Totalitarian Art and Modernity
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
KfkXc`kXi`Xe8ikXe[Df[\ie`kp v27_TOT(4k).indd 1 01/11/10 13:51:33 v27_TOT(4k).indd 2 01/11/10 13:51:33 <[`k\[YpD`bb\c9fckIXjdljj\eAXZfYNXdY\i^ KFK8C@K8I@8E 8IK8E; DF;<IE@KP v27_TOT(4k).indd 3 01/11/10 13:51:34 KfkXc`kXi`Xe8ikXe[Df[\ie`kp Acta Jutlandica. Humanities Series 2010/9 © The authors and Aarhus University Press 2010 Cover design: Peter Holst Henckel Cover illustration: Ferdinand Staeger, We Are the Soldiers of Work (1938), oil on canvas Bogen er sat med Nobel på Fresco og trykt hos Narayana Press, Gylling Printed in Denmark 2010 issn 0065-1354 (Acta Jutlandica 9) issn 0901-0556 (Humanities Series) isbn 978 87 7934 5607 Aarhus University Press Aarhus Langelandsgade 177 8200 Århus N Copenhagen Tuborgvej 164 2400 Copenhagen NV www.unipress.dk Fax 89 42 53 80 International distributors: Gazelle Book Services Ltd. White Cross Mills Hightown, Lancaster, LA1 4XS United Kingdom www.gazellebookservices.co.uk The David Brown Book Company Box 511 Oakville, CT 06779 USA www.oxbowbooks.com GlYc`j_\[n`k_k_\ÔeXeZ`Xcjlggfikf] K_\EfmfEfi[`jb=fle[Xk`fe K_\E\n:XicjY\i^=fle[Xk`fe v27_TOT(4k).indd 4 01/11/10 13:51:34 K89C<F=:FEK<EKJ @ekif[lZk`feYpD`bb\c9fckIXjdljj\eAXZfYNXdY\i^ / >\e\Xcf^`\j 8e[\ijM%DleZ_ I\[\dgk`fe`eKfkXc`kp%:lckliXcLkfg`Xjf]CXk\ IfdXek`Z`jdXe[:ifjjifX[jf]8ikXe[Gfc`k`Zj1NX^e\i# 9\_i\ej#=`[lj#?`kc\i (0 AXZfYNXdY\i^ Nfle[\[Nfib`e^?\if\j1J\\`e^D`cc\kXe[mXe>f^_ k_ifl^_k_\:c\]kC\ejf]KfkXc`kXi`Xe`jd8[[`e^I\Õ\Zk`fej ]ifdB`\]\iXe[9Xj\c`kq *- I\Z\gk`fe D`bb\c9fckIXjdljj\e 8ggifXZ_`e^KfkXc`kXi`Xe`jdXe[KfkXc`kXi`Xe8ik ('0 DXicXJkfe\ K_\Kliekf:lckli\`e=XjZ`jk?`jkfi`ZXcJkl[`\j (*' Bi`jk`e\E`\cj\e N_Xk<m\i?Xgg\e\[kf<iejk9XicXZ_6<Xjk>\idXe Gfc`k`ZXcDfeld\ekjXe[k_\8ikf]I\j`jkXeZ\ (+. KfkXc`kXi`XejfZ`\kpm`jlXc`j\[ JXe[iX<jjc`e^\i M\`c\[Df[\ie`kp`eEXk`feXcJfZ`Xc`jkDlj\ldGiXZk`Z\j (.* B%8e[i\XIljefZb K_\8ikf]:fcc\Zk`m`jXk`fe1K_\(0*08cc$Le`fe 8^i`ZlckliXc<o_`Y`k`fe (0/ GXlcAXjbfk KfkXc`kXi`XeDf[\cfi=XjZ`jk<oZ\gk`fe6K_\Gfc`k`ZXc <Zfefdpf]?`kc\iËjJkXk\8iZ_`k\Zkli\ )(. KfkXc`kXi`XeXe[&fidf[\ie`jkXik6 :_i`jk`eXB`X\i Df[\ieJfm`\k8ikD\\kj8d\i`ZX#(0*, )+( Aµie>lc[Y\i^ C\^XZp#?\i`kX^\fi?`jkfip68Jkl[pf]8ik`jk`Z8^\eZp `ek_\8ikJZ\e\f]k_\>;I#(0+0Æ(0/0Xe[Y\pfe[ )/* FcX]G\k\ij 8\jk_\k`ZJfc`gj`jd1K_\8ik`jkXe[Gfc`k`Zj`e DXo9\ZbdXee(0).Æ(0*/ *), Efk\jfeZfeki`Ylkfij *+0 @e[\o *,* v27_TOT(4k).indd 5 01/11/10 13:51:34 v27_TOT(4k).indd 6 01/11/10 13:51:34 @EKIF;L:K@FE D@BB<C9FCKI8JDLJJ<E×A8:F9N8D9<I> In capitalist societies of the last two decades, we have witnessed a vast expansion of the category of art, not least including the recurrence of the avant-garde notion of ‘art into life’. Backed up by analytical labels like ‘relational aesthetics’ challenging the autonomy of art, different art practices have engaged the social and political space outside art museums and galleries. At the same time, art history, having widened into a general study of ‘visual culture’, has softened the barriers between elitist art and popular culture, and between aesthetics and politics, and has explored art in broader cultural con- texts, if not visual phenomena without specific aesthetic labels. Nonetheless, a survey of general contemporary literature on 20th- century art history reveals that art made under totalitarian regimes – notably Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and the communist Soviet Union – is still conspicuously absent, just as it is in the collections of Western art museums, including those of the former Eastern Bloc countries. In this negative presence, and also in the literature which does treat totalitarian art, it seems to be assumed that somehow totalitarian visual culture does not fulfil the normative requirements of the category of ‘art’, not even political art, and is therefore more fruitfully expelled to the duller area of ‘historical documents’ of polit- ically suspect regimes. One recent example of this exclusion from art history is Art since 1900, a comprehensive survey written by scholars associated with the dominant American art history journal October: Rosalind Krauss, Yves-Alain Bois, Benjamin Buchloh and Hal Foster.1 In this book of over 700 pages, fewer than five pages are devoted to art made in fas- cist Italy, Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany. Compared to the exten- sive historical treatment of all kinds of other aspects of life in totali- tarian regimes, the lack of serious studies of their art production is striking, pointing to a problematic understanding of art as somehow endowed with special qualities incompatible with undemocratic political systems. Thus, the campaigns against modern avant-garde art which took place in the 1930s in the Soviet Union and Nazi Ger- many are often presented as the ultimate proof of the opposition between art