On the strength of the visual line...
Norbert Kricke and Medieval Sculpture
until July 2025
Norbert Kricke
Norbert Kricke, born in 1922 in Düsseldorf, was not only internationally renowned but also highly sought after as an artist during the 1950s to the 1980s. Then interest declined – a development only partially related to his early death in 1984 – despite his works continuing to display a unique quality of exceptional excellence.
I hardly dare to touch the hope with words that
I could one day become a sculptor. A true sculptor
with heart and soul and not someone who only becomes
one because of his talent. For me, I can't really imagine
anything that would give me more satisfaction than this grace.
Kricke 17.3.1943
It was not until the beginning of the new millennium that a growing number of younger collectors and curators turned their focus to his work again, giving it the attention, it rightfully deserved. Why is it that, as in Kricke’s case, art history and the art market often take divergent paths? We begin by investigating this question, and then we broaden the scope by examining the general artistic principles underlying Norbert Kricke’s work. These principles embody a timeless quality that becomes especially apparent in a broader context – a fact that a direct comparison of his sculptures with medieval ones will clearly attest to.
When the German sculptor Norbert Kricke held a solo exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art in New York (MoMA) in spring of 1961, he was just 39 years old – from todays perspective and at that time, a sensation by. Not only must artists whose works are exhibited at this legendary venue typically have a lifetime body of work – a feat tantamount to a knighthood – but American museums and galleries in the early 1960s were still hesitant to present German art. After the cultural purge, nothing good had emerged from Germany for a long time. Moreover, the fact that in the early 1960s the triumphal procession of Pop Art was gradually beginning makes this exhibition even more special. Andy Warhol, Roy Lichtenstein, and Robert Rauschenberg were presenting their works for the first time to an increasingly attentive public, while Minimal Art was still in its infancy and Abstract Expressionism, already established, was slowly losing influence.
Peter Selz, curator for painting and sculpture exhibitions at MoMA, selected twelve sculptures and 14 drawings for the Kricke exhibition. All these works demonstrate modernity and, above all, the innovative radicality of his art, as Carola Giedion-Welcker emphasizes in her text for the exhibition flyer. Kricke’s work was prominent and highly regarded within art circles. His participations two years earlier at documenta '59 in Kassel, in the same year at the Staempfli Gallery in New York, and in 1960 at the Kunsthalle Bern attest to this fact. In the year of the MoMA show, Kricke’s works were also presented in solo exhibitions at the Lefebre Gallery in New York and the Galerie Flinker in Paris. Indeed, his sculptures had been exhibited repeatedly in Europe since 1953 – in Munich, Düsseldorf, and Bern; in Paris and Antwerp; in Stockholm and Leverkusen; in Basel and Milan.
But that is not all. Early on, Kricke’s work convinced important art historians and critics. Sir Anthony Thwaites, as well as Carola Giedion-Welcker – two significant figures in German post-war art – wrote about his works and supported him. Kricke received commissions from pioneering architects and carried out numerous spectacular art-in-architecture projects. After receiving a travel scholarship in 1954 that took him through England and Scotland, he visited the USA for the first time in 1958, where he was awarded the prize of the Graham Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts in Chicago, with a large sum of highly dated prize money. Following his successes in the USA, Norbert Kricke was more in vogue than ever in Europe.
In 1963, he was commissioned to create a seven-meter monumental sculpture for Baroness de Rothschild in Reux, Normandy. In the same year, he received the Grand Art Prize of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia and, a year later, he was appointed professor for sculpture at the State Art Academy in Düsseldorf. In 1964, together with the painter Joseph Fassbender, he represented the Federal Republic in the German Pavilion of the Biennale in Venice.
Norbert Kricke had succeeded. He had created a work that was unique – one that had conquered an individual place among various art-historical trends and stood on its own. Of course, Kricke had role models whom he admired and revered, including Alexander Calder and Naum Gabo, Julia Gonzales, Alberto Giacometti, and Constantin Brancusi. Also, Auguste Rodin – especially in his drawings. These artists inspired him, for in them the young German found what he was looking for: the examination of space and time, the reduction of the physical to the minimum of a line or surface, and the line as the sole medium of movement, energy, and spirituality. He could also observe this reduction to lines in the early work of Hans Uhlmann, whom he knew from Berlin. Yet, Uhlmann’s constructive compositions interested him less – as did Calder’s mobiles. Kricke neither wanted to build, illustrate, nor induce literal movement. Instead, he turned to the expressive power of the line and its chromatic qualities as carriers of sculptural energies. With this, he intended to let space and time speak for themselves – without background noise or any other aids. His creative will seemingly followed minimalist laws – and yet his work has nothing to do with Minimal Art; rather, it remains true to the European tradition.
