For a long time, art history held conflicting views about Gustav Klimt and modern art. On the one hand, he was without doubt the pivotal figure in the modernist movement of Vienna 1900, which within a very short space of time, had achieved world renown and recognition. On the other hand, from the very beginning, he was dismissed as a superficial "decorator," especially by Western European art historians and critics, and even by prominent Viennese contemporaries. Indeed, as recently as the end of the last century, some critics were still surprised by the increasing visitor numbers at exhibitions of his work, and particularly by the soaring prices achieved at auction. There are many reasons why, in the past, Klimt's paintings did not enjoy the status that they do today. Certainly, one of the most important is that he had little direct contact with the influential personalities of the Western European avant-garde, and he himself did not exert any noteworthy influence on artistic developments in Paris.
Ironically, Klimt's leading position as a passionate, world-ranking modernist was only restored with the advent of postmodern perspectives in art-historical discourse. It is precisely the fact that he was not actively involved in the creative worlds of Paris and other Western European centers of the avant-garde, but instead, with others developed an independent movement, now summarized under the heading "Vienna 1900", that has subsequently accounted for the great appeal of this phenomenon.