10 February 2025

THINKER, TAILOR, SOVEREIGN, SPRITE

If there is one artist who is extremely interested in the architecture of the female form and who knows how to display it, it is Azzedine Alaïa.

 

– Jean Nouvel

 

Fashion, turn to the left. Fashion, turn to the right. People of fashion can all too often be as loud and tasteless as any ceremonial asininity lauded by the goon squad at American Vogue. The maddening extra is that what these figures are actually accomplishing is to demonstrate how heinous and out of touch they really are. “Who will remember Anna Wintour in the history of fashion? No one,” remarked one of the greatest artists in the history of dressmaking – who likewise mastered the true art of living, untouched by the constraints and the bullshit of the fashion industry – Azzedine Alaïa (1935–2017): thinker, tailor, sovereign, sprite.

 

“Alaïa sculpts human flesh from the depths of his lair, reconstructing the female figure by correcting imperfections and emphasising existing qualities. He combines violence, modesty and eroticism by hinting at a woman’s desirable attributes while keeping them out of reach – the essence of the Oriental,” argues François Baudot in his short profile (1996) on the master womenswear designer in which he also suggests that Alaïa’s finest dresses “are those which are created by just two snips of the scissors – fluid motion suspended in time and space with just a few pins”.

 

The “two-snips” prowess is of course nothing but a hyperbole from the sketchy biographer since the designer could spend weeks on end on a single dress, building a composition of some fifty elements on his fitting model to reach that distinctive Alaïa grade of “effortless” sophistication. The dresses on the mannequins displaying four decades of Alaïa’s work at Sven-Harry’s Art Museum in Stockholm, the exhibition is called Master of Couture – Azzedine Alaïa, do not really necessitate a living body inside to come to life as the oneiric beauty and the lubricious ingenuity of these showpieces absolutely percolate with womanliness and in-built movement.

 

The presentation on the torsos, modelled on the figure of a young Naomi Campbell, sort of ideates (if you have a lively mind) a caryatid in a draped and tucked peplos dress who leaves her peristyle assignment for good, puts on a suggestive gymslip on Mount Olympus and walks through history while attentively gathering the technical savvies from the finest names in fashion. Master of Couture is a statuesque exhibition of these embodied figures wrapped in stretch fabrics, seamless one-piece knits or sculptured leather enhanced by grommets, bandages, laces and spiralling zippers. Yet there is no theatrics or froufrou in this place. The exhibition is a sweeping grand total of an artist whose aesthetic guidance came from two principal sources: Alaïa’s own genius – “I am the artisan of my own knowledge” – and his abounding love for women.

 

In his draft script for Robert Palmer’s sublimely nonsensical “Addicted to Love” video from 1986 – with the five scandal beauties as his bogus backup band in their titillating, figure-hugging, liquorice black dresses – Terence Donovan explained that “I would simply dress a group of international models in Azzedine Alaïa dresses [because he] produces clothes that make men become quite irrational and women seem to admire him. He understands the linear engineering of a woman’s body unlike any other designer.”

 

Just a few years earlier, when Alaïa had gained world recognition, Marina Sturdza, the Romanian Princess who died the same year as Alaïa, wrote that his creations “delight in every female curve and live without exaggeration, without costumery or caricature. In fact, his design premise is simplicity itself. Alaïa marries fabric to the female body, with respect and with pleasure. His clothes are instantly recognisable, utterly different from anyone else’s. He moulds and manipulates even strong-textured fabrics on to the female shape, like a second skin. Silhouette and shape are everything, and the body itself his essential inspiration. Alaïa’s clothes are lightyears away from anything that smacks of trendiness and he doesn’t give a fig about fads or ‘what’s in’. His clothes are frankly and unabashedly sexy and women adore them.”

 

Master of Couture is the first Azzedine Alaïa exhibition in the Nordic countries, or as Sven-Harry’s Museum Director Dragana Kussoffsky Maksimović adds with a twinkle, “the first north of London”. Kussoffsky Maksimović has been mad about Alaïa since the early days of discovering “these feminine creations” in the fashion press. “They are still so incredibly cogent. It is sensual, and I think it is so beautiful. This is passion. When I was leafing through the fashion magazines in the 1980s and the 90s, it was always Alaïa who stood out to me. I knew that I wanted to show his sculptural clothes, there was no question about it, that was absolutely what I wanted to do.”

 

Alaïa had a very joyous upbringing – “Life was poetic, lyrical” – but even a happy childhood would surely reap the benefits of a few touches of fairy tale endorsement, at least for someone of Alaïa’s brilliance. And since he didn’t grow up with his biological mother (his ma and pa were farmers who lived in a dusty town in the middle of nowhere), he made up stories about her: that she came from Sweden, that she had been married in the 1950s wearing a wedding dress designed by Jacques Fath, and that her name was Stella. The name and the fantasy originated from the French fashion model Stella Maret, and the story is retold in Marc Parent’s book about his dazzling mother:

 

“I got to know Stella in 1980, looking at old editions of Vogue, L’Officiel, La Femme Chic and L’art et la mode from the 50s. I fell for her silhouette, the way she carried herself, her allure, her whole look, really. For me she evoked the mystery of les robes à l’intérieur, the feminine shape inside the dresses. I loved that era; it was such a sophisticated time for fashion when so much care and elaboration was put into women’s clothing,” Alaïa mused. “Stella is femininity. For me, the thing that said woman about her was her waist! It makes me want to make all women that feminine, and it was the inspiration behind a dress I came up with, made of new textiles, with an invisible interior corset that cinched the waist. In 1982, I also created several leather suits with an ultrasmall waist.”

 

Alaïa’s strongest childhood experience of raw femininity was a breathing image of Courbet’s L’Origine du monde (1866) amplified by an infant’s head popping out of the slit. He almost passed out. The ten-year-old boy was slapped back to reality by the local midwife, the French madame who had delivered him into this world.

 

The place was Sidi Bou Saïd, a Mediterranean suburb to the Tunisian capital, where he and his brother and his much loved sister Hafida lived with their maternal grandparents – a grandma who provided young Alaïa with solid ideas about human freedom, and a grandpa with a weekly routine that too exerted an influence on boy Alaïa: Thursday evenings he was reading aloud from Arabian Nights for the kids, Fridays he was playing cards at a café while allowing Azzedine to soak in the screened delights at the Ciné-Soir (where an Italian actress’s way of tucking her shorts alone could make him swoon), and Saturdays he took the boy to his station to let him have a zing of real-world policework.

