Goldfish

Buy Art Prints Now
from Amazon

* As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

About Goldfish

Gustav Klimt's Goldfish makes a backward glance confrontational. A red-haired nude crouches in the foreground with her back towards the viewer, then turns her head over her left shoulder to look out. Her body fills the narrow canvas from side to side. Other women drift above and behind her, while a great fish advances in profile through a dark, luminous field. Its round, fixed eye creates another point of scrutiny near the centre of the painting.^[1]

The work caused outrage when it appeared at the Vienna Secession in 1902. Critics concentrated on the foreground woman's exposed buttocks, and some understood the picture as Klimt's defiant response to attacks on his University ceiling paintings, especially Medicine. Published scholarship reports that he considered calling it An meine Kritiker—To My Critics.^[2][7]

That phrase is revealing, but it is not the museum title, an inscription or a separate work. The current institutional name is the plural German Goldfische, translated here as Goldfish. More importantly, the picture's retort does not depend on a caption. The woman offers the very view that offended conservative observers while turning to inspect them in return. Looking is no longer a one-way privilege.

At a Glance

• ArtistGustav Klimt
• Kunstmuseum Solothurn titleGoldfische
• English titleGoldfish
• Date1901/1902
• Object categoryPainting
• MediumOil on canvas
• Dimensions181 × 67 centimetres
• Inventory numberC 80.22
• CollectionDübi-Müller Foundation, Kunstmuseum Solothurn
• ModelsUnidentified
• Reported intended titleAn meine Kritiker (To My Critics)
• First public presentationXIII Vienna Secession exhibition, February–March 1902
• Current accessRecorded by the museum as on display when checked on 10 August 2026^[1]

Which Painting Is Goldfish?

The governing object is Kunstmuseum Solothurn inventory C 80.22, held in the Dübi-Müller Foundation. The museum dates it 1901/1902, records its medium as oil on canvas and gives its dimensions as 181 centimetres high by 67 centimetres wide.^[1]

Those measurements explain much of the first encounter. The canvas is well over twice as tall as it is wide. Klimt did not set the figures across a broad pool or beneath a conventional horizon. He stacked and overlapped them inside a vertical current, allowing bodies, hair and fish to enter or leave through the edges.

The medium also needs restraint. Solothurn describes a golden pictorial field, and gold-coloured flecks or light can be seen within the water. Yet its catalogue says oil on canvas. It does not list gold leaf, metal powder, bronze, foil or any applied metal. Visual gold is not automatically material gold.^[1]

No signature or inscription is published in the current object entry. The reported phrase To My Critics should therefore never be presented as words written on the canvas. One painting, one inventory number and one surviving oil surface anchor all its titles and exhibition states.

A Body That Turns the Act of Looking Around

The foreground figure is shown largely from behind. Her bent legs and low crouch gather the body into a compact curve, while long reddish hair falls around her shoulders. The close viewpoint makes her back and buttocks appear almost too expansive for the narrow field. Then the head turns. Face and body point in different directions, converting a pose of display into an exchange of looks.^[1][3]

Contemporary writers compared her with the ancient type known as the Venus Kallipygos, the “Venus of the beautiful buttocks.” Albertina scholarship preserves that comparison as reception evidence.^[3] It does not identify the woman as Venus, establish a mythological episode or name the model. The visible figure remains an anonymous participant in Klimt's underwater allegory.

Her gaze matters because it denies detachment. A viewer may first register the unusually prominent anatomy, but the face announces that the body is not simply unaware of being seen. The woman appears to catch the spectator looking. Whether her expression seems amused, mocking, cool or challenging will vary, yet the directional structure is unmistakable: she turns towards the space occupied by the public.

This agency belongs to the represented figure, not to a recoverable biography. No reliable record names the sitter, states her relationship with Klimt or establishes the conditions under which she posed. Her exposed body cannot prove consent, sexuality or a private affair. The painting constructs confrontation through pose and address; it does not disclose the model's life.

The composition also avoids the decorum expected of an ideal nude. The figure is not positioned at a safe distance or absorbed in a classical narrative. Cropping, scale and direct contact make her physical presence immediate. The public controversy was therefore not caused by nudity alone. It arose from how that nudity was made to occupy the viewer's field and answer the viewer's attention.

