Grete Marks: Transcending Circumstances Through Clay
Kristine Guhne
March, 2015
2
Grete Marks' lack of success during the 20th century has been interpreted to be the result of
"gender, geography, genre, and timing" conspiring against her. Although her work produced in
Germany is acclaimed internationally, she is criticized for creating mundane work later in
life. Marks' pottery is said to have been negatively affected by her relocation to Britain, a
politically necessary move. However, in Britain, Marks continued to prolifically yield work in a
self-titled workshop where she experimented with medium. Marks not only continued to
cultivate her unique style, but also challenged the homogenous ceramic culture in Britain through
transnationalism. Her sharp aesthetic sensibilities and determination allowed Marks to address
the changes of a new environment, not as a victim of circumstance, but as a talented artist.
Marguerite Heymann, later to become Grete Marks, was born into a Jewish-German
household in 1899. She studied at the Cologne School of Arts at Dusseldorf before entering the
Bauhaus school of arts in 1920. Marks left the Bauhaus after a year and began teaching at
Cologne. In 1923 she married the industrialist Gustav Loebenstein with whom she co-founded
the successful Haël workshop. Haël was located in Velten, 25 miles north of Berlin.1 Marks,
along with her husband, managed 120 factory employees and exported pottery internationally. In
its’ ten years of production, Haël introduced a variety of tableware, including conical teapots and
vases with impressionistic brushwork.2 Marks’ designs are notable for their modern forms,
abstract decorations, and bright glazes. One of Marks’ more popular pieces was an Earthenware
bowl with glaze, completed in 1930 (figure 1.) This piece, although created as a part of a set,
stands alone in epitomizing Marks’ style while at Haël. Marks combined Germanic traditional
ware with futuristic, rigid geometrical design. The bowl’s mouth is simply decorated with a
1
Hudson-Wiedenmann, Ursula, and Rudoe Judy. "Grete Marks, Artist Potter." The Journal of the Decorative Arts
Society 1850 - the Present 26.1 (2002): Pg. 100
2
Buchanan, Mel. "Making an Exhibition, Part 1: The Artwork's Story."Milwaukee Art Museum Blog. Milwaukee
Art Museum, 7 Aug. 2012. Web. 08 Oct. 2014. <http://blog.mam.org/2012/08/07/whats-behind-an-exhibition-thestory/>. Pg 1.
3
plain glaze and basic geometric shapes. Marks’ simplistic work was congruent with the Bauhaus
ideology of creating stylized pottery for every day use. Bauhaus potters embraced minimalism
and mass-produced pieces by utilizing molds, particularly slip-cast forms.3
In 1928, at the peak of Haël’s success, Marks’ husband was killed in a tragic car accident.4
Although disheartened, Marks was not deterred from her life’s work. She autonomously
governed the factory until Hitler’s rise to power in 1933. Marks, along with other JewishGerman artists, were denounced by the anti-Semitic government for subversive activities.
Despite her tenacity, the rise of Nazism cast the exportation business into a crisis and depleted
domestic sales for Jewish business-owners. She had no choice but to sell Haël well below market
value to an Aryan potter.5
Unwittingly, Marks' pots were featured in the contemptuous Nazi exhibition
Schreckenskammer, or “chamber of horrors.” Marks was also slandered in the Nazi propaganda
newspaper, Der Angriff. The paper juxtaposed her work with that of the Nazi artist who
purchased Haël. Marks’ futuristic Bauhaus style was criticized as "the product of a degenerate
and misunderstood functionalism."6 The motive behind Hitler’s public disgrace of Marks’
pottery was later illustrated in the 1939 Deutsche Warenkunde (German Index of Goods.) The
index was published as a “guide to a racially pure material environment…free of stupidities and
deformations.” Hitler was determined to champion the German Handicrafts movement, claiming
that it was “…rooted in a dignified tradition.”7 Hitler’s grossly misinterpreted idea of tradition
was designed to suit his political aims of racial purity. However, Marks was not only vilified
3
Cunliffe, Mitzi. “Sculpture, Uniqueness and Multiplicity.” Leonardo 1.4 (1968) Pg. 419
Hudson-Wiedenmann, Ursula, and Rudoe Judy. pg. 100.
