Introduction

Within the span of sixty-five years from the commencement of his artistic studies in 1921 until his passing in 1986, the sculptural practice of Karl Duldig (1902-1986, Austrian/Australian) progressed through various stages, where he had a number of different studio spaces in three different countries. While Karl was a student of Anton Hanak (1875-1934) at the Vienna Kunstgewerbeschule (School of Applied Arts) from 1921-1925, he principally carved in marble and steatite.[i] When Karl lived in Singapore (1939-1940), he began to model figures in clay and use earthenware as an end medium.[ii] In Australia, while at Tatura Internment Camp in central Victoria from 1940-1942, he carved in sculptures using found wood.[iii] Practicing as a sculptor in Melbourne, he modelled principally in clay and also completed commissions in copper and bronze.[iv]

Karl Duldig was born in Przemysl, Poland, in 1902. He relocated with his family to Vienna in 1914. Karl, his wife, Slawa Duldig (neé Horowitz, 1902-1975) and their daughter Eva de Jong-Duldig (1938-), escaped pre-war Vienna from Switzerland, later relocating to Singapore to escape the persecution of Jewish peoples under Nazi rule. Following a brief stay in Singapore (then known as the Straits Settlements under British colonial rule), the family was transported to Australia as enemy aliens in 1940 on the Queen Mary. Once the family arrived in Sydney, they were transported to the Number One Internment Camp to house enemy aliens and/or prisoners of war, near Tatura, in rural Victoria.[v]

Karl was released from Tatura in 1942 to enlist in the 8th Employment Company under the Australian Military Forces (AIF). Duldig served in the company from April to September 1942.  He was discharged from the Army for medical reasons, and then settled in a modest apartment in St Kilda with Slawa and Eva. In 1945, Karl was appointed Art Master at Mentone Grammar School by the Principal Jeffrey Thorold and remained teaching there until his retirement in 1967.[vi] Slawa Duldig passed away in 1975. From then onwards, Karl continued to work in his Malvern East studio at his Burke Road residence until his passing in 1986.

Karl’s sculptures and commissions were often completed for the purpose of outdoor display. His work has been exhibited in sculpture gardens and outdoor exhibitions in both urban and regional art galleries in Australia, internationally during his lifetime and posthumously following his death. Throughout his life, Karl was an advocate of the outdoor display of sculpture; campaigning for the increased integration of sculpture in urban spaces and using media publications to comment on the lack of public art and sculpture in Australian cities.[vii] He was intensely aware of the outdoor environment as a space for sculpture and artistic inspiration well ahead of his time, being one of the first Australian sculptors to have multiple outdoor sculpture exhibitions of his work during his lifetime.[viii]

This essay details Karl’s outdoor sculpture created during his time in Australia from 1940 until his passing in 1986. For the sake of brevity, I will not cover commissioned works created by Karl except for Progress of Man (1960). This work was the largest ceramic bas-relief in Australia at the time, becoming a public landmark in Melbourne on St Kilda Road.[ix] I will document the history of Karl’s outdoor sculpture work, commencing with the creation of Mother and Child (1940), and Fragment (1941); sculptures Duldig carved from eucalyptus in Tatura; Progress of Man (1960); participating in the 1961 Mildara Sculpture Prize; Karl and Slawa’s visit to the Kröller-Müller State Museum in the Netherlands; his outdoor solo exhibition at the Duldig family’s Mt Eliza property in 1969 in conjunction with Tolarno Galleries, and his survey exhibition at the McClelland Sculpture Park + Gallery in Langwarrin, Melbourne, in 1982-1983. The essay concludes with a passage on the Duldig Studio’s Sculpture Garden in Malvern East, where Karl’s work is displayed outdoors under the jurisdiction of a public museum.

Duldig’s Campaign for Public Sculpture

Before going into detail regarding the nature of Karl’s public works, it is essential to outline his campaign for the economic investment in public sculpture as a method of beautifying cities. According to Eva de Jong-Duldig, Karl firmly believed Australia suffered from a deficiency of public sculpture. This reflected his Central European upbringing, where the amalgamation of art and architecture in urban streetscapes was the cultural norm.[i] Both émigré and refugee sculptors arriving in Australia from Europe between the 1940s and 60s contributed to the cultural life of Australia by fostering an appreciation for modern sculpture within Australian society. The actions of Karl and Slawa reflected this, with the two of them working as art teachers following their internment, and Karl becoming a member of the Victorian Sculptor’s Society.

