This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Culture This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Germany High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Literature Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Visual arts This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts

The biedermeir page includes nothing of the visual arts and in particular, Carl Spitzweg. This is a major flaw because wikipedia's carl spitzweg page says he was one of the most important of the biedermeier era painters.Stefan T. 01:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefan Timothy (talk • contribs)

Annamarie says: "beethoven is really not biedermeier music... even though he belongs to the era. " 22:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)...

More clearly Biedermeier is the chamber music of Franz Danzi and hausmusik in general, such as two-part piano quadrilles using themes from operas. Not all the arts in German-speaking Europe during the period 1815-1848 were Biedermeir: Caspar David Friedrich, for example.--Wetman (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be a literature stub as well?

I don't know whether Biedermeier literature/music and Biedermeier architecture/interior design ought to be separate articles.

- This is an important question, because breaking from the idea of a Biedermeier period in general to define Biedermeier art, furniture, architecture, and music separately is a very different approach. I suspect that the term Biedermeier should be treated carefully, because it probably signifies something different in each cultural sub-field. It works best as a general period descriptor. As an architecture specialist, I'm not sure that there should be any such category as "Biedermeier architecture". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.50.140 (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have long noticed a Biedermeier influence in Beethoven. It's hard to put my finger on something like this, but there is a certain color in his music that I find Biedermeier. It is simple and direct in character, petit-bourgeois but not sentimental. He was otherwise intense and politicallly passionate, but if you can imageine such a genius occaisonally in the role of a Germanic Stephen Foster writing house music for a square Chickering, you might sense the "somber lightheartedness" of Biedermeier furniture.

Biedermeier is apparantly also a term for flower arrangements employing concentric circles of different types of flowers. A quick internet search for Biedermeier AND flowers yields many catalogues, flower shops, and magazine articles, but no explanation of the history of the term as such. Any thoughts?

Reply: This is speculation on my part, but I believe a "Biedermeier" arrangement refers to something like a small bouquet of flowers. During the early to mid 19th century, it was common for women to carry around small bouquets known commonly as a "nosegay" or "posy." Interestingly, the term for "nosegay" in German is "Biedermeierstraeusschen" or "Biedermeier bouquet." I have also heard them referred to in English as "Biedermeiers." Thus, I would guess that the term "Biedermeier" in flower arrangements refers to small bouquets because of their popularity and use during this period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Versailles1798 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A definition for Biedermeier that I've been applying to literature is: Biedermeier: was the early part of the Romantic movement that avoids the dark aspects of life, i.e. death and sexuality. In Biedermeier texts, painful and dark issues are made idyllic. A good example of this is "The Angel" by Hans Christian Andersen. It was a transitional period between Neoclassicism and Romanticism and closely linked with the bourgeoisie, particularly in the Scandinavian countries. Following the Napoleonic wars, the Biedermeier style grew during the economic impoverishment of the 1820s and 1830s. The term Biedermeier was derogatory and was based on a comic symbol of middle-class comfort. I got it off of: http://scandinavian.wisc.edu/schmidt/danish/hca/glossary.html

I think it is more intentional rejection of the Romanticism. Whereas Romanticisim is all about conflict and tragedy, Biedermeier tries to avoid conflict by almost any means. See for example Witiko by Adalbert Stifter: there is love between the main hero and his chosen, but there is no conflict: they fell in love, he asks her to wait on him until he will be a great man, and she does wait for him for many years. End of the story. And the same for negative characters: there is no evil passion in Načerat at Battle at Vysoká, he is just in the conflict with Vladislav, wants more power, so he leads the uprising against him. There is no passion, just calm rational calculus. Compare Načerat with Lord Voldemort ;). Ceplm (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article has a huge flaw without that, since the Biedermeier school paintings are one of the most important from Austria and the Empire. Many of those paintings are now in the Belvedere palace in Wien. Please somebody with the info at hand include that here.

Also, since I only knew about Biedermeier style regarding the oil-painting, it's possible that the term refers to other styles in the other forms of Arts. I can read here that "Biedermeier" had 2 trends, but those described trends are not such, they are the context where the trends developed, this article needs more accuracy there: post-Napoleonic political oppression is NOT an artistic trend, neither growing urbanization and industrialization.

Carl Spitzweg is hardly the most representative Biedermaier painter too, his style is mostly neo-classic. So, he may have lived during those years, but that doesn't make him a Biedermeier artist. Biedermeier painters held the light and the realistic views as their standards without dettachment from romantic values, regarding the technique they are closer to the Classics/Renaissance than Art Nuveau, Liberty or the likes. Friedrich von Amerling, he IS the most reppresentative, the most popular between the aristocracy and the middle class but is not mentioned here. And even if mentioned, I guess there will not be so much explaining about his painting style and why it is Biedermeier.

