Tawny N post 4

Tawny Najjar

1. Art has always been a means for people to express their emotions, to convey their views, and to put forth a message to the general public. Art can be used as a powerful tool or a weapon, depending on who uses it, and for what purposes. In Nazi Germany, there was much controversy over what role art works would play. Many art pieces were deemed “degenerate,” viewed to be detrimental to the National Socialist movement. The Nazis felt threatened by some of the more controversial and “modern” artworks. In his speech during the inauguration of the “Great Exhibition of German Art,” Hitler stated, “National-Socialism has made it its primary task to rid the German Reich, and thus, the German people and it life of all those influences which are fatal and ruinous to its existence” (Adolf 441). The Nazis despised any hint of abnormality, preying upon the homosexuals, cripples, Jews, and other “less superior” races. Their ideal society was one of uniformity and strict obedience to the social norms. Certain art movements, such as Cubism, Surrealism, Impressionism, and Dadaism, were said to be “only the artifactitious stammerings of men to whom God has denied the grace of a truly artistic talent, and in its place has awarded them the gift of jabbering or deception” (Adolf 440). Such art forms went against the social norms of respectability, a concept that was highly valued and sternly controlled by the Nazis. In Beauty without Sensuality, the author talked about how respectability ensured security, order, and the maintenance of values, taming the chaos that seemed always to threaten society (Beauty 25). The author later stated, “Works by modern artists were treated not as evidence of individual creativity but as representative of something undesirable…it was a reaction of a society that felt itself to be under a constant threat, a society, moreover, that was bonded together by respectability and the security that it radiated” (Beauty 30). The Nazis depended on the idea of respectability to form a cohesiveness for their society, a way to keep everyone in line, and block out all of the thoughts and ideas that would go against what the National Socialist party said and believed. The “modern art” gave people a voice, a way to express their views and beliefs that were outside the realms of that “respectable” bubble. For example, jazz was highly disliked by the Nazis, mostly because that genre of music is based on improvisation, on what the musician feels at the moment. This genre, along with modern artwork, took away the firm control that the Nazis had over how to influence the German people. The Nazis had a specific message to send to the people, and they could not allow individualists to take away that power and influence. By allowing that art to become popular, the Nazis would be relinquishing some of their power.

2. One of the impressionist artists during that time was Otto Mueller (1874-1930). He was a German painter and printmaker, whose mother was rumored to have been a gypsy. On an interesting note, Hitler despised gypsies as well, and had many of them killed during the Holocaust. Mueller’s most common theme was models painted in nature.

In one of his works, “Boy in front of two girls, one standing, one seated” (1918-1919), Mueller uses a natural color scheme to bring forth the essence of nature. The subjects are all in the nude, and as the title says, two are standing and one is sitting down. No one is turned toward the artist, or the viewer; they are either turned to the side or facing away – not in shame or embarrassment, but as if they do not even know anyone else exists outside of their own little world. There are no distinct faces; they are blurred and nondescript. However, the title is confusing and seems slightly contradicting, because it states that there are three subjects in the painting, but it appears that there are four. On the left, there seems to be two people, standing side-by-side, on being a woman, and the other unidentifiable. Mueller was said to paint his subjects in nature, removing all the realistic descriptions, so that the focus was more on being one with nature. The beauty in this painting is very simplistic – natural, innocent, peaceful. There is no bold pretense of sexuality, even though the subjects are naked. Mueller deviates from reality by giving the subjects no identity, no purpose. They seem to be basking in nature, enjoying their freedom and openness.

2a. The Nazis used the term “degenerate” to label the artworks that “stray all too easily into the realm of folly” (Beauty 25). They believed these “abnormal” pieces of art to be destructive to the German society, because the artworks put unwanted ideas into the minds of the German people. The Nazis wanted regularity and strict principles for the people to follow. The term degenerate was first used as a medical term to describe the “condition of those who had departed from the ‘normal’ because of shattered nerves, inherited abnormalities, or behavioral or sexual excess…such conditions signaled the start of a process that would inevitably lead to destruction” (Beauty 26).

2b. The artwork composed by Mueller was deemed degenerate because it strayed from the ideal beauty and reality that the Nazis worked so hard to maintain. Mueller’s painting idealized being one with nature, giving in to those primitive desires, and developing a more simplistic way of life. The Nazis were all in favor of progression and improving society, while Mueller seemed to be saying that people should just enjoy how life is and embrace who and what they are. The nude subjects present the idea that humans are controlled by nature; they are vulnerable. Hitler wanted to be viewed as being all-powerful and all-knowing. He would not want to be thought of as being susceptible to the forces of nature.

2c. The body was the main site of accusations about degeneracy because it had to do specifically with people. For example, when a figure is painted in the nude, it usually makes them seem more vulnerable, more capable of being hurt, controlled, and most of all, of being interpreted. The subject cannot hide themselves as well when they are naked. In his speech, Hitler used the body as a metaphor, by saying, “an already thoroughly diseased body” (handout p1), when he talked about Germany being bombarded with modern art, after just losing the war. Hitler viewed Germany as a body, a body that he would not allow to be vulnerable.