In 1963, Karl supported the submission of a report by the Society to the Victorian Government that stressed how art and artists exhibiting in the public arena could benefit society, where the report stated how “the nation’s art [is] the external expression of its internal life”.[ii] His membership in the Society was one facet of his strong support for the deeper appreciation of sculpture in the public space, where he then continued to advocate for the prominence of public art in Australian cities until his death.[iii]

Karl often repeated his argument in Victorian media publications during the early 1970s. An opinion piece published in The Age on November 26, 1970 detailed Karl’s desire for legislation to be enacted that would divert a small percentage of urban construction costs towards the erection of public sculptures. Titled ‘He Dreams of a Law for Beauty’, he argued that Australia would diverge towards ‘drabness’ if building trends continued to favour the construction of skyscrapers. He is quoted:

“We have so much room to move outwards. Paris has no skyscrapers. Why should we have them?”[iv]

Karl argued that the adornment of art throughout European urban spaces makes city-strolling a pleasant experience, in opposition to the arguable lack of ornamentation in Australian cities. He proposed that two percent of construction costs should be spent on art that beautifies public spaces, and that installing domestic garden sculpture should become the norm in Australian households. In order to support artists, he advocated for an increase of paid scholarships through governmental bodies and private companies.[v] Karl’s views on outdoor sculpture mirrored the views of art historian and writer Bernard Smith (1916-2011). In his review of Pamela Ruskin’s authored monograph on Karl Duldig, published by Cheshire in 1966, he uses the fact that Cheshire only published five hundred copies of Karl’s monograph as an example of Australia’s lack of appreciation for outdoor sculpture. He argues that Australia’s climate should foster an environment where outdoor sculpture is respected, whether it exists in private gardens or public squares.[vi]

An article published in The Australian in October 1971 titled ‘Artless Gardens Puzzle Sculptor’ saw Karl further question the lack of sculpture in Australian cities. Karl is quoted in argument stating that the proper home for sculpture is outdoors, where the appearance of private gardens would improve if sculptures were installed in these spaces. He is quoted as saying that Australians are reluctant to display sculptures outdoors, due to anxieties that their sculptures will fall victim to acts of vandalism. He also writes that residences can only display a limited amount of sculpture inside without appearing crowded. This solidifies his argument that private gardens should be beautified with a combination of sculpture and natural elements.[vii]

In 1973, Karl again promoted his argument that Australian public spaces would benefit from the construction and installation of additional public sculptures. In an article that he published for the Journal of the Australian Institute of Parks and Recreation titled ‘Sculpture in Open Spaces’, Karl uses Vienna as an example of how Australia should integrate examples of urban sculpture such as public monuments and decorative fountains into cityscapes. He follows this up by arguing that Australia’s understanding of sculpture is negligent, and that the installation of ‘comprehensible’ sculpture will stimulate widespread interest in sculptural artforms.[viii] Karl does not explain what ‘comprehensible’ sculpture means, yet an understanding of Karl’s artistic oeuvre would reveal this to be figurative sculpture. Whilst Karl was heavily influenced by the figure and form of the human body, many of his works are also abstract as he was inspired by modernist currents in artistic practice. They were always easily understood by the ordinary person, as Karl objected to creating works that appeared to look unrecognisable, which differed from the abstract style of contemporary sculpture that was well regarded in this period.[ix]

In the article, Karl argues that enriching public spaces with sculpture is common in European cities.[x] He uses the historical example of the Renaissance period, when sculptors were commissioned by the Catholic Church, to argue that employing similar methods through government legislation and/or philanthropy to fund public sculpture will inevitably result in a higher appreciation of public sculpture and art over time. Karl writes:

“In many European countries, a form of government subsidy for professional sculptors ensures the steady creation of these works of art which can be assembled to form exhibitions in public gardens.”[xi]

Karl also argues that children should be introduced to sculpture through installing sculptures in public spaces, which be believed would stimulate the child’s imagination and encourage the development of the child’s motor skills through encouraging tactile exploration.[xii] Throughout his career, he desired that both children and adults alike should develop a positive engagement with art in public spaces. He believed that in contrast to two dimensional art forms that can be viewed indoors, Australia’s weather offered an ideal outdoor platform for the appreciation of public sculpture.[xiii] One example in the media of children interacting with Karl’s work can be viewed in an article published in The Sun on the 30th of October 1969. The article, titled ‘Art Goes Bush’, features images captured by Colin Stuckey of children interacting with Karl’s work in a garden setting. The images were taken prior to the opening event of his Mt Eliza exhibition. These images were most likely captured during a promotional press shoot advertising the exhibition.[xiv].

