1. The Merriam Webster dictionary defines the word “authoritarian” as “of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority.” This definition seems oddly fitting in a study of images’ power over people. One word, in particular, seems to stick out: “blind.” Art is about seeing something whereas “blind” implies an incapability of seeing. Leaders of authoritarian regimes rely on “blind” citizens that don’t know enough of the world or other ways of thinking to question the government. So, when art is introduced into an authoritarian society, the leaders are faced with a problem as people begin to “see” different viewpoints and therefore, naturally begin to question the world around them. Sometimes they develop their own ideas, while other times they are influenced, which is exactly what authoritarian leaders fear. Even back in 360 B.C., Plato wrote about “simple creatures” who were “unable to analyze the nature of knowledge and ignorance and imitation” (The Republic). This was certainly a fear of Hitler’s during the Holocaust. Hitler was able to gain a massive amount of support by providing vulnerable citizens with a scapegoat and applying his impressive oratory skills. He realized, however, that art played an important role in influencing people and that, without art on his side, he would have trouble retaining the support of his followers. So, Hitler devised a plan to discredit Jewish art and, in the process, Jewish people in general. Many of the pieces of artwork being produced were what some might call “new” or “modern.” Styles such as expressionism and cubism had begun to flourish. However, with nearly everything “new” comes resistance. Hitler feared the effect some of this new, more “free” art would have on his power. At one point he even said, “Anyone who seeks the new for its own sake strays all too easily into the realm of folly” (Beauty without Sensuality). This statement shows his hesitance to accept anything new into the culture. He disapproved of the “immorality” and freedom present in some of these newer styles and feared that these themes would leak into society, causing people to urge for less rigid rules. He admits that Jewish art has a very powerful influence on people when he dictates, “On these cultural grounds, more than on any others, Judaism has taken possession of those means and institutions of communication which form, and thus finally rule over public opinion” (Adolf Hitler Speech). In an attempt to avoid any sort of turmoil in the country, he banned the interpretation of art and compiled a large collection of this “degenerate” art in a museum, using propaganda to mold the public’s opinion of the artwork into one of loathing. He also criticized the artists, claiming that they either had eye problems or were attempting to “harass the nation with this humbug for other reasons,” which would “fall within the jurisdiction of the penal law” (Adolf Hitler Speech).
2. My pieces of artwork are different statues, each titled “The Doll,” that were created by Hans Bellmer. Although each statue varies, Bellmer’s basic technique at representing the beauty of the human body remains unchanged. He focuses primarily on the more erotic, sexual side of the female body. In fact, as he creates more and more of his “dolls,” he begins removing body parts in order to focus on the more sexual areas. First, he removes the head and chest, simply connecting two pair of hips and legs together. Then he removes even the legs, leaving only the hips and stomach. Rather than look at facial expressions or subtle delicacies, Bellmar looks at the beauty of the body from a purely sexual point of view.
(a) According to “Beauty Without Sensuality,” the term “degenerate” originated as a medical term used to describe mentally ill or otherwise abnormal people. Once people were identified as “degenerates,” they were expected to progress downhill, with their condition steadily worsening. Clearly Hitler thought that this art was continually worsening, but that definition still leaves a bit of a gap. So, I once again relied on Merriam Webster. Browsing the definitions of “degenerate,” I found one that seemed to perfectly convey the effect Hitler believed the expressionist, surrealist, and cubist work had on the art world. It defined degenerate as “having sunk to a lower and usually corrupt and vicious state.” This definition probably portrays a relatively accurate image of just how Hitler viewed these more “abstract” forms of art. Their immodesty, lack of accuracy, and, in some cases, almost “fanciful” style almost certainly repulsed and enraged him. How dare these so-called artists taint German art’s otherwise beautiful structure and modesty? In Hitler’s speech inaugurating the “Great Exhibition of German Art,” he mentions artists who “see the present population of our nation only as rotten cretins” and who “see meadows blue, skies green, clouds sulphur yellow” and claims that these “pitiful misfortunates” are trying to “foist these products of their misinterpretation upon the age we live in” (Hitler’s Speech). As this tirade implies, Hitler clearly considers some of the more abstract forms of art to be “degenerate.” However, he also finds works with “low morals” to be degenerate. While some nude paintings were acceptable, they had to appear “removed from all materialism and sensuality” (Beauty without Sensuality). It was not considered “appropriate” for artwork to display anything remotely erotic or sensual because, as Hitler argued, that artwork could lower the morals of the entire society.
