St Wolfgang Church Gustav Klimt Buy Art Prints Now
from Amazon

* As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.


by
Tom Gurney BSc (Hons) is an art history expert with over 20 years experience
Published on August 21, 2026 / Updated on October 23, 2026
Email: tomgurney1@gmail.com / Phone: +44 7429 011000

About St Wolfgang Church and Gustav Klimt

No separate Gustav Klimt oil painting called St Wolfgang Church has been secured in the authoritative records used here. The title comes from a historical error: in 1931, a printed reproduction of Klimt's Church in Unterach on Lake Attersee was captioned Kirche am Wolfgangsee—Church on Lake Wolfgang.[1][3]

The miscaption survives on a real physical object. The Leopold Museum catalogues object 33328 as a 1931 print on paper measuring 48.2 × 45.8 centimetres. Its current English record calls the sheet “Church on Lake Wolfgang”, (Page 28) – Gustav Klimt. A Retrospective; the German record uses Kirche am Wolfgangsee and connects it with the portfolio Gustav Klimt. Eine Nachlese.[1][2]

What the sheet reproduces, however, is not a Wolfgangsee painting. Specialist provenance research for the Horten Collection identifies the source image as Horten inventory K-855, Kirche in Unterach am Attersee, painted in 1915/16.[3][4] The distinction preserves both parts of the evidence: the 1931 print and its caption genuinely exist, but the caption gives the wrong place.

At a Glance

  • Is St Wolfgang Church a separate Klimt oil painting?** No securely identified original has been foundIs St Wolfgang Church a separate Klimt oil painting? No securely identified original has been found
  • Physical object carrying the titleLeopold Museum object 33328
  • Leopold title“Church on Lake Wolfgang”, (Page 28) – Gustav Klimt. A Retrospective
  • German captionKirche am Wolfgangsee
  • Date of printed object1931
  • Category and mediumPrint on paper
  • Dimensions48.2 × 45.8 centimetres
  • Credited artists/authorsMax Eisler and Gustav Klimt
  • Image actually reproducedChurch in Unterach on Lake Attersee, Horten inventory K-855
  • Date and medium of source painting1915/16, oil on canvas
  • Current status of printPermanent loan from ARGE Collection Gustav Klimt; listed as not displayed when checked on 10 August 2026[1]

What Exactly Is the 1931 Object?

Leopold Museum object 33328 is a sheet from a later publication about Klimt. It is not the 1915/16 canvas, and it is not a preparatory drawing made before that painting. The museum classifies it as a print on paper and records a sheet size substantially smaller than the 110-centimetre-square original.[1][4]

The English online record links the object with Gustav Klimt: A Retrospective, while the German record identifies Gustav Klimt. Eine Nachlese. The publication appeared in 1931, thirteen years after Klimt's death. Max Eisler is credited alongside Klimt in the Leopold record.[1][2]

Those credits need careful interpretation. Klimt is the artist whose painting supplies the image. Eisler belongs to the authorship or editorial history of the later portfolio. The record does not turn Klimt into the hands-on printer of this sheet, and it cannot demonstrate that he approved a caption produced after his death.

The paper support is equally decisive. Printing translates an existing image into another object with its own scale, surface and publication history. Colour, texture and tonal relations in a reproduction may differ from those of the oil. The sheet can document how the painting circulated in 1931; it cannot supply a technical examination of Klimt's canvas.

Calling the print “after Klimt” is therefore more precise than calling it an original Klimt print. An original print normally involves the artist's authorship of the printable matrix or process as a work in that medium. Here the documented relationship is reproduction after a painting.

The Source Image: Church in Unterach

The source painting is Horten inventory K-855, Kirche in Unterach am Attersee. The Horten Collection records it as an oil on canvas from 1915/16, measuring 110 × 110 centimetres and signed at the lower right.[4]

Only a few visible features are needed to confirm the match. The image presents a densely compressed lakeside settlement, with clustered roofs and buildings, a church tower rising among them, vegetation closing the intervals and reflection along the lower edge. Those features recur in the 1931 printed sheet because the sheet reproduces that canvas.