 

However, as Edmund White delineates in Our Paris: Sketches from Memory, there was one specific Thursday each month when an Egyptian superstar performed, and her voice was ritually transmitted on the radio: “On the morning of her monthly recital the young Azzedine would be sent to the local café, which possessed the only radio in town, to reserve a chair as near the radio as possible for his grandfather. There his grandfather would install himself with a jasmine flower behind his ear and sigh and weep as Umm Kulthum improvised verse after verse, hour after hour, of her lovesick ballads. On that day, once a month, no business was conducted throughout the Arab world, all misdeeds were overlooked, and no war could be fought. Umm Kulthum taught Alaïa his first lesson about the power and mystery of female artistry.”

 

A promenade side by side with a beautiful woman in Tunis meant the world to boy Alaïa. Everything from the way she walked to how tastefully her body was enrobed was mentally noted. There’s a passage in Hans Ulrich Obrist’s interview with Alaïa, in the first issue of System magazine, in which he talks about when he was visiting Hafida’s college and how “one of the nuns would give me a little pat on the shoulder, and I felt as if I’d been touched by grace. The nuns still wore cornettes back then, and I thought they were so beautiful because they had such white skin when everyone else was tanned. I’d walk behind them in the street to watch their brown ankles and feet, which contrasted so much with their faces. And I thought the movement of their robes with their swinging crosses was lovely.”

 

Mme Pineau, whom he used to assist when a baby was born, offered a wealth of inspiration with her numerous artbooks and the fashion magazines from Paris. Madame also fancied ordering beautiful things for herself from the grand Parisian department stores. In Susanna Frankel’s Visionaries: Interviews with Fashion Designers, Alaïa speaks about the enchantment of being around his Gallic influencer: “In the evening, after work, she used to sit next to me and place orders for clothes. When the boxes came, we opened them together. I was so happy. I can still remember the little printed cotton summer dresses, the white gloves, the shoes.”

 

Boy Alaïa’s considerate and perceptive disposition and his very certain flair for immersion pertained to an advancing master. He knew that Paris would be where he would live all his days, and he figured that he would do well there after studying as a sculptor at the Institut Supérieur des Beaux-Arts de Tunis. Madame was the one who helped him getting into the art school, in spite of his young age. This was the proper beginning of the boundless succession of marvellous women who were to give Alaïa complete, unprecedented support and adoration throughout the rest of his life. This human fleet of benevolence and refinement would very soon after he had relocated make him realise “how Parisian chic is in fact a question of a person’s way of thinking”.

 

To pay for his art studies, Alaïa assisted a seamstress and did much of the shop’s stitching at home. This piqued the curiosity of two girls who told their wealthy parents about the unfamiliar but obviously gifted young tailor. A cascade of benignant events transpired by virtue of the female jungle telegraph and in late June 1956, when he was twenty-one, Alaïa had attained an apprenticeship at the atelier of Christian Dior in Paris, under the guidance of Technical Director Marguerite Carré. (“She was an incredible woman, she symbolised my vision of the big technician, people like that don’t exist anymore. I was all eyes.”) Alaïa had to leave after only a few days, however, since this was at the height of the Algerian War and it had become too much of an issue among the sour clients that Dior was housing a young Arab.

 

A letter of introduction from the Tunis high society to Tunisian-born Simone Zehrfuss, spouse of the famous architect, was Alaïa’s ticket to the fashionable society of Paris. His first abode in Paris was a small garret next to one of his besties from the Beaux-Arts school, Leïla Menchari, and it was on rue Lord Byron – where Jean-Pierre Melville’s contract killer Jef Costello has his hideaway in Le samouraï (1967) – that he surrounded himself with his little sewing machine, mid-century furniture classics by Jean Prouvé and Charlotte Perriand (gifts from the Zehrfusses) and a host of famous ladies and young models all yearning for his rare designs. Women also so much enjoyed being around Alaïa as he was the shy but winsome oppositeness of Paul Thomas Anderson’s petulant sniveller, Reynolds Woodcock, in Phantom Thread (2017). Add to that that Azzedine Alaïa was always at the helm of everything, entirely, from these salad days of the late 1950s to what would become his final couture show in 2017.

 

It was during the many gatherings with the beau monde at the home of the Zehrfusses that he befriended novelist Louise de Vilmorin. Cues he took from her were in particular “French chic, elegance, allure and savoir-vivre … there were many things to learn, and intellectually it was marvellous.” Although she was almost three times his age, Louise de Vilmorin would beautifully say that having Alaïa as her couturier and confidant was the only looking glass that she ever needed. Alaïa spent his Sundays at de Vilmorin’s estate near Orly Airport as a constant guest at her dinner salons, where he encountered Orson Welles, Jean Cocteau, André Malraux, René Clair and many other luminaries.

 

At the end of the decade – during his three seasons with Guy Laroche on avenue Montaigne, where his technical skills and his profound awareness of haute couture intensified – Alaïa was asked to stay with one of his admirers, Marquise de Mazan, in her vast spaces at Parc Monceau (only a short walk from his first humble dwelling). One of the dinner guests at the Marquise’s was Countess Nicole de Blégiers who became an important patron, but who also invited him to live with her family in 1959. In their lavish homes in the 16th arrondissement, Alaïa took care of the kids and cooked for the whole family after the daily two-hour-long appointments with the dashing yet discreet ladies were over at seven. It was a life of stability and appreciation and everything was coming together for him with the designs that he developed in these residences during the first part of the 1960s:

 

“I was very lucky to meet the Countess de Blégiers,” he voiced. “I became quite a good babysitter, and I made her dresses. It was the end of the Algerian War, and it was difficult for a Tunisian to find a job in France. The countess’s husband gave me his business card to say that I was his ‘protégé’ so they didn’t bother me when they stopped me in the street.”

 

Just before Azzedine Alaïa set up his business at 60 rue de Bellechasse in 1964, which would become his legendary address for the next twenty years, he was living and partying together with a model friend of his. This brief period of external merrymaking also included a custom that the countess had encouraged him to begin with, as a fun way to aid his career: to invite his private clientele along with his friends (who were often the same kinds of people) for dinners. One of his guests was Arletty, the good bad girl Clara in Marcel Carné’s masterpiece Le jour se lève (1939), who he had loved since the days at the Ciné-Soir; how she dressed and the complete way in which she carried herself. He met the star in the flesh in her dressing room at Théâtre de la Renaissance in 1960 and they remained very, very close till the Fin of her life in 1992.

