1) I think that the most threatening aspect of art to authoritarian thinkers is the possibility of multiple interpretations; the concept of individual thought. “The meanings of each image are multiple; they are created each time it is viewed” (Practices of Looking, 25). Authoritarianism allows for the complete control of the government/leader in all aspects of a person’s life. This type of power would ideally stretch into the realm of thoughts, because if a person can be stopped from having thoughts against the government, there can be no hope for his attempting to resist it at all. This is where art poses a problem; “images can produce in us a wide array of emotions and responses” (Practices of Looking, 10), and authoritarian thinkers can’t risk the people “responding” in the wrong way.
This idea was most clearly stated by Plato himself, who acknowledged the power of the image, and, as a result, spoke of the allowance only of art that would further the state.
Regarding the painter, he says in Book X of The Republic: “…we shall be right in refusing to admit him into a well-ordered State, because he awakens and nourishes and strengthens the feelings and impairs the reason.” By this point, Plato has already explained how the arts, as simple imitations, have the capability of moving us farther from the ideal. He also warns that “pleasure and pain will be the rulers in our State.”
Yet, we see that just a little bit later within the same book, Plato provides an alternative solution that would allow the arts to remain. He states: “…Let us assure our sweet friend and the sister arts of imitation that if she will only prove her title to exist in a well-ordered State we shall be delighted to receive her….” Thus, we may say that Plato is willing to keep the arts that further the state even though they may be emotionally moving… or in other words, it is not the emotional quality per se that is threatening, only the manner in which that quality sways the viewer. If the directions the art itself points towards can be controlled, the emotional aspect is no longer deemed threatening.
This idea is also clearly seen in the way the Nazis dealt with art in the Third Reich, specifically in the contrasts between the “Degenerate Art” and “Great German Art” exhibitions. The underlying principle between these two is like that which was advocated by Plato: art only for the sake of furthering the State. But the Nazis took it even one step further, and employed various means through which they could control what the people thought of the different pieces of artwork on display (in order to curb the individual interpretations which were so threatening). Two such methods were the arrangement and set-up of the images and the text surrounding all of the art in the Degenerate Art exhibition. In Barron’s piece, “Modern Art and Politics in Prewar Germany”, it states that “…temporary partitions were erected on which the object were crowded together in a chaotic arrangement… The paintings, some of which had had their frames removed, were vaguely organized… Quotations and slogans by prescribed critics and museum directors and condemnatory statements by Hitler and other party member were scrawled across the walls.”
The text itself was very clear in directing the audience to a specific way of thinking. On a subconscious level, the crowding of the images and the fact that some of them were not even in frames gives the effect that the images are not valuable or worthy in the least, especially when compared to the airy and spacious and peaceful exhibit across the street of “Great German Art”. This idea was also stated in “Practices of Looking”, where it said: “We might assume that a work of art is valuable simply because it is on display in a prestigious museum…” (32). In other words, the method of presentation affects the audience’s response to the art itself.
Also important in shaping the audience’s view towards modern art (so that they could not interpret it individually) was the comparisons that were continually drawn between such art and the work of children and insane people.
These methods were used in order to guide the audience’s interpretation of the images; it could not be left for them to view unaided, as that represented the greatest danger of art to the State. (He had to let the public view it and feel as though they were making the decision for themselves, because “if the Nazis had merely confiscated and destroyed the art, it would have been the cultural equivalent of creating a martyr” (Barron, 22). By allowing all art in, one makes way for a sense of individual understanding. This type of “freedom” is not compatible with authoritarianism, and is thus fought by it.
2) In his Cubist paintings, Pablo Picasso depicts the human body in terms of planes; the images are broken up into “pieces” and then put together again. Rather than being lifelike, the bodies themselves are removed from reality in both form and color. They appear disfigured, with colors such as one would never see on a real human being (including green, yellow, red, purple, and blue). The notion of beauty which is depicted here is not present in the actual shape of the person; there is no allusion to the things which normally define beauty in our world, such as complexion and built (these, in fact, are the aspects which are intentionally distorted). Rather, the beauty of the figure itself within the work is concentrated on the emotions it evokes… the facial expressions and body language of the subjects within the painting. This is especially easily seen in his works Weeping Woman (which suggest a sense of despair, thus giving “humanity” to the figure) and Girl before a Mirror and Dora Maar Seated, both which convey a sense of deep quiet and perhaps even “troubled peace”. In each case, there is a layer of meaning which one perceives to be there, but cannot necessarily see outright within the work itself. It is hidden… and open to interpretation: something which Hitler did not approve of or appreciate.
- According to Barron, the German word for “degenerate”, entartet, “is essentially a biological term, defining a plant or animal that has so changed that it no longer belongs to its species. By extension it refers to art that is unclassifiable or so far beyond the confines of what is accepted that it is in essence ‘non-art’.” The word “degenerate” itself may be defined as “having sunk to a lower and usually corrupt and vicious state” (Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary). The concept of degeneracy thus takes on the position that certain pieces are not worthy of even being termed as art because of their “deformities”. It claims implicitly that art is not all-encompassing; rather, it is a regulated form of expression whose lines cannot be crossed without becoming corrupt. The idea of corruption also puts the concept of degeneracy in the plane of societal harms; things cannot be degenerate without pulling others towards the same. Like a rotten apple, it must be weeded out in order to keep the rest of the group safe.
The term itself was used by the Nazis to describe certain types of artistic movements, such as Cubism, Surrealism, and Expressionism, as well as the artists who followed them. These types of art specifically were chosen due to their style, which went against Hitler’s idea of good art; art which, in essence, reflected his ideals for a German State (hence the perfect bodies, Aryan features, and “transparent” and relatively unemotional nature of the works).