Internment in Tatura: ‘Fragment’

Karl’s first outdoor sculpture in Australia was created when he carved a mother and child figure out of the branch of a eucalypt while he was interned at Tatura between 1940 and 1942. Karl persuaded the Camp Commandant to permit him to carve a sculpture from a fallen eucalypt limb outside the camp.[i] He then carved a ‘mother and child’ figure with an axe.[ii] The figure was a subject of entertainment for the camp internees, including the children who would dance around the figure. This is depicted in his sketch ‘Ring-a-Ring-a-Rosie’ (1941), where a group of children are drawn holding hands around his sculpture. This sculpture was later destroyed by camp inmates to use as firewood.[iii] Regarding his experience in Tatura, Eva de Jong-Duldig quotes,

“Strangely, it was the spartan conditions of internment in Tatura between 1940 and 1942 that led inadvertently to Duldig’s return to his original sculptural training as a carver.”[iv]

The living conditions in Tatura were austere. The internees lived in corrugated iron huts in a compound, surrounded by barbed wire and guarded by armed soldiers.[v] Karl’s anxiety during this period is reflected in self-portraits and sketches of Slawa and Eva, which he drew on materials gathered at hand, including letters, forms and even toilet paper. These pencil and ink sketches are quite fragile; contrasting with the visible strength of his marble portrait heads and sculptures created in Vienna.[vi]

In Tatura, chopping wood was an outlet for Karl’s creative energies. It is evident that his creativity persisted regardless of the medium he worked with, and the environment he existed in at the time.[i] With an axe, Karl created ‘Fragment’ (1942), where a carved head emerges from a piece of firewood. Influenced by his studies with Hanak, ‘Fragment’ demonstrates his dedication to the nature of the material he worked with. This is displayed with the work’s weathered appearance, shown in the sculpture’s cracks and evidence of ant foraging trails on its lower half.[ii] ‘Fragment’ is now in the Newcastle Regional Art Gallery Collection. In de Jong-Duldig’s ‘Driftwood’ (2017), she quotes a passage from Karl Duldig’s journal, where he wrote:

“The most important thing for a sculptor is the material and the tools… Every material has its own rules and beware if one should overstep this rule. A David by Michelangelo would never look good in bronze. So, every material, stone, wood, terracotta, bronze, ivory etc. has its peculiarity and beauty that can be brought to prominence quite individually.”[iii]

This passage was written during his time in Tatura. It is evident from this passage that the influence of Hanak continued to guide the direction of his sculptural work. Duldig thought the polished ‘ideal’ desire of perfection reflected in ancient Greek sculpture was degenerate, where instead, the sculptor should allow for the natural qualities of the material to dictate their progress, whether modelling or carving.[iv] Hanak was one of Karl’s teachers when he attended the Viennese Kunstgewerbeschule (School of Applied Arts). He was born in Brünn, in the Austro-Hungarian Republic (now known as Brno, in the Czech Republic/Czechia) in 1875. Hanak moved to Vienna at the age of 14, then becoming an apprentice to a master woodcarver who carved ornamentations for the sumptuous furniture typically created during the period. Following this, he served as an apprentice to a stonemason. At the age of eighteen, Hanak was declared as a free artisan, journeying to cities in Austria, Germany, Hungary and Switzerland to work as a sculptor’s assistant. He then entered the Vienna Kunstgewerbeschule as a student at the age of twenty-three in 1898.[v] From 1905-1907, Hanak was a member of the Viennese Secession. In 1909, he was offered a professorship in the Vienna Kunstgewerbeschule, teaching there until 1932.[vi]

Hanak’s ideas on how sculpture could evolve were massively influential on Karl’s creative development. His work led him to be one of the sculptors that defined the state of Austrian sculpture during the early 1920s. Both Hanak and Karl believed in minimally intervening with the material, believing in the conscious relationship between the material and the spirit of the sculptor.[i] Hanak used what Terence Lane calls the taille directe method with his students, which stressed the importance of immediate expression, truth to materiality through direct engagement with the material by directly modelling and carving the material at hand.[ii] Karl himself rarely executed preparatory drawings for his sculpture, instead choosing to draw them after completion.[iii] Hans von Ankwicz, a past student of Hanak’s describes his teaching style as instructing his students to immediately work on the final piece without modelling the sculpture beforehand. Through this, the students were able to intimately know the material.[iv]

‘Progress of Man’ (1960)

At a professional level, the 1960s was Karl’s most successful decade. The work Karl created during this period elevated his reputation from being grouped within the mould of European post-war emigré artists, to enjoying a national reputation as a talented sculptor. In 1960, he was commissioned to create a bas-relief for the façade of a new building to be constructed on 505 St Kilda Road, Melbourne.[i] The building was to be the first high-rise building to be constructed on St Kilda Road. The building’s architect, Sir Bernard Evans wished to develop the road as an extension of office spaces out of the city; demolishing 19th century heritage buildings in the process.[ii] The work consisted of irregular terracotta tiles. As reported in the Australasian Post on the 2nd of June 1960, each tile was installed separately on the wall, and the design in full was unseen by Karl until the work was complete.[iii] The work was completed in two sections, and both sections were six metres high. The larger section, titled ‘Progress of Man’ was 3.6 metres wide. The second section, titled ‘Abstract’ was 90 centimetres wide.[iv]

