UC Santa Barbara > History Department > Prof. Marcuse > Courses > Hist 133b Homepage > Hist 133b Book Essays Index page > Student essay
|
"Art as Politics in the Third Reich" Book Essay on:
by Andrew Milman for Prof. Marcuse's lecture course |
|
& Abstract |
and Links |
at amazon |
About Andrew Milman I am a fourth year UCSB student majoring in Philosophy and German studies. I was born to American parents in a small village called Simmern, in Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany. I hope to return soon after I graduate. My somewhat unusual topic of art in Nazi Germany stems from a summer abroad program titled “The Aesthetics of Nazism.” My overall impression of Nazi art before I took this course, while traveling in Germany, was that of barbaric propaganda with little importance attached to the period; however, now I feel the importance of art in Nazi Germany is often overlooked, and misunderstood. I hope this essay gives readers valuable insight into the role of National Socialist art in Nazi Germany and today. Abstract (back to top) In Art of the Third Reich (1992) |
Essay (back to top) Art as Politics in the Third Reich In his Art Of The Third Reich (1992), Peter Adam argues Hitler was an artist first and a politician second. Consequently, any study of the Nazi period between 1933-1945 must also include an in-depth examination of National Socialist art. However, National Socialist art for the most part has been swept under the rug, and oversimplified as a barbaric embarrassment with little or no importance attached to the period. It is Adam's goal to give an honest representation of art and its genesis in the Third Reich, while examining its role during and after the National Socialist movement. Adam concludes that the art of Nazi Germany can never be separated from Nazi political ideology, thus overshadowing any intrinsic value of art produced in this period. After the Second World War most of the art produced under the Nazi regime was either destroyed in the allied bombing campaigns or sent back to the United States. To this day The United States government has kept about 325 of the most inflammatory works in a vault under the auspices of the army in Washington” (Adam 8). The rest of the art work, according to Adam about 8,000 pieces, have been sent back to Germany where they have suffered a similar fate, collecting dust “underneath the customs office in Munich” (Adam 8). As a result, little is known about German art during this period. What is known, is that Hitler began his life in Austria as a small time painter where he “vowed to dedicate his life wholly to art“ (Adam 41). In Vienna Hitler fell in love with the neo-classical and neo-baroque architecture that dominated the city. The development of his love for the neoclassical style was sharply contrasted by his loathing of the avant-garde, also present in Vienna. This set the foundation of the Nazi policy of denouncing any modern art work. According to Adam the genesis of Nazi art started before Hitler and the Nazis, in the propagation of the Nordic myth of German racial superiority. Adam states this best by quoting the fighting call of the Pan German league “We belong to the Master race…. Germany awake! 1890” (Adam 28). With books touting a utopian world in which an Aryan race was to be bred by heroes, and magazine articles dedicated to the Aryan way of life published in the twenties, the seed of Pan-Germanism was already sowed before Hitler came to power. Hitler merely absorbed this into his party policy. Hitler’s personal loathing of modern art was also present in the German populace before he came to power. After Germany’s defeat in the first world war and the subsequent economic crisis, modern art was seen by many as one of the causes and a sign of the of overall degeneration of a society that had failed them. Thus, Hitler appealed to the German people by pledging a return to the traditional way of life, and encouraged a traditional artistic expression everyone could understand. This idea of a return to the past was also reflected in 19 th century German architecture. In particular, the Teutoburg Monument, built in 1875 to honor the victory of ancient Germany over the Roman Empire, embodies the idea of a return to the past. It is here Hitler sought to link the past and the present to legitimatize his authority by conducting Hindenburg’s funeral on the site in 1934. Hindenburg’s funeral symbolized the transition of power to Hitler, while solidifying the connection between Hitler and past glorious German victories via architecture. By the time Hitler had taken power in 1933 the foundations of national socialism were laid. Hitler, now the leader of Germany, delegated the task of directly overseeing art to his deputies Goebbels and Rosenburg. In 1933, Goebbels was appointed by Hitler as head of the Reichshulturkammer (Reichs Culture Chamber) (Adam 52). The Nazi regime quickly blurred the line between art and politics, and by May of 1933 Max Liebermann the Jewish president of the Prussian Art Academy, sent in his letter of resignation. Liebermann’s letter of resignation reflects the fusion of art and politics at the time. “It is my conviction that art has nothing to do with politics or origin. Since this belief is no longer valid, I can no longer belong to the Prussian Academy, of which I was a member for over thirty years, and which I served as president for twelve years” (Adam 60). The final stage of the metamorphosis of German art came in 1933 with the expectation of all artists to join the Reich’s Culture Chamber. During the next two years artists either reaped the benefits of joining the Culture Chamber, or emigrated. By 1935 the Reich’s Culture Chamber had over 100,000 members (Adam 53). Now the Nazis had a tight grasp on every aspect of art, and made sure it served their purposes of indoctrinating the masses with twisted fascist ideology. At this point the Nazis had absolute control of the artistic community and they sought to implement their ideas of acceptable art. This is manifested in a variety of different media reflecting Nazi political philosophies. For example, one of the ways painting reflected the Nazi political philosophy was by the extensive, often monotonous repetition of traditional landscape art. “Their Landscape represented the Germans’ Lebensraum, their living space” (Adam 130). Lebensraum, originally a political idea that Hitler had popularized in Mein Kampf, had now found its way into German art through the Nazi dictatorship. The idea of Lebensraum represented itself in Nazi art years before it actually manifested itself in the invasion of the Soviet Union. Most of the landscapes painted during this time representing Germany’s quest for Lebensraum, also promoted the Nazi philosophy of Aryan racial ideology, and a return to the past. A prime example of this is The