Though his works might appear divergent or eccentric at first glance, they truly are not. His formations of lines dynamically open up a space that may be curved or even in motion, but never without hierarchy. Despite all their freedom, Kricke’s works are grounded – like the flight of a bird. They always lead back to the creative artist’s original starting point. Their foundation is anthropomorphic – a basis on which artists like Alberto Giacometti, Julio Gonzales, or Constantin Brancusi also build. Precisely for this reason, their art appears so radical, as it astonishingly emancipates itself from that foundation.
How different is this from the American minimalists. They sought to avoid any expression of the personal or individually human by placing the additive and the serial at the forefront. Anthropomorphic references were to be eradicated. As Donald Judd, one of the leading representatives of American Minimalism, stated, he sought to suppress any possible hierarchy. Minimal Art focused impassively on spaces, on the simplest materials, and on the visible or invisible physics of the work, as seen with Fred Sandback. Donald Judd, for instance, pursued equality and independence in his art, values he regarded as democratic. When asked whether his works could be called “sculptures,” he always answered “no.” Naturally, Judd never got his hands dirty in the realization of his works – not even producing maquettes; he preferred to be surprised by the final result.1
In contrast, Norbert Kricke developed and produced most of his works himself. This process was an integral part of the work. Only the monumental sculptures were executed by specialists, and that too according to his specifications and based on his maquettes or smaller versions, which stand as complete works in their own right. The same applied to his drawings, which were never mere preparatory studies but always underscored his intention to conquer space and time.
From the mid-1960s onward, Norbert Kricke pursued his artistic path so convincingly that, widely recognized, he was appointed director of the State Art Academy in Düsseldorf in 1972 – a position he relinquished in 1981. In the 1970s and 1980s, Kricke’s work continued to be exhibited throughout Europe, predominantly in Germany. He planned new large-scale sculptures, the execution of which was prevented by his death in 1984. Meanwhile, his international popularity gradually began to wane.
Although his works were still exhibited in some American museums, their reach remained mostly confined to Europe and the Federal Republic.
As convincing as the quality of his work was, Kricke’s art simply did not fit into any schema or narrative dictated by contemporary taste. The cult of personality was also foreign to the artist. Yet it was precisely these aspects that the media promoted and sought – finding them in Andy Warhol during the ’60s and in Joseph Beuys during the ’70s.2 Warhol managed to become a media star first in the USA and then in Europe. He understood the importance of the media and its reception, even thematizing it in his own works. He achieved this so perfectly that even art critics like Robert Rosenblum remarked that with Warhol’s images, the modern world had entered the realm of art. From 1967 onward, Joseph Beuys, first in Germany and then in the USA, also became a media phenomenon. His performances became cult events, and the works that emerged from them remain relics of his artistic shamanism. During that period, the artist’s persona and myth took center stage in public reception.
This was alien to Norbert Kricke. He pursued a personal artistic path that could not be assigned to any school or stylistic movement. He himself did not wish to establish any such trend but remained a solitary figure in search of freedom in art. In his own words, Kricke was primarily interested in art that exudes humanity – for, as he maintained, that would enhance his freedom.3 His stance stood in stark contrast to a zeitgeist that craved individual mythologies, glamorous ideologies, and political manifestos or programs. Gradually, the very foundation of the aesthetic value system became volatile. No longer was there any desire to distinguish between high and low art or to adhere to any standards by which art could be measured. Everything seemed possible. How spectacular, at the time, was Warhol’s proclamation “everything is beautiful,” a statement that shook the very foundations of what art was thought to be. With Joseph Beuys’ verdict, “Every person is an artist,” those foundations were then brought crashing down. Warhol’s Factory, Beuys’ actions, and even the installations of the Minimal Art artists were all spectacular, capturing the spirit of that era. In this milieu, Norbert Kricke found no place worthy of him.
This changed with the turn of the millennium. Younger artists, museum professionals, and gallerists gradually developed an interest in the art of post-war Europe and discovered in the works of many artists a lasting quality. This included the work of Norbert Kricke. His daring visual language – full of subjectivity, spontaneity, and intuition – continued to captivate audiences because it was inseparably linked to work that speaks to people and invites self exploration. Kricke’s works open up space and transform it into a venue for the unfolding of existential possibilities.4
But what does Kricke’s work have to do with medieval sculptures?