The full painting has a separate and well-documented history. It appeared at an Austrian art exhibition in Stockholm in 1917, passed through the Redlich and Böck collections, and entered the Horten collection in 2011.[3][4] None of that chronology creates a second oil at Wolfgangsee. It establishes the identity of the original from which the later paper image was made.

Horten's detailed research is explicit about the title problem. It states that Church in Unterach on Lake Attersee was reproduced in the 1931 portfolio under the erroneous title Church on Lake Wolfgang.[3] This is stronger evidence than resemblance alone: the correction comes from specialist study of the exact painting, publication and ownership record.

Unterach Is Not St Wolfgang

Unterach am Attersee and St Wolfgang on the Wolfgangsee are different places on different lakes. Both lie within Austria's Salzkammergut region, and both can be associated with prominent churches and lakeside settlement. That regional similarity may make the erroneous caption appear plausible, but it does not make the locations interchangeable.[4][5]

Klimt painted extensively around the Attersee. K-855 belongs to that geographic body of work and specifically identifies Unterach. The official St Wolfgang record confirms a distinct settlement associated with the Wolfgangsee.[5] No authoritative object record examined here relocates the Horten canvas there.

The correction does not require reconstructing a precise point from which Klimt viewed Unterach. Nor does it require a detailed architectural history of either church. The decisive evidence is simpler: the holder of the original identifies the painted place as Unterach on the Attersee, and provenance specialists identify the 1931 Wolfgangsee wording as a mistake.[3][4]

Geographical precision matters because location titles shape what a viewer thinks is represented. A reader expecting St Wolfgang may search the image for the Wolfgangsee shoreline or a particular building profile. Once the governing title is restored, the painting returns to its documented late Attersee context.

Page 28 or Plate 29?

The current Leopold Museum record calls object 33328 Page 28 in English and Blatt 28 in German.[1][2] The Horten provenance publication, while discussing the mistaken ownership and location labels in Eine Nachlese, refers to plate number 29.[3]

The sources therefore preserve a small numbering discrepancy. It may reflect a difference among page, sheet and plate systems, an edition issue or later catalogue practice. The available records do not justify choosing one speculative explanation.

The conflict does not weaken the image identification. Leopold object 33328 supplies a title, date, medium, dimensions and exact reproduced image. Horten research independently recognises the same Unterach painting and corrects the Wolfgangsee caption. Object number and image match are more reliable anchors than forcing page and plate terminology into false agreement.

For that reason, “Leopold Museum object 33328” is the clearest way to identify the surviving paper object. Page 28 can be retained as the museum's current title layer, while the plate 29 reference remains visible as part of the specialist publication record.

How a Wrong Title Becomes Persuasive

A caption can travel farther than the object it describes. Once attached to a high-quality portfolio reproduction, it may be repeated in catalogues, image files, sales listings and later reference material. Repetition can make the wording seem like an established Klimt title even when the source label was mistaken.

The 1931 date adds authority because it is historically early, but age does not guarantee accuracy. The portfolio appeared after Klimt's death, and there is no basis for treating its location caption as his own statement. An old secondary label remains secondary evidence when it conflicts with the current holder and detailed provenance research.

This case also demonstrates why title alone is a weak identity test. A different place name can suggest a second work even when the image, dimensions of the underlying canvas, signature and provenance all point to one object. Here the paper reproduction and oil painting have separate physical identities, but there is only one original painted composition behind them.

The strongest test is cumulative. Horten K-855 supplies the source canvas, exact title, date, medium, size and signature.[4] The Leopold record supplies the 1931 print, its caption, paper medium, sheet size and current collection status.[1][2] Horten's research then connects the two and names the geographical error.[3]

This evidence does not prove that the phrase Church on Lake Wolfgang has never appeared in another note or listing. It establishes the useful catalogue conclusion: no separate original Klimt oil has been located behind that title, and the surviving documented use refers to a reproduction of Church in Unterach.

Not a Study, State or Lost Painting

The 1931 sheet was produced after Klimt's death, so it cannot be a preparatory study for a canvas painted in 1915/16. Its smaller paper format and publication context also distinguish it from a painted state or revision. The image follows the completed original rather than recording an earlier design stage.[1][3][4]

There is likewise no evidence that the caption records a lost pendant or a destroyed Wolfgangsee composition. A wrong location can be explained by misidentification without inventing another object. Until a secure original, catalogue entry, inscription or contemporary document emerges, the separate-painting hypothesis adds complexity unsupported by evidence.

