Why, in 1937 Nationalist Germany, was Max Bergmann´s painting “Frühling” (1925) labelled as politically correct, whilst Max Bergmann´s “TanzBar in Baden-Baden” (1923) labelled as Degenerate?
INTRODUCTION Can one put a political label on art? In National Socialist Germany during the 1930s, the German Chancellor Adolf Hitler, devised a scheme to use art as a tool to spread Nazi ideology by labelling thousands of modern paintings as “Degenerate”. The idea of “true art” enforced in form of two simultaneous exhibitions in 1937. In Munich the magnificent Haus der Kunst was built to house works marked as politically correct, while the “Entartete” exhibition took place in a small building nearby. The sheer difference of location conveys the National Socialist message. For my investigations, I have chosen two contemporary paintings, which were exhibited in each of the two venues. Within the research question “Why was, in 1937 Nationalist Germany, Max Bergmann´s painting “Frühling” (“Spring”) labelled as politically correct, while Max Beckmanns “Tanzbar in Baden-Baden” (Dancing Bar in Baden-Baden”), 1923, as degenerate, I will investigate the justification of labelling art, and the choice of art and culture to represent Nazi Germany. My point of view is that art cannot fairly be designated as being the right or the wrong kind. Hitler specifically chose the traditional, classical artistic styles, whilst shunning diversions from the art he wanted to represent his ideology. As I have been living in Germany for several years and am very interested in Art as well as History, this topic is significant to me by giving insight into both the development of modern art in Germany and the country itself.
THE IDEA OF DEGENERATE ART Degenerate Art was the term used by the Nazis to denote everything in modern art movement. Modernism was being pushed by the likes of Otto Dix, George Grosz, Max Beckmann and Emil Nolde. It took the form of Dada, Surrealism, Expressionism and Cubism, which had begun to emerge during the avant-garde years of the Weimar republic. The art blossomed into pieces containing the political views of the artist, his expressions and even pieces daring to criticize the government. However, Expressionism was shunned by the Nazi party, branded a threat to German culture and ultimately banned. Over 20,000 pieces of art were removed and confiscated from galleries, museums and private collections. Some were then displayed in the 1937 Degenerate Art exhibition that was made to insult and ridicule their style. The artists where also banned from painting and prosecuted. Max Beckmann escaped to London, while others, like Nolde, stayed but were banned from buying painting equipment.
NAZI CULTURAL IDEOLOGY Hitler’s statement “Anyone who sees and paints the sky green and fields blue ought to be sterilized” (http://thinkexist.com) was far from exaggerated. The Nazi party went out of its way to ensure that the “original” German spirit of art was preserved and presented. The ideal, perfect picture, in Hitler´s and Goebbels opinion, was that it would contain the attributes of their ideology to portray, such as national pride, family, duty, discipline, heroism and moral purity. The paintings would often feature the countryside. Peasant life was displayed as wholesome and preserving rural values, the people typically beautiful, proud Aryans, or the “Volk”, Hitler’s perfect race, shown in everyday situations to display Germany as peaceful and traditional. The Nazi Party used Art as weapon to manipulate the public. It had essentially become propaganda.
Haus der Kunst is a huge museum in the centre of Munich.The venue was a masterpiece of German culture itself, built to house German art. It is an imposing building stretching down the prominent Prinzregentenstraße. However, if one is to walk a little further and cross into the narrow and well hidden Galeriestraße behind Hofgarten, one will come across the inconspicuous, small building where the “Entartete” art was been carelessly, overcrowded and crammed into narrow rooms for public ridicule. Enartete opened 19th July 1937. The Nazi painter Adolf Ziegler announced in his in his opening speech that: “We now stand in an exhibition that contains only a fraction of what was bought with the hard-earned savings of the German people and exhibited as art by a large number of museums all over Germany. All around us you see the monstrous offspring of insanity, impudence, ineptitude, and sheer degeneracy. What this exhibition offers inspires horror and disgust in us all”. On the walls mocking, derogative messages and texts were scribbled around the paintings. These terms accused the paintings of insulting German War heroes, being anti-governmental and marked them as “Perverted Jewish spirit” and a danger to German culture. Five rooms within the exhibit had themes where pictures had been grouped. One room was preserved for the paintings guilty of insulting woman, another for farmers and German soldiers, in another the paintings were to have a religious or blasphemous theme, while a third contained specifically art by the Jewish painters, even though only six out of the selected 112 artist were Jewish. The show described the modern art movement as a conspiracy and tried to convince the German public that this art was inferior to that of the officially approved works by artists such as Adolf Ziegler and Arno Breker. The close proximity of the two exhibitions gave the public opportunity to experience the right and the wrong kind of art at the same time. Interestingly, the “Entartete” Exhibition became a blockbuster, with around three million visiting Germans, three times as many as the Große Deutsche Kunstausstellung. This could hint that the general public had a genuine interest in different, modern art, despite the opinions of the regime.
THE POWER OF THE VENUES “Die Grosse Deutsche Kunstausstellung” was held in the House der Kunst, parallel to the exhibit of degenerate art and opened the day before. The magnificent building that was designed by Paul Ludwig Troost housed the artwork approved by Hitler and Goebbels. As Hitler said, “With the opening of this Exhibition, the end of the cultural destruction of our people has started.” The museum is a monument to Nazi propaganda. Nazi symbols are still visible engraved into the marble inside the building. The building is still used today to house exhibits of mainly modern art. This shows Germanys evolution in art, and how modernism overcame the very forces that opposed them. These are now presented in the structure built to rival the degenerate art. When one inspects the avenues of presentation there are hints of the actual art and the difference between the two groups created in Germany. On one hand, there is the colossal majestic building, built in stone and with enormous pillars as show of power. The very ideals that the Nazi Party were trying to convey though architecture and many sculptures and paintings, were like those of ancient Rome, thus also the Roman, classical inspired temple design for Haus der Kunst. On the other hand it is a paradox that the “Entartete” building also contained massive amounts of German culture. This building is also symbolic for the art it presented, with both the exhibits and the way they were presented as being surreal and expressionistic. In both venues the visitor was experiencing the hidden ideologies.
PROBLEMS OF RESEARCH In my hunt to find paintings to compare I began to research types of Nazi art. Following research about the some of, I found that these paintings had been archived in different museums around German. I then searched for the triptych “The Four Elements” by Adolf Ziegler, which is in Munich city archive. After sending a letter to the “Pinakothek der Moderne”, the most important modern art museum in Munich, I discovered that these paintings where not allowed to be shown to the public because of the history behind them. The labelling of art by Hitler, and the act of forcing his ideology onto paintings, had caused the German government to stop these works of art from being seen in public.. Fortunately, as I discovered, the grandson of Max Bergmann, one of the approved Nazi painters, lives in his grandfather’s gallery and studio, which lies just outside my home village. Although Max Bergmann was not part of the National Socialist Party, the Party approved his style of painting, accurate scenes of heroic farmers and rural beauty. One of his paintings, “Frühling”, which I will discuss later, was exhibited in Haus der Kunst in 1937 and is now owned by his grandson. I was granted a visit to view this in his home.
COMPARISONS OF THE ART WORKS OF BERGMANN AND BECKMANN To show the difference between the two types of arts, and why one was treasured by the Nazi party, I will compare the painting “Tanzbar in Baden-Baden” by Max Beckmann with the Nationalist Socialist approved painting “Frühling” by Max Bergmann. “Tanzbar”, now on display in Pinakothek der Modern in Munich, was painted in 1923. It is in oil on canvas and measures 100.5cm x 65.5cm making it quite a large piece. “Tanzbar”, as well as other works by Max Beckmann, were hung in Room five in the “Entartete”, which catalogue described as: “This section of the exhibition affords a survey of the moral aspect of degeneracy in art. To those “artists” whom it represents, the entire world is clearly no more or less than a brothel and the human race is exclusively composed of harlots and pimps. Among these works of painted and drawn pornography there are some that can no longer be displayed, even in the “Degenerate Art” exhibition, in view of the fact that that women will be among the visitors.” It shows how the Nazi propagandists were imposing their uncompromising opinions on what harmful art.
INTERPRETATION, BECKMANN´S “TANZBAR BADEN-BADEN” “Tanzbar” was painted during the Weimar Republic, at the time when the Expressionist style picked up in Germany. It shows a scene from the 1920s and depicts the upper social class. The format of the painting is high and narrow, showing two couples dominating the centre, with people squashed in around them, pressing against the frame. The figures fill the whole space, making it cramped and unnatural scene. The unreality is enforced with the multiple perspective being very steep and exaggerated. The figures appear like they are pushed towards the viewer. It is painted this way to make the viewer feel claustrophobic and uneasy, thus criticising the top of society, accusing the rich of inhabiting their very own little privileged world, not caring about, the bad things that happen outside, like the massive problems in society after the First World War. “Tanzbar” is painted in an expressionist style, which evokes mood and promotes feelings. The scene is non-fictional, but the reality is that it a political, emotional statement. The expressionist painters used these kinds of work to oppose the impressionist and realistic style of the Nazi artists, in order give social criticism. Looking at the painting, there are seven hands and arms are pointing to the bottom right corner, cutting the painting into diagonals. This is to give an idea of the rhythm and dance, portrayed in the piece. The angle of the floor and the man in the left bottom corner both act as counter movements to balance the picture. The red and black colours create another pattern. The red dress, then a black smoking, followed by a red bow tie and the red stocking with a white shoe all further create a cadence. The source of light in “Tanzbar” is rather diffuse. It seems that it comes from the left, even though there are no real shadows cast by the characters, making make them seem to float, all adding to the nightmarish feel. The couples are very close but it seems there is no real connection, shown by the woman looking away. It could be a comment on how the upper class was united only by their ego. “Tanzbar” was painted during the pinnacle of the Weimar inflation. Put together with the jewellery and clothes of the characters, it gives a sense of how well off and uncaring the upper class was about the people suffering outside and the massive problems in society after the First World War. However, as the steep perspective indicates, which makes it look as though the character might slide off, their way of life is about to come to an end. Max Beckmann has made a very critical prediction of, what social instability would cause.