In his knowledgeable art historical study of the precursors, contemporaries, and successors of Norbert Kricke’s work, Reinhard Spieler spans a time frame of 100 years.5 He begins with the Russian Constructivists and ends with contemporary artists such as Alice Aycock or Albert Oehlen. In stylistic terms, this comparison is convincing. Yet, as Ernst-Georg Güse rightly points out in the same publication in his essay “Kricke and the Proximity to Romanticism,” the artist’s works refer to something more. Kricke’s works evoke existential dimensions beyond rationality, rule, and law.6 At this point, Güse refers to the early Romantics, who in their time opposed the rational worldview of the Enlightenment. He even states that “Kricke’s work is contradiction”7, emphasizing that it is not bound by any specific era. His works and his thinking stand in opposition to measurable reality, to the scientification of all aspects of life, and to an increasing technologization. Moreover, with his principle of movement as a space-forming and content-giving force, he illustrates a method that also characterizes other epochs in related forms – whether emotional, idealistic, or spiritual in nature.8
With this conclusion, we dare to make a comparison by juxtaposing Norbert Kricke’s sculptures with medieval sculptures. Our thesis is that the transcendent, creative dimension that surpasses the physical in Kricke’s works is related to that found in medieval sculpture – specifically regarding the line and its movement in space. Admittedly, medieval sculptures are aimed at the sacred realm, whereas Norbert Kricke’s abstract sculptures present space as a fluid medium that transcends people and things, appearing weightless, boundless, and immaterial – whether dynamic or contemplative.
This analogy will be elucidated with three examples. The meaning and message of medieval sculptures were once clearly defined within the context of site-specific installations. Primarily, it was the salvation history of Christ, along with the figurative depictions of saints, martyrs, and Christ’s followers, that had a clear mission: to instruct, persuade, and strengthen the faithful in their belief. Today, we encounter most of these works in secular spaces, which allows our perception and understanding to take on different perspectives. Alongside the iconographic content, philosophical and aesthetic aspects are also taken into account, and the works are embedded within a comprehensive art historical context.
In contrast to the physical presence typical of the Renaissance, both Romanesque – and especially Gothic – figures focus primarily on the depiction of states of soul and mind. In addition to formalized gestures and facial expressions, these states are primarily illustrated through the rendering of drapery. The garments serve as carriers of emotion or attitude and characterize the figures and their situations. The corporeal element recedes into the background and plays no supporting role. Instead, the way the folds are rendered and their movements – marked by sublime lines and the play of raised lines and indentations of drapery – offer insights into the psychology or the stance of the depicted figure. Furthermore, already in the Romanesque period, but especially in the Gothic, the play of drapery is used less to describe a falling garment and more to illustrate ascending movements: upward, heavenward, facing God.
The garment of a Romanesque Madonna and Child – who, alluding to Solomon’s throne, protectively presents her wise offspring (“Sedes Sapientiae”) – accentuates the upright orientation of the enthroned Mother of God through its knee-high vertical linear structure.
Similar to ancient Greek korai, whose lower drapery folds, resembling the fluting of a column, support the body (see Fig.).
The V-shaped folds above provide the mother and child with depth and vibrant dynamism. Mary's headdress and Christ's hair covering emphasize their countenances and guide the movement in a graceful, curved return. The V-shaped drapery alternates between ascending and descending motions, which are redirected along short diagonal lines, and in their tension, they counterbalance the weightiness of corporeality.
For the Mother of God, the term “temple for the Son of God” is well known. This designation has nothing to do with architecture but rather with her protective embrace.
Likewise, Norbert Kricke created two sculptures referred to as “temples.” Here too, no architectural structure is meant; rather, as Ernst-Georg Güse has noted, this title symbolically signifies a connection to transcendence and religion.9
In a visual juxtaposition of the “Enthroned Madonna and Child” from the 12th/13th century and Norbert Kricke’s “Space Sculpture Temple” made of steel from 1952/75, the parallels are nothing short of astonishing. (Fig.) The V-shaped ascending and descending movements of the drapery in the Romanesque Madonna, along with the corresponding movements in Kricke’s work – and an obliquely running transverse element that also corresponds to Christ’s garment – each form a pattern of movement that dynamically energizes the space, both in content and form. The dimensions that physically describe the figures do not mark the end of the defined space. In both cases, the object’s radiance expands far beyond in waves of palpable energy. Moreover, the point at which the movement pauses and reverses is located in both works at the horizontal apex, approximately in the middle of the two movement directions – a point that, in Romanesque art, finds its place in the lap of Mary and Christ.
This distinctive characteristic of upward, non-descending movement is particularly evident in the drapery of a Gothic Madonna and Child from the 14th century. (Fig.)
The figure, conceived in an S-curve and whose movement is based on the ancient contrapposto, is lifted off the ground by her garment following the rhythm of the folds. Either the ridges of the folds run directly toward her left hip, or they fall downward in a brief run-up, only to continue the movement toward where the Christ child sits. (Fig.)
In 1951/52 Norbert Kricke created a steel sculpture “Red-Yellow”, which in its delicate dimensions of 30.5 x 20 x 9.5 cm can be wonderfully compared with the Parisian gilded “Mary with Child”.
Kricke constructs his figure from five curved lines, whose converging acute angles already exhibit a Gothic quality reminiscent of pointed arches. When the two sculptural works are placed in direct dialogue, it appears as if Kricke has abstractly emulated the movements of the Madonna group.