 

At the time that the main curator of the Stockholm exhibition, Olivier Saillard, took over the directorship of the fashion museum Palais Galliera in Paris in 2013, he carried out a long interview with Alaïa before the opening of the maître’s first (and much overdue) hometown retrospective:

 

“With Arletty, I learnt even more of the tricks of Parisian chic that nobody teaches you. She was a very strong influence. My dress with the zip that turns all around the body was born from the one she wore in Hôtel du Nord [1938]. The dresses shaped like troubadours’ tunics and the long gowns that she wears in Les Visiteurs du soir [1942] inspired a number of the outfits in my Autumn/Winter 1988–89 collection. The butterflies of the Autumn/Winter 1991–92 collection are an homage to Arletty and the bodysuit that she wears in the film Tempête [1940]. Her witty words, her effrontery and her insolence dictated some of my principals. She would often say that she was ‘virgin of all decoration’. That made me decide to remove jewellery and accessories from my collections to place the naked garment at the forefront. She was so simple, so full of popular and majestic grandeur. Arletty embodies the Parisienne.”

 

The help and the initiative came from friends, and the backing from Simone Zehrfuss, to enable for Alaïa to set up his first atelier in the city. With the basic five-room apartment (one hundred and forty square metres in all) on the first floor at 60 rue de Bellechasse, Alaïa formed his very ideal way of living (he always slept on a mattress on the floor) and working, combining everything that was needed in one place (and he was fine with having his défilés running through the kitchen). A handful of people were hired, including Alaïa’s factotum Ibrahima Soumaré who would stay with him for the rest of his life. Almost equally loyal were the gutsy mesdames of the monied class who treasured and revelled in the nonconformist/traditionalist Alaïa’s delightful and intricate made-to-measure designs.

 

In the mid-1960s, with the Youthquake movement in full swing, Alaïa was asked by Yves Saint Laurent to design the templates for his famous Mondrian dresses which became a successful synthesis of high fashion and Pop. This was a dreadful time for many of the haute couture houses. In Twiggy in Black and White, the wonder kid recounts a trip she made to Paris for the Daily Sketch after she had become the Face of 1966: “Readers back in Britain would be offered my views on the collections in the form of a letter to Mum. Now it makes me cringe; but I was only sixteen and didn’t know any better. I lasted two days. It was the Balmain show that caused the stink. Monsieur Balmain himself was lovely to me, but his clothes were hardly innovative and Shirley Flack, the journalist whose idea the whole thing was, saw no reason to tone down what I thought. ‘Twiggy’s letter to Mum’ appeared the next day. Balmain’s clothes were fine for someone middle-aged like her, I wrote, but were old-fashioned. Quel Scandale. I was immediately banned by the Chambre Syndicale.”

 

When Cristóbal Balenciaga threw in the towel in 1968, Alaïa received a phone call from Mlle Renée who had worked alongside the Spanish master for decades. She suggested that Alaïa should take hold of what remained at 10 avenue George V of the garments, and rework them according to his own desires. It is true that he filled waste bags of these sublimities, and that he examined them like a scientist – very much as Grandmaster Flash would dismantle a Technics 1200 turntable in the 1970s in order to penetrate the fundamentals of the tool that he was working with – but Alaïa left them as they were, impeccable:

 

“I was stunned by their beauty and by the hand that had created them and seemed present in the dresses still. It was impossible for me to dream of touching these clothes. To intervene in any way on these examples of equilibrium would have been sacrilege, and it appeared to me as a matter of urgency to rescue others. Since many years, I have been buying and receiving the dresses, the coats, the jackets that testify to the great history of fashion. It has become for me somewhat of a matter of state to preserve them, a mark of solidarity towards those who, before me, have had the pleasure and the exigency of the scissors. It is my way of paying homage to all of the craft and the ideas that these garments manifest.”

 

From here on, Alaïa’s collecting of thousands and thousands of pieces of all of his cherished designers from the past (his favourite decades were the 1930s and 50s) went on in correspondence with his own work. At the Fondation Azzedine Alaïa at 18 rue de la Verrerie, a complex of industrial buildings that he bought and moved to in 1987, there are over seven hundred articles by Madame Grès who, like Alaïa, was a trained sculptor. She (like Alaïa) understood the art of perfect drapery – and the life-itself allure of what is taking place in the play between what is revealed and what is concealed – and with her special plis de Grès technique she pleated the knitted silk of her dresses into a silhouette that was both wonderfully modern and timeless as the sculptures of Ancient Greece.

 

He collected Vionnet and absorbed her bias-cut method which created a blessed trinity between fabric, body and movement; Schiaparelli, who (just like Alaïa) loved to work with synthetic fibres along with the most expensive materials and haute couture practices, and to develop new kinds of fabrics together with the industry bests, and (like Alaïa) converted functional clothing elements (such as zippers) into something very else; Jean Patou and Paul Poiret; Adrian who was the star designer of MGM in the 1930s and whose costumes Alaïa bought by the hundreds from a Philadelphia collector, and (just to sample a few of them) the American master Charles James who Alaïa discovered on his first trip to New York City in 1982, when Bergdorf Goodman introduced Alaïa in the US with a runway show. Among his contemporaries he liked Vivienne Westwood and Yohji Yamamoto (and as with Yamamoto he was always dressed in a black outfit that was his uniform). When Marseille’s Maison Mode Méditerranée opened in 1988, Alaïa made a huge contribution by donating one hundred of his own dresses.

 

What was also so good about Azzedine Alaïa was that he wasn’t infatuated by the pomp and circumstance of his profession. “I have never followed fashion. It is women who have dictated my actions. It is necessary to know the academy of their bodies in order to know what they want before they know themselves. As the years passed, I have followed the teachings of their silhouette. The shoulder is essential, the waist primordial. The arch of the back and the backside are capital. The breasts, you can always make them look great. The neck, if it is short, needs to be flattered by a high collar and small shoulder pads,” he told Olivier Saillard.

 

“I like clothes that stay beautiful and eternal, that are not betrayed by details, ornaments, or colours that age them prematurely. Those are the designs that are the simplest yet the most difficult to create. I have created clothes in my mind that I have esteemed to be finished almost ten years after beginning the first toiles. Certain jackets, I am correcting them endlessly, to the great despair of my closest collaborators. There are garments that are made to never be produced. The research is more important.”