INTERPRETATION, BERGMANN´S “FRÜHLING” The painting “Frühling” by Max Bergmann was painted in 1925 and exhibited in the Grosse Deutsche Kunstausstellung. Painted in oil on canvas, like ”Tanzbar”, and measuring 120x90 cm, it depicts two cows dragging a load. In the background are trees. It is painted in an exact, naturalistic style, but with loose, energetic brushstrokes like the Impressionists. The cows are facing directly out of the picture. It is a classic Bavarian scene where the artist has attempted to convey the beauty of the farmland. On the right hand side, part of the farmer is seen. He is driving his cows in the lovely weather. The sun is shining, which is why he is wearing a hat and the shadows appear purple. The light is coming directly from the front, this is evident of the way the shadows hits the ground, emphasizing the highlights on the cows, and giving the scene a naturalistic feel. There is no sky to be seen, so it is a very intimate painting. Because of the extreme foreshortening of the cows and the linear one-point perspective it gives the viewer the viewer a sense of engaging directly with the scene and being, standing on the pathway, directly confronting the cows. It is important that the painting is painted outdoors or “en plain air” which means open-air, and derives from French impressionist artists like Monet and Renoir. Hitler and Goebbels approved this style of art because it depicted the Völkisch tradition, is very rural, serene and adheres to the old traditional values of people tending to their own business. It also signifies that the Germans should get back to nature and basic existence. The Nazi party wanted these original peaceful scenes to represent their culture, in “Frühling” enforced by the fact how fat and well tended the cows are. The contentment on the farmer’s face shows there is no hint of war or tension outside the picture. These kinds of paintings were after all used by the National Socialists to deceive the public. They tried to convey that Germany was still beautiful and well tended, and the brutal acts, which they were committing, where not really happening. Or it could be an apology for committing atrocities in order to preserve these values from outside threats, like the Jews and the Communists. Art was used as an illusion by Hitler created to convince the public that the goal was the old moral values, in comparison to the decadence of the Weimar culture.
DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES OF THE TWO WORKS Both Max Beckmann and Max Bergmann were contemporary and practised painting at almost to the same time. “Tanzbar” and “Frühling” are similar in size, and both are painted in very traditional medium of oil on canvas. The oil medium means great artistic diversity and a beautiful shiny surface is created, also when it is dry. A multitude of tones and shades can be created. Both artists rely on “chiaroscuro”, which comes from the Italian and means strong contrast between light and shade. This effect is used to create depth and strong three-dimensional image. Max Beckmann uses this cleverly by having the woman wear bright colours in contrast to the gentleman’s black smoking, making the painting bold and striking. Max Bergmann likewise uses strong tonal contrasts to emphasize his figures in sunlight. Where Beckmann uses multiple perspectives like the Cubists, making the scene unreal, while Bergmann uses one point perspective, which is very traditional and realistic. “Frühling” gives an atmosphere of rural peace while “Tanzbar” gives a noisy crammed almost eerie ambience. The painting by Beckmann seems to be swirling and contained, spinning in circles around itself, while Bergmann’s is open and free. It is interesting, however, that the viewer is unable to enter either painting. In “Tanzbar” entry is impossible because of the self-sustaining whirl and the naked arms, which are pushed against the picture plane, barring entry and only allowing the viewer to observe the decadent rich from the outside. It is an obvious social criticism of a social world, which is only open to a few, selected and arrogant people. Equally in “Früling” the viewer cannot enter the painting. The cows, in effect a peaceful scene, faces the viewer straight on and approaches with what actually seems to be in a disconcerting, slightly threatening, way. The noses of the animals are touching the picture plane, and if the viewer does not move he or she will be trampled on. It could be an image of the fact that rural life is perhaps not that romantic as the Nazi wanted people to believe, and everything is an illusion. The fact that the cows are so extremely foreshortened is first of all to show off the artist’s skill in drawing and observation, but also to create an unusual, staged atmosphere. Maybe this is an inherent criticism of the social conditions.
MAX BECKMANN BIOGRAPHY Max Beckmann was born in 1884 in Leipzig and was the youngest of three children of a merchant family. After the death of his father he moved to Braunschweig, and went to the Art Academy in Weimar. In Berlin he encountered the emerging German impressionist painters and began to paint in this style as well. During WW1 he became involuntarily a nursing officer on the Eastern Front. In 1915 he had a nervous breakdown because of his war experiences and was sent to a Hospital in Frankfurt. The paintings he did during the War were exclusively Expressionist, which he continued after discovering “Die Brücke”, an Expressionist movement from Dresden. It became a way of expressing the horrors of the War, no longer realistic but with more extreme emotions and scenes. 1925 he married Quappi, who features in a lot of his paintings. He taught at the art academy in Frankfurt and became quite famous, with exhibits in America and in Europe. In 1933 with the Nazi Party taking power, he lost his job, was banned from painting and his art labelled as Degenerate. Between 1993-1936 over 800 of his works were confiscated from exhibits all over Germany. One week after the exhibition in Munich he felt forced to flee to London. He passed away December 1950 in New York, but as a very famous, renowned artist.
MAX BERGMANN BIOGRAPHY The German artist Max Bergmann was born the 2nd of December, also in 1884, in Fürstenberg. His parents owned a dyeing factory and were quite wealthy. He started painting early and quickly became very good at portrait drawings. He visited the “Fine Art Academy Schalottenburg” in Berlin where he could further progress in his work. In 1907 he studied figure drawing and animal painting at the Art Academy in Munich. Like Bergmann, he was also sent to the Front during WW1. In his house his I saw old photographs of him as a dashing young officer, a post he became straight away because family’s social standing. Unlike his artist colleague, he came out of the War unscathed, but with a lot of sketches of the local people in Hungary. Bergmann then began to travel to Paris, where he became a close friend of Marcel Duchamp, the later famous Dadaist. In Bergmann’s house, I was allowed to see original postcards and sketches, which Hans Peter Bergmann’s grandfather had received from Duchamp. Later he married Dorothea Karstadt, heiress to the huge Munich Karstadt dynasty. They moved to Haimhausen, my village, where he formed an art school, focusing on painting outside in the open air. Bergmann is probably mostly known within Germany, but his paintings stand now in high regard. Because of his impressionist style and content of his paintings he was presented in the first Große Deutsche Kunstausstellung. It was his life on the country that inspired his paintings. Max Bergmann did not have his work confiscated, but was made to report many times during the War to an “Internat”, checking if his art appropriately conveyed the message that the National socialists wanted it to.
VISIT TO MAX BERMANN´S STUDIO I visited the grandchild of Max Bergmann, Hans Peter Bergmann, on Monday 10th August 2011. He still to this day lives in the house, where Max Bergman lived and worked. The old, imposing artist villa, which before 1919 belonged to the well-known landscape artist, Buttersack, is local Haimhausen. Max Bergman wanted to be away from the bigger cities and have freedom and peace to paint. The huge garden also allowed him and his art student to paint outside. Hans Peter Bergmann allowed me to see the original, amazing art studio which still stands like it has done for almost over ninety years. The paintings he had inherited from his grandfather were displayed everywhere and were absolutely incredible. Max Bergmann had an unbelievable skill of direct observation of nature and people, and he used very rich and colourful oil paint. His style was often sketchy, where only a few brushstrokes indicated his subject, capturing the form and colour and giving a realistic and lively effect . The figure paintings, his portraits and his nudes were powerful, several almost expressionistic in colour and brush strokes and with strong emphasis on light and shade. Some of the works, like “Salome “ and “The Sirens” were staged with a gloomy, sinister, frightening theme. The expression of obvious, aggressive female sexuality was rather striking, considering the time, when they were painted. These two paintings, as the grandson said, would have been just as extreme and outrageous for the National Socialists as Max Beckmann's paintings. In comparison, Beckmann´s “ Parisian Carnival”, which was also included in the Degenerate Art Exhibition, likewise shows female promiscuity. This painting is just as constructed and theatrical with extreme colour scheme as the “Salome” painting. Looking at the two works in Max Bergmann’s studio, you got a feeling that he artist was perhaps not quite the artist that Hitler perceived him to be. Most of his landscape and animal works were done in an impressionist style, mainly because of the influence from Paris. He also confirmed that his grandfather publicly remained with his well-known impressionist style, which he exhibited in Haus der Kunst, but kept, during the time, when artists were in danger of having their works confiscated, the more extreme and expressionist paintings hidden from the authorities. During the 1930s and until the end of the War Bergmann continued to paint as the Nazis wanted. This was for financial reasons and to secure that he and his family were left in peace. The Nazi party approved of him as an artist because they did not know about his private works, and because he was already been included in the Große Kunstausstellung to denote true German art, they never ransacked his home. His grandchild also showed me his sketchbook, which was a present to his father. This sketchbook showed the talent of the artist, he had 500 sketches of characters in restaurants, farm animals and caricatures. It was very interesting to see the environment he painted in how he recorded his experiences and his life of an artist. I also saw photos of Max Bergmann that he was able to sustain a comfortable life during the War as an artist and was able to exhibit and sell his own painting and those of his art students.
CONCLUSION The reason why Max Bergmann he was never thoroughly investigated by the Nazis, although the farming community of Haimhausen apparently found the wild parties and the nude models running around outside, rather outrageous, was that his landscape paintings had got a certain status in promoting the true Völkish tradition. In contrast, Max Beckmann was disgraced as a German artist and had to escape to London in order to avoid being arrested and sent to concentration camp. Interestingly, as the grandson mentioned, the paintings of Max Bergmann and Max Beckmann both increased and kept their values also after the War, especially because of the, in our eyes nowadays, controversial cultural politics of the National Socialists. The inclusion of “Frühling” as true to German, Aryan values and the “Tanzbar” as dangerous, subversive and degenerate for the German spirit, secured the fame and value of both artists until our present day. It also means that the Nazi labelling of art is not effective. They selected art which did not adhere to classical or traditional moral valued, using the two contrasting exhibitions in 1937 purely for furthering their own apology for exterminate what they saw as threatening to Germany. It is nice to see, however, that the artistic spirit, in both Max Beckmann´s case, who continued his work abroad, and in the case of Max Bergmann, who like Emil Nolde, continued his passionate work in secrecy, cannot be broken by any political censorship.
Peter-Klaus Schuster: “Die “Kunststadt” München 1937, Nationalsocialismus und Entartete Kunst”, Prestel Verlag 1987
Steve Barron: “Degenerate Art, the Fate of the Avantgarde in Nazi Germany,” Los Angeles Museum of Art, 1991
Birgit Schurerth: Geniewahn: Hitler und die Kunst, Böhlau 2009
George Heard Hamilton: “Painting and Sculpture in Europe 1880 to 1940”, Pelican 1983
Royal Academy of Arts: “German Art in the 20th Century” Prestel Verlag 1985
Stephen Lackner: “Max Beckmann”, Dumont 1979
Wilhelm Weber: “Max Bergmann”, Pfälzer Kunst, 1984
IBDP History Internal Assessment
Was the 1937 Degenerate Art Exhibition in Munich a Propaganda Success?
Abstract: Was the 1937 Degenerate Art Exhibition in Munich a propaganda success? That is the question this essay endeavours to answer, exploring not only the Nazis’ and Hitler’s perspective on modernist art and why it had to be deemed unacceptable but also measures the reaction to the exhibition. Its success is therefore determined by not only whether or not it achieved its goal as intentioned by the Nazis but also the reaction the Exhibition received from the German Volk. The aim of this essay is to balance the opposing views of how this historic event has been studied: either detached from its context and judged purely as an exhibition or as a systematic propaganda event staged by the Nazis. If it was indeed propaganda, how was this achieved?