The longest yellow base corresponds to the dynamic curvature of the female figure’s body, while the shorter red and yellow arches mimic the opposing movements of the garment toward the standing leg and hip. They directly or indirectly indicate the point at which the figure of Christ draws all attention.
Of course, Norbert Kricke did not know our Parisian Madonna. However, he followed those principles that have proven their validity for hundreds of years, condensing them into exquisitely delicate abstract sculptures – completely individual and unique, yet universally understandable.
A similar movement in all the drapery folds can be observed in the depiction of an “Anna Selbdritt,” a group of figures from around 1500 produced in the workshop of Daniel Mauch in Ulm. (Fig.)
In all of the aforementioned and many other medieval sculptures, these movements are so fundamental that one can hardly help but perceive their rhythmic lines in ascent and descent as an abstract pattern. This lineament vividly carries out sequences of movement that are akin to those found in Kricke’s abstract sculptures.
The artists of the Middle Ages knew how to transform the phenomenon of a falling garment into a flow of movement that accentuates the upward motion as dominant. Here, physics is transcended into metaphysics. Just as the columns, arches, and struts of a Gothic cathedral visibly tend toward the heavens – even though their weight is governed by gravity – the sculptors of that era, in various ways, understood how to elevate the figure of the Madonna as a goddess of the heavens and other sacred figures from the earthly realm. The depiction of the garments and their folds plays a decisive role; they expand the figure’s space beyond its mere, muted volume into an area that is energetically charged in a soulful manner. “Free energy, movement, dissolution of matter, of mass, condensations, bundlings of energy pathways, space and movement.” This is a characterization that could be applied to Kricke’s works and even describes the sculptural techniques of medieval sculptors. In fact, these are the very words that Norbert Kricke himself noted when considering the art of Wassily Kandinsky10. In his homage to Kandinsky, he celebrated the artist as a “genius, as is rarely granted to the world.”11 Kricke finds in him those principles that correspond to his own and that can be applied to both painting and three-dimensional works. For his credo, “to seize the all-encompassing space with forms of movement, to transform it, condense it, and then release it again; and to leave these forms of movement and space (transformed space) as something visible – that is what I do when I create a sculpture,”12 he expresses this idea precisely.
Kricke’s principle is universal – valid beyond his own time and work. It is precisely for this reason that his oeuvre remains continually exciting, original, and relevant. It has lost none of its fascination, not even after more than 70 years since his MoMA exhibition. On the contrary, it can guide us far back and far into the latest developments in art history, standing equal to them.13
Erika Schlessinger-Költzsch
1 Ann Temkin, lntroduction: The Originality of Oonlad Judd, in, Judd, ed. Ann Temkin, The Museum of Modern Art, New York, New York 2020, S.11ff.
2 On this, Rudolf Zwirner, Wie Andy Warhol in Europa und Joseph Beuys in den USA ankam, Zur Rezeptionsgeschichte zweier Protagonisten, script of a lecture, Berlin 1998, which Rudolf Zwirner kindly made available to me.
3 Norbert Kricke: “I am happy about art that radiates humanity. It increases my freedom.”, 1961, in Sabine Kricke-Güse, Biography, in exhibition catalogue, Norbert Kricke, Versuch über die Schwerelosigkeit, published by the Franz Marc Gesellschaft by Cathrin Klingsöhr-Leroy, Munich 2023, p.166
4Jürgen Morsche, Norbert Kricke, exhibition catalogue, Staatsgalerie Stuttgart, Westfälisches Landesmuseum für Kunst und Kulturgeschichte Münster, Stuttgart 1976, p.7f.
5 Reinhard Spieler, Kleine Kontextgeschichte Reinhard Spieler, Kleine Kontextgeschichten von Vorläufern, Zeitgenossen und Nachfolgern, in the exhibition catalogue Norbert Kricke, Versuch über die Schwerelosigkeit, op.cit. p.134ff
6 Ibid, op.cit., p.27f
7Ibid, op.cit., p.27
8 Ernst-G. Güse, Kricke und die Nähe zur Romantik, in exhibition catalogue, Norbert Kricke, Versuch über die Schwerelosigkeit, op.cit., p.10ff
9 Ibid., op.cit, p.17
10 Norbert Kricke, Hommage a Kandinsky, 1956, printed in exhibition catalogue, Norbert Kricke, Versuch über die Schwerelosigkeit, loc. cit. p.60ff.
11 Ibid., op. cit., p.63
12 Ibid., op. cit., p105
13 Reinhard Spieler, op. cit., p. 145f., who compares Kricke's sculpture with a painting by Albert Gehlen.
On the strength of the visual line...
Norbert Kricke and Medieval Sculpture
until July 2025
I hardly dare to touch the hope with words that
I could one day become a sculptor. A true sculptor
with heart and soul and not someone who only becomes
one because of his talent. For me, I can't really imagine
anything that would give me more satisfaction than this grace.