Progress of Man illustrated the cultural development of humankind, showcasing the construction of the Egyptian pyramids in the bottom left corner, then displaying the construction of Gothic Cathedrals in the work’s centre, and the skyscraper; representative of the Machine Age in the top left corner. Stylised figures also represent the development of agrarian culture.[v] In the work’s top centre part, Karl depicted an image of the nuclear family, symbolic of ‘unity, peace and progress’. [vi] For Karl, the nuclear family represented stability, where his own family unit was of great importance to him. In terms of his development as a sculptor in Melbourne, Progress of Man awarded him a great amount of publicity, as it was attached to a newly constructed building indicative of the city’s forward-thinking urbanism.[vii]

Thirty years later, the new owners of 505 St Kilda Road, the Biztole Corporation, destroyed Progress of Man on the 15th of July 1991 in the process of renovating the building. This promulgated the issue of the destruction of public art to national attention. The Age published a report on the mural’s destruction on July 23rd, 1991. In response, Emeritus Professor Bernard Smith wrote in protest:

“A work of art is such that it should not be destroyed. The destruction of Karl Duldig’s splendid mural… was a civic disgrace. There is an urgent need to prevent similar acts of vandalism.”[i]

Howard Firken also wrote a letter to The Age, stating:

“I write to draw attention to the work of the people who obliterated the decorative tiles on the front of Park House, 505 St Kilda Road. The work of the noted sculptor Karl Duldig, the tiles were one of the few points of interest in a street of commercial drear. There is a cool, grey, unimaginative bland place in hell reserved for the people responsible.” [ii]

The arts community of Victoria realised that an organisation of the kind to protect public art did not exist at the time. Emeritus Professor Bernard Smith organised a meeting to convene representatives of unions, the arts sector and National Gallery of Victoria Trustees to take action, while discussing the inherent problems of public art regarding longevity, ownership and destruction.[iii]  On the 7th of August 1991, the Group for the Protection of Public Art (GPPA) was formed. This group lobbied the Victorian Government to list significant public artworks in Victoria, and to compile a code of ethics that protected these works.

The GPPA made recommendations to the Arts Minister of Victoria, Jim Keenan, to establish a list of works of art in public places, and to also establish a code of ethics to protect public artwork.  A Public Art Committee within the National Trust was also formed under the Chairmanship of Ken Scarlett, an authority on Australian sculpture, to classify public work that would be listed in the National Trust Heritage Register. The committee assessed the significance of these public works to determine if they were either of national, state or local significance.[iv] The creation of legislation that followed the actions of the GPPA has benefited future generations of artists and recognised the cultural significance of public art to the community at large.[v]

‘Magna Mater’ and the Mildara Sculpture Prize

Karl’s over lifesize carving in eucalypt titled ‘Magna Mater’ (1961) was exhibited in the inaugural 1961 Mildara Sculpture Prize at the Mildura Arts Centre.[i] Duldig carved the work from a river redgum branch salvaged from a tree that had been lopped in the grounds of Mentone Grammar School.[ii] The Mildara Sculpture Prize contained 122 works by 51 sculptors. 24 of these entrants, including Karl, were born and trained in sculpture outside Australia.[iii] Other internationally born and trained artists included in the exhibition apart from Karl were Vincas Jomantas and Teisutis Zikaras (Lithuania), Julius Kane (Hungary), Tina Wentcher, Inge King (both Germany), and Clifford Last (United Kingdom). Three awards were given to entrants. The winner’s monumental sculpture prize was given £400, and another £100 was rewarded for an indoor sculpture work. An additional £250 prize was given to an entrant for their work to be acquired by the Centre’s collection.  The winner of the Prize was Norma Redpath for her sculpture Dawn Figure (1961).[iv] Magna Mater was later acquired by Margaret Carnegie and subsequently by the National Gallery of Victoria in 1970 with funds given by Carnegie’s son, Roderick Carnegie.[v]

By examining the stylistic qualities of Magna Mater, one can see that Hanak’s style of teaching is visually evident in the work’s creation. The curve of the redgum branch controls the sculpture’s form. The figure of the mother and child coalesce into a single form. The hatching marks that Karl made in carving out of the branch become evident, as he aimed to let the material, being wood, dictate his creative processes.[vi] In an article for The Age, Bernard Smith describes Magna Mater as emblematic of a new age of independence for Australian sculpture; departing from the stylistic qualities of their European forebearers. Smith wrote appreciatively, encouraging Karl to create more works that permitted the material to govern the movement of his hands.[vii] He writes:

“Duldig is a traditional sculptor. His art is based on the human figure and he prefers to work in the sculptor’s traditional materials such as marble, wood, terra cotta and bronze. But his approach to his materials has always remained a sensitive and lively confrontation, and he has been prepared to experiment.” [viii]

Smith’s description of Karl’s approach to materials as ‘sensitive’ can again be traced back to Hanak’s influence on the creation of Karl’s body of work. Both Karl and Hanak avoided over defining sculptures; rejecting tendencies to carve the material into what Peter Stasny calls a ‘genre-like literary subject’. This emphasises Karl’s affinity to undertake a formalist approach to sculpting. The mother and child figure(s) ‘grow’ out of the wood. Duldig rejects elaborate detailing by concentrating purely on the essentialist qualities of form, restricting the carving of detail to the basic facets of the mother’s face. Her body bends slightly to the left; the child appears to cower into the mother’s waist. A slight reference to drapery is seen with the undulating form of the mother’s ‘dress’, where Karl has carved horizontal lines in the lower half of her figure. The child’s face is barely detailed; reduced to a soft carving of the eyes and nose.[ix] Karl’s curiosity to experiment, also outlined by Smith, is demonstrated by the examples Smith has outlined, such as chiselling sandstone to create smooth surfaces (Mother and Child, 1946), scoriation (Head of a Horse, 1952), and carving broad, geometric surfacing (Adam and Eve, 1950) to express a matured sensitivity towards materiality and form.[x]

Magna Mater was described by Alan McCulloch in a review of The Prize for The Herald in 1961 as adhering to a more conservative sculptural approach.[i]  McCulloch’s feelings towards Karl’s sculptures have previously been expressed in a similar vein, with McCulloch in a review for the 1953 Victorian Sculptor’s Society Exhibition writing:

“Karl Duldig, another artist of feeling, stays within safer boundaries, expressing himself sometimes impressionistically, sometimes in an archaic style, reminiscent of the work produced in the academies of Dusseldorf and Vienna”.[ii]

This tone from McCulloch continued in a review of the Herald Outdoor Art Show of 1958, where McCulloch wrote that Karl’s sculpture was credible. In the context of McCulloch’s statement that crowds were becoming increasingly familiar with abstract trends in contemporary sculpture of the period, Karl’s sculpture was representative of the traditional and literal forms reminiscent of the work of European master sculptors.[iii]  As one of the many European sculptors listed, Karl’s inclusion in the Mildara Sculpture Prize contributed to the evolution of Australian sculpture as an exciting field of development from its progression from a monocultural locus of expression to an internationally-influenced artform through continental European emigré immigration; signalling an atmosphere of change in the appreciation of Australian-made sculpture.[iv]

The Kröller-Müller Museum and Mt Eliza

Following their stay in Israel, Karl and Slawa visited the Kröller Müller State Museum in the Netherlands, where the Museum’s Sculpture Garden inspired Karl to organise a solo exhibition at the Duldig family property on Boundary Road in Mt Eliza. Duldig was quoted in an article for The Australian Jewish News that the Sculpture Garden at the Kröller-Müller was “like a realisation of all my dreams”. [i] The Kröller-Müller is a modern art and sculpture museum located in the Hoge Veluwe National Park near Otterlo, Holland, The Netherlands. The Museum was founded by art collector and philanthropist Helene Kröller-Müller, where she and her husband Anton Kröller, a shipping magnate, purchased land for the museum in 1916. The museum was constructed in 1937; opening to the public in 1938.[ii]

The Kröller-Müller consists of both a small interior museum, designed by architect Henri van de Velde and an additional sculpture garden. The sculpture garden was constructed as an extension of the interior sculpture gallery that was added in the early 1950s.[i] In the late 1950s, the then-director Abraham M. Hammacher contracted landscape architect J. T. P. Bijhouwer to design the Museum’s Sculpture Garden, reflecting Helene Kröller-Müller’s belief that art within natural settings must unify art and nature.

A garden was thus designed by Bijhouwer behind the Museum, where open spaces and sculptures intermingle between walls of vegetation.[ii] The Museum’s display of outdoor sculpture intertwines with trees and shrubbery, and the marriage of sculpture and nature within the Museum’s outdoor presentation of paths, fauna and parkland left Karl impressed.[iii] Visiting the Kröller-Müller crystallised the idea in his mind that an outdoor exhibition of his work at the Duldig family’s Mt Eliza property would soon materialise. The exhibition thus re-affirmed Karl’s belief that sculpture’s rightful home is within the natural environment.

