The Work of Friedl Dicker-Brandeis in Terezin
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy Association, 26(4) pp. 152-158 © AATA, Inc. 2009 A rticles Aesthetic Empathy in Teaching Art to Children: The Work of Friedl Dicker-Brandeis in Terezin Linney Wix, Albuquerque, NM Abstract The Foundations of an Approach to Teaching Art This article examines the teaching approach of art educa- tor Friedl Dicker-Brandeis as a historical antecedent to the art In a 1940 letter to a friend Dicker-Brandeis, an Aus tri- therapy profession. Dicker-Brandeis’s philosophy and her spe- an Jew, wrote, cific methods of teaching art to children in the Terezin concen- tration camp in Czechoslovakia between 1942 and 1944 are I remember thinking in school how I would grow up and described. The influence of the Bauhaus philosophy and teach- would protect my students from unpleasant impressions, ers such as Itten, Klee, and Kandinsky can be traced through from uncertainty, from scrappy learning. Today only one thing seems important—to rouse the desire towards creative Dicker-Brandeis’s pedagogy, with an aesthetic grounded in work, to make it a habit, and to teach how to overcome dif- empathy. Aesthetic empathy was the doctrine that informed ficulties that are insignificant in comparison with the goal to Dicker-Brandeis’s art education and later, in the Terezin con- which you are striving. (Dicker-Brandeis, as cited in centration camp, her art teaching. This legacy is part of the Makarova, 2001, p. 151) history of art therapy and may contribute to shaping future theory and practice. Her words point out two facts: that Dicker-Brandeis had imagined herself a teacher while she was herself still a Introduction student and that by 1940 her teaching was entirely differ- ent from how she had imagined it would be 20 years earli- Friedl Dicker-Brandeis (1898–1944) was an art educa- er. By then she had learned that she was unable to protect tor who taught art to children in the Terezin concentration her students from the distress and uncertainty of their daily camp north of Prague in what was then Czechoslovakia lives. Whatever her intentions in her early days of teaching, between 1942 and 1944. She attained her art education at by 1938, when she was teaching art to Jewish children in the Bauhaus during its foundational years (1919–1923). Hronov in Eastern Bohemia, Dicker-Brandeis had made it There she studied under Johannes Itten, Paul Klee, Oskar her aim to teach fundamentals from a perspective designed Schlemmer, Vassily Kandinsky, and other European fine to inspire creative work that would help children overcome artists of the 20th century. Dicker-Brandeis carried on the their inevitable difficulties. Late in 1942, along with many early Bauhaus philosophy of an aesthetic that was based in Jews in Moravia and Bohemia, Dicker-Brandeis and her empathy (Franciscono, 1971) in her later work with chil- husband were transported to the Nazi’s model concentra- dren. Although she was formally an art teacher, her tion camp of Terezin north of Prague. In the camp she con- approach resulted in a practice that was similar to art ther- tinued teaching art with the overarching goal of supporting apy. In 2006, I carried out historical research in Europe on the children in psychologically surviving the war. Toward the life and teaching of Friedl Dicker-Brandeis. In this this end Dicker-Brandeis used art classes to help them paper I argue that her legacy makes a distinct contribution build the courage, truthfulness, and imagination they to art therapy of aesthetic empathy as a basis for a post- needed to face their experiences in the camp. By encourag- modern philosophy and practice. ing them to trust their own imagery and to develop their own artistic forms, she helped them build inner resources to honor their own sense of reality, which created a psycho- logical space of empowerment and meaning in the midst of Editor’s note: Linney Wix, PhD, ATR-BC, LPAT, is an oppression and horror. Associate Professor in the Art Education Program at the Univer- Dicker-Brandeis understood that helping children sity of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Correspondence concerning master art fundamentals would contribute to their confi- this article may be addressed to the author at [email protected] dence and make it easier for them to handle the daily dif- 152 WIX 153 was integral to rendering the outer physical appearances of such things. Following Klee’s ideas, Dicker-Brandeis introduced por trait study into her art classes, requiring the child artist to closely examine and draw the face of a peer just as Dicker-Brandeis had done in her Bauhaus studies (Figure 1). For plant study she brought blades of tall grasses, a branch, or a bouquet