2d. In Beauty without Sensuality, George Mosse argued that beauty with sensuality was a threat to the social order, a rejection of social and sexual norms. On page twenty-six, he stated, “The ideal of beauty played a dominant role as a symbol of morality, extending far beyond the realm of art. Beauty helped to maintain control over the passions.” This ideal beauty depicted how the German society wanted to have itself viewed. It wanted to be viewed as strong, powerful, devoid of any vulnerability and abnormalities. The paintings and statues that depicted naked males were perceived as sexless, beyond the personal and the sensual, and regarded as “dynamic, promising to bring about a timeless order and a cure to an ailing world” (Beauty 27). However, women were usually clothed, or the pictures were of mothers, in an attempt to take out any sexuality.

3. This picture represents one of the most heated culture wars of our time. The debate concerning abortion has been highly controversial, and very sensitive, because it involves everyday people. This image depicts a lifeless fetus, held in a person’s hand. It was on a website that was against abortion. It shows death at its harshest, merciless and cold. From everything that I have read about the Nazis trying to censor artwork that was contradictory to their ideals, this image would have been highly detrimental to their regime. Hitler sought power and control, and one of the ultimate forms of control is power over death, being able to choose life or death. During the Nazi’s rule, Hitler had the power to choose whether people lived or died. However, the consequences of these actions were not highly publicized. With abortion, some one has the power to choose whether a human lives or dies. This image shows the consequences of the decision to take a life away. The picture is ugly and painful to look at. It makes the viewer’s stomach churn, and brings forth a feeling of distaste. From looking at the image, some questions that come to mind are, what happens when people are given too much power? What happens when that power goes to their heads? This image shows the negative affects of having a lot of power.

Jenn Post 4

Jenn Shea

1) The basic idea that an artist has the power to manipulate the medium that he or she uses to deliver a message or portray a certain idea threatens a totalitarian leader because it may lead to disorder and discordance within the state. In Book X of Plato’s Republic, Plato asserts that art can only be appreciated if it can coexist with a well ordered state: “…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…” Further, artist’s have the ability to use their creations as a means of speaking out against an authoritarian state in possibly a more and subtle manner. Art allows a freedom and a release of expression that may not be favored by the particular regime or leader. For example, in reference to Hitler’s Nazi regime, what he considered degenerate art was particularly harmful to his power because it lacked respectability in its deception of reality and portrayal of human flaw. As stated in the “Beauty without Sensuality” reading, “Respectability ensured security, order, and the maintenance of values, taming the chaos that seemed always to threaten society, it reflected people’s attitudes toward themselves and toward all that was ‘different’” (Mosse 25). Because art forms of Impressionism, Expressionism, Cubism, etc were considered degenerate, they posed a threat to the security of the state because they expressed ideas that went against the principles defined by Hitler and the Nazi party. Hitler and his party any distortion of reality or of beauty, also expressed by Mosse: “Society expressed its morality in terms of generally accepted ideals of beauty while projecting its fears and ideas of ugliness onto the very groups the National Socialists were eventually determined to exterminate: Jews, homosexuals, habitual criminals, and the mentally disturbed” (29).

2) Karl Hofer was a German expressionist painter. Many of his paintings, although few survived from the period, involve nude depictions of young men and women in relaxed settings and positions. For example, in his drawing titled “Bathers,” while showing what could well be a close representation of the actual form of a human body, deviate from what Hitler would consider beauty because they are not the ideal representation of masculinity; they are skinny bodies with no sign of male power or strength. Another example is his work titled “Dancers,” which depicts two female bodies in dance but shows the lines of transition between their bodily movements in the rhythm of their dance. The entanglement of multiple legs, the lack of definition in the body to reflect a realistic human quality, and the lack of realistic human facial aspect including the use of simple lines for eyes, mouth, and nose (which are also used in the “Bathers” work) show a clear detachment from reality. In addition, Mosse might argue that these women do not depict beauty because the position of their heads and bodies in the dance makes the drawing seem sensual rather than simply showing the female body in a more raw and non-sensationalized manner.

a) Degeneracy in medical terms, according to Mosse, identified those who had “departed from the ‘normal’ because of shattered nerves, inherited abnormalities, or behavioral or sexual excess” (26). It was basically used to describe not only artwork that portrayed atypical representations of the human physique, but also individuals themselves who deviated from the societal norm established by Hitler and the Nazi party. Such deviation can be defined by homosexuality, mental “feebleness,” physical deformities, and basically anything else that did not match the ideal human composition that Hitler envisioned.

