'Decent' Vs. 'Degenerate' Art: the National Socialist Case

"Decent"vs."Degenerate"Art TheNational Socialist Case MARY-MARGARET GOGGIN artistic censorshipis discussed, the case of severalvan Goghpaintings in 1929, and in 1930 the director When National Socialist (Nazi) Germanyfrequently of the Stadtischesmuseumin Zwickau was dismissed be- comes to mind. Nazi Germany'sart policies of cause of his supportfor modernart.2 the 1930s and early 1940s and their consequencesprovide a Even before Hitler became chancellorof the German historicalperspective on what may happenwhen government Reich on January30, 1933, local NationalSocialist leaders determineswhat art is decent or indecent, uplifting or "de- were censoringmodern art. In 1930 WilhelmFrick, National 84 generate." Socialist minister of the interior and minister of popular Precedentsfor artistic censorship in Nazi Germanycan educationin the provinceof Thuringia, orderedthe removal be found during the Weimar Republic, as the following of the works of Ernst Barlach, Paul Klee, and Lyonel incidents indicate. In Berlin in 1928, a local court filed Feininger from the collection of the Schlossmuseum in chargesof blasphemyagainst GeorgeGrosz for severaldraw- Weimar, as well as the destructionof Oskar Schlemmer's ings published in an album titled Hintergrund(backdrop). murals and reliefs in the formerBauhaus.3 Although originally found guilty, Grosz was ultimatelyac- Althoughthese attacks on modernart were not new in quitted on appeal. The most provocativeof these drawings Germany,under Hitler they became more systematic and was one of Christ wearinga gas mask and boots, captioned, continuous. One of Hitler's priorities was to organize and "Keepyour mouth shut and do your duty"(fig. 1).1 Grosz's centralize the institutions necessary to carry out Nazi art drawing is echoed in a recent photographicimage with a policies. In orderto do anythingconnected with the creation, female nude (fig. 2) by the Americanartist BarbaraKruger, buying, or selling of art, one had to belongto the Kunstkam- one of manyU.S. artists who risk censorshipbecause of their mer (chamberof art). By the late 1930s there were around engagementin similar moralconfrontations. In otherattacks forty-twothousand members, excluding Jews, Communists, on modernart duringthe Weimarperiod, the Munichchapter or other"enemies" of the state.4 "Acceptable"artists did not of the Reichsverbandbildender Kiinstler (federal association suddenlyappear after the NationalSocialists assumedpower, of artists) protestedthe Berlin Nationalgalerie'spurchase of nor were they necessarily schooled in NationalSocialist art theories. Rather, they were already creating art that corre- sponded in content and style to-or at least did not conflict -'p with-the National Socialists' ideals and goals. Provisions were even made to educatethe public in mattersof art, under the auspices of the Deutsche Arbeitsfront(German labor front) and an organization called Kraft durch Freude (strengththrough joy).5 diI -:X. Firmly believing that culture is the cornerstoneof any enduring society, Hitler recognized that art must play a iiiii............... major role in the building of his ideal Germannation. He articulatedthe goals of what he consideredtrue Germanart: it must develop from the collective soul of the people and express its identity;it must be national, not international;it must be comprehensibleto the people; it must not be a passing fad, but strive to be eternal;it must be positive, not critical of society; it must be elevating, and representthe the beautiful, and the healthy.6 FIG. 1 GeorgeGrosz, Christ with GasMask, 1928, crayonon paper, good, 17?8x 221/4inches. ? Estateof GeorgeGrosz/VAGA, New York, 1991. Art that was encouragedand supportedhad to reflect WINTER1991 Forgetmoralit Forget heroes" FIG. 2 BarbaraKruger, Untitled (It's our pleasure to disgustyou), 1990, photographicscreenprint on paper,192 x 276 inches.Courtesy Mary Boone Gallery, New York. the spirit and ideals of the Germanpeople as the National their silencing of nonconformingartists had a devastating Socialists envisionedthem. Peasantsand artisansengaged in effect on modernart and artists in Germany. their labors were popularsubjects. Womenas mothers(fig. In the NationalSocialists' anti-modern-artcampaign, 3) were especially importantbecause they representedthe artists who are nowrecognized as the great names in modern future of the "Aryanrace." Landscapes symbolized the "fa- German art were characterizedas enemies of the German therland." Female nudes often illustrated the beauty of people;their workwas labeled "degenerate"because they did healthy bodies (fig. 4). Not to be forgottenwere the "heroic" not meet the artistic criteria outlined by Hitler and other subjects, which included not only soldiers, but also