5
Buckley, Cheryl. "Potters and Paintresses: Women Designers in the Pottery Industry 1870-1955." The Women's
Press. (1990) Print. Pg. 135
6
Buchanan, Mel. Pg. 1
7
De Waal, Edmund. 20th Century Ceramics. (United Kingdom: Thames and Hudson, 2003), Pg. 105
4
4
because of her Jewish heritage, but also her genre. Although the Bauhaus school was comprised
mainly of Jews, religion was not the only point of conflict with the new regime. The entire
Bauhaus movement was criticized for attacking tradition and propagating “Un-German” work.
The Bauhaus’ experimental and abstract art was abhorred by Nazi Germany, who went as far as
to call it “Marxist.” However, the exile of the Bauhaus from Germany did not result in the
movement’s termination. Rather, it gave the school’s ideas greater momentum.8 Although Marks
diverged from the movement, both she and the Bauhaus continued to internationally produce
with intransigence.
Marks had the foresight to leave Germany before the outbreak of violence. She moved her
family to London in 1936 with the help of Ambrose Heal, a local shop-owner. Heal’s department
store had regularly stocked Haël stoneware before Nazi occupation.9 As with most immigrants,
Marks was given a one-month visa, during which time she was required to find employment or
face deportation. Marks was advised to leave the capital city and find work in the countryside.
She and her two sons relocated to the small town of Stoke-on-Trent, England.10 Marks began
teaching at the Burslem School of Art while she sought employment within Stoke-on-Trent’s
ceramic industry. As an industrialist in a rural town, Marks was unable to re-create the stability
and power she had known in Haël. She was hired to work in an independent studio at the
Minton’s factory, where she produced pieces with the signature “Greta-Pottery at Mintons.”
However, after 6 months Mintons found Greta-Pottery unprofitable and relinquished her
8
De Waal Pg 105
The Potteries Museum & Art Gallery at Stoke-on-Trent. “Grete Marks.” Stoke Museums. City of Stoke on Trent,
May. 2013. Web. 12 Nov. 2014.<http://www.stokemuseums.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/sm-info_gretemarks.pdf>
10
Buckley, Cheryl, and Tobias Hochscherf. "Introduction: From German ‘Invasion’ to Transnationalism:
Continental European Émigrés and Visual Culture in Britain, 1933–56." Visual Culture in Britain 13.2 (2012):
Print. Pg 160.
9
5
contract.11
After Mintons, Marks worked as a free-lance designer for various companies until opening her
own studio, “Greta-Pottery.” In her studio, she found freedom to experiment with glaze, surface,
and genre. In 1938 she married an English tutor from Oxford by whom she acquired the
permanent name of “Marks.” Due to her lack of stability, she was unable to replicate the
financial success she had experienced in Germany. Marks continued to live and work in England
until her death in 1990.12
More than twenty years after her death, critics often cite Marks’ gender as the primary reason
for her lack of acclaim. In a patriarchal society, other German female ceramicists were more
successful in the 20th century due to their favorable male ties. One example was Marguerite
Friedlaender-Wildenhain, a female ceramicist who enrolled in the Bauhaus school 1921.
Wildenhain achieved stardom not from talent alone, but also due to support from male
counterparts. Wildenhain married a classmate and was a favorite of Gerhard Marcks, a wellrespected professor in the school. Marks was single during her stint and the Bauhaus and clashed
with Marcks over his sexist tendencies.
Marks worked with her husbands, both British and German, as partners and not political tools.
Despite the Bauhaus movement’s progressive attitude, gender discrimination was still present in
the school’s administration. While studying at the Bauhaus, Marks was guided by the school's
founding director to attend a weaving workshop. Throwing clay was seen as a male task and
weaving was an appropriate female activity. Sexism followed her to Britain, where her bravado
was regarded as threatening by her traditional, male colleagues.
11
Hudson-Wiedenmann, Ursula, and Rudoe Judy. Pg 10.
Friedlander, Michal. Jewish Women Ceramicists from Germany after 1933. Jewish Museum of Berlin. (2013)
Documentary.