b) In the artwork I looked up by Hofer, I think Hitler would have rejected most of it because it portrayed the human body solely through rough lines and did not show the ideal human body. In addition, with specific reference to the “Bathers” painting, Hitler probably would have identified the grouping of three men who did not bear the S.A. physique as homosexual, especially because the drawing’s title infers that the men were bathing together. To refer to a course text, in Mosse’s “Beauty without Sexuality,” he states that, “In this context it is not without significance that nudism was banned immediately after the Nazis came to power…On much the same level was a warning issued by the Reichsministerium des Innern…in 1945 to the effect that nude bathing by people of the same sex could be seen as the first step toward the violation of Paragraph 175, which punished homosexual acts” (28). He also would have criticized their lack of brawn. Finally, Hitler would have seen a majority of Hofer’s work as degenerate because of its indefinite lines and overall abstractness. His need for straightforward artwork can be seen in his speech for the inauguration of the “Great Exhibition of German Art”: “‘Works of art’ which cannot be understood in themselves but, for the justification of their existence, need those bombastic instructions for their use, finally reaching that intimidated soul, who is patiently willing to accept such stupid or impertinent nonsense-these works of art from now on will no longer find their way to the German people” (440). These images thus posed the threat of introducing homosexuality or sexuality in general into Germany, and also, according to Hitler and Plato in more basic terms, would have led to a disordered state because they did not support or uphold the progress of the state by going against its principles.

c) I believe that the body in art was criticized for degeneracy because Hitler was most focused on the physical flaws within the human race. Although landscapes, animals, and abstract figures may have also been seen as deviants from the norm, Hitler at the time was more concerned about his plans for euthanasia and perfecting the human race, beginning in Germany. By pointing out the physical flaws in artistic portrayals of the human body, Hitler quite possibly could have been gathering support for this plan by drawing others’ attention to social deviants. He also seems to be making personal attacks on the artists as degenerates themselves when, in reference to the visual deception in such “degenerate” art in his speech, he says, “Either these so-called ‘artists’ really see things this way and therefore believe in what they depict; then we would have to examine their eyesight-deformation to see if it is the product of a mechanical failure or of inheritance” (441).

d) I think that George Mosse’s argument that beauty with sensuality is dangerous to the social norm, although clearly a prevalent belief in Germany at the time, is not suited to art of today according to modern cultural standards. I believe that the establishment of this idea is in itself dangerous because it places limitations on the artistic expression of individuals, which again at the time in Germany was acceptable. In addition, in the “Fascinating Fascism” reading assigned for last week by Sontag, I found it quite interesting when she refers to SS uniforms as sex symbols, which quite contradicts the idea of avoiding sensuality: “But uniforms are not the same thing as photographs of uniforms-which are erotic materials and photographs of SS uniforms are the units of a particularly powerful and widespread sexual fantasy” (Sontag Part II). In addition, although we have not read about this but have rather discussed it in class, the Justin Timberlake-Janet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction” during the Super Bowl is another good example of beauty and sensuality coming into conflict. Whether or not the shirt was meant to be ripped is unknown, but either way, the general public for the most part saw how such exposure can almost ruin a piece of art or a performance. In that sense, sensuality is not so much dangerous as it is unnecessary and distracting from the main purpose of what is being displayed.

3) By some people’s standards, including Hitler’s and his party, this image would be seen as “degenerate” in its blatant depiction of male homosexuality, which Nazi Germany saw as straying from the sexual norm. Clearly, this is a very anti-republic/ anti-bush ad, but it represents the very pressing and prominent issue in the United States of gay rights and legalizing same-sex marriage. It addresses the value of equality despite sexual orientation and this issue’s presence in the political arena. It also makes an attack on President Bush about how he is hindering love and increasing violence and dishonesty in the United States. Plato would have seen this ad as hindering the progress of the state, but I disagree and believe that it instead encourages social progress within the country despite the idea that Hitler and even some individuals today may consider “degenerate.”

http://www.amyl.org.uk/img/mandate.gif

Aaron Post 4

I think that the reason Authoritarian thinkers or leaders are afraid of art and its affects is because art inspires emotion. When people act on their emotions they will do things they wouldn’t do normally and are thus harder for leaders of Authoritarian regimes to control. This is why it makes sense that Plato would want to get rid of all the poets and artists from his ideal Republic. Plato believed that Reason was the only way to the Truth and that emotions were futile and got in the way. If an artist puts out an image that portrays a stance against the government he would be able to inspire people in a way that only an artist can. There is just something inexplicable about the way the arts can move and inspire us. In the “Beauty without Sensuality” reading it explains that at the time of the Exhibit of Degenerate Art “unbridled passions” were seen as the enemy of respectability (p.25). Authoritarian leaders often tried to reach their people by appealing to their emotions (Triumph of the Will is a perfect example), so they understood the power emotions have and were afraid artists could use their work to provoke dissent from the Authoritarian regime. Authoritarianism is all about the complete control of the subject including all thoughts and emotions, and the strict regulation of art is one of the best ways to control emotion and to get inside the head of the people you are trying to essentially brainwash to follow you.

As a way to monitor all images that reached the public, Hitler came up with the concept of degeneracy. On p.26 of the Mosse article degeneracy is defined as any departure from the norm because of a behavioral excess. This was often associated with an illness or sexual deviance. Of course this “norm” was defined and closely monitored by Hitler. Through things such as the Exhibit of Degenerate Art, Hitler gave the illusion of leaving the definition of the norm up to the German people, when really they were being force-fed Hitler’s ideas.