Floating Women, Hair and Underwater Space

Several other female presences occupy the upper and middle zones. They hover rather than stand, with bodies partially concealed by overlap, hair, water or the canvas edge. Solothurn describes women floating or drifting in water, while Albertina research places the painting within Klimt's turn-of-the-century group of aquatic allegories.^[1][3]

There is no floor, shoreline or stable horizon. Long hair behaves almost like aquatic vegetation, and curving lines carry movement through the stacked bodies. Darker passages suggest depth without constructing an ordinary underwater panorama. Klimt makes suspension legible through direction and overlap rather than through a scientifically measured space.

The women's arrangement is not a family group or a named mythological company. Calling them water nymphs can describe the Symbolist subject at the strength used by institutional scholarship, but it does not turn them into individually identifiable goddesses. Nor does their proximity establish the explicit same-sex intimacy represented in Water Serpents I. Here the dominant relationship is between the foreground figure, the other drifting forms and the viewers outside the painting.

Colour helps prevent the bodies from becoming a single mass. Published analysis describes skin built with fine strokes and nuanced pale blues, turquoise, violet, yellow and white against greenish water.^[7] These chromatic shifts create a cool, flickering surface. They are painterly observations, not a recipe for pearl, enamel or precious metal.

Klimt had explored moving bodies in water before this canvas and would return to the subject later. That wider family explains why floating women and fish recur, but it does not make every aquatic work one continuous story. Goldfish has its own date, material, public history and accusatory address.

Between Modelled Flesh and an Ornamental Current

The painting's force depends on Klimt allowing two different kinds of form to coexist. Faces, shoulders, backs and buttocks retain weight through carefully modulated colour. The foreground body feels pressed close because light and shadow describe its rounded volume. Around it, however, hair, water plants, small fish and coloured particles lose the boundaries expected in an ordinary natural scene.^[1][7]

This is not a simple opposition between “real” bodies and a decorative background. Hair can extend a body's movement into the surrounding current, while blue arcs may be read as plant life, water or autonomous line. Cropping makes the canvas edge active: figures do not pose neatly within a framed clearing but appear to continue beyond what the support allows.

The 181-centimetre height intensifies that flow. A viewer reads upward through successive overlaps rather than backwards towards a horizon. The narrow width forces broad curves to meet the edges quickly, giving the largest body an almost architectural command over the lower field. Even the fish is both creature and compositional interruption.^[1]

This surface organisation helps locate Goldfish within Klimt's development without turning it into a Golden Period painting. Pattern is becoming inseparable from bodily meaning, but the recorded medium remains oil. The golden field works through paint and colour. Its luminosity does not require imported leaf, foil or metallic powder.

The result is an underwater space that can be felt but not measured. Bodies seem buoyant because gravity has loosened, yet their curves exert substantial pressure against the surface. The painting is therefore neither a conventional group of nudes nor a flat decorative screen. Its tension comes from refusing to settle entirely into either condition.

The Fish as a Second Watcher

The large fish enters in profile and breaks the continuity of the bodies. Its scale is emphatic rather than naturalistic, and its rigid circular eye marks the centre of the composition in the Kunstmuseum Solothurn's account.^[1]

That eye creates an important visual rhyme. The red-haired woman looks outward from near the lower edge; the fish fixes a second gaze inside the pictorial field. One is recognisably human and responsive, the other impassive. Together they make the act of looking unusually conspicuous.

The fish also stabilises the narrow design. Its profile moves laterally against the predominantly vertical ascent of bodies and hair. Smaller fish add intervals of movement, while the larger creature provides a centre around which the human forms seem to drift. The title directs attention to these animals without explaining them away.

It would be easy to turn the fish into a universal emblem of voyeurism, fertility, danger or death. No such single key is needed. In this exact painting it identifies the underwater realm, interrupts the female group, anchors the middle and contributes a nonhuman stare. Those visible functions are more secure than an all-purpose Symbolist code.

Goldfische and the Reported Title To My Critics

The Kunstmuseum Solothurn calls the work Goldfische, a plural title that refers to the fish within the scene. Published Prestel scholarship says Klimt originally planned An meine Kritiker, translated as To My Critics.^[1][7]

The phrase is best treated as an intended or reported working title. It is not the current holder title, and the museum record does not transcribe it as an inscription. There is no second canvas called To My Critics hiding behind the Solothurn painting. The two names belong to the reception history of one object.