The exhibition, aptly titled ‘Karl Duldig: Outdoor Sculpture’ opened to the public on the 2nd of November 1969. It was presented in conjunction with Georges Mora of Tolarno Galleries, and was probably the first attempt by an Australian artist to present a solo exhibition in an outdoor setting.[iv]  Twenty-nine works in a variety of materials, such as bronze, concrete, wood, terracotta and copper were exhibited.[v] These included Mother and Child (1950), Warrior (1968) and Queen of the Bush (1968). The exhibition was opened by Lady Greta Coles, with around one hundred guests attending opening festivities. Coles referred to Karl as a notable asset to Australian culture, who had worked tirelessly to universalise the appeal of sculpture to all Australians.[vi] Georges Mora also spoke, proclaiming that Australia was becoming witness to a developing ‘artistic elite’ that possessed a mature taste, allowing them to appreciate the complexity behind Karl’s sculptures.[vii]

The exhibition was positively reviewed. Peter Guberek wrote for The Australian Jewish News that Karl purposely chose to display larger works for maximum impact, where works in an assortment of materials gave the exhibition a sense of ‘colourful variety’. Guberek, in similarity to Bernard Smith, inadvertently referred to Hanak’s influence on Karl, writing that he displayed sensitivity and respect for the array of materials that he worked with, and that his approach to sculpting engages with the materials’ formalist qualities. For Guberek, Karl’s respect for materials gave him a feeling of ‘serenity’ through viewing the exhibition, where the displayed works felt appropriate for an outdoor setting.

This owed to Karl’s care and appreciation of sculptural techniques, and the rich variety of materials he used. [viii]  For the late 1960s, the concept behind Karl’s Mt Eliza exhibition was innovative, and a breakthrough in terms of his professional development. The exhibition was a logical follow-up for his desire to enhance outdoor spaces with artwork. The concept of a solo outdoor display of sculpture was a likely preamble to his exhibition at the McClelland Gallery in 1982-83, which presented his sculptures both indoors and outdoors throughout the Gallery’s grounds.[ix]

 Karl Duldig: Survey, Sculpture & Graphic Works, 1922-1982 – McClelland Sculpture Park + Gallery, Langwarrin

Karl’s solo exhibition at the McClelland was held from the 7th of November 1982, until the 15th of January 1983, coinciding with his 80th birthday. This exhibition was the most comprehensive gathering of his work to date. Being the first artist at the McClelland to have an exhibition spanning both indoor and outdoor spaces, Karl’s retrospective exhibition featured 72 sculptures from Vienna, Singapore and Australia. The exhibition also featured 62 drawings. The catalogue notes that archival ephemera such as photographs, catalogues and press cuttings were exhibited, yet the details of these items are not listed. The exhibition was held at the McClelland due to Karl and Slawa’s longstanding involvement with the Gallery.[i] The Gallery had already acquired two of Karl’s sculptures, including Carving in Eucalypt (1962), which was displayed for many years in the McClelland’s entrance foyer.[ii]

It was common for visitors to the McClelland to engage with Karl’s large sculptures through touch. Carving in Eucalypt is a notable example, where it was common for children to hug it upon sight.[iii] The exhibition catalogue featured an accompanying text with a foreword by Patrick McCaughey, Director of the National Gallery of Victoria from 1981-1990, and a biographical essay by Eva de Jong-Duldig. de Jong-Duldig’s text is the second published monograph of Karl’s life and work; the first being Pamela Ruskin’s book Karl Duldig: Sculpture, published in 1966.[iv]  

The meticulously researched text by Eva de Jong-Duldig not only details Duldig’s biography, yet she also delves into how Karl’s technical prowess as a sculptor was influenced by the changes in his surroundings throughout the first half of his life (moving from Vienna to Switzerland, escaping Europe to Singapore, and transportation from Singapore to Australia to become interned in regional Victoria) and how this influenced his creative approach. She additionally contextualises the changes in Duldig’s surroundings, using a melange of personal ephemera to outline both the contexts and circumstances of the creation of his work. The exhibition was Duldig’s second and final outdoor exhibition mounted during his life, four years before his death in 1986.

Conclusion

Prior to the passing of Slawa Duldig in 1975, Slawa had expressed to Eva her wish for the Duldig family residence in Malvern East to be developed into a museum devoted to preserving the family’s history and creativity.[i] Following the death of Karl in 1986, from 1993 to 1996, Eva de Jong-Duldig transformed the family residence into a museum and sculpture garden by restoring the residence and  creating an additional gallery space. The house then opened to the public as a private museum. In 2002, it became incorporated as a public museum and art gallery. In 2003, the museum gained recognition as a deductible gift recipient institution. It is now known as the Duldig Studio Museum and Sculpture Garden. The Sculpture Garden in the residence’s back garden has been kept in situ from when it existed before Karl’s death, displaying work created from many periods of his life. The garden started with sculptures around the garden’s perimeter, and the addition of sculptures in the garden’s centre developed during the last few years of his life.