One of the artists that was featured in the exhibit of Degenerate Art created by Hitler and the Third Reich was Ernst Ludwig Kirchner. Some of Kirchner’s paintings are landscapes with distorted views of buildings and nature. Often the buildings would be pink and purple and the sky green or other mix of "abnormal" colors. An example of this is the work entitled “View of Dresden: Schlossplatz”. It is important to note this kind of distortion of reality of a landscape, but what Hitler was really concerned with was depictions of the human body. Hitler had built his entire state on the idea of the “German body” being superior to that of all other races and he did not want this challenged by degenerate, or distorted and sickly, representations of the body. The images I found most interesting with respect to the human body were sketch-like images of people in various positions. One example of this is the piece entitled “Two Figures”. The bodies are distorted sketches of what a human actually looks like and the background is basically random scribbles. It is certainly not trying to depict the ideal “German body”. Instead it reminds me of Plato’s idea of the world of forms and the world of shadows. This drawing seems to be depicting a shadow or reflection of the ideal body, this is like the one we would see in the world of shadows in which we live. In this respect Plato might say that the “degenerate” sketch of the body is actually closer to the reality we see in our world (the world of shadows) and that Hitler was trying to force the idea of the “ideal body” on those people who have not been enlightened and have not realized the world of forms (those who are still chained up in the cave).

In a way the expressionist artists were actually thinking on a higher level that Hitler couldn’t understand and was therefore afraid of. The Expressionist painters realized that humans are depraved beings that have all sorts of problems and issues inside their confused minds. They then took these inward feelings and displayed them outwardly through their depictions of the human body in art. Hitler couldn’t make this connection and was only concerned with the literal, physical interpretation and therefore missed the point of the art and saw it as sickly or childish.

As far as the idea of “beauty without sensuality”, I do not think the distortion of the human body or nudity necessarily implies sensuality. Hitler was trying to idealize the body and hold it up on a pedestal to be admired but not lusted after. While looking through Kirchner’s works I found plenty of nude depictions of the human body, but did not find anything overtly sexual. While some of the Expressionist artists were creating overtly sexual works of art, I think most of the problem came from this unnecessary paranoia Hitler had towards the whole Expressionist movement and his built up anger because of his own inability to become an artist.

The image below is commenting on the way we stereotype certain races as terrorists. The skull towards the top of the picture is definitely a distortion of the human head. Hitler would classify this piece of art as degenerate because physically it is not an accurate depiction of reality. The message behind the image is what Hitler would fail to acknowledge. The ambiguous but evil face in the bottom right corner shows us that terrorism should be associated with evil, not with a certain race or nationality. In that way this art is not degenerate at all and is actually very good art with an important message. Art should not just be taken for face value. You have to go beyond the physical and consider the emotions and undertones of the work of art. Art is made to depict reality, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the physical reality we see each day.

Kim post 4

Kim Hambright

Authoritarianism, by definition, is essentially complete governmental control. In an authoritarian society, the goal for the government is to tunnel the vision of its populous, allowing only the things deemed “appropriate” to be seen or heard. An authoritarian social structure, therefore, has no place for insightful art. The act of an individual assessing a piece of art with their own thoughts and opinions can indeed be very detrimental to an authoritarian society. In cases such as anti-governmental propaganda, art can achieve exactly what an authoritarian government is trying to prevent. Instead of unifying the State, which Plato and Hitler agree to be a positive thing, art can act as propaganda to stir new and anti-Nazi ideas into the mind of the German population.

Even without propagandistic tendencies, art can be dangerous to an authoritarian society. Hitler, for instance, believed in the purification and beauty of Germans, to what he called the Aryan race. A work of art exhibiting a beautiful dark-haired woman with perfect, god-like qualities would counter-act Hitler’s claim of blonde-haired beauty. The viewers of such an artwork would be exposed to ideas opposite of Hitler’s and possibly spark a rebellion in said viewers. Hitler’s credibility and beliefs, as well as those of the Nazi Regime, would be in question, and the very idea of questioning the government is foreign to an authoritarian society.

As stated in the George Mosse article, “Degeneration was… a term used… to identify the condition of those who had departed from the “normal” because of shattered nerves, inherited abnormalities, or behavioral or sexual excess.” Degenerate art, as explained by Hitler, was any work made by or in the image of any person with physical or mental illness, any person with a criminal record, and anyone who was either Jewish, Bolshevik, or homosexual. In short, degenerate art was any work made in the Cubist, Expressionist, or Surrealist style, or made without the incorporation of Nazi ideology.