 

In 1972, the year after Alaïa had been affirmed as a member of the Chambre Syndicale de la Couture Parisienne, Cécile de Rothschild was having a fitting in Alaia’s atelier and brought along a friend who “wore flat shoes and radiated something very modern” – it was the Swedish fridge and cinematic icon Greta Gustafsson: “Garbo was sitting there, in a big turtleneck with the sleeves pulled down, so that you couldn’t see her hands. I looked at her eyes, her nose, her eyelids. Incredible. She truly was absolutely magnificent. She asked me to make her a large overcoat. I’ve kept the model. She wanted it to be really big, like a military coat, and in blue. She had her own style. I made her jersey sweaters, fitted straight trousers, flat shoes, and three big overcoats.”

 

Alaïa’s diligence and hard work resulted in a train of events which led to his first prêt-à-porter collection in 1979. It was based on a bigtime refusal from the very brand that used every single picture that Guy Bourdin took for them during the spectacular years that the complicated French artist-photographer was absolutely unsurpassable (1972–80). However, when Alaïa presented his commissioned collection for Charles Jourdan, all they could see (while kicking up a fuss) was the kink, fetishism and suppressed violence that was more than evident in Bourdin’s imagery.

 

Sarah Perks, one of the co-curators of the Stockholm show and a longtime staffer at Alaïa, affirms that “People say a lot about his work, that he walks on a tightrope between the woman who is a nun and the whore [laughs]. He designed costumes for the Crazy Horse in Paris that is famous for being sexier than Moulin Rouge. He has sometimes both the head and body totally covered, and he chooses to reveal skin with transparency but always with an added element of modesty.”

 

Alaïa’s newfound main man Thierry Mugler brought the fashion press to the Bellechasse atelier in 1979. For the editors at Elle, it was love at first sight when they lay eyes on Alaïa’s discarded Charles Jourdan collection, and they were craving these things so much that they asked him if they could wear them at the fashion shows. The new decade would bring new connections, steadfast friends, muses, affectionate devotees, a maturation of his business, and in 1981/82 Alaïa burst into view with designs that made him beyond famous. Maison Alaïa was established when the first défilé went through his kitchen in 1983, with three drop-in shows a day for a whole week.

 

“He revisited a lot of the ideas from throughout the different decades of his career. He said that if an idea is good, you have to explore it, explore it, explore it – distil it, and make sure that you have really exhausted the potential of that good idea. He said that good ideas are rare and that you are lucky if you have one in a year. He very much refused the pressure from the fashion industry that expects designers to come up with a hundred new ideas four times a year. It is not the way you make great designs,” explains Sarah Perks and mentions some of the recurrent themes that distinguish Alaïa’s work, “notably the use of leather, the close-to-body silhouette and the inspiration from the natural world of flora and fauna. He used exotic skins from the very beginning of his career, which is often treated in a brut kind of way. He really centred on the scale of the exotic skins with essential focus points which highlight the anatomy of the female body. He also very much drew attention to the back of the body.”

 

The world moves on a woman’s hips – but as Alaïa learned from one of his patrons, the most important part of the attire is the back “because it is the last thing you see when a woman leaves the room, and it is what you remember”.

 

Azzedine Alaïa regarded himself as a bâtisseur – a builder – of dresses, and as François Baudot points out in his profile, “Traditionally, a dress is fitted from the shoulders and a skirt from the waist – they hang, or rather ‘fall’, from these points with varying degrees of success depending on the talent of the designer and the quality of the garment. What Alaïa did, however, was to create clothes which cling, such as his dress made of bound strips. While following the body’s slightest movements, it still manages to retain its original shape. In this way a woman, as a living sculpture, embodies the synthesis of Alaïa’s two vocations as sculptor and fashion designer.”

 

There’s a portrait by Jean-Paul Goude of Alaïa in a balance act between the legs of a supine Maillol sculpture in the Jardin des Tuileries, and the dressmaker is wrapping the naked lady in bandages. His bandage dresses – an idea that he got from Egyptian mummies, and that somewhat paradoxically provide great movability – are accompanied by open slits along the sides which often put the emphasis right on the hips. That year, 1983, the first Alaïa-dedicated store was launched in the US, on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills and, at the other end of the scale, there was a skirt made for French mail order company 3 Suisses so that just about anyone could afford to buy an Alaïa design.

 

One of the many things that Alaïa loved about Mme Pinot was that she schooled him in the history of France. The boy’s favourite parts were the stories about Versailles and the bluebloods who lived there, especially Madame de Pompadour. In 1984, Alaïa moved his business to 17 rue du Parc-Royal (in the vicinity of Musée Picasso), to a townhouse where his silk-stocking favourite once had lived. When Barneys presented Alaïa at the Palladium in New York City, fifty models were parading in his designs to great acclaim, and every one of the one thousand guests wore black to honour the master.

 

On March 2, 1985, the Museum of Contemporary Art of Bordeaux presented A Day with Azzedine Alaïa: Fashion 1980-1985 with almost everything there was to show and discuss about Alaïa. On October 23, he received the “Designer of the Year” and “Collection of the Year” awards from the Minister of Culture at the Palais Garnier, while Grace Jones was performing “La Vie en rose” wearing Alaïa (just like she did in A View to a Kill from the same year). Sarah Perks points at a resplendent dress in a flowing fabric, as magenta in pitch as the Djinn chairs in 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), that begins with a capuchin hood and ends in a train: “This dress is from the Summer 1986 collection which was shown in October just before M Alaïa was bestowed two ‘Oscars’ at the French Fashion Awards and Grace Jones accompanied him for the ceremony wearing this gown. Obviously, you show the collections six months before they will be in the stores.”

 

The first thing that Aletty blurted in her characteristic way when Alaïa entered her dressing room in 1960 was: “He is short, but he sure is unforgettable.” Alaïa was only a metre and a half tall, and next to his leggy supermodels – who loved his work so much that all they asked for was the currency of his clothes – he looked like Charles Ray abreast of his towering, power dressed sculpture Mannequin (1991) of 244 centimetres.

 

“Alaïa works sometimes late into the night, his mouth full of pins, as he drapes and pulls and turns and twists and dances around the dais like Pygmalion dressing an already transformed and fully alive Galatea,” recalls Edmund White in his Paris chronicle. “I remember one night when the Galatea was a ravishing, pouting, smiling teenager, Naomi Campbell […] who then was just a sumptuously beautiful shy English adolescent. She kept turning obediently as Azzadine ordered her to do, though when he stuck a pin in her she shouted lustily and tapped the tiny maestro on the head.”