12
6
Geography and genre are two other reasons given by art critics to explain Marks' lack of
acclaim. Although her work in the Haël factory was applauded before the Nazi occupation, her
work in Britain is said to have declined. One explanation for this stylistic decline is the lack of
reception that Marks experienced as an émigré, or a person who has "migrated out" due to
political or social self-exile. Jewish émigrés were seen as burdens, rather than refugees, by the
British government. Therefore, Jewish-German ceramicists went largely unrecognized by British
critics due to national prejudice.13 Marks' decision to move to Britain affected her reputation
internationally. She he had the opportunity to move to the US along with the Bauhaus movement
but refused. Upon immigrating to the U.S., the Bauhaus founders began dictating which artists to
champion and which to ignore when educating elite institutions. After cutting ties with the
Bauhaus movement, Marks was regarded as a trivial student and went largely unrecognized in
American academia. Therefore, when described by modern scholars, Marks carries the title of a
"distant Bauhaus star."14
Marks' German ancestry was not the only reason for her lack of success in Britain. She was
forced to understand a new country's resources, language, and methods. Germany's ceramic
production had become industrialized in the early 20th century due to progress in technology.
Unfortunately for Marks, modernist work did not sit well with the English countryside. Upon
moving to Stoke-on-Trent, Marks was met with traditionalists who refused modern design and
production. Although Marks was well versed in modern manufacturing, Stoke-on-Trent was
adamant to continue implementing traditional methods.15 This variance in production was
coupled with a stylistic disagreement. Marks' use geometric pattern and bold color were the
13
Buckley, Cheryl, and Tobias Hochscherf. Pg 164-167.
Rawsthorn, Alice. “A Distant Bauhaus Star.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 1 Nov. 2009. Web. 07
Nov 2014. < http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/arts/02iht-design02.html?_r=0>
15
Hudson-Wiedenmann, Ursula, and Rudoe Judy. Pg 11.
14
7
antithesis of rural, British style. During the mid 20th century, British potters were enamored by
floral designs and dainty tea sets that revered preceding art movements, such as the
Rococo. Marks’ modern Utopian belief that thoughtful art could improve society was met with
skepticism. The Bauhaus’ urban and technological ideals contradicted the Arts and Crafts
movement, championed by William Morris in late 19th Century England.16 Although both
movements wished to bridge the gap between artist and industry, their methods of doing so were
paradoxical. The Arts and Crafts movement championed the romanticism of countryside
handcrafts, while the Bauhaus welcomed the mechanization of the 20th century.
Today, her genre is recognized as modern and "before her time." Although society is up to
date with her work aesthetically, modern art critics are more interested in studio potters rather
than industrial ceramicists. This lack of interest contributes to her abated popularity in the 21st
century. Although “Bauhaus” is no longer synonymous with “degenerate,” its’ reduction to bare
essentials is often seen as cold or distant. Thus, in literature, industrial artists often come second
to studio workers whose sentimental choices are not excised for the sake of mechanization.
Sympathetic criticism which attributes Marks’ “gender, geography, genre, and timing” to her
lack of success is an enticing, but refutable, argument. The 20th century limitations placed on
Marks due her gender are undeniable. Ceramics were, and in some places still are, a male
dominated field. According to modern ceramic scholar Moira Vincentelli, “…there can be no
consistent image of progress, but rather moments when what women do is given value and other
moments when it is criticized.”17 When understanding Marks’ professional success, it is
necessary challenge partiality. Her artistic progression did not occur linearly, but with reflective
16
De Waal, Edmund. Pg. 88-89.
Vincentelli, Moira. Women and Ceramics: Gendered Vessels. Manchester and New York. Manchester University
Press. 2000. Pg 250.
17
8
pauses. Unfortunately, thorough examinations of women and pottery did not begin emerging in
academia until the late 20th century. Women ceramicists were not discussed autonomously, but in
terms of male relations. Marks threatened gender-norms and in result sabotaged every possible
career-advancing male tie. Sexism is at fault for Marks’ exclusion from 20th century scholarly
texts, resulting in a current lack of prominence. However, Marks did not allow sexism to exclude
her from a career.