One of the artists criticized for his so-called “degenerate art” was Expressionist artist Ernst Ludwig Kirchner. Kirchner had been a soldier for the German army during World War I, but discharged from the military for his nervous breakdowns. He spent two years recovering in a sanatorium after the war before going on to found the Die Brücke group, “bridging the gap between past and present,” and painting his controversial pieces. Perhaps his most famous painting is “Selbstbildnes als Soldat” or “Self-Portrait as a Soldier.” The painting depicts the bust of a man in a German military uniform grimacing at the viewer with a cigarette drooping from his mouth. A nude model in the background awkwardly stands waiting to be painted, surrounded by a sea of bold colors and an abstract artist’s workplace. Both arms of the soldier are held up, and his right hand appears freshly amputated. The painting represents his mental scars from the war, expressed through both the facial expression of the German soldier and his amputated hand. Looking behind the soldier’s eyes, the viewer is able to discern a sense of dehumanization and anger that war has brought on. The amputated hand is meant to show the artist’s inability to work as he once used to, unable to find inspiration in everyday life and unable to concentrate after witnessing the tragedies of war. This negative depiction of the war has the possibility of swaying the viewer’s eye in the direction of anti-war, and thus anti-Nazi, posing a threat to the political structure of Hitler’s empire.

Hitler would determine Kirchner’s art to be degenerate for several reasons. First off, Kirchner was “mentally ill”, or “unstable”. He had spent time in a sanatorium on several occasions and was a founder of the Die Brücke movement, a sect of Expressionism. For Hitler, inclusion in the Expression, Cubist, or Surrealism movement was enough for a piece to be considered “degenerate,” but for the sake of being thorough, I’ll continue. The vibrancy of the colors and “unrealistic” depiction of the piece was unacceptable because they depicted a world as seen through the eyes of someone who’s vision was skewed, and the negative connotations of war alluded to in the painting were intolerable as well because they were seen as going against the stability of the State. In addition to this painting, Kirchner created over 600 other works of art that were confiscated by the Nazi’s, including a collection of prints. The art of printmaking itself was probably seen as degenerate simply because it was not used to create idealistic and realistic forms of the human body, as expected by Hitler.

In Ernst Ludwig Kirchner’s “Self-Portrait as a Soldier,” the nude model in the background is a prime example of beauty without sensuality. The contrasting curvature and angularity of the form heightens the beauty of the feminine figure, while preserving her innocence. She is not seen as an object of lust or sensuality, but instead an Expressionistic figure of the beauty of the female form. The soldier is unable to capture her beauty for the sake of his amputated hand. The depiction of the savageness of war, seen as a threat to the State, is linked to the idea of beauty without sensuality through the soldier and his desire to paint all that is beautiful about the woman.

The separation between Church and State has been an issue since the beginning of the Catholic Church. A few years ago, and still recently, a debate concerning the placement of religious paintings has stirred up controversy. Some people feel that the placement of Christian artworks in City Hall and other governmental buildings is a violation of our Constitutional right to the freedom of religion, while other believe that Christianity is simply a part of American history, and though not all Americans agree with it, no one should deny the works from their places in government offices. Throughout this controversy, the artworks are seen as both politically charged and politically neutral pieces, depending on who is judging them. Some say the presence of the paintings acts as a propagandistic tool to convert all Americans to Christianity, an idea that our Constitution strongly opposes. Others feel that the presence of the paintings is just a test of our right to the freedom of religion; religious articles should be both allowed and accepted everywhere, no matter what religion they represent.

e tibbetts post 4

Erica Tibbetts

What is so threatening about art to authoritarian thinkers or regimes?

Art is about the individual: the artist, the viewer, the critic. No one can decide what someone else will take from a piece of art, it is almost entirely subjective, depending on what the artist or viewer brings with them in past experiences, knowledge, beliefs etc. This means that art can be whatever a person wants it to be and allows for a lot of creative thought. Art can incite passion, it can create rage, it can cause revolutions. Even if art does not directly spark a movement, it can plant seeds of restlessness of discomfort within a person or people’s minds. In the long run, this restlessness makes people chafe against the people, institution or social norms that are holding them down. Art does not directly cause people to rise against an authoritarian regime, but it allows them the room, the thinking power, the creative, independent knowledge they need to do so. The last thing an authoritarian regime needs is freedom of thought. The whole idea of such a government is that it rules without being questioned, and it rules over a downtrodden and unquestioning mass of automatons. In the case of the degenerate art, the Nazi’s were trying to diminish the possibility of freedom of thought by telling viewers what they were supposed to get from the art. They tried to limit freedom of thought by making the art appear ugly, evil, the opposite of everything good, pure, and essentially German. By doing this they make the art not art. Traditionally, as Deveraux points out, art has been attached to “the good” and when the two concepts are detached a viewer has trouble rationalizing what he or she is seeing. The Nazi’s took the art they were afraid of, the art they were afraid would make people think, feel too much, and they turned it into a sideshow, an example of what was wrong. Thus, they turn the very thing that could hurt them into something that everyone has no choice but to detest.

Emil Nolde (1867-1956), was a founder of the German Expressionist movement called The Bridge or Die Brucke. His medium of choice was printmaking, and his pieces are blocky, filled with contrasting shapes, colors and forms. Although his work is not “realistic” in the sense of being totally mimetic, he does capture the essence of the figures he depicts.

