Morgan, Post 4

Morgan Frost

1. Art is so threatening to authoritarian thinkers and regimes, that even the definition of the word “authoritarian” is challenged by the ideals of art. Allowing people to express themselves is giving them individual power, a contradiction to the subjection to authority and sacrifice of personal freedom that constitutes authoritarian control. Offering this freedom through art, people can form and express their own opinions. But as authoritarian Hitler mentions in his speech, the people should all believe in one set of values that is “everlasting” and “German.” He denounces “modern art” for its ever-changing values. Here we see that it is in the authoritarian’s best interest for everyone to be of the same opinion. In this way he has control and has unified the nation. When people do not have individual power, they are suppressed from questioning authority and initiating changes in the social or political structure and therefore undermining the authoritarian method. Plato also supports a nation’s unity and progress, and recognizes that art can cause people to stray to “disharmony and conflict.” He holds the view that only the educated should be ruling, and this authoritarian thinking has no room for free-thinking artists or the free thought they might incite in their viewers.
2. Expressionist artist Otto Mueller often depicts the human body in nudity and within a nature setting. The paintings are not realistic in the sense that one could ever mistake them for reality (due to slightly distorted shapes and blending of color), but human bodies are distinguishable. His work also portrays sensuality between women. Their bodies are depicted very smooth and flowing into one another and into the landscape, as if to say the emotions captured and the relationship between them is natural. The homosexual nature of the paintings thus comes across as beautiful, and the calm nudity beautifies the women’s bodies.
1. Degeneracy is in layman’s terms the opposite of generating, which is creating. So the concept of degeneracy deals with the backward movement of any thing away from progress. This concept can be applied to progress of virtually anything toward its product, and specifically in this class we see the term “degenerate” used by Hitler and the Nazis. The product being referred to is a unified Germany under authoritarian rule of Hitler and his Nazi party. Hitler’s method for achieving this Germany is to eliminate that which is deemed “degenerate.” In his view, the creation to strive for is that of a nation free of “degenerate” or abnormal people (“the mentally ill, Jews, homosexuals, habitual criminals,” etc.)(Mosse). Not only was this new Germany being physically generated to Hitler’s ideals, but politically as well. Art and the media were heavily monitored to influence the people to succumb to the political views of the Nazi Party. People not on board with the Nazi ideals and supportive of war were a threat and thus considered “degenerate” to the new Germany.
2. The first thing that I see in Mueller’s work that Hitler would have viewed as degenerate is the obvious deviation from a realistic portrayal of people. As discussed earlier, these pieces are examples of expressionism, and the paintings are not made as if a direct representation of what Mueller saw. Hitler might refer to this as a “misinterpretation” and account it to “eyesight-deformation” (Hitler). The other aspect that Hitler might see as “degenerate” is the nude sensuality of the women. Art that was accepted into the Great German Art Exhibition could be nude if it lacked sensuality (Mosse). These pieces, however, show an intimate connection between the women that suggests more than mere nudity—but a sensual connection. And though “lesbianism (was) ignored as a punishable crime” while male homosexuality was persecuted, homosexual activity was still deemed degenerate (Mosse). Heinrich Himmler, leader of the SS, even refers to “homosexuality as a sickness that poisoned both body and mind” (Mosse). And so the homosexuality portrayed in these paintings are another aspect that make them “degenerate” to German art.

i. Hitler viewed his nation as an organism, with him as the brain and center of control of the society. Therefore his opinions and political agenda was also that of the people. They should think as he does. The body is one, and there are no individuals except that work for the good of the body as a whole. With an “abnormality” such as homosexuality being beautified in Mueller’s works, they are a direct threat to the status quo that Hitler was trying to uphold for his “body politic” free from “degenerate” people and ideas. Himmler, who viewed homosexuality as an “illness,” also used the body complex to show that the riddance of an “illness” such as homosexuality is positive, just like curing an actual physical ailment (Mosse). And so extinguishing these abnormal people becomes like removing a wart from your skin, it is for the improvement of the body as a whole, and what is being removed is worthless “degenerate” material.

3. The body in art was the main site for accusations of degeneracy because it is easy to observe degenerate traits through visual manifestation. The Germans even had nude art that was considered what a model German should look like, among these Greek art and pictures of Olympic athletes (Mosse). These are used as standards by which to compare the human shape, and provide the sample that all human art forms should strive to portray. The body, especially in nudity, is also connected to sexuality. And one of the main criteria for art to be considered “degenerate” by National Socialism is sensuality (Mosse). Many artist’s depiction of the human body involved sensuality, and this was considered a “danger to society” because it posed a “revolt against respectability” and the uniform German ideals the Nazis were pushing on the public (Mosse).

i. As discussed earlier, the body was also used as a metaphor for the structure of Hitler’s authoritarian regime. In his speech he connects the abnormalities he wants to eradicate from the German population with such things as “diseased bodies” and “deformations” (Hitler). And curing the society of these “degenerates” is the same process the body goes through: a “purge” and “purification” (Hitler). So here we see that the body in art is not important only because of its connection with sensuality and readily identifiable abnormalities or deviations from reality, but also as a representation of the political structure Hitler and the Nazis envisioned.

4. Beauty with sensuality in art can justify what Mosse claims it causes: “a danger to society” through “a revolt against respectability.” The reason for this is that the sensuality of a piece of work can come between the viewer and the message of the art. This especially depends on the culture. For example, an American might be taken aback by a painting of naked women and the shock and embarrassment from the sensuality can cause a biased perspective on the piece as a whole. Instead of seeing value in the work, this American might only see it as inappropriate and pornographic. A tribal African, however, can look at the same painting and see past the body, without connecting it to sensuality whatsoever. Instead he or she can look at the content of the painting and find meaning without a socially caused lens changing the vantage point. So as Mosse talks about the modern German society, it is true that beauty portrayed with sensuality can threaten social order. One example that comes to mind is the Gabbana ad that Christopher McCauley used in a previous post. Mosse would see this as a rejection especially of sexual norms, with its portrayal of male homosexuality. (Though in today’s America, the purpose of this advertisement actually is to revolt against a social norm, and help evolve it to include different perspectives.)
2. 
3. b: This image displays a “monstrous” portrayal of the possibilities in the future of stem cell harvesting. The designer Michael Burton envisions Future Farm, where people can turn their bodies into stem cell harvests. This presents an argument about the views on stem cell research. Burton ventures into this imagined realm where he can answer the questions, how far might we go with stem cells? Can we cross a line that we shouldn’t? This image helps us ponder our own values about stem cell research, and holds its own value that the human reach into the tinkering of our production can extend too far. The picture comes across as monstrous and even somewhat comical, but the underlying tone is that of a warning. Even though it seems ridiculous, and possibly because it seems ridiculous, we should question our journey further into the scientific exploration and alteration with stem cells.