Kricke 17.3.1943
Norbert Kricke
Norbert Kricke, born in 1922 in Düsseldorf, was not only internationally renowned but also highly sought after as an artist during the 1950s to the 1980s. Then interest declined – a development only partially related to his early death in 1984 – despite his works continuing to display a unique quality of exceptional excellence.
It was not until the beginning of the new millennium that a growing number of younger collectors and curators turned their focus to his work again, giving it the attention, it rightfully deserved. Why is it that, as in Kricke’s case, art history and the art market often take divergent paths? We begin by investigating this question, and then we broaden the scope by examining the general artistic principles underlying Norbert Kricke’s work. These principles embody a timeless quality that becomes especially apparent in a broader context – a fact that a direct comparison of his sculptures with medieval ones will clearly attest to.
When the German sculptor Norbert Kricke held a solo exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art in New York (MoMA) in spring of 1961, he was just 39 years old – from todays perspective and at that time, a sensation by. Not only must artists whose works are exhibited at this legendary venue typically have a lifetime body of work – a feat tantamount to a knighthood – but American museums and galleries in the early 1960s were still hesitant to present German art. After the cultural purge, nothing good had emerged from Germany for a long time. Moreover, the fact that in the early 1960s the triumphal procession of Pop Art was gradually beginning makes this exhibition even more special. Andy Warhol, Roy Lichtenstein, and Robert Rauschenberg were presenting their works for the first time to an increasingly attentive public, while Minimal Art was still in its infancy and Abstract Expressionism, already established, was slowly losing influence.
Peter Selz, curator for painting and sculpture exhibitions at MoMA, selected twelve sculptures and 14 drawings for the Kricke exhibition. All these works demonstrate modernity and, above all, the innovative radicality of his art, as Carola Giedion-Welcker emphasizes in her text for the exhibition flyer. Kricke’s work was prominent and highly regarded within art circles. His participations two years earlier at documenta '59 in Kassel, in the same year at the Staempfli Gallery in New York, and in 1960 at the Kunsthalle Bern attest to this fact. In the year of the MoMA show, Kricke’s works were also presented in solo exhibitions at the Lefebre Gallery in New York and the Galerie Flinker in Paris. Indeed, his sculptures had been exhibited repeatedly in Europe since 1953 – in Munich, Düsseldorf, and Bern; in Paris and Antwerp; in Stockholm and Leverkusen; in Basel and Milan.
But that is not all. Early on, Kricke’s work convinced important art historians and critics. Sir Anthony Thwaites, as well as Carola Giedion-Welcker – two significant figures in German post-war art – wrote about his works and supported him. Kricke received commissions from pioneering architects and carried out numerous spectacular art-in-architecture projects. After receiving a travel scholarship in 1954 that took him through England and Scotland, he visited the USA for the first time in 1958, where he was awarded the prize of the Graham Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts in Chicago, with a large sum of highly dated prize money. Following his successes in the USA, Norbert Kricke was more in vogue than ever in Europe.
In 1963, he was commissioned to create a seven-meter monumental sculpture for Baroness de Rothschild in Reux, Normandy. In the same year, he received the Grand Art Prize of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia and, a year later, he was appointed professor for sculpture at the State Art Academy in Düsseldorf. In 1964, together with the painter Joseph Fassbender, he represented the Federal Republic in the German Pavilion of the Biennale in Venice.
Norbert Kricke had succeeded. He had created a work that was unique – one that had conquered an individual place among various art-historical trends and stood on its own. Of course, Kricke had role models whom he admired and revered, including Alexander Calder and Naum Gabo, Julia Gonzales, Alberto Giacometti, and Constantin Brancusi. Also, Auguste Rodin – especially in his drawings. These artists inspired him, for in them the young German found what he was looking for: the examination of space and time, the reduction of the physical to the minimum of a line or surface, and the line as the sole medium of movement, energy, and spirituality. He could also observe this reduction to lines in the early work of Hans Uhlmann, whom he knew from Berlin. Yet, Uhlmann’s constructive compositions interested him less – as did Calder’s mobiles. Kricke neither wanted to build, illustrate, nor induce literal movement. Instead, he turned to the expressive power of the line and its chromatic qualities as carriers of sculptural energies. With this, he intended to let space and time speak for themselves – without background noise or any other aids. His creative will seemingly followed minimalist laws – and yet his work has nothing to do with Minimal Art; rather, it remains true to the European tradition.
Though his works might appear divergent or eccentric at first glance, they truly are not. His formations of lines dynamically open up a space that may be curved or even in motion, but never without hierarchy. Despite all their freedom, Kricke’s works are grounded – like the flight of a bird. They always lead back to the creative artist’s original starting point. Their foundation is anthropomorphic – a basis on which artists like Alberto Giacometti, Julio Gonzales, or Constantin Brancusi also build. Precisely for this reason, their art appears so radical, as it astonishingly emancipates itself from that foundation.