In Madonna he captures the tenderness of the bond between mother and child and the religious implication, while evident in the title and the traditional pose are not exactly necessary to give the piece meaning and a sense of beauty. The mother is not quite the traditional “virgin”. Her breasts are exposed, her hair is short, her eyelashes long, her features exaggerated and not depicted with the usual delicate purity. However, she is still beautiful, she is still motherly, caring, inspiring. Her head is slightly larger than rules of proportion would dictate, her fingers are slightly stubby and do not contain much detail. The whole piece is low on detail, yet the use of shadow gives the figures a sense of three-dimensionality. The shadow in the mother’s neck, across her chest and along the back of her neck and arms give her a semblance of reality and allow the viewer to identify her and get a sense of her form. The child has some of the same characteristics as the mother, rather than being the typical “baby Jesus” his features are irregular and bulky. His face looks more grown-up and serious than it is usually depicted. There is less detail in the swaddling and the figure of the baby, but his general form is still readable. Nolde deals with the beauty of the figures in generalities and in the intensity of their connection. The bodies are recognizable and beautiful, without being detailed or concerned with proportion. He goes for the truth of emotion with this piece instead of truth of physical form.
In The Prophet the same basic rules apply. The figure is very recognizable as an elderly man, wizened, serious, with long facial hair. However, again, there is not much stress placed upon realistic detail: the eyes droop, the brows are overpowering, the forehead and hairline are almost indistinguishable, the nose is a thick black line and the moustache, mouth and beard are very basically constructed. This basic construction adds to the power of the piece though. This is not a man concerned with physical beauty or detail orientated looks, he is concerned with thought, with something higher than the physical. Again, Nolde captures the emotional essence of the figure, and not the reality (as far as physical features go). He treats the body, the human form, as a conduit for human emotion.

a) Degeneracy is defined as "to depart from its kind or genus, to fall from its proper or ancestral quality" (wikipedia). It is used to describe a person, thing or group that has moved away from what its perceived form, use or character should be. In the case of degenerate art, as described by the Nazis in the article by George L. Mosse, any deviation from reality and towards a realm of sensuality, mystery, and diversity is a divergence from what are should be. To the Nazis, “the men and women in Nazi painting and sculpture embodied the proper morality and sexual behavior. Beauty without sensuality was demanded of artists and sculptors, a beauty that had to reflect the generally accepted moral standards that the Nazis championed as their own” (Mosse 1). This means that no new ideas can be posed, no questioning of the nature of reality can be done, no movement from a strict adherence to the real, to the conservative, masculine, controlled idea of life that the Nazis held. They wanted art to be seen as a form of propaganda, not experienced as a form of liberating beauty. In a way, the art the Nazis championed was itself a deviation because it was sterile and controlled, almost the opposite of what art should be. Degeneracy then becomes something that is subjective, a term defined by what the majority or those in power describe as the “norm”. The Nazis defined any art that was not realistic and sterile as degenerate because it went against what they viewed as “safe”. Any society could define their own set of norms and label any sort of art “degenerate” as long as they controlled the space in which the art was displayed, the media which described the art, and the society in which it was viewed.
b) The prints I looked up could be seen as a threat to Hitler’s idea of the body politic because they do not display the perfect, healthy, Aryan, young, male human he described as the ideal. In both the prints I included, the figures are distorted and either older, younger or female. And this female is not the typical German girl either, she has her breasts bared, she appears to have dark hair and disproportioned features. This would seem an abomination to Hitler. The worst part would be that the scene is still beautiful, still has strong religious and motherly ties, still creates emotion in the viewer even though the figures depicted are not the ideal. This would worry Hitler because his whole point was that in order to have a happy functioning society, the people in it would have to be perfect with no physical imperfections. The same could be said of The Prophet. Here is an elderly man, clearly past his prime, with imperfect facial features. Yet, he contains (or seems to contain) great knowledge and some sort of power not contained in his looks. This sort of internal power, would seem degenerate to Hitler who probably didn’t like any sort of hidden reserves of intellect. The “body politic” he proposed was meant to show a glorified yet flat version of the German ideal, The Prophet and Madonna do not embody this idealized version.
c) The body is the quintessential microcosm of any institution, political party, country or group. Hitler compares his defeated country to a body because the ideas of disease, distress, despair are analogous in both a human and a nation. The body has symptoms that can easily be related to a country, and the body is the most essentially human “thing”. So, in order for Hitler to portray the idea of a healthy nation, he must have art that shows healthy, German bodies.
Hitler also talks about the difference between an art of “times” and an art of “peoples”. He is against any sort of art that changes every year; he is against modern art which distorts the body and which claims a different “slogan” or “cliché” every year (Hitler 440). Hitler says, “But we National-Socialists know only one mortality, and that is the mortality of the people itself… As long as a people exists, however, it is the fixed pole on the flight of fleeting appearances” (Hitler 440). Hitler is saying that the strength or liveliness of the country lies with that of the people. If the people are portrayed unrealistically, disproportionately, and as imperfect in art, then this portrayal will spread to the minds and hearts of the viewers and corrupt their idea of what they and their country should be like. Hitler needs the unified support of a perfect people in order to reach his goals for his country. Like a person, Hitler says that art cannot change; it can change, “as little as the character and the blood of our people” (440). So the changeable nature of art would result in the changeable nature of the people, and thus the country. Hitler also sees “modern artists” as physically imperfect themselves; he claims their perception of the world must be skewed and that he wants to “forbid these pitiful misfortunes who quite obviously suffer from an eye disease, to try vehemently to foist these products of their misinterpretation upon the age we live in” (441). He sees modern art as a product of imperfect humanity.
d) Beauty with sensuality is only a threat to a society that needs to control the art, minds and ideas of its people. Mosse points out that, “Beauty with sensuality presented a danger to society because of what is symbolized, namely, a revolt against respectability as a principle of unity and order” (Mosse 25). Sensuality is something a government, a leader a social norm cannot control. Sensuality, like art, belongs to a realm outside of the everyday, the quotidian, the political. In a society that embraces personal freedom, expression and creativity, beauty with sensuality is not a problem because it does not threaten the status quo, it does not allow a downtrodden people to rise up, it just allows a people to express themselves. Mosse writes that, “The body had become an abstract symbol of Aryan beauty…Sensuality was transcended by an alignment with Greek form: figures that could be worshipped but neither desired nor loved” (Mosse 28). The body could not be seen to have neither the weakness of desires, nor the power to create desire, it was simply a representation of the ideal, of the ideal man and of the ideal nation. Any sensuality would destroy the impervious nature of the body. One of the interesting points Mosse makes is about the difference between public and private art, how art displayed in private could be sensual, show nudity, etc. this shows a sort of double-standard that shows a kink in the Nazi façade.

