Maxine R. post 4

Maxine Rivera

Part 1

Based on what we have read thus far, and real life experience; the reason art i so threatening to authoritarian thinks and regimes is the impact it can have on a population or individual. Art, as we have learned, does not only refer to paintings, it encompasses several different forms such as music, film, photography, and theatre, and each of these will have different impacts on different people. The many differences of opinion that spring from art criticism would be seen as extremely undesirable in an authoritarian state, where there is to be only one opinion. (Ein Fuhrer. Ein Volk. Ein Reich.)

There is great freedom in being allowed to critique art and interpret as you please, but there is even greater freedom in creating art. To freely create art is to express yourself however you choose and celebrate your individual perceptions. This freedom goes against the core objectives of an authoritarian state, there should be no individual perception. A leader of one such state would probably not mind this artist and his individual views so much if art did not have such a profound impact on others, one person can be easily eliminated, a whole population is a more serious problem. Artists generally create their art as representation, as we learned in chapter one of Practices of Looking, "representation refers to the use of language and images to create meaning about the world around us." We also learned that representations often "reflect the world as it is." (p12) What happens when the "world as it is" is not the world the head of state wants the people to see? Then art becomes a threat to the illusion that the government is trying to uphold.

Art, on occasion, impresses the audience so deeply that they are moved to action. Generally we do not expect to be so deeply affected that our behavior will change, we tend to think our character stronger than that. However, the over whelming power of art has intrigued people for centuries. In Plato's The Republic Book X, Socrates warns Glaucon that if art goes unchecked "pleasure and pain will be the rulers in our State." What he means is that people will act out of passion rather than reason because they are under the enchantment of art, they imitate what is presented to them, and art is nothing if not passionate. Passion of any kind, except for that dedicated to the support of the leader, would prove highly detrimental to a regime such as Hitler's or a State such as the utopia Plato had in mind.

In addition to the above mentioned evils, when art is not representing the world as it is, it is presenting an alternate reality. Should the people of a highly controlled state find that that alternate reality appealing the consequences could be catastrophic for the leaders. It would be mind boggling for people who are constantly being smothered with strict codes of conduct to see a representation of happy, naked people, lounging in a seemingly restriction-less world where grass can be purple and cows smile. Humans suffer from a the-grass-is-greener-on-the-other-side complex and will unintentionally wonder about that alternate reality. If upon introspection they find that another way could work much better, and they rally enough support, the regime could be in real danger. If one image could spark this much trouble, a revolution, imagine a whole movement.

There are a variety of reasons that art threatens an authoritarian state but it all boils down to a matter of power; power to control people and their every thought, feeling, or action. Art gives the people an often unanticipated autonomy, Hitler was well aware of the capabilities of art and artists if left unchecked. He also recognized that art could be as powerful an ally as an enemy, he makes that clear in his speech inaugurating the 'Great Exhibition of German Art.' He presents modern art as a dangerous fad that can be countered with 'German art.' He insults modern art with every derogatory word he can while instilling fear of the artists in the people by calling them out as either deformed or criminals. He intelligently does not deprive the people of art but forcibly offers them an alternative to the "slime and ordure" being exhibited. He recruits them to aid in the fight for the return of good art, making them feel not only included, but important.

Part 2

In the context of our discussions, degeneracy is a derogatory term that almost becomes equivalent with non-conformity and abnormality. Degeneracy refers to the destruction of what George Mosse would call "respectability." It is aimed at those artists who present works that do not fall in line with the classical forms, and also at their artwork.

