Part I
We are all constantly surrounded by arguments of various kinds, natures, and intents. Some of them a blatant (vote for this politician, buy this tooth paste); others are less so. Some of these arguments convince us, and others do not. For an argument to fail to be successfully convincing, those hearing or seeing it must recognize at some level that an argument is being made, have their defenses up, and find enough flaws in the argument to reject it. This is especially difficult when one does not know that one is being presented with an argument, as is the case with any medium that is non-propositional or that contains propositions of a different nature. Art is one such medium.
For the most time in art, no one explicitly labels what the point, purpose, or argument the piece is making. As such, viewers often are unaware that they are being presented with an argument, and are therefore more likely to buy into it without resisting. Whether the piece is making an argument by glorifying sex or by debasing war, the viewer can still be moved without any awareness that he or she is accepting an argument without consideration of its premises, or even really its conclusions.
Due to these traits, art has an ability to influence, motivate, and stir up people. Any worthwhile authoritarian leader will have spent his or her time pondering any method by which his or her subjects might be turned against the government or moved to act (or even think), and should recognize this ability or art’s. This is why art is threatening. Plato agrees that art can cause the people to be swayed from what he considers to be the good and moral life. He expressed concerns that if the future leaders of the Republic (the Philosopher-Kings) were to be brought up around what Plato considers morally perverse art, they might not be apt leaders. For this reason, and no doubt because it might cause the lower classes to question authority based on the works of the artists (whom Plato considers a very unqualified authority to be doing the questioning), Plato thought most art should be banned. It could accomplish no tangible good, and yet could result in some very tangible bad.
Interestingly, there are parallels between Plato’s writings in the Republic and Hitler’s speech commemorating the opening of the “Great Exhibition of German Art.” They both express rationales for the censorship or certain types of art, and they both seem to favor similarly themed works. They do not, however, spend most of their time focusing on the same aspects of art. On a whole Plato seems most concerned with art’s nature as an imitation of an imitation, a sort of philosophical issue that pertains to art’s ability (or lack thereof) to adequately represent not only reality, but also the ideal Forms. Hitler, on the other hand, seems less preoccupied with the philosophical nature of art and more concerned with the detrimental effect that “degenerate” art could have on a society. Plato does touch on this briefly (just as Hitler does ridicule modern art for its failure to directly represent physical reality), but Hitler’s concerns for moral welfare far exceed Plato’s. Hitler is obsesses with the notion of degeneracy, and ironically enough, each area of moral normality he establishes creates one more area of abnormality with which he will eventually have to contend.
Part II
http://teachers.westport.k12.ct.us/artsmarts/Projects/Paul%20K2.jpg
http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/~pex/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/paulklee.jpg\
http://www.storyboardtoys.com/gallery/Rebecca2Large.jpg
http://www.zoppolhead.com/images/paul.jpg
One of the fairly well-known artists contributing to the surrealism, cubism, and primitive art movements was Paul Klee. Born in
After the end of World War I, Klee took a teaching position at the Bauhaus school. He later moved to
a) The concept of degeneracy is handled so effectively in Mosse’s article that is makes it difficult to find an original way to answer this question. Degeneracy is a label applied to people, things, or ideas that are (putatively) in some way defective, devolving, self-destructive, morally undesirable, and beyond redemption. It’s an effective term, for it not attacks the moral integrity of the target, but it also implies that the target is sick and depraved. It has all the worst parts of “insane” but lacks to therapeutic aspect of insanity that renders the insane not responsible for their actions; the degenerate chose their sins. It is used primarily as a way of describing a person or group that one wishes to vilify and eliminate. One can call someone or something as wrong, mistaken, mislead, or a variety of other terms if one simply wishes to discredit and dismiss one’s opponent. Degenerate, however, is a term one only uses to gain the moral high ground and have the opponent stamped out for their perceived vices.
b) Klee’s artwork is difficult to find offensive. The images are benign, colorful, and almost childlike. The only area in which Hitler and the other ranking Nazis could find them offensive is accurate representation. Klee’s art is very far from realism, and it got farther away as he got older. His interest in color experimentation and primitive art apparently were offensive to the Nazis. The paintings failed to accurately represent the things that they were supposed to be. Hitler decided that only someone with defective eyes or a defective mind would find it interesting to paint a world that was different than the real one, and since anything defective was a hint to inner perversions and degeneracy, it had to be outlawed. The largest threat the work itself presented was an invitation to see the world in a different way. If everyone began imagining new and innovative ways to see the world, it would be difficult for any leader or government to control what people think and feel.
c) The body is a remarkable source of contention, given that we all have them and they (for the most part) behave in very similar ways. For thousands of years, people have been attempting to seek and strike a balance between the body and the “mind” (long considered a totally separate, non-physical entity). This dichotomy is clearly represented in Christianity, leading some to take the concept as far as mortification of the flesh. The body was considered evil, base, and sinful, a thing to be controlled.