Even with that caution, the phrase clarifies why the pose seemed so pointed. Klimt had faced fierce criticism of the Faculty Paintings, and his presentation of Medicine in 1901 provoked objections from medical, university and political circles. Institutional sources describe Goldfish as an answer to that hostility.^[1][2][3]

Albertina research also places the picture against the ministry's failure to confirm Klimt's proposed appointment as a professor at the Academy of Fine Arts.^[3] That grievance belongs to the documented contemporary setting, but the painting is not a diary entry with one provable target. No critic appears by name, and no fish corresponds securely to a particular official.

The retort is broader and more pictorial. The nude refuses correction by presenting the feature that observers condemned. Her glance makes the audience part of the encounter. The fish's eye intensifies the exchange. The reported title gives language to a resistance that the composition already performs.

One Canvas, Changed During Its First Exhibition

The XIII exhibition of the Vienna Secession opened in February 1902. Klimt was represented by eight paintings, but Goldfish was not ready at the start. Newspaper evidence assembled by the Klimt Database records a cloth-covered empty stretcher marking its intended place.^[2]

Klimt delivered the painting on 13 February, almost two weeks after the opening. It immediately drew hostile attention. A contemporary review called it a product of “the most perverted taste,” language that reveals the moral judgement directed at the nude more clearly than it evaluates the painting.^[2]

Delivery did not end the work. Ludwig Hevesi later recalled that Klimt repeatedly took the canvas back to his studio while the exhibition continued. A Moriz Nähr photograph made in connection with the installation shows a state that differs from the surface now in Solothurn.^[2]

This evidence establishes revision, but not two Goldfish paintings. The photograph records one moment in the making of the same canvas. Nor does it permit a complete stroke-by-stroke reconstruction. Without technical evidence mapping every alteration, it is unsafe to claim that a particular colour, fish, body or contour was certainly added on a particular day.

The changing state affects interpretation. Visitors were responding not only to a provocative image but to a conspicuously delayed work that continued to change during the public event. Klimt's refusal to treat exhibition opening as an absolute endpoint made the canvas's working life visible. The scandal and the act of revision unfolded together.

This was the XIII Secession exhibition, held in February and March. It should not be confused with the XIV, or Beethoven, exhibition that opened in April 1902. The proximity of the events and later captioning errors can blur them, but Goldfish first confronted its Viennese audience before the Beethoven presentation.^[2]

What the Drawings Show

One securely related sheet now belongs to the J. Paul Getty Museum. The Albertina catalogues it as GKZ or Strobl 862, Two Studies of a Seated Nude with Long Hair, made around 1901–02. It measures 31.7 by 45.2 centimetres and uses black chalk and red pencil on paper. A lower-centre signature reads “GVSTAV KLIMT.”^[4][5]

The sheet contains two studies rather than a complete composition. Both examine a seated or crouching female back with long hair. Repeated contour lines search for the weight and curve of the body, while the coloured pencil distinguishes or reinforces selected passages. The Albertina explicitly calls it a study for Goldfish.^[4]

The right-hand pose is closely related to the foreground figure. The second study helps explain another back-view presence within the painted group. Yet neither is a squared transfer cartoon, and the paper's black chalk and red pencil do not become materials in the oil painting.

The drawing also shows that invention crossed object boundaries. Alice Strobl related the foreground posture to front-view studies for Lust in the Beethoven Frieze, while Klimt Database research links the sheet to the broader study process around the frieze and notes relations to other aquatic figures.^[2][3][4] Klimt did not simply copy a completed figure from one work into another. He revisited poses, reversed viewpoints and adapted bodies to new pictorial demands.

That distinction protects both works. Goldfish is not part of the Beethoven programme, and the foreground woman is not Lust renamed. The shared study network shows a mobile studio practice: an observed posture could remain available while its orientation, meaning, scale and surrounding world changed.

The Getty record confirms the drawing's present museum identity, while the Albertina's evolving catalogue supplies its study relation.^[4][5] Other sheets have been associated with the painting, but no fixed total is required to understand the exact evidence. Strobl 862 is sufficient to demonstrate close preparation without turning every nearby nude into a direct cartoon.

Düsseldorf: Attempted Removal, Not Actual Censorship

In May 1902, shortly after the Vienna exhibition, Klimt sent six paintings to the German National Art Exhibition at the newly built Kunstpalast in Düsseldorf. Goldfish travelled with landscapes and other works as part of the Vienna Secession's contribution.^[2]

Bertha Zuckerkandl later reported that organisers urged the Austrian Ministry of Culture and Education to have the painting removed. They feared it would offend Crown Prince Wilhelm, who was expected at the opening. The request is evidence of continued anxiety around the nude and its public display.^[2]

The painting was not actually taken down. When the Crown Prince attended the opening on 1 May, it remained in place. The distinction matters: there was an attempt or pressure to remove the work, not a completed censorship action. The Düsseldorf episode extended the controversy beyond Vienna while also showing that the contested picture continued to be exhibited.