3.
The image I chose shows a young man gagged by an American flag. The context in which I found this image was an article dealing with censorship. The American flag is supposed to be a symbol of the ideals and qualities the United States was founded on, including the constitution, and thus the amendments, including the freedom of speech. This young man has had his freedom of speech taken away by the very thing which should be symbolizing his right to speak. The depiction “could” be considered degenerate due to the stylized nature of the figure’s hair and features. This is not a photographic likeness, although it is very realistic. I say “could” because I don’t think any art should be labeled as degenerate. Art is anything it wants to be, so there is no way for it to stray from its original/traditional form.
This picture definitely has political ramifications because it is commenting on the stifling nature of the US government. Although this piece does not tell us what is being censored, the message comes across. The patriotism, the conservatism, the very nature of the super power that is the US is stifling to certain people and ideals because these ideas and people do not fit with the image our nation is trying to convey. Any sort of divergence form unity on issues such as what is acceptable behavior, war, etc casts a bad light on the country, so the government attempts to hush it up. This piece is an attempt to shed light on the nature of this sort of censorship and it portrays this message in an ironic, thought provoking way.

Amanda D. Post #4

Amanda Dhillon

1. The danger of art, it seems, is in its ability to persuade and impassion people. As Plato discusses in the Republic, book X, art has the power to draw up emotion in people, which in turn can create conflict. This would be extremely threatening to an authoritarian regime, which can not exist without harmonious obedience by the citizens. Such emotions caused by art that run contrary to the ideals of the regime can easily lead to resistance and, as Plato points out, a lack in rational thought. “Rational” thought is normally a key component in authoritarian regimes (at least, for the leaders and thinkers in such societies), and so any art that causes people to act on emotions rather than reason is dangerous and undesirable.

Additionally, an authoritarian thinker would believe some kinds of art can also cause societal deterioration. Hitler decides this to be so in his inaugural speech for the “Great German Art Exhibition.” Art can promote the “wrong” values for a society, which would lead to its cultural demise and prevent it from rising up in greatness. A people, according to Hitler, are represented throughout the ages by their art, and degenerate art does not make eternal the “good” values of the society. Through its ability to influence, potentially in a way that inhibits the proliferation of the ideology and values that an authoritarian regime would like to see in its citizens, art can be a threat to the stability of the authoritarian state, causing dissent and disharmony.

2. Fernand Leger, a French cubist (as well as follower of many other modern art movements), seems to often depict humans in a modern society, focusing primarily on the human and machine, and through his art, Leger tries to encourage his own humanist attitude toward the world. Formally, his art changes styles over time, but overall it seems to retain a cubist influence, with geometric shapes dominating the objects in the frame. The beauty of the human figure appears to be in its relation to the machine, the relationship with new technologies of the modern world, and how the body can also be mechanical. Several of Leger’s pieces feature conical and tubular human figures, while (seemingly) a small handful show the influence of the commonly described cubist form: flat, geometric shapes that create simplified yet distorted human figures but show an appreciation of the usage of space and a new, one-dimensional depiction on canvas.