After gaining employment at Mintons in Stoke-on-Trent, Marks yearned for the artistic
freedom she once had at Haël. Marks protested Mintons to allow her a place on board of
directors. The British ceramic industry was hesitant to give authority to any designer, man or
woman. Severing from the traditional, anonymous position of designer was heretical. British
designers were expected to be subservient, not demanding.18 However, Marks did not conform to
societal norms and after heavy protest was allotted a seat. Presence on the board was unheard of,
not only for a woman, but also a designer. Despite Minton’s claim, the termination of Marks’
contract was not because she was unprofitable. Multiple patrons, including Heals and Fortnum &
Mason, consistently purchased Marks’ work resulting in a heavy profit. While on the board,
Marks conflicted with Minton’s director over artistic direction. 19This kind of argumentation
from a designer would have been seen as punishable, no matter what gender. Marks knew she
would be unable to grow as a designer if she were not allowed to voice opinion. Marks’
unrelenting attitude is to blame, rather than gender, for simultaneously ruining her career while
advancing her work.
Marks’ demand for equality did not begin in Britain. While in Germany, Marks argued with
18
Seddon, Jill, and Worden, Suzette. "Women Designing: Redefining Design in Britain between the Wars." Journal
of Design History 8.1 (1995): 64-67. Print. Pg 65
19
Seddon, Jill, and Worden, Suzette. Pg. 66.
9
the Bauhaus school against her enrollment in weaving workshops. While many female artists
submitted, Marks protested. Walter Gropius, one of the Bauhaus’ founding directors, was forced
to comply with her demand. Marks not only furthered her education, but also paved the way for
female Bauhaus ceramicists. In 1921, one year after Marks’ demand for equality, Marguerite
Friedlaender-Wildenhain enrolled into the institution and studied ceramics for five years. After a
lifetime of success, Wildenhain is regarded as one of the greatest female potters of all time.20
Marks fought for gender equality in school, work, and ceramics in general. Because of her
determination, Marks’ work and education were not negatively influenced by sexist
circumstances. Modern art critics assume that her "determination was not enough to combat
society."21 However, her combative attitude proved successful.
In terms of geography, Marks’ relocation to Britain appeared promising because of her
previous success in the international market. The reason she moved to Britain, and not Palestine
like many female Jewish immigrants, was because she had previously exported work to London
through her German factory. As an immigrant, Marks embraced opportunity where it was
presented; first in London and then in Stoke-on-Trent. The move to the latter is often seen as a
communal failure due to Stoke-on-Trent’s reluctance to learn from Marks’ technological
knowledge.22 However, this lack of reception allowed Marks room to explore without demands.
In terms of Bauhaus notoriety, Marks knew the consequences of severing ties with the founders
after declining their invitation the to the U.S. However, it would not be in Marks' character to
move with those who attempted to stifle her education based on gender.
20
De Waal, Edmund. Pg 154.
Hudson-Wiedenmann, Ursula, and Rudoe Judy. Pg. 119.
22
The Potteries Museum & Art Gallery at Stoke-on-Trent.
21
10
Her relocation to Britain, although difficult, positively impacted her work and environment.
Her style did not degenerate, but evolve. Marks began infusing Bauhaus characteristics, such as
severe geometric designs, into hand-molded pieces. She painted designs with muted colors by
applying soft matt and semi-matt glazes.23 In Marks’ more experimental work, she manipulated
glazes in order to create texture (figure 2.) In this piece, Marks embraced imperfection in
creation. In the areas painted light blue, Marks cracked the surface, resulting in a delicate spider
web effect. Marks also pooled the glaze, a technique commonly regarded as a mistake in
application. However, Marks welcomed the challenge. The brushwork is looser than that of her
previous pieces. The informalities of texture and design show her hand as an artist, a
distinguishing characteristic not seen in Marks’ pre-British work. In her old age, Marks
continued to experiment with medium. She created pieces using shards of pottery and painted a
variety of oil landscapes. Marks’ exploration with clay and finish not only enhanced her personal
work, but also the British ceramic industry.
Marks, along with other Jewish immigrants, introduced a distinct style to the homogenous
visual culture in Britain. As a freelance designer, Marks penetrated the rural tradition of floral
decoration with her geometric designs. While working for various British companies (Minton’s,
Brain & Co., Ridgway’s) Marks brought modern tableware into the mainstream market. 24 She
played a significant role in bringing the Bauhaus to the homes of British patrons. In the 1930s
modernism was received so poorly in Britain that the majority of Bauhaus students moved to the
U.S. However, a few artists, including Marks, persevered. By the 1960s, British art schools
began infusing the Bauhaus spirit into curriculum. British art began shifting away from
pomposity in favor of absurdity. Without the tenacity of émigrés, British art may not have
23
24
Buckley, Cheryl. Pg. 138.
