中文字幕理论片,69视频免费在线观看,亚洲成人app,国产1级毛片,刘涛最大尺度戏视频,欧美亚洲美女视频,2021韩国美女仙女屋vip视频

Achim Moeller, Managing Principal of The Lyonel FeiningerProject LLC, New York–Berlin has confirmed the authenticity of thiswork, which is registered under no. 1489-04-02-18. The work will beincluded in the forthcoming Catalogue Raisonné of Paintings byLyonel Feininger, compiled by Achim Moeller, under no. 88.

Additional information for this entry was provided by TheLyonel Feininger Project, New York–Berlin.

“I believe firmly that every picture that deserves the namemust be an absolute synthesis of rhythm, form, perspective andcolor; and even that is not good enough if it is not ex-pressive.”(Lyonel Feininger autobiographical essay reproduced in LesTendences Nouvelles, no. 56, 1912, quoted in H. Hess, LyonelFeininger, London, 1961, p. 55).

Executed in a powerful rush of color and movement,Trompetenbl?ser I captures the dynamism and vibrancy of LyonelFeininger’s style at an important moment of transition in hisartistic career, as he took a decisive step towards the boldangularity of his mature painterly aesthetic. Created in 1912, thework clearly reflects the dual influences of Cubism and ItalianFuturism on Feininger during this formative stage of his career, ashe sought to fuse the abstract elements of composition, perspectiveand color into a new and highly ex-pressive form ofart. 

Feininger had first encountered these revolutionary aestheticsduring a visit to Paris in the spring of 1911, where Cubism hadcaptured the imagination of the avant-garde. “I had gone to Parisfor two weeks,” he later recalled of this trip, “and found the artworld agog with Cubism, a thing I had never heard even mentionedbefore, but which I had already, entirely intuitively, strivenafter for years” (Feininger, in a letter to Alfred Vance Churchill,1913, cited in Hess, op. cit, p. 52). The angular forms anddisjointed perspective of Cubism proved a revelation for Feiningerand immediately inspired a stylistic shift in his work towards evermore disruptive conjunctions of flat planes of color. This partialadoption of the Cubist aesthetic was not an emulation of the FrenchCubists’ paintings however, but an incorporation of their ideasinto the progressive logic of his own work. In a letter to his oldfriend Alfred Vance Churchill he explained: “My ‘cubism,’ to somiscall it, for it is the reverse of the French Cubists’ aims, isbased upon the principle of monumentality, concentration to theabsolutest extreme possible, of my visions…My pictures are evernearing closer the Synthesis of the fugue” (quoted in, ibid.,56). 

This emphasis on monumentality and on a concentrated purity ofform is clearly evident in Trompetenbl?ser I through the deliberateconcentration of the exaggerated elongated forms of the figures andthe prism-like division of light and color. Suggesting a strikingsurface of sharp, angular, overlapping forms, the compositionderives from an early gouache painted in 1910, in which aprocession of harlequins and masked revelers move through ananonymous townscape. Belonging to Feininger’s early series known asthe ‘grotesques,’ it conjures a caricature-like atmosphere of theworld as a bizarre and glorious masquerade. The atmosphere of thelater, more colorful and dynamic oil version is however, closer tothat of another working of the same subject, Carnival in Arcueil of1911. In this similarly vibrant work, Feininger’s favored motif ofthe carnival procession is dominated by a tall, elegant andsolitary figure of a trumpeter, silhouetted against a similarlyspectacular architectural urban backdrop. Dominating both of thesepaintings are the dramatic and seemingly elongated arches of theRoman viaducts that had so impressed Feininger on his first visitsto Arcueil and Meudon and which he had specifically revisitedduring his trip to Paris in the spring of1911. 