Historians such as Frederic Spotts, William Shirer and Neil Levi not only have opposing views on the success and importance of the Exhibition but also on its purpose. This will further be examined by exploring these perspectives and placing them in their respective contexts as well as the context of the 1937 Nazi Exhibition as highlighted by the displayed artwork and exhibition catalogue. Works, of both German and English language historians were used in accordance with various artist biographies. The conclusion reached, examining the Exhibition in the long-term context of the Third Reich, is that the while it did not initiate the cleansing of German culture and art, it did initiate its climax as well as demonstrate its important role in Nazi propaganda and can therefore be deemed successful. Word Count: 272
Introduction:
The largest modern art exhibition put before the German public opened on Monday July 19th, 1937 in what is now the headquarters for Munich’s Art Society. It was not an exhibition to celebrate modern art and artists, or to celebrate creativity and expression or to admire genius.[1] It was an exhibition of work denounced by the Nazis and instead of building up artists such as Die Brücke and many others, it sought to destroy and deride them.[2] The Exhibition degraded over 112 artists from Europe and beyond. [3]The modernist art displayed was seen as defining and representative of the developing German mind-set in the inter-war years; the degradation and later destruction of this art is still impactful today. Especially here in Germany and the German diaspora in the United States the Exhibition is still regularly engaged with: from 25.10.1962 – 16.12.1962 the Munich Haus der Kunst [4]there was an exhibition celebrating these shunned and partially destructed artworks, just 25 years after the experience. [5]In 2014 the Neue Galerie in New York had an exhibition titled ‘Degenerate Art: The Attack on Modern Art in Nazi Germany’.[6] As Governments and organisations increasingly influence us and drive our tastes through art and media, reflecting on the Exhibition inspires us to consider how this has happened before. In fact, art historians argue that the ‘attack’ on modern art is not over, that we will always punish the new for exactly that, its novelty.[7] Here in Munich the question of Cornelius Gurlitt , an elderly gentleman who was found to be living with 1500 artworks confiscated by the Nazis, still splits opinions.[8] The Nazi act of confiscation and destruction is important to discuss today, as the lines of what is propaganda and what is not are blurrier than ever before, as is the ownership of art. This also raises the question of censorship. Taking a step back to not only consider the ‘how’ but also the ‘why’ of the Entartete Kunstaustellungn allows us to judge its success and better analyse our media today. Art is a historic source, not only because it can express contemporary views, ideals, conditions and problems but also because it can be used to manipulate in the form of propaganda. This essay will analyse the success of the exhibition as a propaganda event and the political and artistic dimensions fused to support Nazi German ideology.
The Exhibition: The Exhibition was organized by Adolf Ziegler, the President of the Reich Chamber of Art, ran for four months and presented over 650 pieces of art, most impounded from museums or collections across Germany. [9]He had only two weeks to organise: the artworks were displayed from the floorboards to the ceiling in the displayed in seven cramped rooms; many were unframed and purposefully hung carelessly. [10]There was no consideration for artist, date or name of the work and many pieces had been disfigured by propagandistic slogans such as “nature as seen by sick minds’’ or ‘‘revelations of the Jewish Racial Soul” and quotes by Nazi officials denouncing the work.[11] After the exhibition had concluded in Munich the works were negligently packed and sent around the German speaking area to educate the population on the horrors of modern art. [12]Most of the works were subsequently burned, auctioned off or destroyed in Allied bombings. Therefore, some pieces have never been seen again and a generation’s art was lost.[13] The Große Deutsche Kunstaustellung[14] in which the art that was deemed worthy both stylistically and ideologically by Hitler was showcased, aimed to juxtapose the Degenerate Art Exhibition. [15] On the 30th of June 1937 Hitler signed a decree that authorised Goebbels to impound all ‘degenerate art’ in Germany since 1910, here defined as works that “insult German feeling, destroy or confuse natural form or simply reveal an absence of adequate manual artistic skill.”[16] Styles included Bauhaus, Dada, Expressionism and New Objectivity. However, this was not the only reason Hitler dismissed artwork. While foreign artists, such as those of Eastern European and/or Jewish heritage were profusely condemned by the regime as they were seen as inferior and “members of an international communist conspiracy”, German artists who appeared too influenced by non-Western styles, art forms and themes were also censured as were Jews, communists, ‘non-Aryans’ and disabled people in general. [17]The German mentality, its people and what it meant to be ‘German’ was drastically redefined. The works of art displayed in the Degenerate Art Exhibition and in the Great German Art Exhibition both addressed these themes and were purposefully juxtaposed. This was accentuated as both exhibitions opened within 24 of each other, on opposites sides of the road. [18] Sensitive topics, like the changing roles of men and women in society and the moral bankruptcy of traditional German militarism were packaged in new and unusual art. This cultivated feelings of discomfort and uneasiness towards modern art and those who created it. These reactions were capitalised on by Hitler’s regime as can be seen in the artwork picked: there was visually and thematically disturbing content especially when depicted in contrast more traditional European art such as works by impressionists that dealt with elegant depictions of mood, emotion, light and little to no social critique. [19] These modern pieces of art had no shame and portrayed everything from childhood to war in a gruesome manner. In contrast to these grim works the appealing ones of previous generations hung across Europe reminding of a better time and were considered ‘racially pure’. [20] Every nerve of the Exhibition was geared to inspire distrust and hate towards the art, its artists and anti-Nazi ideals. The Exhibition was a part of a greater project, to cleanse the Reich of all non-German art. This had been initiated in 1933, just after Hitler came to power, when professors, museum directors/curators and other members of the art world were removed from office and replaced by preferred staff. This had reached its height by 1937.[21]
The poster and exhibition guide[22] displayed the word art (Ger: Kunst) in quotation marks and were written in crayon to depict its childlike and unprofessional manner and the non-recognition of these works as art. The exhibition hall in which the art was purposefully hung incorrectly, damaged, displayed in dark lighting and with creeping shadows to make the artwork appear more terrifying intended to repulse the viewer. [23] (see appendix)
The most dominant political criticism was that the communists and the Jews had influenced or even created these works. Condemnation of these social groups was prominent in every aspect of the Nazi regime with speeches, news services, pamphlets and education geared towards this mind-set. [24] The Exhibition marked a turning point as up until then the vast majority of the anti-Communist/anti- Jewish propaganda was geared towards their apparent influence on Germany’s defeat during the First World War and the turmoil under the Weimar regime, now they were attacked socially and culturally, as was anyone who supported them. Ironically, only 6 of the 122 artists were Jewish.
Exhibition’s Success:
To determine the success of the Exhibition one must first consider what its intention was and what its reception was. Various different historians not only have opposing views on the success and importance of the Exhibition but also on its purpose. In ‘The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich’ William Shirer argues that the Exhibition was unsuccessful and a ‘failure’. He was there on the opening day and remembers a long line forming in front of the building and an “incensed and embarrassed” Dr. Goebbels who soon closed the doors. [25]However, he fails to recall or speculate why Goebbels seemed such. Shirer was not only a contemporary but he was one of the few with access to the German archives, yet his book, as he himself notes, was published in 1960, 23 years after the exhibition which shows the fallibility of his memory. Additionally this seems suspect as Goebbels wrote of the success in his diaries as well as the plan to let the Exhibition tour around the Reich.[26] Furthermore, would the large crowd not be a sign of its success? Even if it was a negatively charged exhibition, every exhibition needs and wants visitors. In fact this is a common opinion, as the exhibition had higher visitor numbers than the Grosse Deutsche Kunstausstellung, which was of course more prestigious.[27] This could be considered a failure, and a sign of the rebellious German population who preferred to choose themselves what art they deemed valuable. Shirer seemed to be of this opinion as his sarcastic remark about the Grosse Kunstausstellung was “and yet some Germans [especially in Munich] preferred to be artistically polluted.”[28] 2 million people visited Degenerate Art in Munich alone, more than five times as much as the ‘great’ exhibition. This would seem like commercial and propaganda failure for the Grosse Kunstausstellung, however not all historians agree. [29]
Historian Frederic Spotts counters, arguing that this was what Hitler had intended. The Great Exhibition and the Haus der Kunst would be there ‘forever’, these were structures meant to last. As a propaganda strategy, the more immediate goal, was to show the public what was wrong and depraved, to educate and alienate. Hitler encouraged attendance and as mirrored in his speeches, made it clear what he and his party stood against instead of highlighting what they stood for. Hitler frequently arranged for free of charge entrance and for group excursions.[30] It was paramount that the public learned to share his aesthetic view. As Jonathan Petropoulos points out in Art as Politics in the Third Reich, the intention was to simultaneously educate the Volk on what was acceptable as ‘German’ art and to shame modernist artists.[31] As recorded in the news at the time, a majority of the visitors did not come to praise the art but, as is common for human nature, to marvel at the disgusting nature of the art, which was according to official statements was made by the mentally ill and unstable. As one visitor remarked: “…most people had come to see the exhibition with the intention of disliking everything” just as Hitler had hoped.[32] Eye witness accounts record the loud condemnation of the crowds and Spotts argues “He achieved his purpose” and that there the Exhibition was not only successful commercially but also successful as a piece of propaganda. Hitler’s position as a member of the art world was strengthened; his ability to crush those who defied him and his goal to re-shape the art world and rid of modernism was achieved. [33]
Further evidence to support Spotts’ argument that the exhibition was a successful propaganda operation can be seen in the meticulous planning, even though it staged within two weeks.[34] The opening of the Grosse Kunstaustellung just one day before and across the street is an example of that. Hitler described it as national socialist zenith, “unparalleled and inimitable” in its architecture and programme. The inauguration of the building was marked by him stating: “not only the cornerstone of a new home but also the foundation of a new and genuine German art.”[35] By juxtaposing the two exhibitions, Hitler demonstrated “most dramatic confrontation in history between conflicting styles of art” according to Spotts.[36] This alienation and contrast of ‘good art vs. bad art’ indicates the political motivation behind the Degenerate Art Exhibition.