Seddon, Jill, and Worden, Suzette. Pg. 67
11
revolutionized. Although this feat may not have been evident in the peak of her life, a general
analysis of national style change due to émigrés proves her significance in the international art
world.25
As a progressive artist, Marks embraced a new environment in order to stylistically evolve her
work. Due to her inclination towards modernity, it is illogical to think that Marks would have
continued to produce the same genre of work, no matter her circumstances. An artist cannot
embrace futurism without exploring change and possibility. Although she was cognizant of
providing for her children, critical acclaim was not Marks' goal. If it were, she would have
conformed to British style or moved to the U.S. As a woman, Marks could have remained
domicile when met with injustice. If she had submitted to her male authorities rather than
antagonize, perhaps her Bauhaus stardom would not be so “distant.”
Marks’ "gender, geography, genre, and timing" are not to blame for her lack of success. Art
critics, both 20th and 21st century, are at fault for not evaluating her artistic evolution on any
basis other than negative life experiences. Marks was not a victim of her circumstances, but a
dynamic revolutionary. While a myriad of female artists submitted to the authority of men,
Marks refused to allow sexism to restrict her education and work. An intelligent businesswoman,
Marks knew that she could have accumulated wealth through subservience and assimilation. In
terms of geography and timing, her work in Germany is regarded as her greatest achievement.
However, while her factory fell victim to Nazi Germany, Marks did not. She refused to live by
the rules and sacrifice her artistic integrity for the sake of fleeting eminence. Her goal was
personal excellence.
25
Buckley, Cheryl, and Tobias Hochscherf. Pg. 165
12
Figure 1. Marks, Grete. Footed Bowl. 1930. Stoneware and glaze. Museum of Art, Rhode Island
School of Design
13
.
Figure 2. Marks, Grete. Plate. ca. 1955-1960. Unknown. Jewish Museum of Berlin.
14
Buchanan, Mel. "Making an Exhibition, Part 1: The Artwork's Story."Milwaukee Art Museum
Blog. Milwaukee Art Museum, 7 Aug. 2012. Web. 08 Oct. 2014.
<http://blog.mam.org/2012/08/07/whats-behind-an-exhibition-the-story/>.
Buckley, Cheryl. "Potters and Paintresses: Women Designers in the Pottery Industry
1870-1955." The Women's Press. (1990) Print.
Buckley, Cheryl, and Tobias Hochscherf. "Introduction: From German ‘Invasion’ to
Transnationalism: Continental European Émigrés and Visual Culture in Britain, 1933–56."
Visual Culture in Britain 13.2 (2012): 157-168. Print.
Cunliffe, Mitzi. “Sculpture, Uniqueness and Multiplicity.” Leonardo 1.4 (1968): 419
De Waal, Edmund. 20th Century Ceramics. United Kingdom: Thames and Hudson. 2003.
Pg. 88-89, 105, 154.
Friedlander, Michal. Jewish Women Ceramicists from Germany after 1933. Jewish Museum of
Berlin. (2013) Documentary.
Hudson-Wiedenmann, Ursula, and Rudoe Judy. "Grete Marks, Artist Potter." The Journal of the
Decorative Arts Society 1850 - the Present 26.1 (2002): 100-119
The Potteries Museum & Art Gallery at Stoke-on-Trent. “Grete Marks.” Stoke Museums. City of
Stoke on Trent, May. 2013. Web. 12 Nov. 2014.
<http://www.stokemuseums.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2013/05/sm-info_grete-marks.pdf>
Rawsthorn, Alice. “A Distant Bauhaus Star.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 1
Nov. 2009. Web. 07 Nov 2014.
< http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/arts/02iht-design02.html?_r=0>
Seddon, Jill, and Worden, Suzette. "Women Designing: Redefining Design in Britain between
the Wars." Journal of Design History 8.1 (1995): 64-67. Print.
Vincentelli, Moira. Women and Ceramics: Gendered Vessels. Manchester and New York.
Manchester University Press. 2000. Pg. 250.