In contrast to Carnival in Arcueil, the vast towering viaductin Trompetenbl?ser I becomes merely an architectural echo of theemotion, noise and excitement conjured by this semi-abstractpainting. Depicting the joyous and frenetic emotion of a carnivalprocession marching through the streets of the “City at the End ofthe World”—the imaginary city that forms the backdrop to so many ofFeininger’s early paintings—the subject matter of the compositionboth supports and reflects the energetic and discordant style ofthe painting’s execution. The musical theme of the painting and itsatmosphere of noisy frivolity has been here employed as the vehiclethrough which the inherent dynamism of Feininger’s sharp angularabstract forms and colors are orchestrated into a cleverlycounterbalanced compositional whole. 

This aspect of the painting, its pictorial emphasis on thenoise and movement of the figures is essentially a Futurist elementthat almost certainly reflects the influence of the paintings ofFuturist artists like Gino Severini and Umberto Boccioni onFeininger at this time. In the spring of 1912 Herwarth Walden heldthe first exhibition of Futurist art in Germany at the Galerie derSturm in Berlin. Accompanied by a celebrated visit to Berlin fromthe movement’s leader and founder, the poet and master propagandistFillipo Marinetti, the exhibition was accompanied by the firstpublication in German of the Futurist Manifesto and caused a furorthroughout the city. As Walden’s wife Nelly recalled, “Sometimesthere were a thousand visitors per day. The press could complain asmuch as they wanted, which they did, but everyone wanted to see theexhibition. It was fashionable to have been there” (quoted in D.Eimert, Der Einfluss des Futurismus auf die deutsche Malerei,Cologne, 1974, p. 105). 

It is not known whether Feininger visited this famousexhibition, but it seems almost inevitable that he did. Apart fromthe huge level of excitement surrounding the show, his paintings ofthis period immediately seem to reflect the influence of theItalian artists at the exhibition. Indeed, with its strongCubo-Futurist forms and its converging yellow lines of trumpetssuggesting the noisy blasts and frenetic movement of the carnivalparade as it invades the city, Trompetenbl?ser I can in many waysbe seen as a direct response by Feininger to the Futurists’exhibition and their own invasion of the Berlin art-scene. Echoingthe light, form and color of Boccioni’s famous painting La stradaentra nella casa of 1911, Trompetenbl?ser I is a similar fugue-likeconstruction of vibrant form and color that fuses into a colorfulunity to suggest an invasion of dynamic energy, noise, andexcitement. The only difference being that instead of invading thebourgeois peace and calm of Boccioni’s mother’s apartment,Feininger’s trumpeters and carnival performers are blasting theirway through the calm streets of his genteel and imaginary “City atthe End of the World.” 

The history of this painting’s provenance also forms animportant part of Feininger’s life-story. Trompetenbl?ser I islisted as no. 31 from a group of around 50 important paintings byFeininger that were left in hiding in Germany when he fled theThird Reich in 1937. His work was considered degenerate under theNazi regime and many of his paintings had been confiscated by theauthorities long before the artist escaped for New York. Indeed, asearly as the spring of 1933, Feininger had moved some of hispossessions into storage following a house-search by theauthorities, and he began to hide the finest works in hiscollection in order to protect as many as possible. As he departedGermany, Feininger entrusted their safe-keeping to his young friendHermann Klumpp, a former pupil at the Bauhaus and a regular guestat the Feiningers’ home. In January 1938, Feininger requested thatKlumpp ship his possessions to the U.S. When the supposed remnantsof the collection arrived, Feininger was heard to say, "He sent menothing of what I asked for." Klumpp had sent household goods, butnot the fifty paintings Feininger had loved enough to safeguard instorage elsewhere. 

