Nischel anniversary: companions remember

Karl Joachim Beuchel was the city planning director of Karl-Marx-Stadt at the time when the Karl Marx Monument was planned and built. He not only witnessed the creative process of the sculptor Lew Kerbel, but also ensured that the monument does not stand in the Stadthallenpark today. In this interview, he recalls this turbulent time:

When you became city planning director, what was the state of plans to rebuild the city centre at that time?

Karl Joachim Beuchel: In 1953, the politburo of the then state party SED decided over the heads of the residents to rename Chemnitz Karl-Marx-Stadt. In 1959, the same party leadership decided to rebuild the city centre, which had been destroyed in 1945. Afterwards, a large central parade and demonstration square with a high-rise building as a dominant feature was required between the Red Tower and Brückenstraße, based on the Soviet model.

What were your first decisions as city planning director?

I used the first few months of my work as city planning director from 1964 to turn the planned political and economic use of this high-rise building, which was restricted to the public, into a multicultural centre for everyone in the city. On the occasion of the 800th anniversary celebrations in 1965, the party leader of the Politburo confirmed this change.

What was your opinion on the construction of a Marx monument in the city?

Building-related art is not suitable for filling gaps between buildings. It has to be part of urban and architectural planning and be understood by the people. Monumental memorials in urban areas often also serve to politically influence people in different social formations. Thus, the decision to erect a monument to the philosopher in Karl-Marx-Stadt could not go unnoticed.

The Karl Marx Monument was originally to be built on the square in front of the town hall. In your opinion, what were the reasons against this location?

After the change of plans to use the dominant feature as a cultural centre, this monument seemed to be wrongly placed in front of its main entrance. Another location had to be found. In my opinion, however, the future creator of this monument had to be involved.


How were you able to bring about a change in the plans?

I had to reorganise the urban planning of the office buildings for the SED district leadership and the district council on the other side of Brückenstraße. That's why I thought the location of a monument on this site would be better. But instead of the planned invitation to tender for an open GDR competition to design a Karl Marx monument, the Chairman of the State Council decided, to the astonishment of everyone involved, that the creator of this monument had to be the Moscow sculptor Professor Lev Yefimovich Kerbel.


How would you describe the artist Lev Kerbel?

Emphasising the great importance of the Karl Marx Monument for the city, Walter Ulbricht rejected all the artists' demands for a competition by pointing out that not only sculpting skills but also an intimate relationship with Karl Marx were required. This understandably angered the artists' association. But the sculptor Professor Lev Yefimovich Kerbel gave me the impression of a friendly, humorous and warm-hearted person, which promised a serious and fruitful collaboration.


How was the collaboration between the two of you?

In order to get to know the chosen sculptor and to convince him to work with me, I visited him in his Moscow studio. On this occasion, I also visited his Karl Marx monument in Moscow, which was carved in stone and is said to have been preceded by many studies. At the same time, however, I took note of his great sculpting skills and his extensive international experience.


How was your visit to Lev Kerbel in Moscow, during which you agreed on a new location for the Karl Marx Monument?

The artist welcomed the change of location of the Karl Marx Monument to Brückenstraße, especially with regard to the daily lighting conditions on the profile of the standing figure. He also immediately agreed to an invitation to Karl-Marx-Stadt. However, this new location also made it possible to change the area in front of the cultural centre. I therefore transformed the square, which could only be used a few days a year, into a park to the delight of everyone in Chemnitz.


What was the reaction of those who first saw the design for the Karl Marx Head?

Professor Kerbel worked on his design from 1966. We scrutinised his design proposal on the model in Karl-Marx-Stadt. This gave rise to justified doubts about the planned tall bronze figure. A life-size mock-up made of wood and canvas confirmed these concerns: the eye level and viewing angle of a viewer led to the realisation that this scale was wrong. The height of the sculpture destroyed the urban space. In this respect, some artists' criticism of the planned monument and its artist was justified. Very dissatisfied with the result, however, the sculptor promised to continue working on his design. It was to be smaller in scale. At the end of 1967, he asked me to visit Moscow again. He had a new version to propose and wanted my opinion on it. He showed me a model of the monument as a head on a pedestal. Observing my shocked face closely, the sculptor finally said that it was an unusual design even for him.


What was your opinion of this design?