Some of this mentality had dissolved (at least on the conscious level) by the time that the Nazis had risen to power. The focus on Classical antiquity as a source of inspiration also helped to ease some of the antagonism directed toward the physical body. The Greeks and Romans had not had such reservations, associating the physical and mental very closely (so closely, in fact, that one could not be considered a good person if one were unintelligent or physically impaired). The interplay between the Classical and the Christian might well explain, in part, some of the strange contradictions present in the Nazis’ views on the body in art. True to the Greeks, they sought perfection of form, but their fanatical devotion to decency and normalcy did not allow them to be emotionally or physically stirred by these representations of the body. This leads to the rise of the focus on beauty without sensuality about which Mosse writes.
As for Klee’s representations of the body, there is not much in the way of degeneracy. Again, an inaccuracy of appearance is the worst that could be said about his versions of humans. They are neither sexualized nor grotesque, but rather simple and childish.
d) I’ve already touched on this a little in the section above, but I think it could be expanded further. Beauty that is not divorced from sensuality has the ability to move viewers and incite in them a mental connection between the two. The sensual (and sexual) gets passed off as beautiful. This is precisely the kind of attitude that the Nazis did not want spreading. Sensuality and the corresponding emotions and passions could threaten to take a person over and undermine the kind of stability and conservativism the Nazis craved. This was why beauty and sensuality had to be strictly separated; given art’s ability to convince people through its non-propositional arguments, people would buy into the fact that sensuality was beautiful and therefore desirable.
Part III
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/03/17/images/large/BSecti_Flagha_1456247.jpg
This is a slightly different look at a work that some are calling degenerate and offensive. There is certainly a proportion of mainstream Americans who would not be bothered by this piece (some would certainly even applaud it), but to others it is an offensive abomination. This image of a Confederate flag hanging from a gallows (the work’s title: The Proper Way to Hang a Confederate Flag) has been called tasteless by some, and akin to flag burning by others.
The political nature of the piece is fairly clear: an attack on the short-lived Confederacy with the full knowledge that the outrage will be fairly contained to the small group of people who (for some unfathomable reason) still respect the Confederate flag. The piece itself makes some very clear political and ethical claims. Everything that the Confederacy stood for political and ethically is condemned along with the issue of slavery and racism. Most Americans might not be overly concerned, viewing it as a fitting (even humorous) piece of commentary, but others’ values would make the art degenerate. Degeneracy is all relevant to the cultural, political, and ethical leanings of any given individual.
2 comments:
I think you made a really good point in connecting the power of art to the idea of its argument being undetectable. It makes a lot of sense (especially if the viewer does draw conclusions based on the argument, and thinks they are his own), yet also raises a question: In the case of multiple interpretations... how effective can an argument be that is misunderstood? (Also, is it still true today that the arguments made through art are hidden?)
As a side note... I found it interesting that "Hitler’s concerns for moral welfare far exceed Plato’s." I guess this brings up the question again of whether he really believed in what he was doing, or not.
Regarding the threat of Klee's work, you described it perfectly in the sentence: "The largest threat the work itself presented was an invitation to see the world in a different way." Would this be considered Klee's "argument" as well, and if so, is it the same as all/most similar "degenerate" art pieces? Perhaps each artist was simply trying to get that same idea across, just in different ways. That would answer my above question (because the different interpretations would be exactly what the artists are arguing for)... yet that view feels a bit too simplistic. To me.
Also very true: "Degeneracy is all relevant to the cultural, political, and ethical leanings of any given individual."
I thought the confederate flag hanging from the gallows was a particularly good example of art that has caused turmoil in the country. I think Rob brought up an excellent point when he mentioned how the image was really only offensive to a relatively small number of people. In this case, the number of people who object to the image is not the issue. The political uproar arises instead from the intensity of these handful of people's objections. While there may not be many people who dislike the image, those who do dislike it do not simply feel a slight aversion to it. Rather, they detest it with passion. Relating this to Nazi Germany, there was not necessarily a large group opposed to the so-called "degenerate" art before Hitler began his campaign against it. Rather, Hitler's own hatred of the art was so intense that he was able to cause much of the turmoil himself. Later, through his degenerate art exhibit, he was able to convince more people of the art's "degenerate" qualities.However, at the onset of his campaign, it was his hatred of the art, not Germany's, that ostracized the degenerate art and its artists.
Post a Comment