The artist I looked up was a German expressionist named Erich Heckel. This piece is called "Standing Child" and it was created in 1910. While the background is not as vague as those in other pieces of modern art at the time, it is still rather non-descript and clearly not the serene pastoral scene typically depicted in most classical art. The image of the girl in the foreground is a great example of "degenerate" art. She is obviously not the picture of Aryan perfection, her skin, while white, is starkly pale contrasting with the darker shades in the background. Her hair is dark and not attractively displayed, her features are not realistic, there are two eyes, a nose and a mouth, but they look almost childishly drawn. The girl's head is not shaped exactly right (Hitler might attribute that to mental illness) and her body is rather skinny, under no circumstances would this girl fit the standard of beauty held in Nazi Germany. Despite all of these criticisms I have just pointed out, she seems happy, her eyes are easy, not tense, her posture comfortable, and her mouth in a smile. That is exactly why Hitler would find degeneracy in this piece. This plainly imperfect girl, who should be ashamed of her shortcomings seems perfectly content to be herself. This threatens the "body politic" because it presents an individual who does not fit in as a happy individual, Hitler would insist that this could never be. If this kind of message were to be offered to all people how could a perfect society ever exist? If the Germans settled for mediocrity, accepting things and people as they were, and stopped striving for perfection, they would fall prey to the rest of the world. Worse yet, as the rest of the world (mostly the evil Communist-Bolshevik-Jews) took advantage of the sub par Germans, the Germans themselves would sit back and let it happen, as they would be content in their mediocrity. Therefore, art that illustrated anything less than the ideal as acceptable was only going to harm the people.

I believe the body in art was the main site for accusations of degeneracy because it was the most threatening part of the piece. Everyone could relate to the body as all viewers had one, as stated above, Hitler guilted his people into feeling ashamed of their imperfections. He selected what was beautiful and perfect and if you did not fit that mold you ought to be embarrassed an attempt to conform to the ideal. If the people got the idea that imperfections were okay, and even common, then they perhaps would not be so worried about measuring up to a standard they would never reach. Also Hitler's platform on beauty was wildly important to the foundation of the party. Many artists agreed that beauty came in other forms than blond hair and blue eyes, and they were not going to be limited by one man's opinion. Often their works represented their own ideas of beauty. If the audience saw a portrait of a woman of color and found her beautiful, that would contradict all the work Hitler put in to making everyone who wasn't Aryan hideous. The audience might then think that if he was wrong about this, could he be wrong about other things? Third, the body, especially the nude body often has connotative and dennotative ties to passion. Such passion was yet another thing good Germans should be ashamed of. In "Beauty without Sensuality" George Mosse says, "The enemies of respectability... could not control themselves, they were creatures of instinct, with unbridled passions." Why are these passionate enemies of respectability so bad for Germany? "The destruction of respectability and the destruction of society and the nation were linked." (Mosse, P25) Essentially sensuality was bad because it allowed the person to get carried away with emotion and lose their rationality, the very thing Plato feared centuries ago. It became the challenge of the good German artist to represent the nude body without the sexuality that has generally been associated with the sight. Artists accused of degeneracy did not bother to try and create something so unnatural to please Hitler, this is ironic because it is precisely the 'unnatural' aspect of their art that earned them the label of degeneracy.

Because Hitler's authoritarian society seems so foreign to us we choose to see enormous difference between his policy and our own. However, there are some areas, such as the definition of acceptable art, where we might be more similar than we think. Today we call overly sexual art 'pornography' and we put special effort into censoring such "garbage." Who decides what is pornographic and what is artistic? This problem becomes even more serious for us when the individuals involved are homosexuals, while a naked man and a naked women depicted engaging in intercourse is generally termed pornographic and heavily censored, it is even more heavily censored if the individuals are of the same sex, often they do not even have to be having sex for it to be deemed inappropriate.

Part 3

(I don't know how clear it is, above the red writing reads: "Attention: Lunatic Atheists & their Lawyers" below is the name and address of the Reverend who put up the billboard.)

I feel that this ironic piece of "art" is communicating Reverend E.F. Briggs thinks is a state ideology. It cannot be denied that our nation was at least in part founded on religion. Some of the first colonists came here expressly for the purposes of practicing religion and the word "God" can be found in many of our political documents, our pledge of allegiance, and on several important structures. We do function on the separation of church and state but to say that religion has no part in our country is plain denial. That said, a more important principle in our state is the right to choose what or who we believe in. Rather than an example of an ideology of our state, it is more the antithesis of our ideology. It would not necessarily fall under the category of degeneracy, in fact it is probably a message Hitler might approve if the wording were adjusted to support Nazi causes. The image is ironic because as the reverend scolds atheists for being anti- American, he takes part in one of the most anti- American things we can do, deny another's freedom of belief. This portrays an individual's worries about the state through art, yet it is not classical art and some might argue not art at all.