How different is this from the American minimalists. They sought to avoid any expression of the personal or individually human by placing the additive and the serial at the forefront. Anthropomorphic references were to be eradicated. As Donald Judd, one of the leading representatives of American Minimalism, stated, he sought to suppress any possible hierarchy. Minimal Art focused impassively on spaces, on the simplest materials, and on the visible or invisible physics of the work, as seen with Fred Sandback. Donald Judd, for instance, pursued equality and independence in his art, values he regarded as democratic. When asked whether his works could be called “sculptures,” he always answered “no.” Naturally, Judd never got his hands dirty in the realization of his works – not even producing maquettes; he preferred to be surprised by the final result.1
In contrast, Norbert Kricke developed and produced most of his works himself. This process was an integral part of the work. Only the monumental sculptures were executed by specialists, and that too according to his specifications and based on his maquettes or smaller versions, which stand as complete works in their own right. The same applied to his drawings, which were never mere preparatory studies but always underscored his intention to conquer space and time.
From the mid-1960s onward, Norbert Kricke pursued his artistic path so convincingly that, widely recognized, he was appointed director of the State Art Academy in Düsseldorf in 1972 – a position he relinquished in 1981. In the 1970s and 1980s, Kricke’s work continued to be exhibited throughout Europe, predominantly in Germany. He planned new large-scale sculptures, the execution of which was prevented by his death in 1984. Meanwhile, his international popularity gradually began to wane.
Although his works were still exhibited in some American museums, their reach remained mostly confined to Europe and the Federal Republic.
As convincing as the quality of his work was, Kricke’s art simply did not fit into any schema or narrative dictated by contemporary taste. The cult of personality was also foreign to the artist. Yet it was precisely these aspects that the media promoted and sought – finding them in Andy Warhol during the ’60s and in Joseph Beuys during the ’70s.2 Warhol managed to become a media star first in the USA and then in Europe. He understood the importance of the media and its reception, even thematizing it in his own works. He achieved this so perfectly that even art critics like Robert Rosenblum remarked that with Warhol’s images, the modern world had entered the realm of art. From 1967 onward, Joseph Beuys, first in Germany and then in the USA, also became a media phenomenon. His performances became cult events, and the works that emerged from them remain relics of his artistic shamanism. During that period, the artist’s persona and myth took center stage in public reception.
This was alien to Norbert Kricke. He pursued a personal artistic path that could not be assigned to any school or stylistic movement. He himself did not wish to establish any such trend but remained a solitary figure in search of freedom in art. In his own words, Kricke was primarily interested in art that exudes humanity – for, as he maintained, that would enhance his freedom.3 His stance stood in stark contrast to a zeitgeist that craved individual mythologies, glamorous ideologies, and political manifestos or programs. Gradually, the very foundation of the aesthetic value system became volatile. No longer was there any desire to distinguish between high and low art or to adhere to any standards by which art could be measured. Everything seemed possible. How spectacular, at the time, was Warhol’s proclamation “everything is beautiful,” a statement that shook the very foundations of what art was thought to be. With Joseph Beuys’ verdict, “Every person is an artist,” those foundations were then brought crashing down. Warhol’s Factory, Beuys’ actions, and even the installations of the Minimal Art artists were all spectacular, capturing the spirit of that era. In this milieu, Norbert Kricke found no place worthy of him.
This changed with the turn of the millennium. Younger artists, museum professionals, and gallerists gradually developed an interest in the art of post-war Europe and discovered in the works of many artists a lasting quality. This included the work of Norbert Kricke. His daring visual language – full of subjectivity, spontaneity, and intuition – continued to captivate audiences because it was inseparably linked to work that speaks to people and invites self exploration. Kricke’s works open up space and transform it into a venue for the unfolding of existential possibilities.4
But what does Kricke’s work have to do with medieval sculptures?
In his knowledgeable art historical study of the precursors, contemporaries, and successors of Norbert Kricke’s work, Reinhard Spieler spans a time frame of 100 years.5 He begins with the Russian Constructivists and ends with contemporary artists such as Alice Aycock or Albert Oehlen. In stylistic terms, this comparison is convincing. Yet, as Ernst-Georg Güse rightly points out in the same publication in his essay “Kricke and the Proximity to Romanticism,” the artist’s works refer to something more. Kricke’s works evoke existential dimensions beyond rationality, rule, and law.6 At this point, Güse refers to the early Romantics, who in their time opposed the rational worldview of the Enlightenment. He even states that “Kricke’s work is contradiction”7, emphasizing that it is not bound by any specific era. His works and his thinking stand in opposition to measurable reality, to the scientification of all aspects of life, and to an increasing technologization. Moreover, with his principle of movement as a space-forming and content-giving force, he illustrates a method that also characterizes other epochs in related forms – whether emotional, idealistic, or spiritual in nature.8
With this conclusion, we dare to make a comparison by juxtaposing Norbert Kricke’s sculptures with medieval sculptures. Our thesis is that the transcendent, creative dimension that surpasses the physical in Kricke’s works is related to that found in medieval sculpture – specifically regarding the line and its movement in space. Admittedly, medieval sculptures are aimed at the sacred realm, whereas Norbert Kricke’s abstract sculptures present space as a fluid medium that transcends people and things, appearing weightless, boundless, and immaterial – whether dynamic or contemplative.