Neil Levi only partially agrees with Spotts’ interpretation, stating that rather than persuading the public of the horrors of modernism, the Exhibition solely sought “the public’s participation in and assent to a certain kind of political spectacle of which they were both the subjects and objects” and not specifically the ‘artist’s goal’ that Spotts’ claims Hitler had along with his political one. [37] He argues that the decision to set an end to ‘non-German art’ was made earlier. He validates this with the aforementioned notation in Goebbels’ diary about the long queues and the success of the exhibition.[38] Spotts specifically counters this, and claims, that “now that the public had demonstrated its disgust, Hitler must have concluded he could exploit this sentiment and finish the job,” by which he means that all modernist work was only removed after he had earned his Volk’s approval. [39]However, in light of Hitler’s speech at the inauguration and his decree to Goebbels (as mentioned above) this seems unlikely. He (Goebbels) stated: “I was always determined, if fate ever gave us power, not to discuss these matters [of artistic judgment] but to make decisions” which indicates the plan was long underway.[40] The ‘artistic purges’ were concluded by 1938 and nearly every prominent member of the art world was a member of the party. [41]
The unfavourable display of the rooms in combination with pictures of mentally and physically disabled persons and hateful slogans such as: “revelation of the Jewish soul,” and “Nature as seen by sick minds” made the artwork appear more terrifying. [42] [43]
Levi insists that this proves the public could not “judge for themselves” as Ziegler declared during his opening speech. [44] With this forced horror and juxtaposition its was not only a commercial success but also a propaganda success as everyone who visited the exhibition left in accord with the Nazis’ ideology.
However this concept of degeneracy (the notion that artists have pathological disorders and their art was not only bad but also sick and possibly contagious) was common in the 19th century Europe, most prominently by the Austro-Hungarian doctor, Max Nordau, whose 1892 text Entartung ("Degeneration")[45] warned of these dangers to society. "Degenerates are not always criminals, prostitutes, anarchists and pronounced lunatics; they are often authors and artists," he argued.[46] His theories on this are drawn through Nazi ideology and Mein Kampf. [47]
Both Spotts and Levi agree in the goal of creating a political and propaganda event as well as potentially educating the public to set guidelines for acceptable art and behaviour through the juxtaposition of the exhibitions and the display of the art and that this was achieved. The viewers were left unable to oppose Hitler’s artistic propaganda mill.
How the Propaganda was successful: Propaganda is defined as information of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicise a cause or point of view. The Degenerate Art Exhibition was a propaganda success because Hitler, Goebbels and Ziegler meticulously planned its purpose, message and execution, ensuring its success.[48] The administrative team, made sure every nerve of the exhibition was geared to inspire distrust and hate towards the art, its artists and anti-Nazi ideology. These included the changing roles of men and women in society in the inter-war years and the moral bankruptcy of traditional German militarism.[49] These sensitive topics were packaged in abstract, aesthetically unsightly forms. Critique of these groups was common in other Nazi media such as speeches, news services, pamphlets and education geared towards this mind-set.
The Exhibition thus was a propaganda success due to the themes and styles expressed: the images of women created by modernists were very different from what the German public was used to in the traditional and accepted works of the 19th and early 20th century. Women previously had mostly been shown clothed inconspicuously, undergoing mundane tasks and as objects of grace and beauty.[50] Hitler favoured Adolf Wissel, as his women were portrayed working in fields, with children, praying, gracefully entertaining or in flattering realistic portraits. [51] Goebbels wrote in his novel ‘Michael: Ein Deutsches Schicksal’: “the female bird pretties herself for her mate and hatches the eggs for him. In exchange the mate takes care of gathering the food, stands guard and wards off the enemy” which summaries the Nazis’ and common German perspective on gender roles. [52] The war had rattled this as 3.8 million men had gone to war leaving the women behind to manage the country's infrastructure and jobs. Sexual promiscuity as well as more nonpartisan ownership, divorce and settlement laws allowed for the rise of a new type of woman. As American influences, such as shorter skirts and make-up gained impact, so did the sex trade.[53] While the image of the emancipated woman was popularised, not many lived this lifestyle or wished to. The feminist historian Mary Fullbrook argues that only a small minority of women adopted this ‘wild’ lifestyle including “...smoking cigarettes, cutting their hair short, driving and indulging in a daring glittery nightlife.”[54] Instead many preferred to enter marriages and if financial security and class permitted, to stay at home.
As women’s independent lifestyles were frowned upon by the majority of Germans so was the support of such choices and artists ‘encouraging’ them: this depiction offended women. Stephanie Barron recorded that in room three of the Exhibition two large slogans reading “An insult to German womanhood” and “Ideal Cretin and Whore” were written with works apparently representative of such ideals.[55] The majority of viewers wanted the stability of the pre-war years and along with that most men criticised the artworks. This, Fullbrook states, suited the Nazis’ Kinder, Küche, Kirche ideology. The reason this section of the Exhibition was a success, was due to the lack of emphasis on what Peter Adams has described as “the role of the mother as the guardian of life...to show the healthy physical being, the biological value of the individual woman”. [56]
Michael Kimmerlman argues that what made the Exhbition a propaganda success was the juxtaposition with the Grosse Kunstausstellung in the representation of women and war. While classical artists had created depictions of women in the nude, this had been accepted as high art and an exploration of the human body by the Nazis condemned the versions by modern artists where women were often dressed as sex workers or dancers with their sexuality frequently overt. [57] That this was often done in connection to models that were quite obviously not of ‘Aryan’ decent, did not help gain appreciation or understanding for the artists. Kirchner for example, had intended to critique bourgeois life “anxious...purposefully questioning their conventions, preconceptions and morality.” [58][59] The Nazis did not support his wish for individuality; they condemned him; for making ‘communist’ statements and asking the public to judge for themselves. His work was displayed under the title: “the prostitute is extolled as the moral ideal”. [60] (see appendix)
Another example of a similarly treated artist is Otto Dix. He was also a celebrated and popular artist whose portrayals of women were not only shunned for their condemnation of bourgeois society but also for their ‘grotesque erotic imagery’. He was brought to trial for obscenity and his reputation across Germany destroyed; in the Exhibition the Nazis displayed his works containing images of Weimar time rapes and murders.[61] Barron reports witness accounts of visitor’s feeling embarrassment, repulsion and fremdschämen at the sight of a former German hero having stooped this low. This representation of Germany’s weakness and darkest hour was not appreciated by the regime and described as treasonous, grotesque and Dix himself as ‘sick in the mind’. [62] (see appendix)
Historian Walter Grasskamp claims that the majority of condemned artists, would have ideologically supported the Nazis were it not for their persecution based artistic style, arguably even after they had been publicly shamed, threatened, killed or exiled. [66]
The depictions of war in the Exhibition were decided by the Reichspropagandaleitung der NSDAP: Kulturamt: “the soldier is a murderer or a victim...no military virtues: valour, fortitude, and readiness for combat…alongside caricatures of war cripples designed to arouse repulsion and views of mass graves, German soldiers as simpletons, vile erotic wastrels and drunkards.” [63] However, after the death of 1.6 million men with countless wounded, the German public did not want to be reminded of failure, or see their loved ones displayed as such, as this art gained popularity in the interwar years, so did the myths of internal enemies such as the ‘backstabbing Jews and communists’ Many Germans had fought valiantly for Germany and were proud nationals, and even shared the belief that German culture was superior. [64]The Nazis, as with gender roles, capitalised on this, as they liberally interpreted disrespect and ungratefulness into works by artists for whom they had even the slightest contempt. [65]
As Levi further mentions in support for his argument that the Exhibition was indeed successful propaganda, the public also considered the ‘misrepresentation’ of Christianity treasonous. [67] Such artists were inducted for blasphemy and sacrilege and lost all respect in a booming and grateful Germany. The Nazis had gained so much power and control, not only over the art world but also over the social norms of the public that after the Exhibition their authority had increased. Konrad Adenauer the then mayor of Cologne and later the first Chancellor of post-war Germany supported the Nazis vocally now, due to their views on society and war remembrance. He cleansed Cologne of degenerate art and only after the Nazis had lost interest in him, did he start opposing their work. [68]
Conclusion: The Degenerate Art Exhibition was a propaganda success because Hitler used the motifs of social norms and the wounded German pride in contrast to how Germany had built itself up, under his leadership, in recent years. He knew that by displaying anti-national and depraving figures of war and women in unpleasant forms he would strengthen his support from conservatives and sway the undecided. If fervour would not work, the fear he inspired by his persecution of artists would.
It is difficult to measure anything but commercial success for an exhibition, especially for one under a totalitarian government, which controlled the press and witness accounts. This represented the greatest struggle of the investigation, a lack of primary sources outside of the documentation of the artwork and government decrees/instructions. However, as we can infer with hindsight, the Nazis had already complete control over the Reich’s art world so their influence was only strengthened by the Exhibitions. The Exhibition’s goal, according to Spotts, of creating a political and propaganda event as well as potentially educating the public to set guidelines for acceptable art and behaviour was seen by the increase in party memberships, heightened persecution of ‘degenerates’ and Hitler’s strengthened control over the media. The persecution of Jews, communists and anyone else ‘treacherous’ was thereafter not greatly opposed or questioned and if it was, the Nazis had grown strong enough to quell internal opposition and make an example of it. For Degenerate Art, the Nazis simply selected pieces of art which did not adhere to their values and they used the juxtaposition of the two 1937 exhibitions to justify the extermination of their opponents. However, on a positive endnote 75+ years later the worth of ‘degenerate art’ is higher as these ‘lost’ and formerly shunned works are now celebrated for their suffering and are valued higher commercially than their Nazi counterparts. This can be seen in New York and in Munich such as the Degenerate Art: The Attack on Modern Art in Nazi Germany (2014) and „Entartete“ Kunst – Verfolgung der Moderne im NS-Staat (2016) exhibitions, the latter just a few miles from where they were once scorned.
Bibliography:
Books and Articles:
Adams P, Art of the Third Reich (Harry N Abrams, Inc 1992)
Barron S, ed. Degenerate Art: The Fate of the Avant-Garde in Nazi Germany, (Los Angeles, CA: The Los Angeles County Museum of Art; New York: H.N. Abrams, 1991)
Barron S, Exiles + Emigres: The Flight of European Artists from Hitler (Angeles County Museum of Art 1997).
Degenerate Art: The Attack on Modern Art in Nazi Germany, 1937 March 13-September 1, 2014” (.neuegalerie.org) accessed June 26, 2016
Dittmar P, “Wie Picassos in Einer Vermüllten Wohnung Landeten” Die Welt (November 3, 2013) accessed June 28, 2016
Entartete Kunst — Bildersturm Vor 25 Jahren AUSSTELLUNG 25.10.1962 – 16.12.1962” (hausderkunst.de) accessed June 26, 2016
Entartete“ Kunst – Verfolgung der Moderne im NS-Staat. Werke aus der Sammlung Gerhard Schneider in Kallmann Museum Ismaning 1. Mai bis 11. September 2016
Farago J, “Degenerate Art: The Attack on Modern Art in Nazi Germany, 1937 Review – What Hitler Dismissed as 'Filth'” The Guardian (March 13, 2014) accessed June 26, 2016
Flavell,, KM George Grosz: A Biography (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1988) Kimmelman, M. (19 June 2014). ‘The Art Hitler Hated’. The New York Review of Books 61 (11): 25-26
Fullbrook M, The Divided Nation: A History of Germany 1918-1990 ( New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press 1992).