The amalgamation of nature and Karl’s sculptures in a bucolic suburban setting crystallises his desire for art to intertwine with the natural world. He wished his sculpture to both complement and respond to the elements, with many works in the Garden acquiring patination with age. Karl preferred his sculptures to exhibit a ‘rough’ appearance, where the bronze displayed physical and chemical changes owing to the effects of the founding process. The metal displayed colour variations and remained dirty from the effects of being heated. Instead of leaving the foundry to clean and sandblast the sculptures, Karl preferred to clean and work on the casts himself, making each cast into a bespoke piece of sculpture. He would then allow the sculptures to develop patination as the bronze oxidised over time.[ii]

The sculptures are displayed on a variety of wooden plinths, intertwining with hedges and trees. Some of the plinths have been replaced over time. Displaying his art in this way honoured Karl’s wish for sculpture to become deeply integrated into the Australian urban environment. He wished to import the marriage of sculpture and urban architecture familiar in European cities onto Australian soil, in which streetscapes were and are surrounded with examples of historic and contemporary art.[iii] Karl’s outdoor commissions and exhibitions doubly displayed his firm grasp of sculptural techniques combined with artistic sensitivity; using these exhibitions as an impetus to promote the benefit of outdoor sculpture as an instrument to both beautify the environment and provoke a widespread interest in public cultural engagement.[iv]

REFERENCES


Albrecht-Weinberger, Karl, Jacek Purchla, and Su Baker. ‘Foreword’. In Karl Duldig: Sculptures/Drawings. Edited by Peter Stasny, 6–7. Vienna: Jewish Museum Vienna, 2003.

 	‘Art in the Open Places’. Australian Jewish News. Author and date unknown.

Bandman, Kevin. ‘No (R)Egrets in This Show’. The Australian Jewish News. 14 May 1971.

Bond, Helen. ‘The Duldig Ceramics’. In The Duldig Ceramics: A Retrospective, 9–11. Caulfield: Caulfield Arts Complex, 1988.

Born, Wolfgang, and Laura Herring. ‘Anton Hanak’. Parnassus 4, no. 2 (1 February 1932): 10–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/15436314.1932.11666376.

Bremer-Cox, Angelique, and Rieja Brouns, eds. Kröller-Müller Museum. Otterlo: Foundation Kröller-Müller Museum, 1994.

‘Bronze Editions Catalogue’. The Duldig Studio, 2020. https://www.duldig.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/DULDIG-STUDIO-Bronze-Editions-Catalogue.pdf.

Carew, Ann. ‘Duldig Studio Museum and Sculpture Garden: Significance Assessment’. Glen Iris: The Duldig Studio Incorporated, 2016.

‘Ceramic Wall’. Australasian Post, 2 June 1960. Author Unknown.

Collins, Martin. ‘Artless Gardens Puzzle Sculptor’. The Australian, 26 October 1971.

de Jong-Duldig, Eva. Driftwood: Escape and Survival Through Art. North Melbourne: ARCADIA, 2017.

de Jong-Duldig, Eva. ‘Karl Duldig - The War Years: 1940-1945’. The Australian Jewish Historical Society Journal 12 (1994): 559–66.

de Jong-Duldig, Eva. ‘Karl Duldig’s Magna Mater’. Eva de Jong-Duldig, 2011.

de Jong-Duldig, Eva. ‘Magna Mater and the Birth of Modernism in Vienna’. Speech, Victorian College of the Arts, 13 October 1991.

de Jong-Duldig, Eva. ‘Moral Rights Push Rekindled’. Arts and Entertainment Law Review, August 1992.

de Jong-Duldig, Eva. ‘Survey’. In Karl Duldig: Survey, Sculpture & Graphic Works, 1922-1982, edited by Eva de Jong-Duldig and Christopher Saines, 10–50. Langwarrin: McClelland Gallery, 1982.

de Jong-Duldig, Eva, and Stefan Damschke. ‘Bronzes in the Duldig Studio’. The Duldig Studio, 2013.

‘Duldig in Retrospect’. The Australian Jewish News. 4 April 1975. Author Unknown.

Duldig, Karl. ‘Sculpture in Open Spaces’. Journal of the Australian Institute of Parks and Recreation 10, no. 1 (1973): 21–22.

Eaton, Leonard K. ‘Growing a Museum: An Analysis of Holland’s Kroller-Muller Museum and Sculpture Garden’. Landscape Architecture 72, no. 2 (1982): 86–90.

Guberek, Peter. ‘Art-Wise: Karl Duldig’. The Australian Jewish News. 7 November 1969.

Guberek, Peter. ‘Opening in the Open’. The Australian Jewish News. 7 November 1969.

Kiddell, Helen. The Duldig Studio: A History. Glen Iris: The Duldig Gallery Incorporated, 2011.

