, but insights gained from these revealing

comments demonstrate that the distance and arrogance for which he was well known covered a

much softer side to his personality.

Krimper was born in the town of Sereth in the dukedom of Bukovina in the outreaches of what

was the Austro-Hungarian Empire. His father was a scholar who had attained a position of

respect in the community. Correspondence between Terry Lane and Krimpers daughter

Miriam61 discussing the title Reb as applied to Krimpers father would indicate he was held in

high esteem.62 In Krimpers own words, my father was a scholarly and deeply religious man.

Quiet and serene, he was respected for his wisdom and learning.63 Very little information

exists about Krimpers mother. In his biographical notes, he described her as a small,

temperamental and hard working woman.64

44

The intention of these hard working and educated parents was for their son to enter service with

a merchant or in a bank. Young Krimper had different ideas. An older friend had made a

wooden walking stick. Inspired by the beauty of the piece, Krimper decided he wished to learn

to make equally beautiful things. He was apprenticed to a master cabinet-maker65 and trained in

the highly exacting techniques of traditional cabinet-making. This involved extremely long

hours for four years with examinations at the end. Krimper passed and stayed on working for

this master for a number of years, quite content with being congenially employed and having

the means to feel socially equal to his peers. Conscious, however, of his lack of formal

education he joined a literary club to extend his learning. Very soon, his master informed him

that he had taught the boy as much as was possible and urged him to leave, travel and learn as

much as he could of his craft.

He served as a soldier for a brief time during World War One. In the aftermath of the War the

Austro-Hungarian Empire was torn apart. Due to shifting borders, Sereth became part of

Romania. Returning briefly, Krimper found much had changed, and not to his liking. He left,

never to return to the region.

Krimper moved northwards, working as he travelled. He found that there were many things

still for him to learn. Trained by a traditionalist, he was largely ignorant of modern

machinery. Settling in Berlin in the 1920s, he took whatever employment he could find. In an

interview with Veronica Matheson for The Herald in 1969, he spoke of an early job in

Germany in a factory where his task was to clean the timber. Undaunted by his lowly

position, he used his lunch breaks to make his own pieces. Called into his supervisors office

one day, he found that his activities had not gone unnoticed, the man having seen some of the

work and recognised Krimpers ability. He was given his own space and he warned me

45

that if I was no good I would be thrown out.66 He stayed for another two years. This anecdote

is a rare glimpse of his working life in Germany.

In interviews with Terence Lane, Krimpers daughter spoke of him spending summers in

regional German cities.67 In his own notes, Krimper mentions Weimar, Gotha and Eisenbach

in the rural provinces.68 He was attracted to the forests and more peaceful pace of the smaller

cities as well as homes furnished with Biedermeier work, one of the few furniture styles he

openly spoke of in relation to his own.

Life seemed to have settled for Krimper into a sustainable pattern of congenial work, ample

opportunity for continuation of his self-education in literature, history and art and the

possibility of regular escapes from the pressures of city living.

Hitlers rise to power and the passing of the Nuremburg Laws in 1933 changed everything. As

a Jew, he was not entitled to citizenship in Hitlers Germany. No longer able to own a

business or to get work easily, he was reduced to living largely from his savings. Offer of an

opportunity for part time work in a school teaching trades to young people preparing for

emigration to Palestine kept him going financially and brought him into contact with people

who could offer him alternatives of which he may not have been aware. At the very least, he

was able to satisfy his own need to be working with his beloved timber and inculcating this

love and skill into the hands and minds of his young students.

In 1936 he met Elsbeth Leipziger whom he married in 1938. She was a doctor working in the

Jewish Hospital in Wedding. Realising they had no option but to leave Europe they applied for

visas for a number of countries. An attempt to gain permits for Palestine failed, Krimper at 45

years was deemed to be too old. In November 1938 they received notification of the arrival

46

of permits to emigrate to Australia. They travelled by way of England, Krimper having agreed

to help in the building of a camp for young refugees soon to be arriving.

They arrived in Australia in May 1939, empty-handed. Tools and household goods were

packed, but never arrived. Originally destined for disembarkation in Sydney, the Krimpers

were persuaded to leave the ship in Melbourne by relatives of Elsbeth Krimper. At the age of

46, with no physical resources, Schulim Krimper prepared to start again in a strange country.