Goebbels J, Michael: Ein Deutsches Schicksal (1929).
Goebbels J, Tagebücher, vol 3 (Penguin Books 1948)
Grasskamp W, The divided heritage: themes and problems in German modernism, ed. Irit Rogoff. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
Grosshans H, Hitler and the Artists (Holmes & Meier Publishers 1983).
Hitchens C, For the Sake of Argument: Essays and Minority Reports (Verso 1993).
Krell J, ‘Michel Tournier's "Degenerate Art"’ Dalhousie French Studies, vol 31, 1995, Available from JSTOR (accessed 1 August 2016).
Levi N, ‘”Judge for Yourselves!”- The “Degenerate Art” Exhibition as Political Spectacle,’ October, vol. 85, 1998. Available from JSTOR (accessed 1 August 2016).
Levi, N. Modernist Form and the Myth of Jewification. Fordham UP, 2014.
Museum of Modern Art (MOMA). “Artists of Brücke: Themes in German Expressionist Prints.” (21 March 2003) <.moma.org/brucke/.
Nordau M, Degeneration (1892)
Oxford Online Dictionary
Petropoulos J, Art as Politics in the Third Reich. (University of North Carolina Press, 1996).
Reichspropagandaleitung der NSDAP: Kulturamt, Führer durch die Austellung Entartete Kunst. Printed: 1937, Archives: 1972.
Schneider G and Kleine R, “Entartete” Kunst Verfolgung Der Moderne im NS-Staat: Dargestellt Mit Werken Aus Der Sammlung Gerhard Schneider. Kallmann-Museum, 2016
Shirer, William L., The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich; a History of Nazi Germany. (Simon and Schuster, 1960),
Spotts, F. Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics. (The Overlook Press 2002).
Welch D, The Third Reich: Politics and Propaganda (Routledge 1994),
FOOTNOTES: [1] Barron S, ed. Degenerate Art: The Fate of the Avant-Garde in Nazi Germany, (Los Angeles, CA: The Los Angeles County Museum of Art; New York: H.N. Abrams, 1991) 45. [2] Ibid. [3] Museum of Modern Art (MOMA). “Artists of Brücke: Themes in German Expressionist Prints.” (21 March 2003) <.moma.org/brucke/. [4] formerly House of German Art, in which the Great German art exhibition was held in 1937 [5] “Entartete Kunst — Bildersturm Vor 25 Jahren AUSSTELLUNG 25.10.1962 – 16.12.1962” (hausderkunst.de) accessed June 26, 2016 [6] “Degenerate Art: The Attack on Modern Art in Nazi Germany, 1937 March 13-September 1, 2014” (.neuegalerie.org) accessed June 26, 2016 [7] Farago J, “Degenerate Art: The Attack on Modern Art in Nazi Germany, 1937 Review – What Hitler Dismissed as 'Filth'” The Guardian (March 13, 2014) accessed June 26, 2016 [8] Dittmar P, “Wie Picassos in Einer Vermüllten Wohnung Landeten” Die Welt (November 3, 2013) accessed June 28, 2016 [9] Spotts, F. Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics. (The Overlook Press 2002). 68 [10] Barron, 10. [11] Flavell,, KM George Grosz: A Biography (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1988) [12] Barron, 11. [13] Spotts, 72. [14] English: Great German Art Exhibition [15] Barron, 57. [16] Spotts, 163. [17] Ibid. [18] Spotts, 68. [19] Barron, 15. [20] „Entartete“ Kunst – Verfolgung der Moderne im NS-Staat. Werke aus der Sammlung Gerhard Schneider in Kallmann Museum Ismaning 1. Mai bis 11. September 2016 [21] Schneider G and Kleine R, “Entartete” Kunst Verfolgung Der Moderne im NS-Staat: Dargestellt Mit Werken Aus Der Sammlung Gerhard Schneider. Kallmann-Museum, 2016, 16-17. [22] Reichspropagandaleitung…Published 1972 [23] Entartete“ Kunst – Verfolgung der Moderne im NS-Staat. Werke aus der Sammlung Gerhard Schneider [24] Welch D, The Third Reich: Politics and Propaganda (Routledge 1994), 6. [25] Shirer, WL., The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich; a History of Nazi Germany. (Simon and Schuster, 1960), 217. [26] Goebbels J, Tagebücher, vol 3 (Penguin Books 1948), 251. [27] Krell J, ‘Michel Tournier's "Degenerate Art"’ Dalhousie French Studies, vol 31, 1995, Available from JSTOR (accessed 1 August 2016), 139. [28] Shirer, 217. [29] Spotts, 163. [30] Ibid. [31] Petropoulos J, Art as Politics in the Third Reich. University of North Carolina Press, 1996,109. [32] Ibid. [33] Spotts, 165. [34] Barron, 10. [35] Levi, N. Modernist Form and the Myth of Jewification. Fordham UP, 2014, 88. [36] Spotts, 166. [37] Levi, Modernist Form. 88. [38] Goebbels J, Tagebücher, vol 3 (Penguin Books 1948), 251. [39] Spotts, 166. [40] Grosshans H, Hitler and the Artists (Holmes & Meier Publishers 1983), 68. [41] Barron S, Exiles + Emigres: The Flight of European Artists from Hitler (Angeles County Museum of Art 1997), 13. [42] Barron, Degenerate Art,16. [43] Ibid. [44] Levi N, ‘”Judge for Yourselves!”- The “Degenerate Art” Exhibition as Political Spectacle,’ October, vol. 85, 1998. Available from JSTOR (accessed 1 August 2016), 41. [45] Nordau M, Degeneration (1892) [46] “Degenerate Art: The Attack on Modern Art in Nazi Germany, 1937 March 13-September 1, 2014” (.neuegalerie.org) accessed June 26, 2016 [47] Ibid. [48] Adams P, Art of the Third Reich (Harry N Abrams, Inc 1992), 52. [49] Spotts, 68. [50] Grosshans, 70. [51] Ibid. [52] Goebbels J. Michael: Ein Deutsches Schicksal (1929). [53] Fullbrook M, The Divided Nation: A History of Germany 1918-1990 ( New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press 1992), 78. [54] Fullbrook, 42. [55] Barron, 56. [56] Adams, 110. [57] Kimmelman, M. (19 June 2014). ‘The Art Hitler Hated’. The New York Review of Books 61 (11): 25-26 [58] Adam, 165. [59] Ernst Ludwig Kirchner (6 May 1880 – 15 June 1938) [60] Adams, 124. [61] Adams, 111. [62] Barron, 224. [63] Reichspropagandaleitung der NSDAP Kulturamt, Führer durch die Austellung Entartete Kunst. Veröffentlicht: 1972, 16. [64]Barron, 224. [65] Grasskamp W, The divided heritage: themes and problems in German modernism, ed. Irit Rogoff. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 19. [66] Ibid. [67] Levi N, ‘”Judge for Yourselves!” [68] Hitchens C, For the Sake of Argument: Essays and Minority Reports (Verso 1993), 305.
HISTORICAL INVESTIGATION
Was the Munich Degenerate Art exhibition of 1937 a success?
[Word Count: 2,158]
PART ONE: EVALUATION OF SOURCES
“WAS THE MUNICH DEGENERATE ART EXHIBITION OF 1937 A SUCCESS?” Success in all areas is measured by how well aims or goals are achieved, and this will be the focus of the investigation. Thus the classic ”Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” and the more recent “Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics” will be of particular importance as they offer a clear insight into the mindset and values of Hitler and his entourage as well as detailed accounts of the inner workings of the Munich exhibition.
SOURCE 1
“THE RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH: A HISTORY OF NAZI GERMANY” BY WILLIAM L. SHIRER (1960)
Published in 1960, Shirer’s classic book won the National Book Award for Non-Fiction and was praised by Orville Prescott as “one of the most important works of history”1. Although only a couple of pages are devoted to the Degenerate Art exhibition, Shirer’s personal experience visiting the exhibition are of great importance as this functions as a witness account. Shirer highlights what was liked and disliked by Hitler and his regime through his personal memory of the exhibition. His expertise and personal engagement as a foreign correspondent makes him a valuable source.2 Shirer was an American journalist who reported from Nazi Germany until the American entrance in the war in 1941 with great detail.3 The twenty year time span between the exhibition and the book allows Shirer to look back in hindsight and examine the success of the exhibition based on events that followed. However it was criticized by professional historians who highlight “glaring gaps in its coverage”4. This is a problem as wrote the book in a time that allowed for great bias towards the demonization of Hitler .5 The source offers a nuanced perspective on the propaganda events that led to the Rise of the Third Reich. This is of great importance as one cannot analyze the success of the exhibition if one is not familiar with the events that occurred before and after the exhibition.
SOURCE 2
“HITLER AND THE POWER OF AESTHETICS” BY FREDERIC SPOTTS (2009)
Spotts examines Hitler’s relationship with culture. He was a US Diplomat for Foreign Services in the sixties, who understood the European mentality which is advantageous in this investigation. However as a modern foreigner he is subjected towards Germany as the cause of two world wars, which is a limitation. As the Degenerate Art exhibition was vastly influenced by political decisions, the source is vital to understand Hitler’s connection and the importance of art in the Third Reich through the backgrounding political ideology. The book allows to understand that the exhibition was a representation of Hitler’s vision of the pure Germany that would be expressed equally in arts and politics, which emphasizes that art was used to dictate in Germany during the time of the exhibition. Furthermore the book is highly valuable as Spotts is not an accredited historian, but rather a scholar who’s book was viewed controversial among many historians. He tries to eradicate the irrational emotion that historians who write about Hitler face.6 However it is difficult for a foreign author to write about a specific exhibition, let alone nearly half a century after the subjected event occurred. As the majority of the book is dedicated towards Hitler, only a small section analyses the Degenerate Art exhibition, therefore the source is not directly relevant, which is a limitation, but it provides the necessary background information about Hitler, not the ruthless leader, but rather “a man of remarkable aesthetic instincts”.7
Part two: investigation
Hitler followed the ideology that “art must reflect the racial soul of people”.[5] In 1933, Hitler established the Reichskulturkammer which was administered by the Reichsminister für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda, Dr. Josef Goebbels.[6] Although Goebbels admired the prominent Expressionist works of Emil Nolde, Ernst Barlack and Erick Heckel, Alfred Rosenberg, a second important figure on Hitler's cultural pyramid, despised these and put forth a bitter ideology that condemned modern art and praised pure Aryan art.[7] Whole movements were blamed to be communist conspiracies and banned, including Expressionism, Impressionism, Dada, New Objectivity, Surrealism, Cubism and Fauvism[8]. Hitler adopted this ideology and denounced modern art and its practitioners as “incompetents, cheats and madman”[9] and in contrast to the realistic, monumental or manifested grey scaled pure German art, every work of art that did not confront the Nazi definition was declared Entartete Kunst, “Degenerate Art”.[10]
Part three: Reflection
Bibliography
FOOTNOTES: [1] Wilson [2] Camper [3] Kimmelmann [4] Barron [5] Evans, 168 [6] Bullock, 439 [7] Kershaw, 945 [8] “Guide to the "Degenerate Art" Exhibition (1937) .” [9] Farago [10] “The "Degenerate Art" Exhibit, 1937.” [11] Shirer [12] Evans, 172 [13] my own fieldwork [14] Ginder [15] Schuster [16] Ginder [17] Farago [18] Spotts, 151 [19] Evans, 170 [20] Entartete Kunst Ausstellungsführer [21] Kaiser [22] Levi [23] Barron [24] Evans, 170 [25] Evans, 171 [26] Evans, 173 [27] Barron [28] Berliner Morgenpost 172, 20 july 1937 [29] Ginder [30] Bryan [31] Evans, 174 [32] Shirer [33] Spotts, 164 [34] Levi [35] Schuster [36] Steinkamp [37] Evans, 174 [38] Barron
Section 1: Identification and Evaluation of Sources
The focus of this internal assessment will be the question: “Was the Degenerate Art (Entartete Kunst) exhibition a success?”
“Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics” by Frederic Spotts, published in 2002 is the first book that will be looked at in detail. This source’s content is of value, as its focus is on Hitler’s relationship with the arts. Spotts adheres to the view that Hitler’s exhibition of degenerate art was a success, therefore allowing for arguments towards one viewpoint to be considered. Publishing the book in 2002 strengthens the value of the origin, as Spotts profited from hindsight and had access to the German archives. He often cites diary entries from Goebbels or refers to the memoirs of Albert Speer and speeches given by Hitler, indicating the source is well researched and Spotts is knowledgeable on the topic. The sheer range of sources and an additional section dedicated to the evaluation of some most vital sources, indicates the reliability of the content provided and the extent to which the author studied this topic, as well as signifying Spotts’ wish to provide only accurate information. With all this information at hand, the author is able to give clear insight into the workings of Hitler and his regime. As Spotts says his book is “devoted to uncovering this neglected side of Hitler… the way he used his aesthetic talents to come to power and then to hypnotize Germany and much of Europe.”[1] In pursuing this goal, Spotts further comments: “so much nonsense has been written about Hitler and the arts that [this] book deliberately included everything that could be reliably said on the subject.” [2] The purpose of the book therefore is of great value as it gives a large amount of well-researched information, providing knowledge on a topic in which the degenerate art exhibition plays an important role. In addition, insight into Hitler’s persona allows for his goals for and assessment of the exhibition to be revealed. A limitation of the origin is that Spotts, having not been trained as a historian (he started as a diplomat) may have lacked the method of historians.
The second source that will be assessed is William L. Shirer’s “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” published in 1960. In terms of the origin, the source is of value, as Shirer was one of few historians who had access to the secret German archives. Having been in Germany at the time he is able to provide first-hand accounts, as well as interviews constituting a value in the source’s content and origin. Additionally, as Shirer supports the viewpoint that the exhibition was a failure, his arguments are of value in addressing the stated question. However, Shirer worked as a journalist and reported to the US up until 1941, discrediting his reliability. He has been strongly criticized by historians such as Richard J Evans and Klaus Epstein for lacking the proper historical methodology and containing ‘glaring gaps’ in his coverage.[3] Even his first-hand accounts are flawed through Shirer’s evident bias towards Germans; he often describes Goebbels as fat, or makes remarks on the stupidity of generals, which unnecessarily distract from the content. He seems to lack knowledge of Germany’s long history and ascribes a sort of endemic attitude and general behaviour to all Germans, even suggesting a similar event could reoccur if the Germans are not controlled. The purpose of the source being to give a concise overview of the build-up and fall of the Third Reich constitutes a limitation, as it is not focused on the Degenerate Art exhibition.
Section 2: Investigation
Curated and opened to the public 19 July 1937 in Munich, the Entartete Kunst (Degenerate Art) exhibition showcased works the Nazis disapproved of. Hitler personally authorized Goebbels to seize all ‘degenerate’ art in Germany since 1910 in a decree signed on 30 June 1937, defining such art as works that “insult German feeling, or destroy or confuse natural form or simply reveal an absence of adequate manual artistic skill.”[4] Within two weeks Adolf Ziegler, newly appointed President of the Reich Chamber of Visual Arts, and five of his assistants seized modernist works from all around Germany and brought these to Munich to be hung in a hastily arranged exhibition. The display, consisting of around 650 works by 112 artists showed examples of all of the most important modernist styles of Germany including Bauhaus, Dada, and Expressionism, shunning all major contemporary artists of the time.[5]
The Degenerate Art exhibition in Munich was the first, most symbolic of several defamatory exhibitions that followed across Germany that year, and was part of a much larger “project:” the pursuit of all non-German art. This plan had already been put into action shortly after Hitler seized power in 1933, but reached its climax in 1937.[6]
William L. Shirer argued that the exhibition was a miserable failure, recalling a long line forming outside the entrance into the street, and an “incensed and embarrassed” Dr. Goebbels, who soon closed the exhibition.[7] Shirer’s own presence at the exhibition seems to leave little room to argue against this although his own bias, evident throughout the book, and the fallibility of memory discredits his reliability (his book was published 23 years after the exhibition). In addition, this argument may be debunked when looking at a diary entry of Joseph Goebbels, the Reich Minister of Propaganda, who himself remarked on the success of the exhibition.[8] Given too that the exhibition stayed open until 30 November of 1937 and subsequently toured around Germany, if the Nazis had really been so unhappy about the many visitors, would they not have closed it earlier? [9]
The staggering numbers of visitors, especially in comparison to the opposite “Grosse Deutsche Kunstaustellung” (Great German Art exhibition) may make the exhibition seem a failure at first; the public was rebelling and viewing the art that they deemed to be valuable. This assumption is especially evident in Shirer’s almost sarcastic tone after describing the Great German Art exhibition in which “some Germans preferred to be artistically polluted.”[10] In Munich alone the visitor statistics totaled to around 2 million - almost five times as many visitors as the Great German Art Exhibition.[11] However, Frederic Spotts counters this argument, showing that, upon closer inspection it may be assumed that Hitler wanted a great number of spectators. He encouraged the public to attend and even arranged for entry to be without charge.[12] Jonathan Peteopoulos agrees, writing of Hitler’s intention to shame modernist artists and their art whilst educating the German ‘Volk’ on what exactly constituted the ‘German’ art that was acceptable in the national socialist state.[13] Furthermore, many visitors did not come to praise the art, with one spectator commenting how “it became increasingly obvious to me that most people had come to see the exhibition with the intention of disliking everything.”[14] Although there are no comprehensive surveys documenting the public’s opinion on the exhibition, eyewitness reports state that crowds loudly condemned the works in the exhibit.[15] Spotts concluded how Hitler “achieved his purpose” in both strengthening his authority as the spokesperson on ‘good’ art, through displaying his power and ability to crush what he disapproved of and thereby allowing him to largely put an end to German modernism. The Nazis managed to destroy the career of many artists who stood at the beginning of their careers during the time, and were not able to live up to an earlier success after the war.[16]
The opening of the “Great German Exhibition” in the Haus der Deutschen Kunst, just a day before the Degenerate Art exhibition and directly across from it indicated Hitler’s knack for perfection. In simultaneously showing and juxtaposing the two exhibitions Hitler was able to, according to Spotts, produce the “most dramatic confrontation in history between conflicting styles of art.”[17] The very public and gestural point of ‘this is good art, this is bad art’ leads experts, among them Neil Levi, to believe that the exhibition was meant as a political spectacle and propaganda event and was successful in pursuing this goal. Levi claims that rather than wanting to convince the public of the horrors of modernist and avant-garde art, the exhibition itself sought “the public’s participation in and assent to a certain kind of political spectacle;” the decisions to remove all “non-German” art had already been made and the public’s opinion was therefore irrelevant.[18] This would explain why Goebbels, seeing the rising numbers of visitors described the exhibition as a success in his diary.[19] Spotts’ descriptions however disagree with the interpretation that all decisions had already been made by the Nazis. After reviewing the success of the Degenerate Art Exhibition, he writes: “now that the public had demonstrated its disgust, Hitler must have concluded he could exploit his sentiment and finish the job,”[20] suggesting that Hitler only ordered all modernist art to be removed from German museums after the exhibition had taken place and he had received ‘approval’ from the Volk. This being said, it is uncertain whether or not Hitler would have ordered this even without public approval. His declaration at the inauguration ceremony seems to suggest that the plan was long under way: “I was always determined, if fate ever gave us power, not to discuss these matters [of artistic judgment] but to make decisions.”[21] The purge of Germany’s galleries was complete by March 1938. [22]
An additional point to consider when looking at the exhibition as a propaganda event is the display of the work with artwork largely hung askew, partially drawn over and hung next to drawings done by the mentally disabled or next to photos of physically disabled people.[23] Artwork was hung too close together, incorrectly labeled and even attributed to wrong artists and artistic movements. The walls were filled with hateful slogans: “Revelation of the Jewish soul,” “Nature as seen by sick minds” or “Madness becomes method.”[24]. Levi reasons that the German people were given almost no chance to ‘judge for themselves’ as Adolf Ziegler invited them to do so at the opening of the exhibition.[25] With this, and the juxtaposition of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ art in mind, it becomes unclear why Shirer would present Goebbels as being angry and embarrassed about the many visitors. It seems that the Nazis made sure anyone who viewed the exhibition would have no choice but to agree with Hitler’s aesthetic views - a goal that he pursued.
Considering the views of largely Spotts and Levi in contradiction to Shirer, it seems that both as propaganda event and political spectacle, as well as in educating the public and setting guidelines for what constituted ‘clean’ and ‘German’ art, the Degenerate Art exhibition may be deemed a success. The large number of spectators and available knowledge of their reactions clearly seems to feed into Hitler’s purpose of instilling his aesthetic views in the public’s minds. In addition, the juxtaposition of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ art through the simultaneous opening of the “Great German Exhibition,” and the unappealing display of ‘degenerate’ work, left viewers with almost no choice but to be immersed in the propaganda machine.