and totalitarianism. When this opposition is confirmed, the analysis stops and a more detailed investigation into the art and culture of totalitarian regimes allegedly remains unnecessary. On the other hand, when totalitarian art is in fact inserted in interesting cultural contexts, this typically takes place outside art museums – for instance, the innovative exhibition at Berlin’s Deutsches Histor- v27_TOT(4k).indd 7 01/11/10 13:51:34 / D@BB<9FCKI8JDLJJ<E×A8:F9N8D9<I> isches Museum in 2007 juxtaposing the art movements of the USSR, Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and the US in the period 1930-45.2 Remarkably, this non-inclusion of totalitarian art in standard Western art surveys cannot be explained away as just the result of a ‘modernist’ attitude, since, again, both contemporary art practice and art historiography have been widely pre-occupied with social, political and contextual concerns. And, indeed, standard art history does not seem to have any problems examining art of strongly non- democratic regimes of earlier periods, such as those of the Assyrians, Byzantium, the Renaissance, or even the 19th-century Hapsburg Empire. In glorifying the absolutist regime of Marie de’ Medici, Rubens may present the modern viewer with no more problems of legitimacy regarding the category of ‘art’ than did Phidias in repre- senting the slave-based ‘democracy’ of classical Athens. But some- how there seems to be a terminus ante quem for art smoothly provid- ing a definite iconographical message from within the dominant power, be it political or religious or both (in totalitarian systems the barriers certainly seem to be porous). More precisely, after the spread of democratic ideals in capitalist cultures since the Enlightenment, the categories of hegemonic political message and art inside the same work become increasingly uneasy bedfellows. This by no means signifies that explicit political messages as such are now aestheti- cally illegitimate in art, only that they are marginalised to art works produced from oppositional stances – i.e. with subversive messages vis-à-vis the dominant political power – such as the left-wing posi- tions of Gustave Courbet, Käte Kollwitz, John Heartfield, Barbara Kruger and the Situationists, and, to a seemingly lesser degree, the right-wing positions of Wagner and the Futurists. When political, and especially religious, messages are backed by a hegemonic power or simply convey a positively edifying idea, powerful or not, they seem to be on a collision course with ‘true’ art, perverting it to that genre which the American critic Clement Green- berg perceived as the anti-pole to avant-garde art: kitsch.3 Remark- ably, Greenberg saw kitsch as a phenomenon which thrived both in the naturalistic popular mass culture of capitalist societies and in the equally naturalistic propaganda culture of totalitarian systems; and in this judgement he was in agreement with the Frankfurt School theoreticians Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer, who de- spised the capitalist culture industry and its propagation of false con- sciousness, considering it just another offspring of the rationalist v27_TOT(4k).indd 8 01/11/10 13:51:34 @EKIF;L:K@FE 0 culture that created Auschwitz.4 Perhaps the contemporary art insti- tution and the art historical discipline are still marked by a modern- ist sensibility, after all? In any case, this anthology intends to question and challenge the mostly unspecified assumptions and practices separating totalitari- an art from other kinds of recent Western art, revealing some of the mechanisms sustaining the separation. Besides offering close com- parisons of different kinds of totalitarian art and testing the validity and scope of this category, the book aims to (re)insert totalitarian art in a theoretical space in which it can be analysed together with the artistic movements surrounding it in the less totalitarian states – the historical avant-gardes, classical modernism, and the more conserv- ative neo-classical art forms – as well as with earlier artistic move- ments such as vitalism and heroising realism. For instance, obvious common ground between totalitarian art and capitalist avant-garde art is that both revolt against the bourgeois notion of autonomous art which contemplates life at a passive distance, pursuing instead the shared goal of reintegrating art into everyday life. So what is it exactly that separates them? This problem is crucial inasmuch as political and artistic revo- lutionary movements were closely intermingled for long periods of time, especially in the 1920s (cf. Futurism-fascism, Bauhaus-social- ism, Suprematism-Bolshevism), opening up the possibility that avant-garde art in fact paved the way for Hitler’s theatrical art and Stalin’s choreography of power.