 

Perks talks with mirth in her voice about the paternal-filial bond between the couturier and his teeny model: “M Alaïa discovered Naomi Campbell and she first worked for him for the summer 1987 collection, so that would be late 1986 when she was sixteen years old. She lived with him because her mother knew that Azzedine Alaïa would treat her like a father. Naomi was a very spirited person and an anecdote that M Alaïa loved to tell was when Naomi used to sneak out at night, take some sexy outfit from the press collection, and escape through the back door to go to the nightclub Les Bains Douches. And M Alaïa would go and get her in the middle of the night.”

 

One connection that is impossible to understand, however, is how Alaïa could embrace the Phil Collins of the art world. After Alaïa had relocated to his final, and this time huge and highly functional, space at 18 rue de la Verrerie (near Hôtel de Ville) in 1987, Julian Schnabel was once again there to decorate the store at 7 rue de Moussy (situated on the side street to the building), just like he had done with the one in Soho, New York. (Alaïa: “[Julian Schnabel] came to my shop and I’m so embarrassed to say it but I’d never heard of him and when he offered me one of his paintings I just shrugged, but Jacqueline [Beaurang, his then-wife] was so beautiful I thought I’d love to have her wearing any coat in New York so I agreed.”)

 

The bâtisseur had found his ideal residence in Marais. Here he worked like a modern Paul Poiret, creating his pieces directly on a live model. Perks says that Alaïa “almost never made any drawings. He could do every single step of the creation of the garment, from draping the fabric in the very beginning on the model’s body to altering the pattern, stitching, to the last details. The fitting model was always there, seven days a week, until the late hours. He would begin by taking the fabric directly to the fitting model’s body and transfer the fabric to pattern paper, and then give it to [his assistant Éric Sartori] so he could begin with the garment. M Alaïa would bring it back on the model and do one seam at a time, changing millimetre by millimetre, and towards the end he would alter the pattern himself late at night when everybody had left, and it was just him and Ana Carolina Reis. He said that it was the only time that he could concentrate on doing the paper part of the pattern. When he had a good idea, he would scribble on the edge of a pattern paper and keep it in a little box on his table.”

 

After seven in the evening Alaïa used to drink a glass of vodka, take a little Warhol snooze, and then go back to work till six in the morning with the TV on. “He had a huge television in front of his sewing table and on it were National Geographic Channel documentaries about animal life because he loved animals. He had nine cats and five dogs. He wished that he would have had the luxury to have someone come and read books to him because he loved literature, but he never had the time to read.”

 

Savouring Alaïa’s quintessential decade at Sven-Harry’s in Stockholm gets you thinking about the overblown and hairsprayed 1980s and how Alaïa’s work was and forever is another thing altogether. Time wasn’t making him; he was making time.

 

The 1980s ended with a fanfare for Alaïa when he gained French citizenship, contrariwise to his 1990s which started with a crushing blow. Alaïa’s struggles with his sister’s death in 1992 were so deep that he, for years, withdrew from most aspects of what he loved so much about his profession. Instead, he cultivated his skills: “My knowledge of technique has been an instrument of analysis and rehabilitation,” Alaïa explained. “I do not believe that I have cast aside a single one of the ideas that I have pursued since the beginning. I feel rather more that I have placed them in an evolution. The technical knowledge that has always deeply interested me has enabled me to drive ideas forward, to take them down other roads and create new leads, each time with a greater exactitude and refinement.”

 

1996 – the year when there were rumours that Alaïa (quite ironically) had rejected an offer to take over as couturier at Dior – was the start of museum retrospectives on Alaïa’s work. Maison Alaïa was resumed in 1999 thanks to the vast encouragement that he received from one of his dearest friends, Carla Sozzani. The runway presentations returned in 2002 with an haute couture show, and he would produce two more haute couture shows under the glass ceiling, where Fondation Azzedine Alaïa is today, with the help of the workforce from Yves Saint Laurent who retired in 2002.

 

Sarah Perks cautiously lifts up a skirt and starts to count the layers and the materials – “We have the laser-cut cotton, a silk crinoline, a silk fibre with horse hair …” – and walks over to the next piece: “This is the dress with the fantastic knitted lace from M Alaïa’s last couture show in 2017. And this dress is quite unusual because we do not often see sparkles of bling-bling with Alaïa, his embellishments are more subtle or functional, such as in the zips and the eyelets, and more in the textures as in this beautiful, quilted embroidery with a little bit of whimsy. The lace came out of the knitting machine in one piece. And also, the craftmanship in the draping and the gathering of the velvet, and the interesting mixture of textures and textiles that you often see in M Alaïa’s work.”

 

When Galleria Borghese in Rome exhibited Azzedine Alaïa in 2015, the curators of Couture/Sculpture did a beautiful job to emphasise his sixty-five dresses’ sisterhood relation to the classic sculptures in the museum. Alaïa maintained that “I can safely say that my clothes are undatable; they are made to stand the test of time. Since arriving in Paris in the 1950s, I believe that I have never responded to any other demands or imperatives than those of the women who surrounded me and continue to surround me still.”

 

Fashion – it is right before your eyes, the beautiful and eternal.


Photo: John Scarisbrick/Sven-Harrys konstmuseum.

Master of Couture – Azzedine Alaïa at Sven-Harry’s Art Museum in Stockholm through March 16, 2025.

10 August 2024

CONFER WITH THE SPRUCES, REVEL IN THE MUDDLE: FANNY CHURBERG AND CARL FREDRIK HILL ABREAST

Carl Fredrik Hill, The Tree and the River Bend, 1877. Photo: Åmells Konsthandel, Stockholm.
Carl Fredrik Hill, The Lime Quarry, 1876. Photo: Bukowskis, Stockholm.

It wasn’t over till the fat lady DJed and the two performers on the blazing raft on the Seine churned out the wicked kitsch that is “Imagine”, Lennon’s ode to world Communism. The vomitory inauguration of the Paris Olympics (with the insignificant athletes tucked away on dinky boats) was a baleful flaunt under the care of our new totalitarians and their little foot soldiers, the witless wokies. A certain novel from 1948 warned us about a time when ignorance would be cherished as strength – but carry on you fools.