Section 3: Reflection
An initial problem I had when researching this topic was finding extensive information and especially analysis, rather than simply descriptions of the exhibition. Seeing very different views and interpretations from seemingly equally reliable experts while researching, made me aware of a historian’s reliance on secondary sources and the possible problems with this. As Spotts personally states in his book, since there is little documentation on Hitler’s persona, historians have often relied on sources written many years after the events and ones that were partially even falsified. A principal example being ‘Hitler’s Diaries’ of 1983,[26] fabulations, which were taken as reliable factual information by many historians. I equally found myself having to rely on secondary sources, and using quotations from these.
A key challenge I faced during this investigation was the ambiguity of the term “success.” It depends entirely on perspective, at what point in time it may be seen as such etc. Though I have established that the exhibition may be seen as a success for Hitler based on sources I have found, I can never get into Hitler’s head and truly found out what he was thinking at the time. Historians can only ever consider as many sources as possible, formulating an opinion based on this.
Another difficulty in my investigation was the subjectivity of art and the judgments made on what constitutes good art in this topic. Living in an open society, with freedom of press, it is a crime for anyone to be attacked for their art, making it difficult to tackle such a subject without affording victims undue gravitas.
Looking at the “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” I also became aware of the nature of primary sources and difficulties associated with gaining accurate historical knowledge, even from people who have first-hand experiences. Shirer, having been in Germany at the time is able to give first-hand accounts and incorporate interviews, however, though these primary sources are often of value, one must become aware of his bias towards Germans in his analyses. Though this may be understood, his personal ideas on German history and the nature of German people oftentimes interfere with a valuable account for historians.
Works Cited
Books
Barron, Stephanie, and Peter W. Guenther. “Degenerate Art”: The Fate of the Avant-garde in Nazi Germany. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 1991
Evans, Richard J. The coming of the Third Reich. London: Allen Lane, 2008.
Levi, Neil. Modernist Form and the Myth of Jewification. Fordham UP, 2014.
Petropoulos J, Art as Politics in the Third Reich. University of North Carolina Press, 1996.
Schneider G and Kleine R, “Entartete” Kunst Verfolgung Der Moderne im NS-Staat: Dargestellt Mit Werken Aus Der Sammlung Gerhard Schneider. Kallmann-Museum, 2016.
Shirer, William L., The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich; a History of Nazi Germany. Simon and Schuster, 1960
Spotts Frederic, Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics. Overlook Press, 2003.
Journals
Krell J, ‘Michel Tournier's "Degenerate Art"’ Dalhousie French Studies, vol 31, 1995, pp. 139-56. Available from JSTOR (accessed 5 August 2016)
Levi N, ‘”Judge for Yourselves!”- The “Degenerate Art” Exhibition as Political Spectacle,’ October, vol. 85, 1998, pp. 41-64. Available from JSTOR (accessed 5 August 2016)
Websites
Kluge D, “Propaganda-Austellung ‘Entartete Kunst’: Als Die Nazis Der Kunst Den Kampf Ansagten, (N24.de, November 4, 2013.) accessed August 5, 2016
“Neil Levi” (Drew University) accessed September 1, 2016
How was the 1937 Degenerate Art exhibition successful as a propaganda mission?
Word Count: 3987
Session: May 2017
Introduction (200-300):
The largest modern art exhibition put before the public opened on Monday July 19th, 1937 in what is now the headquarters for Munich’s Art Society. It was not an exhibition to celebrate modern art and artists, to celebrate creativity and expression or to admire genius. It was instead an exhibition of work denounced by the Nazis and instead of building up artists such as Paul Klee, Franz Marc, Ernst Ludwig Kirchner and many others, it sought to destroy and deride them. The exhibition, which degraded over 112 artists from Europe and abroad, was a well-oiled gear in the Nazi’s propaganda machine. The exhibition was organized by Adolf Ziegler, the President of the Reich Chamber of Art, and ran for four months and presented over 650 pieces of art, most impounded from museums or collections. Displayed in seven cramped rooms the art spread from the floorboards to the ceiling, some were unframed and purposefully displayed carelessly. There was no regard for artist, date or name of the work and many had been disfigured by propagandistic slogans such as ‘ nature as seen by sick minds’ or ‘revelations of the Jewish Racial Soul’ and quotes by Nazi officials denouncing the work. After the exhibition had concluded in Munich the works were negligently packed and sent around the German speaking area to educate the population on the horrors of modern art. The works burned, auctioned off or destroyed in Allied bombings. Most pieces have never been seen and a generation’s art was lost. It was juxtaposed with the concurrent Great German Art Exhibition (Großen Deutschen Kunstaustellung) in which art which was deemed worthy both stylistically and ideologically by Hitler was showcased. This essay will analyse the success of the exhibition as a propaganda event and the political and artistic dimensions fused to force a German consensus on social, political and especially cultural ideals such as the social roles (ex. Gender) and the importance of war, expansion and national pride. Art that was abstract or expressionistic and neither literal nor with one clear pro-Nazi theme but easily interpreted in various manners or with obvious opposition such as Otto Dix anti-war paintings.
Body:
In the 66 years since Germany had unified art and representation in such had dramatically changed. In between there had been constant political metamorphosis and the German mentality, its people and what it meant to be German was drastically redefined. While social changes and the development of the public mind have always been mirrored in art. The works of art displayed in the Degenerate Art Exhibition and in the Great German Art Exhibition both addressed these themes however the condemned art was considered less worthy because while the art styles were (degenerate?) but also because they depicted the ‘inner war’: the changing roles of men and women in society and the moral bankruptcy of traditional German militarism. These sensitive topics packaged in new and unusual art cultivated these feelings of discomfort and uneasiness towards modern art. These reactions were capatilised on by Hitler’s regime as can be seen in the artwork picked for their were visually and thematically disturbing content especially when depicted against more traditional European art such as works by impressionists that dealt with elegant depictions of mood, emotion, light and little to no social critique. These modern pieces of art had no shame and depicted everything from childhood to war in gruesome and In contrast to these grim works the beautiful ‘racially pure’ works of previous generations hung across Europe, reminding of a better time. Every nerve of the exhibition was geared to inspire distrust and hate towards the art, its artists and anti-Nazi ideals. From the poster/exhibition guide that was published * which displayed the word art (Ger: Kunst) in quotation marks and written in crayon to depict its childlike and unprofessional manner (and the non-recognition of these works as art) to the physical exhibition hall in which art was purposefully hung incorrectly, damaged and displayed in dark lighting and with creeping shadows to make the artwork appear more terrifying. The most dominant political criticism was that the communists and the jews had influenced or even create these works. Condemnation of these social groups was prominent in every aspect of the Nazi regime with speeches, news services, pamphlets and education geared towards this mindset. While up until the point of the exhibition the vast majority of the anti- Communist/Jewish propaganda was geared towards their apparent influence on the failure to win the First World War and the turmoil and suffering under the Weimar regime now they were attacked socially and culturally.
While foreign artists, such as those of Eastern European and/or Jewish heritage were profusely condemned by the Regime as they were seen as inferior and ‘members of an international communist conspiracy’ , German artists who appeared too influenced by non-Western styles, art forms and themes were also censured. As persons of different ethnicities (races? Don’t like sound too crude) especially from the former German colonies entered Germany in the 1920s and early 1930s these served as inspirations for art, both in style and as models. Artists like Emil Nolde and Max Pechstein used Polynesian, African and Sinti/Roma women as models frequently in their work and while these races were frowned down upon as being primitive and inferior - so were now these artists. The Nazi’s and many Germans considered people of colour and the former colonies to be dangerous beneath and did not find it fitting that they were represented frequently and as the ‘norm’ and for a good, racially pure Aryan artist to be inspired by them so deeply. They surely must be inferior too then.
The degenerate art exhibition was successful as a propaganda mission in part because of the German’s sense of uneasiness with themes expressed by modern artists such as the changing role of women and Germany’s blame and suffering in WW1. The images of women created by these modern artists were very different from what the German public was used to from their traditional and accepted works of the 19th and early 20th century. Women then were shown clothed inconspicuously, shown undergoing accepted tasks and as objects of grace and beauty. The artists of the time Hitler favoured were Adolf Wissel, Karl Alexander Flügel, Leopold Schmutzlen and Fritz Machensen and their women were portrayed wokring in fields, with children, praying in church, gracefully entertaining or in flattering realistic portraits. “The mission of a woman is to be beautiful...the female bird pretties herself for her mate and hatches the eggs for him. In exchange the mate takes care of gathering the food, stands guard and wards off the enemy” Joseph Goebbels wrote in his only novel ‘Michael: Ein Deutsches Schicksal’ (Michael: A German Destiny in Diary Form) depicting on how the regime and conservative Germany how women, men and what their roles during war should be. This social norm had been rattled all over Europe and in Germany 3.8 million men had gone to war for their country leaving the women behind to manage the country's infrastructure and jobs. Once the survivors had returned neither wanted to give up their positions of authority and this struggle led to women’s suffrage and in increase in social equality which rattled many. Sexual promiscuity as well as more nonpartisan ownership, divorce and settlement laws allowed for the rise of a new type of woman as american influences such as shorter skirts and make-up gained popularity as did sex trade. For many more conservative Germans this was behaviour associated with ‘whores’ and ‘loose girls’. This type of female lifestyle was heavily frowned upon and once modern artists started depicting such women and choices they also received this brunt of criticism. In room three of the exhibition two large slogans reading “An insult to German womanhood” and “Ideal Cretin and Whore” were written with the works of Karl Hofer, Paul Kleinschmidt, Max Beckmann, Max Ernst, Karel Niestrath, Heinrich Hoerle, Otto Mueller and Ernst Ludwig Kirchner displayed underneath.
While when classical artists had created depictions of women in the nude this had been accepted as high art and an exploration of the human body the Nazis condemned the versions by modern artists. The women were dressed in flamboyant costumes such as worn by sex workers or dancers with their sexuality frequently overt. That this was often done in connection to models who were quite obviously not of Aryan race did not help gain appreciation or understanding for the artists. Ernst Ludwig Kirchner, a founding member of Die Brücke was heavily affected by this. His pictures such as Gelbe Tänzerin which was painted in 1913 and displayed under the title “the prostitute is extolled as the moral ideal”. Kirchner wanted his women to appear “superficial and theatrical...making a statement about bourgeois, urban life.” He wanted to make people “anxious...purposefully questioning their conventions, preconceptions and morality.” Visitors to the exhibition were immidiatly drawn to the centre and focus of the painting, the woman’s hand lifting up her skirts to reveal her open legs and this most likely inspired embarrassment, repulsion and fremdschämen. Paintings such as these not only overhauled everything women traditionally stood for in Germany but also what the Nazis represented in their ideals and therefore the artwork - by a communist sympathiser - was a perfect scapegoat and representation of all things un-liked by the Nazis, therefore being successful propaganda as it was a mutual dislike shared by the German public.