1. Based on the readings, degeneracy is the term applied to social aspects that have fallen below or run counter to the ideals of the Nazi regime. In the case of art, degenerate art is that which encourages “non-German” values or morals and does not fit the government standards for beauty. When applied directly to the society, degeneracy seems to be any group that does not fit the Nazi description of “German” and therefore became (in the Nazi mind) as a sort of filth or disease that would cause the decay of the “good” German nation. Essentially, then, the Nazi concept of “degeneracy” is anything that causes the deterioration of or prevents the success of the Nazi ideological views and beliefs of proper German morals, values, and society.
2. Hitler probably would have seen degeneracy in both the style and message/purpose of the artwork of the modern era. This would be due to several formal factors, most apparent being the distorted human forms and unnatural depictions of nature and scenery. Especially because of his own failure at a formal art education, Hitler would have looked upon many of these modern pieces with bitterness and seen degeneracy because of his inability to understand why these distorted images achieved such massive success when he could not. Beyond this, though, Hitler would have found the warped human figures to be particularly disgusting. These images undermine the Nazi campaign for a perfect race of “beautiful” Germans, a people who would embody the classical ideals of beauty and the perfectly chiseled human form. The rearranged and highly altered humans in the new wave of modern art styles threatened the spread of these strict standards of beauty and allowed the minds of the German public to deviate from the ideals that the Nazi party wanted to unify them under.
3. So many of the Nazi policies centered around the creation of the “perfect” German/Aryan race, and the depiction of the body in modern German art was quite distanced from this ideal. Hitler describes in his inaugural speech of the “Great German Art Exhibition” that art is “founded [. . .] only on peoples” and therefore represents them as an “eternal monument.” The greatness of the perfect, idealized representation of the people of Hitler’s Germany throughout time is therefore lessened by the disfigured human forms in modern art. Since Hitler does not want to promote this deranged human figure as the symbol of the national standards of ideal, Aryan beauty (and does not want his German people to be immortalized in this way), many of his claims of degeneracy would be connected with the body in modern art. Beyond this, Hitler makes the case that the artists who create these works are themselves social degenerates who “see the […] population” of his state as “rotten cretins.” With this view, he creates the excuse that the “corruption” of the German people comes in part from these “so-called ‘artists’” who must, Hitler feels, have an “eyesight-deformation” and who create “misinterpretations” and “false illusions” of the way that the people of his nation ought to look and be represented. Because of its association with deformations, malfunctions, and overall ugliness, and Hitler’s extreme campaign to suppress and liquidize these traits, the body in modern art gets labeled as something degenerate that will cause the German society to decay from the inside out.
4. As Mosse says, it is easy for beauty represented through sensuality, in the arts especially, to become threatening to a tight social order. When a piece of artwork, regardless of the medium, has the power to compromise the “respectability” (Mosse 25) that a society like Nazi Germany is balanced upon, the sensual element in the art is in direct contradiction to the moral glue of the state and can wear it away, potentially causing a collapse in the public unity that is so essential to a nation like Nazi Germany. Sensuality displayed publicly in art exhibits for the viewers the traits which the Nazi government would have considered abnormal or degenerate. For example, “sexual excess” (Mosse 26) is an abnormal behavior in the Nazi mind, and in displaying sensuality in the human figures in art is a rejection of the social and sexual norm, which is a “classical” and modest figure that adheres to the morals and values that society is based upon. Therefore, the display of these sensual images poses a threat to the unity of the community around what are considered social and sexual norms, namely morality and modest virtues, and since “public representation is political representation,” (Mosse 29) it is integral to the cohesion of the government and social structure to maintain the universal Nazi ideals of a beauty that lacks sensuality and as a result, bind the population around this one ideal and prevent a social degeneracy. Beauty “removed from all materialism and sensuality” (Mosse 29) would therefore be the central ideal of societal normality, and all would unify around it, providing a stable social order and avoiding the moral abnormalities.

3. http://www.cynthiaaldrichpottery.com/Images/recent2.jpg

This sculpture entitled Justice? is a piece which has the potential to cause the problems which authoritarian thinkers would fear to be a result of political art, namely disharmony and a fracture in the political/ethical cement that otherwise unifies a people. The figure exemplifies what many US citizens believe (correctly or incorrectly) about the war in Iraq, suggesting that it is not justified despite the “excuses” made by the government for the attack and invasion. The image of Justice shielding her own eyes over the issue is liable to cause an emotional stir amongst the people, whether it is over agreement with the message of the piece or outrage against its lie, which would divide and separate them, causing resistance against each other and the government, and conflict and resistance are always a threat to any social or political order. The sculpture also suggests that the people should evaluate the morality of the government’s intervention in Iraq through displaying the artist’s opinion that there is no justice in the decision to go to war. The government’s excuses are etched deeply, almost painfully, into the figure of Justice and she has dropped her golden scale, representing the cutting, damaging political lies and promoting the ethical value of a certain standard of morality that the American public should uphold. It would seem that the sculpture urges them to contemplate what that value of “justice” which our nation is so fond of really means, and whether or not it is being carried out by the US government, which is supposedly founded on the ideals of equality and truth. According to this piece, the values that our society claims to be based on have been lost upon this war (represented through the “lost” scale that has fallen to the floor, abandoned beside the figure of Justice). Thus, the symbolism of this sculpture is the means through which the art displays the ethical responsibilities of the people and the values that they should consider reassessing in the case of the war in Iraq.

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.