In order to avoid the destruction of these works, Klumpp hadconvincingly claimed ownership of the art and kept them safe inNazi Germany. No further requests, formal or informal, were made bythe Feiningers for the paintings because Klumpp seemed, quitegenuinely, to fear for his life and for that of his wife and twochildren. Such a shipment would have constituted an admission ofguilt regarding Klumpp’s well-motivated fraud and perjury. It wasunder these circumstances that Hans Hess—the co-ordinator of thecatalogue raisonné for Feininger’s work—was briefed when he visitedFeininger’s wife Julia in the United States. In order to ensureKlumpp’s safety they agreed to list the works as "Inaccessible," incontrast to the other works that had been lost or redistributedduring the war (the war ultimately resulted in the change or lossof possession of 348 of the artist’s pictures). This maneuverensured Klumpp’s safety as well as that of the paintings, as theywere neither certified as the possessions of an alien, nor falselylisted under his name. However, at the end of the war, Klumpp nowlived in East Germany and his correspondence became increasinglyless satisfactory to the Feiningers, and especially so after theartist’s death in 1956. It appears that he had exerted himself somuch in the protection of Feininger’s paintings that they had, inhis mind, become his. 

No further action was taken until after the death of Julia,when the property in theory should have constituted a part of theestate of her heirs. The executors, Ralph F. Colin (the familyattorney) and his son, who had known of the existence of theseworks, set about tactfully arranging for their restitution. In1976, Colin took Klumpp to court and secured title of the works forthe Feininger Estate. However, the German Democratic Republic (GDR)then asserted their authority by seeking possession over thepaintings, being the property of an alien. Diplomatic efforts weremade for years by Colin, culminating in a suit against the EastGerman government, aided by a mirror image case happeningconcurrently, in which the East Germans were trying to reclaim twoDürer paintings then in private hands in the United States. Thisstrategy worked, and the East Germans returned the works to theStates, where, in 1985, all 49 paintings were exhibited for thefirst time in over fifty years at the Exhibition Lyonel Feiningerat the Acquavella Galleries, New York and at the PhillipsCollection, Washington, D.C.

紐約-柏林萊昂內(nèi)爾·費(fèi)寧格項(xiàng)目有限責(zé)任公司總裁阿希姆·莫勒證實(shí)了該作品的真實(shí)性，該作品的注冊(cè)編號(hào)為1489-04-02-18。這項(xiàng)工作將列入即將舉行的會(huì)議。繪畫目錄作者：LyonelFeininger，由Achim Moeller編輯，第88號(hào)。

這一條目的補(bǔ)充資料是由紐約-柏林萊昂內(nèi)爾·費(fèi)寧格項(xiàng)目提供的。

“我堅(jiān)信，每一幅名副其實(shí)的圖畫都必須是節(jié)奏、形式、視角和色彩的絕對(duì)綜合，即使是這樣也不夠好。沒有表現(xiàn)力。“(萊昂內(nèi)爾·費(fèi)寧格自傳體論文轉(zhuǎn)載于新來(lái)的，第56號(hào)，1912年，引用于H.Hess，萊昂內(nèi)爾·費(fèi)寧格倫敦，1961年，p.55)。

在強(qiáng)烈的色彩和運(yùn)動(dòng)中執(zhí)行，Trompetenbl ser I在萊昂內(nèi)爾·費(fèi)寧格藝術(shù)生涯的一個(gè)重要轉(zhuǎn)變時(shí)刻，他抓住了萊昂內(nèi)爾·費(fèi)寧格風(fēng)格的活力和活力，朝著他成熟的繪畫美學(xué)的大膽角度邁出了決定性的一步。創(chuàng)作于1912年，作品這清楚地反映了立體派和意大利未來(lái)主義在他職業(yè)生涯的這一形成階段對(duì)費(fèi)寧格的雙重影響，因?yàn)樗噲D將構(gòu)圖、透視和色彩的抽象元素融合成一種新的、具有高度表現(xiàn)力的藝術(shù)形式。

