Scotland In 1963, Gross decided to leave Germany and move to Scotland. Knowledge of Gross’s work had been communicated through a network of friends to Dr Karl Koenig, co-founder of the Camphill Movement. As a result of a meeting between Koenig and Gross, an invitation was extended to Gross to come to Scotland. Gross and Koenig not only shared a common language but also both recognized and valued the spiritual dimension in art and ways of seeking to give artistic expression to the human spirit. One of the reasons that Dr Koenig invited Gross to Aberdeen was to create a number of sculptures for the newly constructed Camphill Hall that was to be the spiritual heart of the Camphill Movement. Plate One shows Michael the Archangel representing peace and harmony, whilst Plate Two shows Raphael the Archangel representing healing. The significance of these sculptures may reflect Dr Koenig’s wish to develop at Camphill the discipline of curative education. It is known that in the mid-1960s when he was considering the design of and method of creating the stained-glass windows for Camphill Hall, he had visited Pluscarden Abbey, a Benedictine Abbey in Morayshire. As virtually all the original stained glass of the old abbey had been lost it was necessary to create new windows. A new technique had been introduced which involved cutting and faceting thick slabs of glass known as dalles de verre and setting them in a matrix of either epoxy resin or concrete. An appealing feature of this method which was recognised by the monks was the way in which the windows sparkled like jewels when in direct sunlight. The dominant feature in both stained glass windows is the Y figure. Throughout late antiquity, the Y was an accepted pagan symbol of the choice between the hard path of virtue (right) and the easy path of vice (left). The Y can also be seen as a tree symbol related to the Christian cross and the Greek letter T (tau). Paintings in 15th century Northern Europe often depicted the cross in Crucifixion scenes as a Tau cross (e.g., Rogier van der Weyden, The Descent from the Cross, 1435). More significant perhaps is the fact that Christ’s body would have assumed a Y shape given that his wrists (not hands) were nailed to the horizontal cross beam. Whether or not there was a mercy seat and/or platform upon which Christ’s feet rested, the weight of his body would have led to a Y shape configuration. So, Gross may be alluding to Christ’s agony on the cross. Unlike many stained-glass windows or memorials, the abstract and three- dimensional nature of the Camphill Hall windows brings them to life and makes a strong, memorable, and vibrant visual impact. In the immediate aftermath of the war, Gross’s paintings had been explicitly religious in content and were acknowledged by him to represent a working out of his own inner emotional and spiritual turmoil. But with the passage of time and particularly from the moment he assumed the role of artist-in-residence in Camphill the character of his work underwent change. Children as subjects in the art of Gross As artist-in-residence at Camphill, Gross was able to show how art could provide a powerful way of communicating profound insights about the nature of childhood to those charged with the responsibility of caring for children and young people with special needs. Not only did Gross take children as his main subjects, but he went one step further and encouraged the viewer to reflect upon the transient nature of childhood and all the vulnerabilities inherent in it. A distinctive feature of his work is that he did not give titles to any of his work as he believed that attributing a title served as a distraction. His aim was for viewers to arrive at their own interpretation and not be side-tracked by labels. What is striking about Gross’s work is the way in which it seeks to address some of the dilemmas faced by those caring for children. He was able to identify with many often traumatised and bewildered children possibly because of his experiences during the war when. He never fully recovered from this experience and something of this continuing inner turmoil can be found in his paintings. Nevertheless in the paintings he was able to communicate a strong, positive, and life- affirming message to those working daily with the children in their care. Gross was able to demonstrate how art can provide an effective medium for conveying complex ideas about the nature of childhood and indicate possible ways of nurturing and caring for vulnerable children. It is important to note that Gross never gave titles to his paintings. He left it to viewers to place their own interpretation on what they saw. A significant feature of Camphill life is illustrated in Plate 1. In attempting to communicate effectively with a child, the carer has to fall into step with the child, so that they ‘dance to the same tune’. It is necessary, therefore, to listen to the ‘beat’ that the child provides. The child and the carer then search for ways to establish and maintain that joint rhythm, in a mutually inclusive way. It is necessary to learn to listen, look, and explore in a new way, the pulse of groups with whom one works. Rhythm is crucially important for it provides the impulse and framework that enables often bewildered and disoriented children to experience