I am most inclined to think Biedermeier is an historical period of time, but not an artistic movement. That period had a characteristic artistic life very different between them if we consider literature, poetry, painting or music (or the effing furnitures/floral arrangements), but it's still and mostly a period of time.

Is there any Wiki-Editor living or passing by Vienna? You can get all the real info there, from Belvedere palace, since the info online mostly concerns furniture! Gee...

UPDATE: I've modified the article to include the Painting historical movement during the Biedermeier. I've edited the beginning of the article to put emphasis on the historical meaning of the term and not on the artistic-oriented meaning, because the artistic movements during that period were not unified, not philosophical coherent, just simultaneous, so the term really has more significance from an historical point of View. The solution I've proposed included moving some parts from other section to the introduction (due to the emphasis on the historic context) and the modification of the titles so that anybody can see how was the period in each artistic field. It was a pity that most of the online info about Biedermeier deals only with furniture, that's maybe trendy these days but is not accurate. So, this Wikipedia article needs to put the emphasis were it's due.

Therefore, please, experts in each field, collaborate to improve these articles. Some of the authors I've included in the new section on paintings are entioned as "Biedermeier" figures even in their respective Wikipedia entries. Some link should be added in that regard. Other authors are not, or don't have the respective entry. Most of the added info was cited from the Belvedere Museum website (also referenced). Some illustrations for each section of the article would be good to include. Thank you.

YtzikMM (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC) I am the author of this entry, now including my signature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.105.47.82 (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not an expert in historical eras but i would suggest that a section should be added explaining the background of the term biedermeier. in the article is says the term comes from the pseudonym gottlieb biedermeier, which is correct. but biedermeier is a name that was deliberately made up: bieder + meier. i was unable to find a satisfactory english translation for bieder. a person or a thing considered "bieder" is very conventional, conservative, unimaginative, bourgois, servile and outright boring, but also reliable, tidy, virtuous and with common sense. meier (with several different spellings) is possibly the most common german surname. thus, the name "biedermeier" was meant to be satirical and quite derogatory. i would be quite insulted if i was considered "bieder" and an object, e. g. a car, considered "bieder" would certainly not sell well.Sundar1 (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is not this modern slang meaning (cf. English naff) simply an abbreviation of Biedermeier itself? In 1804, I see, Biede meant "upright, honest" ("Nicolai Karamsin's Travels from Moscow through Prussia &c", translated in The Antijacobin Review, vol. 17, 1804:35). Thus the original meaning of Biedermeier is "the honest dealer".--Wetman (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word bieder is old. In MHG it was biderbe and in OHG bitherbi (Duden, Das Herkunftswörterbuch). First it meant "useful" then it came to mean "conventional". Biedermann was an "honest man" (now used in irony), and Biedermeier is a fantasy surname coined after that. -- 85.177.220.99 (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I worked in Hamburg in the early 1970s, if I gave the impression of not wanting to join in the fun, my friend called me "du alter Biedermeier." Seemingly in jest, tho. BubbleDine (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this simply Ms Mildenberger's own name for her own painted eggs? Is there any connection with Biedermeier beyond her naming of her products, which she has illustrated in this article along with her blurb? I don't think this is encyclopedia material, and it certainly obscures the characterization of "Biedermeier" that the article is attempting.--Wetman (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silence. ...If no contemporaneous mention of scrolls in eggs can be located, I surmise that "Biedemeier eggs" is simply Ms Mildenberger's own name for her own painted eggs. Am I incorrect? Wikipedia is not a good vehicle for marketing.--Wetman (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been over a year, and nobody has come up with any citable source for the existence of Biedermeier scroll eggs. A quick Google search turns up a whole lot of nothing. I'm going to delete the scroll egg section. 206.208.105.129 (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.105.70.136 (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC) YtzikMM (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC) I'm the author of this comment, here adding my signature.[reply]

Indeed! Being a student of art and going many times to Vienna to see Biedermeier paintings and buildings, this section of egg-scrollers left me amused. How is possible I just skip that during my visit? Yet, I can't find any serious references to them. So if nobody comes with serious references, that section should be removed. In any case, I hope to be in Vienna this coming spring; I'll see then.