The 1903 Klimt Collective

The original catalogue for Klimt's XVIII Secession collective exhibition lists Goldfische as number 14 and dates it 1902.^[6] This late-1903 presentation gave the painting a place within a broad survey of Klimt's production.

The catalogue does not create a second state or new object. Its 1902 date is compatible with the Solothurn convention 1901/1902, while the German plural agrees with the current holder title. Works shown nearby remain separate paintings rather than episodes in a single aquatic cycle.

From Public Scandal to a Private Bedroom

The Kunstmuseum Solothurn records that the painting was acquired through Galerie Arnot in Vienna. It was then given by Otto Dübi to Gertrud Müller in 1919 as an engagement present. The museum adds an unusually intimate detail: Goldfish hung in her bedroom throughout her life.^[1]

That domestic history offers a striking contrast with 1902. In Vienna and Düsseldorf, institutions worried about what a public audience or royal visitor might see. In Gertrud Müller's home, the same canvas became part of a private daily environment. The shift does not erase the scandal, but it shows that reception changes with setting and ownership.

The evidence should not be stretched. The current record does not identify the person who sold the painting to Galerie Arnot, publish the price, or supply a complete pre-1919 ownership chain. It does not support a Nazi-era seizure narrative. Nor does the bedroom placement establish anything about Gertrud Müller's sexuality or explain what the work meant to her privately.

The painting now belongs to the Dübi-Müller Foundation at the Kunstmuseum Solothurn. The foundation credit preserves the collector history within the current institutional identity.^[1]

Current Display and Lasting Importance

When the museum's live record was checked on 10 August 2026, Goldfish was marked Ausgestellt—on display.^[1] That is a dated access fact, not a promise of permanent placement. Loans, conservation and gallery changes can affect availability, so travellers should confirm the status with the Kunstmuseum Solothurn.

The painting matters because form, making and reception cannot be separated. Its vertical field turns bodies into a current. Its most exposed figure answers the viewer with a look. Its fish fixes another eye at the centre. The canvas arrived late, changed during its first exhibition and carried controversy into Germany before entering a private Swiss collection.

The reported title To My Critics condenses that history, but the picture exceeds the anecdote. It does not merely insult an opponent. It asks who controls display, who is allowed to judge a body and what happens when the viewed figure appears to judge the audience back.

Frequently Asked Questions

References

Accessed August 2026.

1. Kunstmuseum Solothurn, Online Collection, “Goldfische”: current title, 1901/1902 date, oil-on-canvas medium, 181 × 67 centimetres, inventory C 80.22, visual description, Galerie Arnot and 1919 gift history, Dübi-Müller Foundation credit and live display flag. View source.
2. Gustav Klimt Database, “The Golden Knight and Femmes Fatales”: XIII Secession delayed delivery and changing state, contemporary response, Faculty-Painting context, Düsseldorf episode, study relations and the 1903 collective exhibition. View source.
3. Albertina, Digital Publications, “Beethoven Frieze, Goldfish”: study reuse, Lust and other figure relations, Venus Kallipygos reception, XIII Secession identification and proposed-professorship context. View source.
4. Albertina, Digital Publications, “Two Studies of a Seated Nude with Long Hair”: exact circa-1901–02 drawing, GKZ/Strobl 862, black chalk and red pencil, 31.7 × 45.2 centimetres, signature, Getty inventory and preparatory relation to Goldfish. View source.
5. J. Paul Getty Museum, “The Lederer Collection, Lost and Found”: independent Getty identification of Two Studies of a Seated Nude with Long Hair, its circa-1901–02 date, materials, dimensions and inventory 2009.57.2. View source.
6. Vienna Secession, XVIII. Ausstellung der Vereinigung Bildender Künstler Österreichs: Kollektiv-Ausstellung Gustav Klimt (1903), catalogue page 13: Goldfische, number 14, dated 1902. View source.
7. Prestel Publishing, Klimt: The Essential Paintings, “Goldfish”: reported intended title An meine Kritiker, first Vienna reception and object-specific visual analysis. View source.

More KLIMT Paintings

The Kiss

Adele Bloch-Bauer I

Death and Life

Hope II

Danae

Lady with a Fan

The Three Ages of Woman

Water Serpents I