This analogy will be elucidated with three examples. The meaning and message of medieval sculptures were once clearly defined within the context of site-specific installations. Primarily, it was the salvation history of Christ, along with the figurative depictions of saints, martyrs, and Christ’s followers, that had a clear mission: to instruct, persuade, and strengthen the faithful in their belief. Today, we encounter most of these works in secular spaces, which allows our perception and understanding to take on different perspectives. Alongside the iconographic content, philosophical and aesthetic aspects are also taken into account, and the works are embedded within a comprehensive art historical context.
In contrast to the physical presence typical of the Renaissance, both Romanesque – and especially Gothic – figures focus primarily on the depiction of states of soul and mind. In addition to formalized gestures and facial expressions, these states are primarily illustrated through the rendering of drapery. The garments serve as carriers of emotion or attitude and characterize the figures and their situations. The corporeal element recedes into the background and plays no supporting role. Instead, the way the folds are rendered and their movements – marked by sublime lines and the play of raised lines and indentations of drapery – offer insights into the psychology or the stance of the depicted figure. Furthermore, already in the Romanesque period, but especially in the Gothic, the play of drapery is used less to describe a falling garment and more to illustrate ascending movements: upward, heavenward, facing God.
The garment of a Romanesque Madonna and Child – who, alluding to Solomon’s throne, protectively presents her wise offspring (“Sedes Sapientiae”) – accentuates the upright orientation of the enthroned Mother of God through its knee-high vertical linear structure.
Similar to ancient Greek korai, whose lower drapery folds, resembling the fluting of a column, support the body (see Fig.).
The V-shaped folds above provide the mother and child with depth and vibrant dynamism. Mary's headdress and Christ's hair covering emphasize their countenances and guide the movement in a graceful, curved return. The V-shaped drapery alternates between ascending and descending motions, which are redirected along short diagonal lines, and in their tension, they counterbalance the weightiness of corporeality.
For the Mother of God, the term “temple for the Son of God” is well known. This designation has nothing to do with architecture but rather with her protective embrace.
Likewise, Norbert Kricke created two sculptures referred to as “temples.” Here too, no architectural structure is meant; rather, as Ernst-Georg Güse has noted, this title symbolically signifies a connection to transcendence and religion.9
In a visual juxtaposition of the “Enthroned Madonna and Child” from the 12th/13th century and Norbert Kricke’s “Space Sculpture Temple” made of steel from 1952/75, the parallels are nothing short of astonishing. (Fig.) The V-shaped ascending and descending movements of the drapery in the Romanesque Madonna, along with the corresponding movements in Kricke’s work – and an obliquely running transverse element that also corresponds to Christ’s garment – each form a pattern of movement that dynamically energizes the space, both in content and form. The dimensions that physically describe the figures do not mark the end of the defined space. In both cases, the object’s radiance expands far beyond in waves of palpable energy. Moreover, the point at which the movement pauses and reverses is located in both works at the horizontal apex, approximately in the middle of the two movement directions – a point that, in Romanesque art, finds its place in the lap of Mary and Christ.
This distinctive characteristic of upward, non-descending movement is particularly evident in the drapery of a Gothic Madonna and Child from the 14th century. (Fig.)
The figure, conceived in an S-curve and whose movement is based on the ancient contrapposto, is lifted off the ground by her garment following the rhythm of the folds. Either the ridges of the folds run directly toward her left hip, or they fall downward in a brief run-up, only to continue the movement toward where the Christ child sits. (Fig.)
In 1951/52 Norbert Kricke created a steel sculpture “Red-Yellow”, which in its delicate dimensions of 30.5 x 20 x 9.5 cm can be wonderfully compared with the Parisian gilded “Mary with Child”.
Kricke constructs his figure from five curved lines, whose converging acute angles already exhibit a Gothic quality reminiscent of pointed arches. When the two sculptural works are placed in direct dialogue, it appears as if Kricke has abstractly emulated the movements of the Madonna group.
The longest yellow base corresponds to the dynamic curvature of the female figure’s body, while the shorter red and yellow arches mimic the opposing movements of the garment toward the standing leg and hip. They directly or indirectly indicate the point at which the figure of Christ draws all attention.
Of course, Norbert Kricke did not know our Parisian Madonna. However, he followed those principles that have proven their validity for hundreds of years, condensing them into exquisitely delicate abstract sculptures – completely individual and unique, yet universally understandable.