費(fèi)寧格在1911年春天訪問(wèn)巴黎時(shí)，第一次遇到了這些革命性的美學(xué)，在那里，立體派吸引了先鋒派的想象力?！拔胰グ屠枰呀?jīng)兩個(gè)星期了，”他后來(lái)回憶道，“我發(fā)現(xiàn)藝術(shù)世界充滿了立體主義，這是我以前從未聽說(shuō)過(guò)的，但我已經(jīng)完全憑直覺在此之后奮斗了?！倍嗄陙?lái)“(費(fèi)寧格在1913年寫給阿爾弗雷德·萬(wàn)斯·丘吉爾的一封信中引用了”赫斯“一書，同前，p.52)。立體派的棱角分明的形式和斷斷續(xù)續(xù)的視角證明了費(fèi)寧格的啟示，并立即激發(fā)了他的作品風(fēng)格上的轉(zhuǎn)變，使他的作品更加具有破壞性的平面色彩連接。然而，這種對(duì)立體派美學(xué)的部分采納并不是對(duì)法國(guó)立體派繪畫的模仿，而是將他們的思想融入了他自己作品的進(jìn)步邏輯。在給他的老朋友阿爾弗雷德·萬(wàn)斯·丘吉爾的信中，他解釋說(shuō)：“我的‘立體主義’-如此誤解它-是因?yàn)樗c法國(guó)立體派的目標(biāo)相反，是建立在不朽原則的基礎(chǔ)上的，濃度到了最極端的可能，我的愿景，…我的照片越來(lái)越接近“賦格”的合成。同上，56). 

這種強(qiáng)調(diào)的重要性和形式的高度純潔性明顯地體現(xiàn)在以下幾個(gè)方面：Trompetenbl serI通過(guò)刻意集中夸張的拉長(zhǎng)形式的人物和棱鏡一樣的光和顏色的劃分。這是一幅鮮明、棱角分明、重疊的構(gòu)圖，源自1910年一幅早期的水粉畫，在這幅畫中，一隊(duì)哈萊金人和戴著面具的狂歡者在一片無(wú)名的市容中穿行。屬于費(fèi)寧格早期系列的“怪人”，它把世界上的漫畫般的氣氛想象成一場(chǎng)奇異而光榮的化妝舞會(huì)。然而，后來(lái)的、更豐富多彩、更有活力的石油版本的氣氛，更接近于同一主題的另一個(gè)工作，Arcueil的狂歡節(jié)1911年。在這個(gè)同樣充滿活力的作品中，費(fèi)寧格最喜歡的狂歡節(jié)主題是一個(gè)高大、優(yōu)雅和孤獨(dú)的小號(hào)手的身影，在同樣壯觀的城市建筑背景下呈現(xiàn)出輪廓。在這兩幅畫中占據(jù)主導(dǎo)地位的是羅馬高架橋的戲劇性和看似拉長(zhǎng)的拱門，費(fèi)寧格第一次訪問(wèn)阿奎爾和梅登時(shí)就留下了深刻的印象，他在1911年春天的巴黎之行中特別重訪了這兩幅畫。

與.形成對(duì)比Arcueil的狂歡節(jié)，巨大的高架橋Trompetenbl serI變成了這幅半抽象畫所喚起的情感、噪音和興奮的建筑回聲。在“世界盡頭的城市”(City At The End TheWorld)的街道上游行的狂歡節(jié)，描繪了歡樂和瘋狂的情感-這座想象中的城市構(gòu)成了費(fèi)寧格早期繪畫的背景-作品的主題既支持又反映了這幅畫的執(zhí)行過(guò)程中充滿活力和不和諧的風(fēng)格。這幅畫的音樂主題及其喧鬧輕浮的氣氛被用來(lái)作為工具，通過(guò)它將費(fèi)寧格銳利的角度抽象形式和色彩的內(nèi)在動(dòng)力編排成一個(gè)巧妙的、平衡的組合整體。