At the beginning of the 1930s, Australian Government policies regarding immigration were

very restrictive. The Great Depression had brought to a halt even the assisted passages

formerly available to British residents. The advent of Hitlers successful election and growing

official anti-Semitism leading to the formation of the Nuremberg Laws, depriving those of

Jewish ethnicity, by birth or conversion, of citizenship prompted Jewish leaders to begin

lobbying the Government for changes to Australian policy. Hilary Rubenstein, in The Jews in

Australia, writes:

However, since Australia was still in the grip of the Great Depression, there were fears that if too many migrants were admitted they would deprive Australians of all too scarce employment opportunities. Besides, the traditional preference for British migrants remained.69

In an earlier paragraph, she notes that, Very few non-British Jews arrived in the period 1930-

35.70 Summing up the situation at the time she says:

Therefore the federal authorities decided that no departure from the general conditions under which aliens were admitted could be made. To be admitted, an intending migrant had to possess a landing permit or other authorisation from the government. Permanent residency permits were issued only to people who had been nominated by close relatives who guaranteed to support them, if necessary, for five years.71

47

In the first of the three waves of immigration between 1930 and 1960, were those arriving

through the early 1930s as a direct result of the increasing difficulties in Europe following

Hitlers rise to power. These were people who had anticipated what was coming and had

made a planned exit from Europe. Due to their foresight, they had the financial wherewithal to

fulfil the Australian Governments criteria for the 500 landing money. The Nuremberg

Laws, with their deprivation of citizenship rights, including the right to business holdings and

the proceeds from such, precluded many from even applying. After much lobbying from

Jewish leaders following the increased difficulties for Germanys Jews, the period from 1936

to 1939 saw less restrictive immigration policies which allowed for slightly larger groups of

refugees to gain permits for Australia. The Krimpers, as members of this next group, gained

access to Australian permits. A second component arrived via the transportation of interned

enemy aliens from Britain in ships like the Dunera. Those of the latter part of this group,

including Fred Lowen, were in turn sent to enemy alien camps when they reached Australia,

until intervention by Jewish welfare groups succeeded in achieving freedom for them. The

third main group arrived over a lengthy period after the war. This time it was very diverse

groups of nationalities, with great numbers from Europes Displaced Persons Camps

including survivors of the concentration camps.

At all times, government policies dictating quotas of desirable migrants determined who had

access to Australia and who did not. In order to preserve the British flavour of the country, the

early lists had those of Anglo Saxon origins as the most desirable candidates. As the situation

in Europe changed, so did the make-up of the lists. With the White Australia Policy still in

existence, smaller quotas of permits were allocated to countries in far southern and eastern

Europe. At the bottom of the priority list were Europes Jews. Categorised by their cultural

background before their nationality, they faced even more difficulty gaining permits to come to

Australia. Lobbying by representatives of the Jewish communities in Melbourne and

48

Sydney, particularly, gained slow improvements for the status of would-be Jewish

immigrants, but the prevailing attitudes were not encouraging. Those who did get here found

that the local Jewish communities were not always as welcoming as they might have hoped.

Of primarily English extraction, Australias Jewish population was very assimilated into

Australian cultural life. In Edge of the Diaspora Suzanne Rutland writes:

The refugees who arrived immediately before World War II received a hostile reception from both the Jewish and non-Jewish communities. The latter was critical of the refugees not as Jews, but as foreigners. The anglicised Jewish community rejected social contacts with the refugees. As Australians, they did not understand what was happening in Nazi Europe. This rejection was also a reflection of fear and distrust, because the refugees appeared as a potential threat to the high social and civic status enjoyed by Australian Jewry, a reaction typical of an isolated and parochial community.72

In international terms, Australias quotas for refugee entry were better, per head of

population, than many other countries. However, the individual experience must have been

disillusioning, to say the least. The Krimpers, arriving as part of the second main group, with

few physical resources, must have wondered just what opportunities really awaited them.

Rutlands book gives much useful detailed information about the refugee situation in

Australia from the 1930s to the end of the 1960s the period used by the National Gallery of

Australia for its exhibition, The Europeans. This offers some context for the degree of

isolation in which Krimper worked, and the development of many of his work practices,

beyond the simple facts of his training and background.