(b) Hitler would have disapproved of this artwork for two reasons. First of all, and most obviously, he would have considered this piece of work very provocative, scandalous, and completely immoral. During one speech, Hitler stated his plan to “wage an unrelenting war of purification against the last elements of putrefaction in our culture” (Hitler’s speech). However, rather than remove the sensuality to focus on the beauty, as Hitler would have preferred, Bellmar seems to achieve almost the opposite effect. Some of the statues are almost grotesque, yet all are very sexual in nature. Hitler would also have found fault in the obvious distortion of the body. Humans clearly do not have two pair of legs growing out of them in opposite directions. Hitler would have found this misrepresentation to be very “degenerate” indeed. These images ruin the “body politic” by misrepresenting the woman’s body as an erotic distortion rather than an anatomically accurate piece of artwork, such as one might see in the “Great Exhibition of German Art.”
(c) Fitting neatly with the origins of the word “degenerate,” Hitler describes the country as a “thoroughly diseased body” (Hitler’s speech). Indeed, much of the degenerate art seemed focused on the human body. However, if you consider the arguments presented in “Beauty Without Sensuality,” this makes perfect sense. Hitler believed that degenerate art was art that would somehow corrupt the people of his country. What more could corrupt morals and create havoc among his followers than erotic images of nude women? The body is the main focus of degenerate art simply because it holds the greatest capacity to portray sensuality and therefore (according to Hitler) corruption.
(d) Beauty with sensuality is a threat to the social order because it is a threat to the family. Looking back through history, everything seems to run better, both socially and politically, when everyone’s “home life” is in order. Remember “the face that launched a thousand ships.” If Helen of Troy was able to start a war, imagine what an entire country of loose morals could achieve. It may seem hard to believe that a loss in chastity or a few more affairs would create too much political turmoil. However, looking on a broader scale, families equal stability, which equals calmer seas in society. It’s not difficult to imagine that viewing Bellmer’s art could lead some people to have “inappropriate” thoughts. If people began to believe that this was socially acceptable, it’s easy to see how many people could begin to relax their morals. The Dolce and Gabbana advertisement we discussed in class is another example of artwork that some might consider to go against “social and sexual norms.” It is very provocative and goes against some of the most conservative people’s beliefs about what is socially acceptable and what is not.
3. This image of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung created a huge scandal, to say the least, when it appeared in a
2 comments:
I find many of the points that Ally makes about beauty and sensuality in art to within the Nazi culture to be very valid arguments. The regime was structured along strict lines of discipline and “good” German values. Art with sensuality, therefore, was obviously a threat to the social order. As Plato said in the Republic book X, art has the power to cause the viewers (members of a society) to act on emotion, thus causing them to act in ways that the Nazi party, according to Mosse, found to be abnormal (behaving excessively sexually or displaying emotions such as nervousness, exhaustion, etc.). Acting outside of the norms would have been a sign of degeneracy, which, as we have read, Hitler thought to be a great threat to the regime and to the eternal image of his perfect German race. This is especially problematic since the society was strongly based upon (and the people were primarily unified by) the Nazi-planted ideas of morals and values. Therefore, if the art contains sensuality which runs contrary to the state’s moral framework, it is highly dangerous to the social order. As Ally says in her post, these “relaxed morals” would make people less likely to follow the Nazi order that is based on such strict social guidelines and create rifts in the unity, which would then threaten the people in power.
The image that Ally chose for question three also seems to create a similar effect now as the degenerate art of Nazi Germany. It has been found, as she explains, to cause shock to some viewers who believe that it is damaging to the values of our present society, particularly in the US where it was (it seems) first displayed. Seeing as we are still a highly Christian nation, it is no wonder that this piece desecrating the image of the Virgin Mary creates such “havoc,” and even goes as far as to represent, some would surely argue, the deteriorating values of our society as it starts to break away a little more from its comfortable, conservative, Christian values.
I'm going to go a bit into what Maxine discussed in her post for her section 3.
I must say, I am a bit unsettled with something you said at the end of your post. I considered using the elephant dung-covered Virgin Mary painting as well, but settled on another instead. When you said, "The image created havoc even on a political level as people grew infuriated with its possible connotations about Christianity," I have to admit that my heart sank a little.
I believe this is further proof that Christianity is far too embedded into our government. When creating havoc on a "political level" means offending Christians, that tells me that there is something wrong.
We claim to be a country that separates church and state, but this is clearly not yet the case. The religious (i.e. Christian) views of our president often dictate his policy. Abortion, for example, is considered "un-Christian." Thus our President pushes for anti-abortion laws despite the number of pro-choice women. Or for another example, same-sex marriages. Because the Bible says that "normal" relationships have to be between a man and a woman, Bush's policy exemplifies this.
Amanda, in her comment right above mine, also identifies the USA as a "highly Christian nation." Nobody really denies it, but it doesn't seem that anything is being done about it either. The mixing of religion and government may be right for some countries, but it is not right for our country. We become more diverse every year as people from around the world come to live in the states. We are represented by so many religions that we should be taking everybody's opinions into account and not just the Christians'. However, our administrations continue to base their policies off of Christian values even though those values are not global.
Post a Comment