Professor Kerbel wanted to know how people in Karl-Marx-Stadt would react to this variant. I tried to make him understand that most of those responsible in the party and government would probably not take a favourable or even negative stance on this unusual design. This was confirmed: After days of discussion about the artistic design of the urban space and the laws of monumental art in Kerbel's studio, I finally had to confirm that it was not the person of Karl Kerbel who was responsible for the design.I finally had to confirm that it was not necessary to erect a monument to Karl Marx himself, but that this new design would be the best way of linking the name of the city with the idea that emerged in the mind of the philosopher.


How did the critical voices from politics and art fade away?

The Chairman of the State Council, Walter Ulbricht, was not unaware of the critical voices of the artists. He therefore felt compelled to hold a discussion with the party leadership of the district, the sculptor Lev Yefimovich Kerbel and the town planner. During the discussion in the State Council building, he spoke favourably of this planned variant as a unity of urban planning and architecture. However, in order to form an opinion of all those involved, he suggested organising a discussion of the problem in Karl-Marx-Stadt with well-known personalities from politics and culture in the GDR. This took place in May 1968 and ended with approval of the design.


What moments during the construction of the Karl Marx Monument will stay with you forever?

I particularly remember Professor Kerbel's words, according to which he developed the Karl Marx Monument for the city with the philosopher's name from 17 different variants. He also came to the conclusion that it would be one of his best works of art.


What significance did the planning and construction of the monument have at the time?

For the GDR at the time, it was about redesigning the centre of Karl-Marx-Stadt as the city of the working class. The gigantic Karl Marx bust in particular was seen as a symbol of socialist GDR ideology. Some members of the GDR building academy described the ensemble in the centre of the city as a model case for the history of urban development in the GDR with very exaggerated pathos. I found that outrageously exaggerated.


Did other projects have to take a back seat to the Karl Marx Monument?

In connection with the laying of the foundation stone for this monument, the SED district leadership called on people to take part in a fundraising campaign entitled "My deed for Karl Marx". But the result was obviously unsatisfactory. An attempt was therefore made to ask larger state-owned companies to donate from their social funds. But this campaign also came to nothing. The responsible ministry therefore had to take over the overall financing of the monument through the cultural fund. This resulted in other objects in the city centre being put on hold. But three years after the unveiling of the monument in October 1971, the entire reconstruction of the city centre had to be stopped due to the weak GDR economy. This left countless gaps between buildings.


How did you feel when you saw the finished Karl Marx Monument for the first time?

I became convinced that this urban ensemble with Lew Kerbel's work of art was only possible thanks to the joint efforts of everyone involved. My initial misgivings about the size of the bronze Karl Marx head were also dispelled. The scale and depth of the entire urban space and the design of the lettering on the rear wall form a successful whole. However, the pensive expression on the face of the Karl Marx head chosen by the artist should be particularly meaningful for the viewer.


What do you think of the Karl Marx Monument today?

Until the unveiling of the monument, there was no sign of the further increase in the material and cultural standard of living of the people promised by party leader Erich Honecker at the VIII Party Congress of the SED. Among the people called to the ceremony, one could observe and hear the thoughts and comments of the citizens attending the event and the impression the Karl Marx Monument made on them. United with hundreds of thousands of citizens of the GDR, they finally began their demonstrations on 4 November 1989 in front of this very monument in order to rid themselves of the bankrupt GDR leadership.


In your opinion, was the reconstruction of the city centre well implemented?

Immediately after 1990, some buildings and works of art from the GDR era were often labelled as an unwelcome legacy due to their glorification or use by the representatives of the GDR's dictatorship of the proletariat, and there was also discussion about demolishing the politically motivated monument.

However, a more differentiated view over time has led to a different attitude and sees the extraordinary Karl Marx head as a work of art. Today, people meet in front of the bronze Karl Marx and organise many events there. And just as people's lives have changed, so too have their attitudes towards the monument.

In my opinion, the sculptor Professor Lev Yefimovich Kerbel, who died in 2002 at the age of 85, created an outstanding work of art with the greatest possible artistic expressiveness, which characterises the face of Chemnitz in an unmistakable way, with great mastery, inventiveness and tenacious struggle. He has succeeded in creating an impressive and convincing, unique monument. Today, the often photographed ensemble of the city centre with the Karl Marx Monument is part of the history of Chemnitz.