Otto Dix a celebrated German painter at the time became notorious for his 1920s portrayal of women. His 1923 painting Das Mädchen vor dem Spiegel was not only attacked for its condemnation of bourgeois society but because of its ‘grotesque erotic imagery’ and its intense ‘sexual perversion’. He was indicted on moral charges and brought to trial for these ‘obscene’ pictures. While he was eventually acquitted due to other artists speaking out in his favour but various other paintings of his were displayed during the exhibition and destroyed during the war. He was especially disliked due to his portrayal not only of women but of the crimes and atrocities that gained attention in Germany during the interwar years due to the absolute freedom of speech. Pictures representing the emaciated, dying population of Germany along with images of rape and murder (such as Lustmord in the exhibition) and the ghostly feel of the cities and towns. This representation of Germany’s weakness and darkest hour was not appreciated by the regime and described as treasonous, grotesque and Dix himself as ‘sick in the mind’.
In contrast paintings by Artists such as Wilhelm Liebl’s Three Women in Church which was painted in 1879-1882 in the Great German Art Exhibition was revered and he celebrated in a manner that he never had before the war. The women are depicted in long dresses, heads covered and head bent in prayer with no make-up and no body contours visible. This image displayed the purity of the German woman and was displayed with the distinct purpose to remind visitors of their grandmothers of elderly relatives before the war, in the good old days in which their world still made sense. The exhibition as a whole focused on “turning away from pessimistic negation and abstraction and the return to a simple world and humanity”. A simple world in which the clear gender roles as described by Goebbels above were followed and the norm and in everything had its place unlike in this godless modern world.
The Nazi ideals of Kinder, Küche, [und] Kirche (Children, Kitchen [and] Church) for women as well as their own beauty ideals of strong, young, tall healthy blue eyed blond ladies. As Peter Adam described “Artists (should) stress above all else the role of the mother as the guardian of life...to show the healthy physical being, the biological value of the individual” and they should not have any sexuality of their own. Portraits of these women were well loved and very common. These portraits were often of approved Nazi beauties such as actresses or artists as well as the ladylike and proper wives of Nazi officials. They were depicted in demure and elegant poses, mostly in their homes, going about their daily routine as this idea of a human figure without a care or suffering was very popular at the time. This can be related back to the ideal of an ordinary traditional life and these women who were not depicted heavily made up or garishly dressed but not vain at all, just living a content and healthy life.
The reaction of the women to these works of art is a fascinating one. While political emancipation had been reached during the Weimar Republic and the image of the emancipated woman popularised not many lived the lifestyle or even wanted to live the lifestyle seen in these portrayals by modern artists. The feminist historian Mary Fullbrook argues that only a small minority of women actually adopted this ‘wild’ lifetsyle such as “...smoking cigarettes in long holders, cutting their hair in a short fashion, driving and indulging in a daring glittery nightlife.” Instead many prefered to enter long term monogamous relationships - preferably marriages - and of financial security and class permitted stay at home as housewives. This majority of German women wanted the stability of the pre-war years and along with traditionalist men criticised the artworks displayed if not more than their male counterparts. This aided the Nazi propaganda scheme perfectly, if the women themselves could not relate and were affronted it was respectless of the men to do so and once one believed in one ideological structure of the Nazis, it was not too difficult to be persuaded by others.
Within the Reichspropagandaleitung der NSDAP Kulturamt a paragraph describes the perfect manner in which choose art for the exhibition depicting war: “The intention is manifest: the viewer is meant to see the soldier either as a murderer or a victim...above all, people are to be deprived of their profound reverence for all the military virtues: valor, fortitude, and readiness for combat. And so, in the drawings for this section, alongside caricatures of war cripples expressively designed to arouse repulsion and views of mass graves delineated every refinement of detail. We see German soldiers represented as simpletons, vile erotic wastrels and drunkards. That not just jews but “artists” of German blood could produce such botched and contemptible works, in which they gratuitously reaffirmed our enemies’ war atrocity propaganda - already unmasked at the time as a tissue of lies - will forever remain a blot in the history of German culture.
This is a summary of what modern artists created when they portrayed war, especially the fresh wound that was WW1. Art historians such as Walter Grasskamp the former dean of the Academy of Fine Arts, Munich and a respected Art-critic, sociologist, philosopher and 20th century German historian argue that WW1 could have unified and reintegrated German artists to form a concrete modern post-war German identity. The tensions between the artists of the Secession movements and the avant-garde would have disappeared and helped heal a German national feeling. Many German artists had fought valiantly for Germany and were proud to call themselves German, even after they had been publicly shamed, threatened, killed or exiled. They drew distinctions between what it meant to be a German and what it meant to be a Nazi. Many even shared the belief that german culture was superior to that of the rest of Europe. Some, such as Franz Marc (Blaue Reiter) had been glad for war, thinking it would act as catharsis and rid Germany of its materialism. However, by the end of the war with an estimated 1.6 million dead and 4 million wounded and many suffered greatly under the lasting effects of PTSD as well as watching the rest of the world hack at Germany and blame it, making all of their fighting and suffering in vain. Just as the average German citizen had to come to terms with rebuilding themselves and their country, so did the artists in the way they knew how...through art. Most Germans did not want to admit defeat and as art showing just that grew more popular so did the myths of internal enemies such as the ‘backstabbing Jews and communists’.
Art did not try to reattain the tranquility and natural dream state of the impressionists before the war but tried to depict what the artist had seen, been through and continued to feel and be aware of every day. Many former supporters of the war had had their romantic ideals crushed and created to make statements, anything from the pacifistic messages to condemnation of the German leaders of the time for bringing such a suffering upon their country. This behaviour and depiction of the horrors of war and not the glory, the defeat of Germany and not its unfair betrayal we considered almost treasonous by the Nazi regime. Works of art by Ernst Barlach, Otto Dix, Karl Niestrath and many others were presented under slogans such as “deliberate sabotage of national defence” and “an insult to the German heros of the Great War”. Especially as Germany began re-militarising in 1935 and no longer playing by the Treaty of Versailles’ rules did such artworks send a very wrong message. This disrespectful and ungrateful attitude was interpreted liberally into the works of art by artists not respected by the regime. Barlach’s sculpture Christus und Johannes (Christ and John) was said to have a “pacifist - some would say defeatist- theme...an insult to the German spirit”. With this work of art ist was especially successful as the sculpture simultaneously soiled an image of religious significance. This image in particular offended not only the Nazi Party but also large numbers of German citizens. Everyone had suffered under the war and had lost someone and to see their memory and what they stood for soiled as well as the overwhelming Christian church in Germany was considered utterly inappropriate.
Georg Grosz was one such artist. He felt it was his personal duty to depict the wounded, disabled and mutilated of the war and openly questioned its causes such as imperialism, nationalism and militarism. A self proclaimed communist he was one of Germany’s most outspoken and controversial artists. 20 of his works were displayed in the Degenerate exhibition and some such as Maul halten und weiter dienen (shut up and do your duty) were again both anti-church and anti-nationalism. This one depicting a crucified Jesus wearing a gas-mask, an image that caused national outcry in Germany even before it was exhibited. Grosz and his friend and agent Wieland Herzfelde were convicted of blasphemy and sacrilege and were fined 2000 reichsmark (roughly Euro 8000) each and wound have suffered more consequences had it not been for a sympathetic judge. Grosz open continued support of communism scared and unnerved many Germans who fervently believed that communists had played an instrumental role in Germany’s defeat and blame after the war. By also alienating the christian population of Germany Grosz lost all most all of his support and was a perfect example of anti-Nazi and ‘anti-German’ ideology. He represented everything the Reich hoped to condemn and had worst of all tainted the Germans memory and faith, both in their fallen loved ones and their belief.
Even works of art that had been created with an objective image in mind and for the purpose of documentation such as Otto Dix’s illustrations of the battlefields and the “daily life of the soldier and the horrors of war” were condemned for they showed the truth and not the glorious military lifestyle that had been the popular image of war under the Kaiserreich. 26 of his war illustrations alone were demonstrated and while many Germans who had lived these nightmares themselves recognised their accuracy they did not want to be reminded of such horrors, they wanted to celebrate their survival, not accept blame or defeat for that would mean the pain had been in vain and they wanted to forget the misery, they wanted to move into a glorious German future and that would never be achieved with this constant reminder of suffocating past. The Nazi’s accused him of single-handedly trying to sabotage German national defense and demoralise the German people. His work was labeled as offending “the moral feeling of the German people in the gravest way”.
Interestingly enough his most controversial work a triptych named Der Krieg (The War) and was first exhibited in Cologne however shocked by its imagery Konrad Adenauer the then mayor of Cologne and later the first Chancellor of post-war Germany and during the early 1930s still a supporter of the NSDAP had the images removed. They displayed respectively, soldiers marching to war, in the middle body fragments and destroyed houses and finally on the last panel the soldiers crawling home. Body parts such a pale legs painted white were visible on the centre piece with individual bullet wounds visible as well as various other dismembered limbs and mutilated men. There was even an impaled body fragment visible and these visceral and very realistic style left viewers traumatised and counteracted the image of the honourable soldier peacefully at rest on the battlefield on which he had defended his fatherland and its integrity.
One of Hitler’s favourite artist’s in comparison had a more romantic image of the war. Elk Eber created artworks such ‘WW1 Soldier’ demonstrating a strapping young man, handsome in his neat uniform, no sign of blood or injury. He is in motion directing his gun with a facial expression of determined heroism off canvas with no trace of fear or regret. Hitler made sure his works were used as examples for photographers and the Reich’s art schools for when war would come around again it would get the glorious delineation it deserved. These works showed the German public “a gentle war, of blonde nurses, comradeship and friendly faces...not a picture of blood, tears, gangrene and death”. The whole imagery around war made it seem like an extended boy-scouts adventure, a grown man’s extension of tin soldiers and toy tanks.
As Hitler’s second world war approached the need to dream like and inspiring war imagery was more necessary than ever. Hitler needed to remind his Reich that they did not only adore him and the glory of their country but also the glory of war and success. The rush and pride that came from making a difference for Germany, he had to give them a reason to fight. This romantic 19th century imagery of war included modern approved depictions of war and pictures of great battles past to remind that Germany had always been great and had always been a militarised empire. They needed to erase the horrors and their plan was to single these works out and remind the German public of their emotions when these pieces of ‘art’ had first been displayed.
Contemporary artists have always depicted the relevant and the social change and impact. In these tumultuous times art was not created to be enjoyed necessarily but to warn and inform, just as the Nazis used it. These artists created unrest within the German public but not of the type they wanted, many were so unnerved, traumatised and old wounds reopened by this art that it was almost automatically condemned and ignored without much aid from the Nazis, they simply picked up the pieces in question and made sure they reached a larger audience, making the Degenerate Art Exhibition of 1937 a propaganda success.
*