 

When Sony ditched Lasse Hallström on the grounds that he couldn’t keep up with the lousy standards of today’s Hollywood, the Swedish director spawned a new project at home, involving his daughter and his wife as the transcendental painter Hilma af Klint (1862–1944). Hilma (2022) has the looks of the artist’s day and age, but the film’s dishonest, dumb and lifeless sentiments are all cooked up in the usual woke pan of contemporary Feminism. Anyone who has encountered af Klint’s strange and vast paintings (and who has the capacity to think for a few seconds) knows that a cornerstone in her art is the beautiful erotic dualism between the male and the female. Consequently, you have to be an imbecile to put these words in her mouth, but these filmmakers do: “There is only one sex.”

 

Although the catalogue has its mandatory share of woke pan nonsense (this is Sweden after all), the marvellous yin-and-yang of XX and XY chromosomes rules at Sven-Harry’s Art Museum in Stockholm, where the reflective yet emotionally intense landscape painting of Fanny Churberg (1845–1892) and Carl Fredrik Hill (1849–1911) is on show – a face-to-face/head-on exercise that confers with the forests and spruces of Churberg’s Finland (a host of them are curiously painted in Düsseldorf) and the precious vision-lustred vistas of Hill, the Swedish giant with the lunatic in his head.

 

“I have wanted to do an exhibition with Carl Fredrik Hill for a long time, and one of the biggest reasons is that the founder of the museum, Sven-Harry Karlsson, had one of the largest private collections of Hill before he donated it. Carl Fredrik Hill is not only Sven-Harry’s favourite artist, but also that of many artists in the present day. Many people know about Hill’s period of illness, and there are many exhibitions around it. I myself was very curious to explore a little more about the ten years before he was sadly struck by schizophrenia. To help me out, I invited Pedro Westerdahl as a guest curator. At the same time, I felt that I wanted to highlight not only Hill but also a coeval female artist who was just as skilled,” explains Museum Director Dragana Kussoffsky Maksimović.

 

Though she had been on a museum tour around Finland together with Sven-Harry Karlsson a few years earlier, the XX share of the exhibition was an elated discovery for Kussoffsky Maksimović, as for most Swedes. “I couldn’t find a name here in Sweden, so I called Finland. Barbro Schauman [the other guest curator] replied in a flash: ‘It is Fanny Churberg.’ I didn’t know about her but started to google and saw this fantastic landscape painting, and I was completely taken by it. It was amazing that it held such power, even as online images.”

 

“And here they are, a year and a half later, side by side – Fanny Churberg and Carl Fredrik Hill – who also, as it turned out, were in Paris at the same time. There is no documentation that their paths were crossed. But Churberg had [the Swedish painter] Wilhelm von Gegerfelt as a teacher, who was Carl Fredrik Hill’s close friend and patron, so it is highly likely that they met. And now they are facing each other, more or less one hundred and fifty years later, here at Sven-Harry’s Art Museum.”

 

Towards a New Landscape is indeed a relevant exhibition in this vexingly layouted art museum – this time with the room at the top as the best option, where the two artists’ influences are made known (including a painting by Corot) and where Hill’s and Churberg’s pieces work quite well together unlike the combos in the less tiny galleries.

 

Fanny Churberg’s adventure began on a steamboat to the country’s new white capital Helsinki in the early autumn of 1865. She was only twelve when her mother died, and for this reason she had to grow up all too fast since there were six younger siblings who needed her parenting and her services at home in Vaasa. Now she was nineteen years old and free for the first time, her beloved father had recently passed away after a long period of failing health. The young woman couldn’t sleep that final night on the steamboat, life was just too beautiful and full of hope – the sea was smooth, the stars waltzed for her in the dark and she was wealthy enough to do whatever she desired with her future.

 

In her first letter from Helsinki (dated September 29) Churberg wrote, “Perhaps too bold to think of the spruce tree – the image of fidelity – but the spruce is a Finn and so am I.” A few weeks later she described a walk in a park with some friends: “I enjoyed the fresh breeze and the wild nature indescribably – an autumn landscape lit by the October sun is very lovely – everything looks fresh and mighty bold, the air is so clean and invigorating, and the bare trees bear witness to struggle and battle. Here it was mostly conifers, hills and valleys, lake and rock walls. My company thought it was not enough of order, I enjoyed the disorder – had longed to get out into God’s free nature.” This was how Churberg looked at things and experienced them, and these were the particulars that she would mirror in her landscape painting.

 

Her younger colleague Helene Schjerfbeck wrote many years later in her diary: “That which lies innermost – passion – that I would like to reveal, but then one is ashamed of oneself and cannot conjure it up – because one is a woman. Women have seldom become such conjurers. Fanny Churberg did.”

 

Once Churberg had come to the conclusion that it was an artist that she wanted to be, she confided to a friend that “now I have decided to paint like a woman never has”. She spent the happiest years of her life in Düsseldorf in the winters – in the late 1860s, with a long break during the Franco–Prussian War (more of the forced old dread and sacrifice for the “privileged” sex), and then throughout the first part of the 1870s – where she was privately tutored by male painters who supported her in every way possible (yet the catalogue runs its dull male-oppression narrative about how the “limitations and obligations being a female artist entailed”).

 

“The Düsseldorf School” was a mixed bag of showy, jocular genre painting, while imaginative assessments were kept in low regard, with the flipside that it made the general public discover art in a different way. Though there are elements of the picturesque and the decorative in her less interesting works, Churberg was for the most part herself and painted in raw opposition to the run-of-the-mill idealism of the day, using (comparatively) brave colours and brushstrokes which render her paintings a kind of artificiality that is felt but also wordless. Guest curator Barbro Schauman points out that Churberg “never sought the beautiful and arranged, it is a slash-and-burn that has come to the fore in these paintings”.

 

“For Fanny Churberg nature was a battlefield for the never-ending struggle of powerful emotions and atmospheres. Nature was something altogether too great for man to have any part in it,” tells the guidebook to Finland’s National Gallery, Ateneum. “Churberg’s contemporaries found it difficult to embrace the fervour of her art. Her paintings seemed too strange, the colours loud and garish, the harshness of the landscapes frightening to idealistic tastes natured by [Finnish writer Zacharias] Topelius’s spirit of idyllic nature worship. Churberg’s trees spoke of struggle against the wind and storm, the solidity of her stones seemed crushing and hostile. Churberg’s season was dark late autumn rather than bright snowy winter. Her favourite time of day was sunset, dusk, moonlit night rather than the light of days.”

 

The piece of land that is Finland had been part of the kingdom of Sweden for some four hundred and fifty years when it became a grand duchy under Tsar Alexander I in 1809. The 1800s were a time with a new sense of nationhood, not just in Finland but in many countries. The greatest emblem of Fennomania was a work of poetic folklore that had been compiled for decades by Elias Lönnrot into the national epic the Kalevala (a definite version came out in 1849), published in Finnish and not Swedish that was the official language and the language spoken by the educated classes in Finland.