Sower by Oskar Martin-Amorbach 1937. In this painting, the focus is on an Aryan man spreading seeds by hand. In the background the landscape is of farm land being plowed by a horse. The Aryan man in the foreground expresses the Nazi ideal of racial perfection. The return to the past is expressed by the absence of mechanical agricultural equipment, with the farmer spreading seeds by hand and the horse drawn plow. Also, sculpture became one of the most profound media of National Socialist ideology. Through sculpture, Arno Breker, one of Hitler’s favorites, manifested the Nazi quest for racial perfection by his classical style of perfect proportions, often using Olympic athletes as his subjects. For Hitler and the Nazis Breker’s sculptures of the male nude “represented the ideal of the Aryan race, embodying the virtues of the regime: comradeship, discipline, obedience, steeliness, and courage. It was not just an ideal of beauty, it was an ideal of being” (Adam 178). The grim reality was that the Nazi “ideal of being” didn’t just decide what was beautiful, but who lived and who died. The most ambitious medium of art during the twelve year rule of Adolf Hitler was Hitler’s personal obsession, architecture. Hitler, staying true to his days in Vienna, built upon strict lines of “neo-baroque and neo-classical buildings” (Adam 207). To do this Hitler first enlisted the expertise of the prominent southern German architect Paul Ludwig Troost, and following Troost’s death in 1934, Albert Speer. Hitler had grandiose ideas of rebuilding the Reich in his image. These grandiose plans were never fully realized, but rather partially built and can be seen even today at the Nuremberg party grounds, the Museum of German Art in Munich, the Luftwaffe head quarters and the Olympic stadium in Berlin, to name a few. Architecture for Hitler served multiple political aims, as did painting and sculpture. The political aims achieved by architecture are best summarized by Adam: “The National Socialists’ buildings were meant to impress and to intimidate, they were also meant to unite the people” (pg 227). Another interesting facet of National Socialist architecture built before the beginning of war in 1939, is that while the buildings were styled neo-classical on the outside, the Nazis used the most modern construction techniques and conveniences on the inside. In fact, “most buildings were part of an extensive network of underground air-raid shelters“ (Adam 227). It seems counterintuitive to build something that was to be bombed eventually. It becomes clear the Nazis were preparing for an all-out war from the beginning of the regime, due to the fact that these shelters were specifically included in their architectural plans, rather than an ad hoc thought after the war started. Adam makes clear the undeniable connection between Nazi political philosophy and art. A subject which I feel Adam did not fully exhaust is the role of Nazi art in the today. The question remains whether the art of the Third Reich can be valued intrinsically, or only as Adam states, “One can only look at the art of the Third Reich through the lens of Auschwitz” (pg. 9). In other words, should German art from 1933 to 1945 be forever banished to the basements of Washington and Munich never to be seen again for serious critical evaluation? To evaluate this question one must look at past works of art and the peoples who produced them. With a quick glance into antiquity one can see the origins of the National Socialist art in the classicism of Rome and Greece. No one doubts the Coliseum of Rome is one of the great wonders of the world, and a crowning achievement of the human race. However, one must also consider that the coliseum was built by slave labor, for the purpose of watching slaves kill each other against their will in gladiatorial games. Not to mention among the many minority groups violently persecuted by the Romans were the Christians. Must we also look at the art work of ancient Rome through lens of these atrocities? Furthermore, we as Americans tend to forget that Germany is not the only country with a history of genocide and forced slave labor. It is clear that America’s pursuit of manifest destiny (aka Lebensraum) resulted in the deportation and slaughter of countless innocent Native Americans. This is coupled with the American tradition of slavery that existed well into the 19 th century. The neo-classical and monumental architecture of Washington D.C. suddenly becomes less appealing. Must we also look at state-sponsored art in the United States through the lens of its violent and genocidal past? The obvious answer is yes, we must always look at art work in the proper context, but that does not mean we cannot value the art intrinsically. The problem with posing this same question to art during the Nazi period is three fold: first, there has been very little serious critical evaluation of art during the Nazi period, mainly because the United States and German government prevent access. Second, any member of academia wishing to even investigate this subject seriously and objectively runs the career ending risk of being labeled a “Nazi” or a “Nazi sympathizer.” Lastly, serious evaluation of the intrinsic qualities of art during the Nazi period is too fast and too soon. As the grandson of a survivor of the German blitzkrieg bombing campaigns of London, I have seen first hand the emotions anything related to the subject of Nazism involves. The Nazi regime has left deep scars upon the world, which must be respected and allowed time to heal, before this debate can ever be resolved. |
Bibliography and Links (back to top)(links last checked 3/x/07) Related Books
Websites (Be careful about websites discussing Nazi art, many turn out to be neo-Nazi affiliated.)
|
|
Any student tempted to use this paper for an assignment in another course or school should be aware of the serious consequences for plagiarism. Here is what I write in my syllabi:
|
, Peter Adam examines art, its genesis, and how one should view the art of Nazi Germany today. Art in the Third Reich, argues Adam, is a topic that should not be overlooked, since Hitler was an artist before he was a politician. Adam also presents a detailed survey of painting, sculpture, and architecture in Nazi Germany. He traces the roots of National Socialist art to the myth of Nordic racial superiority. Furthermore, Adam explores how Hitler used art as tool to further his political agenda of world domination, racial purity, and nazi cultural values. His book culminates in an explanation of how one should view art produced during Nazi Germany. In the essay I explore how Nazi political philosophy manifested itself in art, and how the division between art and politics in Nazi Germany was blurred. The essay ends with the postulation of an alternative view of the role of Nazi art today.