workers National Socialist leaders. At the end of the nineteenth (fig. 5) and images of Hitler.In sculpture, the worksof Arno century, in his book Degeneration,Max Nordau had applied Brekerand Josef Thorakconveyed heroism on a monumental the term"degeneration" to art.9 Later,in Kunstund Rasse (art scale. Many works that were endowed with significant or and race), 1928, Paul Schultze-Naumburgdeveloped his profoundtitles, however,were simple subjects with no ulte- theories of the aesthetic connection between artistic styles rior meaning intendedby their creators.7 and the supposed racial characteristicsof the artists.10o Such The names of most of the artists who producedthese works provided Hitler with the theoretical precedents on works are forgotten. At the time, even Hitler seemed to which he formulatedhis own ideas aboutthe roleof race in art acknowledgethe lack of greatness in the art exhibited at the and the role of art in society; more importantly,he pursued first "GrosseDeutsche Kunstausstellung"(great German art programsto implementthose ideas. exhibition) in 1937, when he said, "I HAVE NO DOUBT, Hitlerand the NationalSocialists recognizedthat there THE ALMIGHTYWILL ELEVATEA FEW FROMTHIS was an almost unbridgeablechasm of incomprehensionbe- MULTITUDEOF DECENT CREATORSOF ART INTO tween the public and modernart, which they exploitedearly THE STARRYREALM OF THE IMMORTAL,DIVINELY on in orderto consolidatetheir powerover the people.11They INSPIRED ARTISTS OF THE GREAT PAST."8The Na- manipulatedthe public by focusing its accumulatedpolitical tional Socialists promotedart thatwas "beautiful,""decent," and economic dissatisfactions and frustrationson scape- and "good," but their enforcementof these standards and goats, including artists, as well as the dealers, critics, and ARTJOURNAL museumdirectors who supportedthem. The NationalSocial- ists made modernart a symbolof corruptionand degeneracy. Supposedly of "Semitic inspiration,"modern art was also portrayedas representingKulturbolschewismus or "cultural Bolshevism."2 The purge of modernart was not, however, limited to the art producedby Jewish, foreign, or Communist artists. Whateverthe Nazis claimed undermined"desirable" aesthetic, social, cultural, or political values, or physical or racial ideals, was to be eliminatedfrom German society; this included all the modernmovements, such as Expressionism, Cubism, Futurism, Constructivism,and Dada.13 The NationalSocialists claimed that, because modern artists considered everythingsuitable as a subject for art, "thebeautiful, the heroic and the pure"were relegatedto the same level as "the ugly, the base and the erotic,"resulting in an amoralart.14 Modern art was thus perceived as a threatto German morality. The Nazis characterized many modern images, Expressionistones in particular,as "pornographic," appealingto the basest instincts of humanity.15 This moraliz- 86 ing was not only misleading, but also hypocritical, since many of the countless images of nude womenwith perfect FIG. 3 AdolfWissel, Kalenberg Farm Family, 1939, oil. Courtesythe ArchivfOr bodies that were officially sanctionedand exhibited during Kunstund Geschichte, Berlin. those years depict them in passive or submissive roles, implicitly, if not explicitly, as sex objects available for the pleasure of men (fig. 6).16 The National Socialist ideas on art were based on abstract theories whose catchwordswere "soul," "genius," "tragedy,""race."17 They considered "race and homeland"or Blut und Boden (bloodand soil) the basis of a Germanicart thatwould express the true spiritualvalues of the Aryanrace, purifiedof all Bolshevistand Semitic influences. The practi- cal applicationof these vague notionsto a coherentart policy was difficult, however,and led to many contradictionsand inconsistencies. Althoughthe NationalSocialists claimed to encouragean art that was a productof the Germanicspirit, they rejected the art of Germanartists such as Emil Nolde (fig. 7) and Barlach,who were at the centerof a debatewithin the partyover the Germanicand Nordiccharacter of German Expressionism.In fact, this debateover art policy reflecteda broaderstruggle for powerwithin the party.18 Alfred Rosen- berg, party "philosopher" and competitor with the minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, for control of art policy, noted that even National Socialists could have differences of opin- ion in matters of art, citing the debate over Nolde and Bar- lach. Rosenberg acknowledged that both artists were tal- ented, but asserted that did not seek the Nordic ideal of Frc. 4 JohannesBeutner, Time of Ripeness.Photograph reproduced from Art they in the ThirdReich (New York: Pantheon, 1979, 134),with permission. physical beauty necessary to the development of a National Socialist aesthetic.'9 This Nordic ideal was

Load more