 

“Romantic nationalism began to affect the visual arts at about the same time as it has literature. But the particular problem, as far as painting and sculpture were concerned, was to establish a fine art tradition of technical proficiency with which to express it. Peasant handicrafts might continue to flourish, but fine art had only existed at a modestly provincial level,” writes John Boulton Smith in The Golden Age of Finnish Art: Art Nouveau and the National Spirit. “Up to the 1880s the subjects chosen were often empathically Finnish, but the pictures look merely typically 19th century as the artists struggled, with increasing success, to master the various degrees of international romanticised Realism.”

 

The highly religious Churberg was a passionate spokeswoman for Finnishness. One hundred years before Kraftwerk made Düsseldorf great again, the city and its distantness from the land of the 168,000 lakes and the deep spruce forests only emphasised Fanny Churberg’s national attachment, which is more than evident in her Düsseldorf paintings. In a letter she tells a friend that she is working on a picture of an imminent thunderstorm, “and as I paint it, I have such a warm summer feeling, as if I were sitting there and could hear the whispering of the birches, smell the flowering fragrance of the rye, and the air would be so very, very light – and my heart too”. In her mind and in her art, she was always back in Finland.

 

Barbro Schauman says that Churberg’s time in Paris – October 1875 to April 1876 – was decisive for the remaining years that she dedicated to painting. “She visited museums, galleries, she painted for von Gegerfelt and she sent her paintings home for exhibitions. And above all, she was inspired by [the great name of the time, Charles-Françios] Daubigny and Corot. She was very much influenced by these two, and after Paris came her moonlit landscapes, atmospheric landscapes, evening blushes and nature scenes that cannot be imagined without this time in Paris. Düsseldorf was her schooling, where she learnt to paint technically, but the soul of her landscapes came after Paris, in 1876, for barely four years. Her production was also very small: about two hundred and fifty oil paintings, which is not much for an artist.”

 

Churberg painted seven still lifes in Paris. Three of these are displayed at Sven-Harry’s but the impression they leave is baroque and backwards. The parks in Paris could not possibly reflect the wild nature of her temper – three landscape paintings were however made during a fortnight in the Forêt Dominale de Meudon before she left France, only to return to Paris one last time for the Exposition Universelle in 1879.

 

Two things piqued Churberg’s curiosity in the mid-1870s during her six-month stay in Paris. The first one was the Barbizon School of artists who suffused their paintings with an atmospheric glean that really never grows old. Churberg brought this approach back to Finland and originated the finest paintings of her life – as Markku Valkonen puts it in Finnish Art Over the Centuries, “Her work during that brief period was uneven but astounding. Churberg painted boldly simplified pieces that at later age would have been called Expressionist. It seems as if Impressionism liberated Churberg from her Romantic outlook by giving her the right to use independent brushstrokes and colour.”

 

In his book about East European Art 1650–1950, Jeremy Howard discusses how these last astounding years of painting were “marked by a radical departure from convention. In particular she challenged social codes concerning the ‘feminine’. Deeply affected by the pleinairisme she had witnessed in France, Churberg’s landscapes became images of the alien force of nature. Using increasingly free, broad and violent brushstrokes, she expressed the human relationship with this force as a strongly emotional yet ultimately insignificant struggle. Preferring wild and bleak northern scenes, the dark seasons of autumn and winter, the dark forests in summer, and dusk, hers was a nature forbidding to man and yet whose drama touched a chord with her passionate temperament.”

 

During the winter of 1880, Churberg stopped painting altogether, she also destroyed some of her recent works. Receiving the Finnish Art Society’s Ducat Prize the previous year was just way too late for this resolute artist who only gained the smallest acknowledgement in her motherland during her short lifespan, until she was rediscovered in 1919 by the country’s leading art dealer Gösta Stenman. The other thing that Churberg brough with her from Paris was a newfound preference for the decorative arts. In 1879 she and architect Jac Ahrenberg founded the Friends of Finnish Handicrafts with the purpose “to promote handicrafts in Finland and their patriotic and artistic refinement”.

 

“In all fields of culture the voice of international liberalism was at loggerheads with the views of national Fennomania,” argue Merja Manninen and Päivi Setälä in The Lady with the Bow: The Story of Finnish Women. “As a Fennoman, Churberg set as her goal the development of a ‘Finnish style’. The Friends of Finnish Handicrafts circulated new ideas and models for handiwork based on folk art. Fanny Churberg also wrote about these ideas in the press. The society’s greatest achievements were in participation in the Art and Industry Exhibition in Copenhagen in 1888 and the Paris World Exhibition in 1889. The textiles for the Paris exhibition were to be Fanny Churberg’s last major work for the society.”

 

Before the (imaginary) band that Carl Fredrik Hill was in started playing different tunes, he produced two hundred landscape paintings that are as profound, refined, raw, elegiac and stunning as Talk Talk’s last two albums, Spirit of Eden (1988) and Laughing Stock (1991).

 

Guest curator Pedro Westerdahl talks about how Hill “explored the possibilities of painting in a way that is unrivalled in Swedish art history. He went to great lengths to create a style of painting that foreshadowed Symbolism ten years later. He unravelled these artistic knots in a couple of years, which is why we must also highlight his healthy period, it is extremely exciting. In Churberg’s work there are often figures, but not in Hill’s. Hill wanted the viewer to populate his landscapes. Hill’s landscapes are actually camouflaged self-portraits, he expresses his own pain in these paintings. There is a lot of emotional content in his painting during this period and I think it is so incredibly transformative for its time.”

 

Carl Fredrik Hill was in truth two dissimilar artists, with two dissimilar non-careers. During the second term as the homebound madman-genius – when his mother and sister and the housemaid in the family home at Skomakaregatan in Lund (behind the City Art Gallery) in southern Sweden provided him with four sheets of paper each day to draw on – Hill wrote in his scattered 248-page-long manuscript: “I sing how a picture becomes deep and true / Of how vividly it reveals nature / And how a picture in its own greatness burns / And how a picture in its own true feeling smiles.”