這幅畫的這一面，其對(duì)人物的噪音和運(yùn)動(dòng)的重視，本質(zhì)上是未來(lái)主義者的元素，幾乎可以肯定地反映了當(dāng)時(shí)像吉諾·塞韋里尼和烏姆貝托·博喬尼這樣的未來(lái)主義藝術(shù)家的繪畫對(duì)費(fèi)寧格的影響。1912年春天，赫沃思·瓦爾登在柏林的斯塔姆博物館舉辦了德國(guó)第一次未來(lái)主義藝術(shù)展覽。在該運(yùn)動(dòng)的領(lǐng)袖、創(chuàng)始人、詩(shī)人和宣傳大師菲力波·瑪麗內(nèi)蒂(FillipoMarinetti)著名的柏林之行的陪同下，這場(chǎng)展覽還伴隨著第一次以德語(yǔ)出版的“未來(lái)主義者宣言”，并在整個(gè)城市引起了轟動(dòng)。正如瓦爾登的妻子耐莉回憶的那樣，“有時(shí)每天有一千名訪客。媒體可以隨意抱怨，但每個(gè)人都想看展覽。去那里是很時(shí)髦的“(引用D.Eimert的話)，未來(lái)之路的未來(lái)之路科隆，1974年，p.105)。

目前還不清楚費(fèi)寧格是否參觀了這個(gè)著名的展覽，但他的參觀似乎幾乎是不可避免的。除了對(duì)展覽的巨大興奮之外，他這一時(shí)期的繪畫似乎立即反映了意大利藝術(shù)家在展覽中的影響。事實(shí)上，以其強(qiáng)大的古巴未來(lái)主義形式和它匯聚的黃色號(hào)角，暗示著狂歡節(jié)游行的喧鬧和瘋狂的運(yùn)動(dòng)，因?yàn)樗肭至顺鞘校琓rompetenblserI在許多方面可以被看作是費(fèi)寧格對(duì)未來(lái)主義者展覽和他們自己入侵柏林藝術(shù)界的直接反應(yīng)。博喬尼名畫的光、形、色的回響[醫(yī)]拉斯特拉氏菌1911年，TrompetenblserI是一個(gè)類似賦格的構(gòu)造，充滿活力的形式和顏色，融合成一個(gè)豐富多彩的統(tǒng)一，以表明入侵的動(dòng)態(tài)能量，噪音，和興奮。唯一不同的是，費(fèi)寧格的喇叭手和狂歡節(jié)表演者非但沒有侵犯博喬尼母親公寓的中產(chǎn)階級(jí)安寧和平靜，反而在他的紳士和想象中的“世界盡頭的城市”的平靜街道上轟動(dòng)一時(shí)。

這幅畫的來(lái)歷也是費(fèi)寧格生平故事的重要組成部分。Trompetenbl serI費(fèi)寧格在1937年逃離第三帝國(guó)時(shí)被留在德國(guó)藏匿的50幅重要畫作中被列為第31號(hào)。他的作品在納粹統(tǒng)治下被認(rèn)為是墮落的，他的許多畫作早在藝術(shù)家逃到紐約之前就被當(dāng)局沒收了。事實(shí)上，早在1933年春天，費(fèi)寧格就在經(jīng)過(guò)當(dāng)局的搜查后，把他的一些財(cái)產(chǎn)搬進(jìn)了倉(cāng)庫(kù)，為了保護(hù)盡可能多的人，他開始把收藏中最好的作品藏起來(lái)。當(dāng)費(fèi)寧格離開德國(guó)時(shí)，他把他們的安全托付給了他的年輕朋友赫爾曼·克倫普(HermannKlumpp)，他曾是包豪斯的一名學(xué)生，也是費(fèi)寧格家的常客。1938年1月，費(fèi)寧格要求Klumpp把他的財(cái)產(chǎn)運(yùn)到美國(guó)。當(dāng)所謂的遺物到達(dá)時(shí)，有人聽到費(fèi)寧格說(shuō)：“他沒有寄給我要的東西?！笨藗惼占膩?lái)了家用電器，但費(fèi)寧格所喜愛的五十幅畫卻不足以保存在其他地方。