Well holy heck. I've been telling people about Biedermeier Scrollers for *years*, assuming they were real things, having seen that one paragraph on here. It sounds like I'm joking; I'm really not. I have that old picture from this article saved on my laptop. 150.143.70.223 (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made numerous changes to the order and labeling of sections. It seemed like they had grown organically over time rather than strategically to best convey meaning. Summary:

• Removed "Biedermeier" from section headings because it seemed extraneous and clunky
• Changed Painting to visual arts since it included discussion on sculpture
• Gave music it's own section (in need of further development)
• Moved furniture and interior design higher on page since it is arguably what the period remains best known for (Google Biedermeier and you get a ton of antique furniture results).
• Moved one of the visual arts photos to be the main article photo

This was just an initial step to gain greater clarity on the page, but I'm certain it should develop further, and I'm open to suggestions on better organization. I'm going to also continue spending some time to better flesh out some of the sections and add in more references. If anyone has a particularly good book on the subject, please let me know. —Zujine|talk 03:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Danish paragraph now in visual arts is the main sore thumb that I see sticking out in the article. Can anyone shed light on the Biedermeier influence in countries other than Germany and Austria? Should we develop more on other regions, or perhaps trim down the Danish stuff. It just seems out of place, but I don't have a solution off the top of my head. —Zujine|talk 04:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Biedermeier is a very time and space specific thing. The historical context is important:

- The idea of establishing Constitutions across Europe, as opposed to absolute monarchies, was on vogue, previously to the restauration, i.e., before 1814. (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Bundesakte)

- However, absolutist monarchies were reinstated following the defeat of Napoleon by Austria in 1812.

- With the goal of avoiding a revolutionary process à-la-Française, the reinstated monarchies in Europe governed with iron fist and help from their intelligence agencies.(http://www.belvedere.at/en/sammlungen/belvedere/klassizismus-romantik-biedermeier/biedermeier)

- GERMAN and AUSTRIAN principles stuck to the absolutist way of government, as expressed in the Final Act of Vienna (1820) that 'the total power will be upon the head of state'. This principle was put in practice by the Emperor Fracisco I of Austria and his Minister of Interior the Prince von Metternich. They pushed people out of the cafes and bars, keeping a close eye on public meetings and speech, incarcerating the dissenters and closing many club and societies. Hence, people was pushed to the intimacy of their homes, not talking about anything political except to the closest friends and family. (http://classicalmusic.about.com/od/romanticperiod/a/aabeidermeier.htm)

THIS is the context of Biedermeier art. That's why the artists seemed to be worried about simple things, the quotidian life, portraits and landscapes instead of speaking against the power.

THEREFORE:

- you can't have "Biedermeier art" from any country, you won't have it from England, and it remains to be seen if Denmark was under influence of this kind of politics at the time.

- you can't define Biedermeier only because there is contemporary art work. No artist from Philippines painting at the same time could claim to be "from the Biedermeier era", because he is not in the context.

- Until now, Austro-Hungarian empire and Germany (including at the time portions of nowadays Slovenia, Italy, Croatia, etc) seems to be the only places the Biedermeier definition applies to; and Denmark need to be checked (links/references need to be obtained) –YtzikMM (talk) 07:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please help to identify the sitter and painter (1st quarter of the 19th century), thanks! Sdfghkl (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be made more clear what "political stability" means in this context? Yes, there's the link to the page about Metternich, but for people that don't follow it, it doesn't come out that not only was there rigid censorship (meaning: artist that didn't focus on non-political topics were simply forbidden to publish their works), the German nations were more or less police states, and citizens were encouraged to spy on each other. As the German article on the topic states: "Ohne die Karlsbader Beschlüsse ist die Biedermeierzeit nicht denkbar; außerhalb Deutschlands, Österreichs und Skandinaviens existiert daher auch der Begriff Biedermeier nicht, da die gesellschaftliche Entwicklung in diesen Ländern anders verlief.", freely translated this means: "The Biedermeier wouldn't be thinkable without the Carlsbad decrees. Outside Germany, Austria and Scandinavia the term doesn't exist, as society developed differently in those countries." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7B8:2FF:485:0:0:0:2 (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Biedermeier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081204231536/http://www.belvedere.at/jart/prj3/belvedere/main.jart?rel=en&content-id=1169655781722&reserve-mode=active to http://www.belvedere.at/jart/prj3/belvedere/main.jart?rel=en&content-id=1169655781722&reserve-mode=active#m

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 19:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sentence that was added:[1]

The speculation that it will influence future styles is not backed up by that source. Even if it were, it's a claim needing a bit more than just one source, if you want to use it in the lead without attribution.Lurking shadow (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is explicitly backed up by source and numerous literature claims that as well. You not knowing anything by Biedermier is detrimental, as seen by your unproductive edits. Cropi9 (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a moment... You're talking about "will influence future styles" not "has influenced later styles", right?Lurking shadow (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Nostradamus. My sentence is clear in its implication, it will influence styles that come after Biedermier. They are mentioned in source, i thought it would be too long, Bauhaus etc. Cropi9 (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. You wanted to say that styles that appeared later, but before today, have been influenced by Biedermeier. Is this correct?Lurking shadow (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that seems to be backed up by sources; I changed it. Tell me if I did something wrong, please.Lurking shadow (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is the page Literatur der Restaurationsepoche, which could put the discussion on this page to the correct context. Somebody knowing better German than me (who reads it on Google Translate) should translate the page to English. Please. Ceplm (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]