Kolecki, Ursula. ‘Karl’s Carvings’. The Sun. 12 January 1983.

Koller, Christian, and Fabian Brändle. Goal! A Social History of Modern Football. Translated by David S. Bachrach. Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2015.

Lane, Terence. ‘Souvenirs of the Hanak-Klasse: Early Viennese Sculptures in the Duldig Studio’. Art and Australia 30, no. 4 (1993): 500–503.

Liberman, Serge. ‘Jewish Artists Coming Into Their Own’. Melbourne Chronicle, 1983.

McCulloch, Alan. ‘Mildura’s Boost for Sculpture’. The Herald. 26 April 1961.

McCulloch, Alan. ‘Traditions in Sculpture’. The Herald. 10 November 1953.

McCulloch, Alan. ‘Value of the Outdoor Show’. The Herald, 12 March 1958.

McFarling, Elaine. ‘He Dreams of a Law for Beauty’. The Age. 26 November 1970.

McQueen, Humphrey. ‘A New Start in Australia’. In Karl Duldig: Sculptures/Drawimgs, edited by Peter Stasny, 64–88. Vienna: Jewish Museum Vienna, 2003.

Mitropoulos, Caitlin. ‘Protecting Victoria’s Public Art - a Brief History of the National Trust Public Art Commitee’. National Trust of Australia: Victoria Magazine, October 2019.

Mockridge, Melinda. Art Behind the Wire. Glen Iris: The Duldig Gallery Incorporated, 2014.

Morgan, Janice. ‘Beauty - In Natural Shape and Colour’. The Australian Jewish News. 18 May 1962.

‘Outdoor Art Show Was the Magnet’. The Herald, 7 March 1958.

Parrington, Phyllis. ‘Garden Sculpture Show Continues’. Peninsula Post. 26 November 1969.

Ruskin, Pamela. ‘Karl Duldig: His Life and Work’. In Karl Duldig: Sculpture, edited by Pamela Ruskin, 3–15. Melbourne: F.W. Cheshire Pty Ltd, 1966.

Saines, Christopher, and Eva de Jong-Duldig, eds. Karl Duldig Survey: Sculpture & Graphic Works 1922-1982. Langwarrin: McClelland Gallery, 1982.

Say, Jeffrey. ‘Fascination with the East: Singapore 1939-1940’. In Karl Duldig: Sculptures/Drawings, edited by Peter Stasny, 52–63. Vienna: Jewish Museum Vienna, 2003.

Scarlett, Ken. Australian Sculptors. West Melbourne: Nelson, 1980.

Scarlett, Ken. Mildura Revisited: Sculptures Exhibited 1961-1978. Mildura: Mildura Arts Centre, 2014.

‘Sculpture at the Bottom of His Garden’. Peninsula Post. 29 October 1969. Author Unknown.

Smith, Bernard. ‘Karl Duldig At Work’. The Age. 25 June 1966.
	
Stasny, Peter, ed. Karl Duldig: Sculptures/Drawings. Vienna: Jewish Museum Vienna, 2003.

Stasny, Peter. ‘Student Days and an Academic Sculptor in Vienna’. In Karl Duldig: Sculptures/Drawings, edited by Peter Stasny, 16–52. Vienna: Jewish Museum Vienna, 2003.

Stuckey, Colin. ‘Art Goes Bush’. The Sun. 30 October 1969.

Sturgeon, Graeme. Sculpture at Mildura: The Story of the Mildura Sculpture Triennial, 1961-1982. Mildura: Mildura City Council, 1984.

van Kooten, Toos. ‘Sculpture in the Veluwe: A Brief History’. In Outdoor Sculpture: Kröller-Müller Museum Otterlo, 5–13. Otterlo: Kröller-Müller Museum, 1998.

von Ankwicz, Hans. ‘Neue Arbiten Aus Der Hanak-Klasse Der Wiener Kunstgewerbe-Schule’. Deutsche Kunst Und Dekoration, 1923.

Warren, Alan. ‘Abstraction, Cubism and Surrealism’. The Sun. 7 October 1958.

Warren, Alan. ‘New Patrons of the Arts’. The Sun, 22 October 1960.

Wassenberger, Robert. Wien Und Die Kunst in Unserem Jahrundert. Vienna/Munich: Jugend & Volk, 1965.

Weininger, Peter. ‘Outdoor Art’. The Age, 13 November 1982.

Westbrook, Eric. ‘Introduction’. In Karl Duldig: Sculpture, edited by Pamela Ruskin, 1. Melbourne: F.W. Cheshire Pty Ltd, 1966.

Wolfgang Born, and Laura Herring. ‘Anton Hanak. The Development of Austria’s Foremost Contemporary Sculptor’. Parnassus 4, no. 2 (1932): 10. https://doi.org/10.2307/770592.