為了避免這些作品被毀，Klumpp令人信服地宣稱擁有這些藝術(shù)品，并在納粹德國(guó)保護(hù)了它們的安全。費(fèi)寧格夫婦沒有再正式或非正式地要求畫這些畫了，因?yàn)榭藗惼账坪醴浅Ｕ嬲\(chéng)地?fù)?dān)心他的生命，以及他妻子和兩個(gè)孩子的生命。這樣一批貨物將構(gòu)成對(duì)克倫普動(dòng)機(jī)良好的欺詐和偽證罪的承認(rèn)。正是在這種情況下，漢斯·赫斯-目錄葡萄干關(guān)于費(fèi)寧格的工作，他在美國(guó)拜訪費(fèi)寧格的妻子朱莉婭時(shí)，聽取了簡(jiǎn)報(bào)。為了確保Klumpp的安全，他們同意將這些作品列為“不可取用的”，與戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)期間丟失或重新分發(fā)的其他作品形成對(duì)照(戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)最終導(dǎo)致348幅藝術(shù)家的作品改變或丟失)。這一策略確保了克倫普的安全，也確保了這些畫的安全，因?yàn)樗鼈兗葲]有被證明是外星人的財(cái)產(chǎn)，也沒有在他的名下虛假列出。然而，在戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)結(jié)束時(shí)，克倫普現(xiàn)在住在東德，他的書信對(duì)費(fèi)寧格爾一家來(lái)說(shuō)越來(lái)越不滿意，特別是在1956年畫家去世之后。看來(lái)他在保護(hù)費(fèi)寧格的畫方面發(fā)揮了很大的作用，在他的心目中，這些畫成了他的畫。

直到朱莉婭死后才采取進(jìn)一步的行動(dòng)，理論上該財(cái)產(chǎn)應(yīng)該是她的繼承人的遺產(chǎn)的一部分。遺囑執(zhí)行人拉爾夫·F·科林(家庭律師)和他的兒子知道這些作品的存在，他們開始巧妙地安排歸還這些作品。1976年，科林將克倫普告上法庭，并獲得了費(fèi)寧格莊園工程的所有權(quán)。然而，德意志民主共和國(guó)(民主德國(guó))隨后聲稱其權(quán)威，要求擁有這些畫，這是外國(guó)人的財(cái)產(chǎn)?？屏侄嗄陙?lái)的外交努力，最終導(dǎo)致了一場(chǎng)針對(duì)東德政府的訴訟，同時(shí)還發(fā)生了一個(gè)鏡像案件，當(dāng)時(shí)東德人試圖在美國(guó)收回兩幅杜勒(Dürer)的畫作。這個(gè)策略奏效了，東德人把這些作品歸還給了美國(guó)。1985年，所有49幅畫都在美國(guó)展出，這是五十多年來(lái)第一次在美國(guó)展出。萊昂內(nèi)爾·費(fèi)寧格展覽atthe Acquavella Galleries, New York and at the Phillips Collection,Washington, D.C.

Trompetenbl?ser I

成交總額USD 6,162,500

估價(jià)USD 5,000,000 - USD 7,000,000

37 1/8 x 31 ? in. (94.4 x 79.9 cm.)

拍賣 15971

印象派及現(xiàn)代藝術(shù)（晚間拍賣）

紐約|2018年5月15日 瀏覽拍賣

拍品 16 A

來(lái)源

Hermann Klumpp, Quedlingburg (deposited by the artist forsafekeeping, 1935-1972).

Julia Feininger, New York (by descent from the artist andrecovered from the above).

Acquavella Galleries, Inc., New York (acquired from the estateof the above, 1985).

Richard L. Feigen and Co., New York (acquired from theabove). 

Mark Goodson, New York (acquired from the above, 10 October1985). 

Pace Wildenstein, New York (acquired from the estate of theabove).

Acquired from the above by the late owners, 15 November1995.

Berlin, Galerie Der Sturm, Fünfundfündfzigste Ausstellung:Lyonel Feininger, Gem?lde und Aquarelle, Zeichnungen, September1917, no. 44 (titled Trompetenbl?ser). 