for the first time a measure of stability and security. Rhythm is the living pulse that sustains the work of a healthy and healing community. But the binding qualities of rhythm must not be confused with the lockstep quality of the single drummer’s efforts to ensure conformity. True rhythmicity, in contrast, requires a process of mutual engagement and inclusion, a response to the beat of several drummers. The dominant feature in Plate 2 is the eye of the child which looks out at and invites the viewer into the painting. The subdued tones used in this palette convey an impression of a tender and caring relationship between the child and the two adults – possibly nurses – who stand on either side of him. There is no mawkish sentimentality in this relationship. The painting successfully encapsulates the essence of Camphill philosophy and practice, where the child is placed at the centre of its work. Gross’s experience of living in a community dedicated to the care of vulnerable children and young people enabled him to communicate in a direct way the tender and supportive character of the adult-child relationship. In Plate 3, which shows two children playing, Gross may be wishing to remind adult viewers of the importance of play in a child’s life. It is not an incidental and trivial activity but an important part of a child’s physical, social, and moral development for play is the natural way for children to make sense of, and internalise, a whole range of experiences. It offers the opportunity to explore ways of being, of establishing identity and building self-esteem. The way the children’s bodies intersect geometrically may be intended to convey the importance of social interaction. The smile on the face of the child wearing the tartan bonnet is perhaps a reminder that play is meant to be an enjoyable experience. The content of this painting has a strong contemporary relevance. Play, whether formalised within the context of games or recreational activities or stemming from the creative imagination of the individual child, sadly has little place in the present-day mainstream curriculum. As a result, the child experiences educational, cultural, and social impoverishment. But as Gross was seeking to show an individual’s spiritual development is dependent upon opportunities for free and creative self- expression. In Plate 4 we have the juxtaposition of the angular mask-like face of a woman with the more realistically portrayed face of a child. What is Gross seeking to communicate here? Is he suggesting that in the presence of children adults tend to conceal their identity behind a mask? The child appears to be slightly behind the woman and looking questioningly at her. Children often find the behaviour of adults difficult to comprehend. Is Gross intimating that the care offered by the adult has to be genuine and unconditional and not feigned – not least because most children are sophisticated enough to make that distinction? Whilst adults may attempt to hide behind a mask, children can frequently see through it. In the immediate aftermath of the war Gross’s paintings were explicitly religious in content and were acknowledged by him to represent a working out of his own inner emotional and spiritual turmoil. They were classic examples of German Expressionist art. With the passage of time and particularly from the moment he assumed the role of artist-in-residence in Camphill, the character of his work underwent a change. The two themes of ‘masks and masquerades’ and ‘children in care’, which feature in Gross’s work, pose questions about identity and mission: ‘Who am I?’ and ‘What is my purpose?’ It is difficult to think of two more fundamental questions for anyone to consider. However, long before the notion of ‘the reflective practitioner’ became part of common professional parlance, Camphill co- workers were being constantly encouraged to engage in professional reappraisal and spiritual reflection. Thus, they were likely to be attuned to what Gross was seeking to communicate with them. Whilst Gross may have had a target audience in mind, the content of his paintings has a universal relevance and value. It needs to be remembered that these paintings were not hanging in an art gallery but were located throughout the Community and thus were constantly visually accessible. The work of Hermann Gross is significant because it focuses on a neglected subject in art – the child. He succeeds in different ways in capturing some of the quintessential features of childhood which now appear to be under threat. For example, opportunities for unsupervised play and recreation are limited by the growth of a risk-averse culture which tends to extinguish spontaneity, creativity, and enjoyment. At school, children are increasingly subject to a utilitarian approach to education which emphasises the acquisition of certain basic skills and which attaches little value to seeking ways of enhancing a child’s physical, social, and spiritual well-being. Children also represent an extremely lucrative target for the omnipotent and omnipresent marketing industry which, for commercial reasons, quite deliberately exploits their susceptibilities. A report by the Children’s Society in 2006 indicated that the state of childhood which had been the focus of Gross’s work was ‘under threat’ or ‘disappearing’. The significance of Gross’s work, which is sometimes subversive, often provocative and always instructive, is that it illustrates the value of art as a way of communicating profound insights about the nature of childhood to those charged with the awesome responsibility of caring for children and young people. It also provides us with a timely reminder of the precious nature of childhood and what we, as a society, may be in danger of losing. Gross’s work has remained generally unknown principally because he saw his primary responsibility as that of acting as an artist-in-residence; producing art that could be encountered in corridors, committee rooms and public halls throughout the community. A late discovery A short time after the biography of Hermann Gross was published in 2008 an email was received from the USA conveying some intriguing news. A large number of paintings had been discovered in the attic of a house in Vermont which had formerly belonged to Hildegard Rath. What the owner of the house did not know was that Hildegarde Rath had been the first wife of Hermann Gross. Someone acquainted with the new owner of the house and who knew of Robin Jackson’s interest in the life and work of both Hildegarde Rath and Hermann Gross, made contact. The information was passed on that among many paintings found in the attic there were two particularly large ones which were clearly not painted in the style of Rath. Photographs of both paintings were sent to Scotland and were easily identified, not simply because of their style and subject matter but because Gross’s monogram was clearly visible at the bottom of each painting! The painting illustrated here is of ‘The Annunciation’ where the Archangel Gabriel announces to Virgin Mary the incarnation of Christ. This is one of the most frequent subjects of artistic representation in both eastern and western Christian traditions. An unusual feature in this painting is that both Mary and Gabriel are wearing halos, a practice that was discontinued when artists sought to bring realism to their work. What is interesting in Gross’s painting is that Mary is not wearing the royal blue robe which features in most paintings of the Annunciation – Fra Angelico (1450), Leonardo da Vinci (12472-5), Botticelli (1490), El Greco (1575). Here it lies on the ground. There can be little doubt that the focal point in this painting is the head of the lily which seems to shimmer in a heat haze. Perhaps no other flower has more symbolic associations than the lily. Indeed separate parts of the lily have been accorded specific religious significance: the stem is said to symbolise Mary’s religious faithfulness; the white petals stand for her purity and virginity; the stem represents her divinity; and the leaves signify her humility. At the same time, the lily – the funeral flower – symbolizes the departure of the soul in death. Is the lily which is resting on the royal blue robe communicating another message? Is the purplish glow where the lily stem touches the robe meant to indicate that some powerful heavenly force is being transmitted through the lily stem to the robe? And is there a faint likeness to a face in the robe itself where the end of the stem touches the robe? In other words, is there a reference here to Christ’s bloodied shroud? Is this purple stain a reminder of the purple robe that was offered by the Roman centurion to Christ – the ‘King of the Jews’ – prior to his Crucifixion? And is the fact that the robe itself resembles the shape of a mountain significant? Is this a visual allusion to Mount Calvary where Christ was crucified? Final thoughts The time is long overdue for Gross’s talents as a sculptor, painter, and stained- glass maker to be more widely recognised. Why is his work not more widely known? Part of the answer lies in his decision to spend the latter part of his life working modestly as an artist-in-residence in a small school in the North East of Scotland remote from the artistic and intellectual heartlands of Paris, Berlin and New York. When Gross came to Scotland, he abandoned a career in the ordinary sense of the word, for a large part of a professional artist’s life is often devoted to seeking a market for his work. Freed from concerns about remuneration, Gross no longer saw his works as commodities for sale. It was in a Camphill community that he experienced one of his most productive periods. It is not unusual for a full appreciation of the unique qualities of an artist to be delayed until some time after death. Such is the case with Hermann Gross. It is to be hoped that what has been presented here demonstrates his supreme technical ability, extraordinary versatility, and creative imagination. As Aline Louchheim, the doyenne of New York art critics, observed in 1951, Gross was not only a true descendant of the German Expressionist school but also someone who used that art form to communicate a powerful spiritual message which was relevant to contemporary society. His art continues to communicate that message. Hermann Gross died on the 1st September 1988. A memorial tablet to Hermann Gross and his wife, Trude, is located in the churchyard of Maryculter Parish Church, Kincardineshire. The churchyard looks north over the River Dee and to the place where Camphill was born in 1940.