- I think that Hitler saw degeneracy in the art because of its unnatural form and “hidden” emotion and meaning.. The images in the artwork are not comparable to anything seen in real life. This can be unsettling and confusing for the audience. Interpreting such art requires individual thought, as the answer to the work itself appears hidden and not in plain view. Besides this, there is a strong sense of emotion behind the figures. This aspect of art is not present within Hitler’s “good” exhibition, where the idea is to have “beauty without sensuality” (Mosse).
One cannot readily answer what the subjects themselves may be thinking within the painting. This is a dangerous concept in an authoritarian government which wishes to control even the minutest details of the lives of the people. The painting gives too much lee-way in interpretation and emotion for Hitler’s comfort. It poses a threat to the control of the government. Also, the unnatural form itself is unsettling simply because it is unknown. It is always easier to look at that which one already understands; the unknown is a challenge in itself, and challenges were not well-received by the Nazis.
In the words of Mosse, “National Socialism annexed neoromantic and neoclassical art, defining it as racially pure, an art that could easily be understood and whose depictions of men and women exemplified the Germanic race” (25). Picasso’s art was the exact opposite. It did not depict only Hitler’s idea of the “racially pure”, nor is it easily understood.
Links to images:
http://www.tate.org.uk/collection/T/T05/T05010_9.jpg
http://www.tate.org.uk/collection/T/T00/T00341_9.jpg
- It seems natural for the body to be the main site for accusations of degeneracy simply because Hitler himself was mostly concerned about the body. His idea of eugenics and the Aryan race both fall in line with the idea of perfection within the body itself. The body, the outward aspect of the person, was seen as a manifestation of what was within; the person’s real thoughts and feelings and actions came through their works. With this view, he was “justified” in separating the deformed and genetically and mentally unstable from the rest of society in order to purify it. (Hitler himself alludes to the idea of eugenics in his speech, where he says that one with eye failure as a result of inheritance “…would be the object of great interest to the Ministry of Interior of the Reich which would then have to take up the question of whether further inheritance of such gruesome malfunctioning of the eyes cannot at least be checked.”) This also explains the way in which the Nazis chose to downplay many works by comparing them to the works of the insane: “images of art by the mentally ill from the Prinzhorn Collection were placed next to photographs of works by Richard Haizmann, Eugen Hoffmann, Klee, and Kokoschka, with captions such as, ‘Which of these three drawing is the work of an inmate of a lunatic asylum?’” (Barron, 22). In short, the body was a seen as both connected to the person himself and as important for Hitler’s view of a pure society.
- The official art of the
This idea of art explains the type of paintings which could be seen in Hitler’s “good” exhibition. Though there were a lot of nude figures within the artwork themselves, the figures were never really sexual in nature; they did not evoke much feeling. The reasoning for their lack of clothing was in face of an entirely different nature- in order to show the athletic qualities and strength of the German population. “…Public representations of men and women… transcended sensuality” (28). By taking something which generally does awaken feelings within a person, and turning it into an “emotion-less” piece, the Nazis are once again ensuring their power of the entire population through the arts. The difference here is that in this case, it is done under the guise of respectability; nudes are shown… but instead of the subjects themselves being the subject of moral scrutiny, the argument is focused on the “sensuality” within the image. By doing this, they are able to accomplish two goals: the ridding of emotion and the raising of the German ideal.
The type of art here reminds me of the work Riefenstahl did with the Nuba. They, just as the subjects in the artwork of the Third Reich, were shown without much clothing… but with an emphasis on the athletic nature of their bodies-their strength and bodily perfection. The “flare-up” in this case was due to this very connection between the types of artwork. The pictures, because of their emphasis on such aspects, was said by Sontag to reflect Nazi ideals.
3) EDITORIAL; Ms. Bolden's Black Mark
This article talks about a case in which the superintendent of
This case is an example of authoritarian worries about art as the image in question depicted homosexuality, regarded by Hitler “as a sickness that poisoned both body and mind” (Mosse 30). Like the types of art which were regarded as degenerate, this was seen as being unnatural, and even somewhat unknown. The same is true in some ways today among the more conservative circles, both among the people and politically. It goes against the original state ideology which, though separated from religion, was at the same time based upon the teachings of the Bible.
The image itself would convey the values of freedom; limited government control of people (since the topic is itself of importance politically, among presidential candidates) and the social freedom to choose one’s way of living. It also highlights the freedom of expression which is due to all peoples. All of these values are present in the image of a homosexual couple kissing because the topic is itself controversial. Freedoms cannot be evaluated based on things that are generally acceptable; they must be tested against the limits of the society. On the flip side, the initial response to the image (blotting it out of the yearbook), conveys the political/religious/ethical value of marriage between man and woman (heterosexual couples)… hence the culture “war”.
2 comments:
I thought your analysis of the human beauty in Picasso's paintings was very interesting. The humans in his paintings are in no way aesthetically pleasing. I thought it was very insightful that you claimed that the beauty of the people in Picasso's paintings come from their emotions, and I agree with you. These strong emotions, especially in The Weeping Woman, make Picasso's subjects seem more human and real than the expressionless, emotionally void people of Hitler's "Good German Art."
I really liked the reason you used as to why art can seem threatening. The variable aspect of art would definitely be unnerving to anyone whose plan is so dependent on precise manipulation. That in itself should have been enough to destroy art, without even looking at its other trouble causing qualities.
I also liked how you defended your reason as the best and primary one. Hitler DID want art. He just wanted art in which he can control the way they are viewed to fit his one specific purpose. If he is able to mold the meaning to his will than the variable aspect is no longer an issue and thus some art is not only allowed but encouraged as a manipulations tool.
Post a Comment