Munich, Neue Kunst Hans Goltz, 48 Ausstellung: LyonelFeininger, October 1918, no. 1 (titledTrompetenbl?ser). 

Hagen, Folkwang-Museum, Lyonel Feininger, June 1919 (titledTrompetenbl?ser). 

Dresden, Galerie Emil Richter, Lyonel Feininger:Sonder-Ausstellung seiner Gem?lde, Aquarelle, Zeichnungen undHolzschnitte, September 1919, p. 2, no. 9 (titledTrompetenbl?ser). 

Hannover, Kestner-Gesellschaft, Paul Klee, Lyonel Feininger:Gem?lde, Graphik. XXIX, Sonder-Ausstellung, November 1919–January1920, no. 131 (titled Trompetenbl?ser). 

New York, Acquavella Galleries, Inc. and The PhillipsCollection, Washington, D.C., Lyonel Feininger, October1985-February 1986, no. 31 (illustrated incolor). 

New York, Pace Wildenstein, Modern Masters from the Collectionof Mark Goodson, October-November 1995, pp. 8-9 (illustrated, p.66). 

Wuppertal, Von der Heydt-Museum, Lyonel Feininger: Frühe Werkeund Freunde, September-November 2006, pp. 13 and 121 (illustratedin color, p. 120). 

New York, Whitney Museum of American Art, Lyonel Feininger: Atthe Edge of the World, June-October 2011, p. 61 (illustrated incolor, fig. 66).

Letter from Alfred Kubin to Feininger, 17 January 1913 (titledCarnevalsbild). 

Letter from Feininger to Julia Feininger, 1 September1917.

H. Hess, Lyonel Feininger, Stuttgart, 1959, pp. 54 and 255,no. 78 (illustrated). 

D. Eimert, Der Einfluss des Futurismus auf die deutscheMalerei, Cologne, 1974, p. 383. 

J. Ness, ed., Lyonel Feininger, New York, 1974, pp. 88 and 94(titled Trumpeters). 

T.L. Feininger and V. Graaf, "Mein Vater hat einen Fehlergemacht" in Du: Die Zeitschrift für Kunst und Kultur, vol. 5, 1986,p. 62 (titled Trumpeters). 

“Lyonel Feininger: Frühe Werke” in Du: Die Zeitschrift fürKunst und Kultur, vol. 5, 1986, p. 35 (illustrated in color, p. 36;titled Trumpeters). 

U. Luckhardt, Lyonel Feininger, Munich, 1989, p. 70, no. 11(illustrated in color, p. 71). 

M. Kahn-Rossi, ed., Lyonel Feininger: La variante tematica etecnica nello sviluppo del processo creativo, Lugano, 1991, p.114. 

M. Jochimsen and P. Dering, Avanti! Avanti! Futurismus imdeutschen Ex-pressionismus, exh. cat., August-Macke-Haus, Bonn,1998, p. 27 (illustrated, p. 26). 

U. Luckhardt and M. Faass, eds., Lyonel Feininger: DieZeichnungen und Aquarelle, exh. cat., Hamburger Kunsthalle, 1998,p. 214. 

M. Faass, Lyonel Feininger und der Kubismus, vol. 336, no.XXVIII, Frankfurt am Main, 1999, pp. 78 and 85, no. 371(illustrated, p. 121; titledTrompetenbl?ser). 

P. Werner, Der Fall Feininger, Leipzig, 2006, pp. 26, 83, 143,209, 213, 215, 216 and 224, no. 31 (illustrated in color, p.143). 

U. Luckhardt, ed., Lyonel Feininger und Alfred Kubin: EineKünstlerfreundschaft, exh. cat., Internationale Tage Ingelheim,Altes Rathaus, 2015, p. 199 (illustrated, fig.2). 

W. Büche, Lyonel Feininger: Paris 1912, exh. cat., KunstmuseumMoritzburg Halle (Saale), 2016, p. 93.