A similar movement in all the drapery folds can be observed in the depiction of an “Anna Selbdritt,” a group of figures from around 1500 produced in the workshop of Daniel Mauch in Ulm. (Fig.)
In all of the aforementioned and many other medieval sculptures, these movements are so fundamental that one can hardly help but perceive their rhythmic lines in ascent and descent as an abstract pattern. This lineament vividly carries out sequences of movement that are akin to those found in Kricke’s abstract sculptures.
The artists of the Middle Ages knew how to transform the phenomenon of a falling garment into a flow of movement that accentuates the upward motion as dominant. Here, physics is transcended into metaphysics. Just as the columns, arches, and struts of a Gothic cathedral visibly tend toward the heavens – even though their weight is governed by gravity – the sculptors of that era, in various ways, understood how to elevate the figure of the Madonna as a goddess of the heavens and other sacred figures from the earthly realm. The depiction of the garments and their folds plays a decisive role; they expand the figure’s space beyond its mere, muted volume into an area that is energetically charged in a soulful manner. “Free energy, movement, dissolution of matter, of mass, condensations, bundlings of energy pathways, space and movement.” This is a characterization that could be applied to Kricke’s works and even describes the sculptural techniques of medieval sculptors. In fact, these are the very words that Norbert Kricke himself noted when considering the art of Wassily Kandinsky10. In his homage to Kandinsky, he celebrated the artist as a “genius, as is rarely granted to the world.”11 Kricke finds in him those principles that correspond to his own and that can be applied to both painting and three-dimensional works. For his credo, “to seize the all-encompassing space with forms of movement, to transform it, condense it, and then release it again; and to leave these forms of movement and space (transformed space) as something visible – that is what I do when I create a sculpture,”12 he expresses this idea precisely.
Kricke’s principle is universal – valid beyond his own time and work. It is precisely for this reason that his oeuvre remains continually exciting, original, and relevant. It has lost none of its fascination, not even after more than 70 years since his MoMA exhibition. On the contrary, it can guide us far back and far into the latest developments in art history, standing equal to them.13
Erika Schlessinger-Költzsch
1 Ann Temkin, lntroduction: The Originality of Oonlad Judd, in, Judd, ed. Ann Temkin, The Museum of Modern Art, New York, New York 2020, S.11ff.
2 On this, Rudolf Zwirner, Wie Andy Warhol in Europa und Joseph Beuys in den USA ankam, Zur Rezeptionsgeschichte zweier Protagonisten, script of a lecture, Berlin 1998, which Rudolf Zwirner kindly made available to me.
3 Norbert Kricke: “I am happy about art that radiates humanity. It increases my freedom.”, 1961, in Sabine Kricke-Güse, Biography, in exhibition catalogue, Norbert Kricke, Versuch über die Schwerelosigkeit, published by the Franz Marc Gesellschaft by Cathrin Klingsöhr-Leroy, Munich 2023, p.166
4Jürgen Morsche, Norbert Kricke, exhibition catalogue, Staatsgalerie Stuttgart, Westfälisches Landesmuseum für Kunst und Kulturgeschichte Münster, Stuttgart 1976, p.7f.
5 Reinhard Spieler, Kleine Kontextgeschichte Reinhard Spieler, Kleine Kontextgeschichten von Vorläufern, Zeitgenossen und Nachfolgern, in the exhibition catalogue Norbert Kricke, Versuch über die Schwerelosigkeit, op.cit. p.134ff
6 Ibid, op.cit., p.27f
7Ibid, op.cit., p.27
8 Ernst-G. Güse, Kricke und die Nähe zur Romantik, in exhibition catalogue, Norbert Kricke, Versuch über die Schwerelosigkeit, op.cit., p.10ff
9 Ibid., op.cit, p.17
10 Norbert Kricke, Hommage a Kandinsky, 1956, printed in exhibition catalogue, Norbert Kricke, Versuch über die Schwerelosigkeit, loc. cit. p.60ff.
11 Ibid., op. cit., p.63
12 Ibid., op. cit., p105
13 Reinhard Spieler, op. cit., p. 145f., who compares Kricke's sculpture with a painting by Albert Gehlen.
ARCHIVE
21. Dec 2022 -
GANESHA & HIS HEAVENLY FRIENDS
13. Jun -
GE-MEN-GE-LA-GE | Africa, Bischoffshausen, Boll, Fontana, Goepfert, Girke, Kricke, Prantl, Rainer, South America, Verheyen
13. Oct -
01. Feb -
West Africa | Rare, Unfamiliar, Masterful
14. Apr -
GANESHA & HIS HEAVENLY FRIENDS
MASTERPIECES OF THE PICCUS COLLECTION, SAN FRANCISCO – BOLL | KESSELMAR | LÖHR - NEW WORKS
IMPRINT
© DIERKING 2025