The Horten canvas has its own dating and technical record. The later print has its own date, authorship credits and measurements. Keeping those records separate prevents the reproduction's paper and 1931 publication date from migrating into the oil painting, and prevents the oil's materials from being assigned to the printed sheet.

The distinction also protects Klimt's actual work in print and graphic media. A reproductive plate made by others after his painting is not evidence that he created an independent print edition of Church in Unterach. Design authorship, matrix-making, printing and publication are different kinds of participation.

Not Church in Cassone

Klimt did paint another square lakeside church subject: Church in Cassone (Landscape with Cypresses), dated 1913. That canvas depicts Cassone on Lake Garda, is signed at the lower left and remains in a private collection.[6]

Cassone does not solve the Wolfgangsee title. Its dense architecture and tall cypresses form a different composition, and its Zuckerkandl–Redlich ownership history is separate. The 1931 miscaption is attached specifically to the image of Horten K-855.

The comparison is useful only as an identity safeguard. Klimt's repeated interest in lakeside architecture explains why generic English church titles can collide, but each object must be secured through image, place, date, medium, dimensions, signature and provenance rather than motif alone.

Current Ownership and Access

The Leopold Museum records the 1931 print as a permanent loan from ARGE Collection Gustav Klimt. When checked on 10 August 2026, the online object entry marked it as not displayed.[1] A permanent loan describes the collection relationship, not a promise of permanent gallery presentation.

The original Unterach painting has a different owner and access record. The HGH Asset Foundation holds the oil.[4] The Leopold print's non-display does not establish whether the separate canvas can currently be seen, and a display of the oil would not mean the paper object had moved.

Both statements are dated because exhibitions change. Anyone hoping to see either object should consult the relevant institution before travelling. The distinction between their locations is another reminder that reproduction and source painting are two physical objects even though they share one image.

What the Correction Changes

Correcting the title does not erase the 1931 sheet. The print remains a legitimate historical object that records how Klimt's image was reproduced, organised and labelled after his death. Its erroneous caption is part of that history.

What changes is the claim made for the image. It no longer supports a third lakeside church painting or a Klimt view of St Wolfgang. It documents the transmission of Church in Unterach through a mistaken geographic label.

The distinction makes the evidence richer, not poorer. One can study the 1915/16 oil as a late Attersee landscape and the 1931 print as an episode in its reception. Confusing them produces a fictional painting; separating them reveals how object identity, publication and title can diverge.

The most accurate public formulation is therefore straightforward: St Wolfgang Church is a historical miscaption associated with a 1931 reproduction. The original composition is Gustav Klimt's Church in Unterach on Lake Attersee.

Frequently Asked Questions

References

  1. Leopold Museum, “Church on Lake Wolfgang, (Page 28) – Gustav Klimt: A Retrospective,” online collection record, object 33328. View source. Accessed August 2026.
  2. Leopold Museum, “Kirche am Wolfgangsee, (Blatt 28) – Gustav Klimt. Eine Nachlese,” German online collection record, object 33328. View source. Accessed August 2026.
  3. Monika Mayer and Tobias G. Natter / Heidi Horten Collection, Focus: Gustav Klimt—Church in Unterach am Attersee, provenance and publication research. View source. Accessed August 2026.
  4. Heidi Horten Collection, “Provenance Research: Gustav Klimt, Church in Unterach am Attersee,” object and provenance record. View source. Accessed August 2026.
  5. St Wolfgang im Salzkammergut, official destination information, used only to establish St Wolfgang and the Wolfgangsee as a distinct geographic location. View source. Accessed August 2026.
  6. Sotheby's, “Gustav Klimt, Kirche in Cassone (Landschaft mit Zypressen),” Impressionist and Modern Art Evening Sale, lot 13, 3 February 2010. View source. Accessed August 2026.

Discussion

St Wolfgang Church and Gustav Klimt rewards close attention to source context, object identity and careful reproduction boundaries.