Elsbeth Krimper, a doctor, was not permitted to practice. Krimper was without the means to

set up his own business. He took a job in a factory manufacturing window frames. It was no

place for a craftsman of his training and temperament. He was utterly unable to work in an

environment where he was deemed to be too slow due to his quest for perfection. He lasted

only two and a half days before being dismissed. Refusing to be put in a similar position again

and motivated by the ambition to have his own workshop, he borrowed money from Elsbeths

49

brother to rent premises and put deposits on materials and machinery. Despite what was to be

a short-lived partnership, Krimper was able to stay on at his new workshop. He received

orders from others in the immigrant community. However, even with good support from his

clientele, the wartime laws sealing the prices manufacturers were permitted to charge

prevented him from making a living. Again, his training appeared to be his own enemy.

Unable to bring himself to compromise techniques and standards, each piece took too long to

be financially viable. An order from the Royal Australian Airforce to make instrument boxes

rescued him from spiralling debt, seeing him through the war in relative security.

With the end of the war came the end of manufacturing restrictions. While the Krimpers had

arrived in Australia without money or tools, they did have one solid resource. Incoming

refugees from Europe, combined with the existing European Jewish community provided

Krimper with an educated clientele who were well accustomed to having furniture made for

their houses and apartments. New arrivals heard of the furniture maker in St Kilda who was

taking commissions for high quality work. As they became established many became regular

clients, increasing his workload. He was able to employ more craftsmen to help with the work

and in doing so, made more time to indulge himself in a favourite past-time, turning small

pieces, bowls and lidded containers from off-cuts of wood from the workshop. He made these

throughout his working life, often giving them to friends and favoured clients. In the early

days of the workshop though, Elsbeth Krimper used a number of them for window dressing at

the workshop.

They caught the eye of Robert Haines, then Assistant Director at the National Gallery of

Victoria. In turn, he brought Krimper and his work to the attention of Daryl Lindsay, Director

of the Gallery. Gallery policy was changing and new attention was being paid to the

Decorative Arts. A number of Krimper pieces were purchased by the Gallery for its

50

permanent collection in 1948, the first work of any contemporary furniture maker to be

acquired by the Gallery. Robert Haines maintained his contact with Krimper, encouraging and

supporting his endeavours. In the early fifties he suggested to Krimper that he set aside

special pieces for an exhibition to be held at Georges Gallery. The exhibition was a

resounding success, bringing Krimper to the attention of a much broader public. This was

followed in 1956 by some of Krimpers work being included in an exhibition sponsored by

the Commonwealth Department of Trade at the Rockerfeller Centre in New York. The work

was very well received with all the pieces sold. The hoped for continuation of American sales

didnt happen however. This appeared to make little difference to the way he was perceived at

home, with a steady clientele of local customers continuing to make their way to the

workshop. The National Gallery of Victoria stepped in once again in 1959, mounting a

retrospective of his work. By now, Krimper was a well-known figure on the Melbourne scene.

As well as his private clients he had come to the attention of the Catholic Archbishop of

Hobart and was working on a large commission for the cathedral in Hobart. This would lead,

a few years later, to a similar, more comprehensive commission for the chapel at the soon to

be built St Marys College at the University of Melbourne.

The acknowledgment by the National Gallery of Victoria of Krimpers work, both through the

exhibitions and, more importantly, acquisition of his work was critical to Krimpers

continuing vision of himself as an artist craftsman. He created and maintained a persona that

was intended to leave his clients and the wider community in no doubt whatsoever that they

were dealing with an artist, not a mere cabinet-maker. He was a small man physically, but

collectors interviewed73 said that he never appeared as small as he was. He was always neatly

dressed, wearing a shirt, tie and jacket under a dustcoat in the workshop, this ensemble topped

with a black beret. This was seen by many as something of a performance a deliberate front

designed and maintained to inspire clients with respect for his position. It certainly awed

51

and frightened many of the young new brides whose houses he visited as a preface to

designing their furniture, perhaps enabling him to have a freer reign with the designs, having

first intimidated his clients.74 He preferred to be known as Krimper75, never using his first

name. His