 

Hill’s old father was an erratic nutter who set the ground for Carl Fredrik’s ill health and further did what was in his power to put a lid on his son’s artistic dreams. Lars Gårding describes in Mathematics and Mathematicians: Mathematics in Sweden Before 1950 how Hill Sr was “the source of the anecdote about the learned professor who built himself a house without a staircase to the second floor and a fireplace without a flue. But it was the memory of Hill’s curious notations that survived longest in the mythology of Lund professors.” The mathematical father’s eccentricity included ploys such as his suggestion to make the mustard seed a unit of measure and his thesis on “The Average Distance of Fields to the Home”.

 

Carl Fredrik Hill’s way towards a landscape painting that burns and smiles as if the certitude of the universe is speaking to us began at the provincial Academy of Fine Arts in Stockholm in the fall of 1871, when he was twenty-two years old. Lars Ragnar Forsberg remarks in his book on the country’s famous banker and major art collector, Ernest Thiel, that the Swedish art students’ flight to Paris “almost had the character of exile. The Royal Academy of Fine Arts, where many of them had been pupils, was a stuffy and disadvantageous institution. The young painters’ criticism was not gracious. Carl Fredrik Hill felt that none of the teachers could either paint or teach.”

 

Before he abandoned his Stockholm situation, Hill wrote to his parents – who he had to curry favour from to receive the monetary aid that he was completely dependent on – stating that “wait till I get to Paris and learn to paint, and then I shall earn money, and it will be my pleasure to show the old school here how rotten were the idols they have kneeled down for and worshipped”. Hill came to Paris on November 7, 1873 with the objective “to arrive at the true harmony between the inner and outer, between the spiritual and the sensuous, between feeling and understanding”.

 

The great Corot was the artist in France who overwhelmed the young Swede for “Corot has discovered a new world, because he has discovered a new way of seeing the old.” The ethereal quality of the French artist’s works was what especially persevered with Hill. The summer of 1874 was spent in Barbizon (south of Paris) accompanied by the German painter Max Liebermann (and two Hungarian colleagues, László Paál and Mihály Munkácsy). Half a decade later Liebermann told Swedish art historian Adolf Anderberg that “there was something of the visionary about my friend Hill, something which set him in a class by himself”.

 

In 1874, a roof window in Hill’s studio home in Paris fell over his face and scarred him both on the outside and the inside. The artist remarked that “I would rather lose my nose than my genius, because you very often spot beautiful noses but very rarely great geniuses.” It is not sure whether Hill’s call-me-genius disposition stemmed from an actual understanding of his true potency as a God-given artist, or if most of this derived from poor self-esteem – however, these are the kinds of things that he boasted in his letters: “My friends have proclaimed that I am a genius, which I have always been convinced of myself, but I don’t know how it will end if I fail in all the great things that I intend to do. I’ll be the laughingstock of my enviers at home.”

 

Carl Fredrik Hill completed a work in 1875 that he had initiated in Stockholm and that he had erased and repainted fifty times, and it is a moonshine landscape that is in the Sven-Harry’s show. That year was the sole occasion when the Paris Salon accepted a painting from Hill. In 1876 he penned that, “I have now arrived at the conviction that the one thing to seek in art is the true, le vrai. But not the banal naturalistic, but rather the heart of truth.” When he for the last time was rejected in 1877, Hill thundered: “Any old spice dealer can learn to paint a picture that will be accepted; and believe me, having painted as long as I have, it would be the easiest thing in the world to get two works in, if I were to betray my originality and my conscience as an artist.”

 

In the spring and summer of 1877, Hill was chasing after his ends in a roaming mode around the Seine, in the rural areas south of Paris and always with the river close by. His most famous and to the format largest painting, The Tree and the River Bend, has a given place at Sven-Harry’s Art Museum but was bafflingly turned down by the Salon. This is a masterpiece that shines of carefree solitude and a sudden respite from life’s ailments. The cat who walked by himself wrote to his family in Lund: “I feel like a pearl in gold.”

 

The catalogue is edited with a bit of the ordinary inconsistency, and the foreword regurgitates the common inculcated affectations of the climate emergency – “We are in the midst of a critical event in the Earth’s 4.5-billion-year-long history. Climate disasters come one after the other” – while one of the essays informs us about France’s “unusually intense summer heat” of 1877 that made Hill relocate to a seaside town in Normandy for a month, where he painted a new marine every happy day: “There is no more similarity between what I used to do and what I do now than between night and day. As heavy, dark and gloomy as my works were before, they are as light, bright and airy now. The asphalt is totally banned.”

 

The “asphalt” returned all too soon, though. Back in Paris, Hill painted a few masterworks in Parisian blue and cadmium yellow that foreshadowed his fast-approaching schizophrenia. Hill was twenty-eight years old when he completely lost his mind and his screams and frenzies became insufferable for the neighbours. (When some friends visited Hill a few weeks earlier that winter and asked him to close the window to his freezing studio, he told them to shut the hell up, he was already someplace else and he was sweltering.) On January 19, 1878, Wilhelm von Gegerfelt and another Swedish artist arrived by horse and carriage to take Hill, as they asserted, to an art exhibition. The two men jumped out of the carriage just before it passed the gates to Dr Blanche’s Maison de Santé in Paris, with a crying Hill inside.

 

Hill’s famous painting of a hearse with the red glowing dot that is pushing through a despairing landscape is in the Sven-Harry’s exhibition and it was executed at the Passy mental asylum as a remembrance of the kidnapping – an abduction that was absolutely necessary given Hill’s severe schizophrenia and prosecution delusion. (His abductors did something indefensible however when they obliterated all the paintings in his studio that they found too wacky and offensive.) Hill had noted in December 1877 that “One hour’s painting madness is so glorious that one would gladly give up a whole ordinary life for it.” A month later he was insane for life.

 

In June 1880, Hill’s two sisters Hedda and Marie-Louise travelled to Paris to move him back to Sweden. He spent a few years in an asylum in Lund, and the remaining decades of his life in his native home where thousands of drawings were made, depicting the fantastic journeys Hill savoured in his head. The only ones who saw these works other than his family were unknowing people who were just passing by on the street when he used to exhibit his drawings in the garden on Sundays.

 

In Hill’s Lund manuscript is written: “Madness – how sublime when you wholly shut out the world.”

Fanny Churberg, Mountain Landscape, Savolax, 1874. Photo: Erkki Salminen, Ostrobothnian Museum, Vaasa.
Fanny Churberg, Moon Rises Over Fog Bank, 1880. Photo: Erkki Salminen, Ostrobothnian Museum, Vaasa.

Carl Fredrik Hill and Fanny Churberg: Towards a New Landscape at Sven-Harry’s Art Museum in Stockholm through September 15, 2024.