of flowers for the children to observe and then paint. Requiring visual contemplation to capture the essence of a subject, such exercises fostered an intimate relationship between the self and the other, including things of the natural world. Dicker-Brandeis also taught form, color, texture, and materials. Children learned form by studying ordinary objects such as jars, glasses, and other found items arranged into a still life and rendering them in pencil, watercolor, or collage. Most commonly through watercolor, Dicker- Brandeis introduced color studies both as simple exercises and as full color compositions. Material and texture stud- ies included paper weaving, embroidery on paper, and col- lages made from a variety of found papers—including Czech military forms. These foundational studies helped children develop their skills while nurturing their abilities Figure 1 Friedl Dicker, Portrait study, charcoal to render their subjects intuitively and expressively. on paper, about 1920 (published with permission, As a Czech citizen in Terezin, Dicker-Brandeis was courtesy of Sammlung Universität für angewandte allowed to receive one package every 3 months. Thus did Kunst Wien [Collection of the University of Applied she prevail upon friends to send her art books and small Arts Vienna], Austria) reproductions of old master works to use in her teaching. She had practiced Old Master Analysis with Johannes Itten ficulties of camp life, which would in turn support them in at the Bauhaus. Emphasizing the artist’s experience as accessing beauty through the rendering of their personal strongly as Klee, Itten (as cited in Wingler, 1969) wrote, experiences. Whether or not she intended her art classes to be therapeutic, Dicker-Brandeis used the classes to care for To experience a work of art…means to awaken the essential and provide witness to children as they worked to elaborate in it, to bring the living quality, which is inherent in its form their own forms of visual expression. In Terezin she to independent life. The work of art is reborn within me…. assigned the children exercises to help them understand the A living representation is always something experienced, and various parts of a visual art image and to connect with the something experienced is always experienced with life. (p. 49) content of their work. Essentially, she taught children to see in the context of forming relationships with the physical In Terezin children used paint, papers, and pencil— world and art materials. whatever was available on a given day—to work separate- It is evident that Dicker-Brandeis’s studies at the ly with each aesthetic component before putting them Bauhaus enhanced her own ability to see deeply. Her together into compositions. This approach fostered the teacher Paul Klee addressed the matter of things and their children’s abilities to produce extraordinarily rich composi- appearances as well as seeing beyond appearances. In his tions. During free art sessions like the ones she herself had 1923 essay “The Play of Forces in the Bauhaus” Klee dis- experienced at the Bauhaus, Dicker-Brandeis directed her cussed how, in the early development of the Bauhaus, the students to “draw without thinking,” meaning to draw careful study of the appearances of things had resulted in without an assignment. Free art sessions offered children “excellent pictures of the surface of objects . while the art time and space to think deeply as they explored personal of contemplating and envisaging non-optical impressions memories and longings. and conceptions was neglected” (as cited in Wingler, 1969, Dicker-Brandeis’s philosophy can be traced forward to p. 73). Emphasizing that artists are more complex than art therapist Edith Kramer, who studied with Dicker- cameras, Klee urged students to “sense the total nature of Brandeis as a young art student in both Vienna and Prague things [by] entering the conception of the natural object, between 1931 and 1938 (prior to Dicker-Brandeis’s years be this object plant, animal, or human being. The at Terezin). Kramer described her teacher’s approach to object grows beyond its appearance through our knowl- teaching different aspects of art making this way: edge of its inner nature” (p. 73). By working intuitively, he She would divide up the complexity of a picture into ele- wrote, “the ‘I’ is brought into resonance with the object” ments—the element of composition, the element of light (p. 73). The early Bauhaus’s aesthetic doctrine taught and dark, the element of texture—and look at each one sep- artists that externalizing their inner experiences of things arately and then put them together…rather than have a 154 AESTHETIC EMPATHY IN TEACHING ART TO CHILDREN: THE WORK OF FRIEDL DICKER-BRANDEIS IN TEREZIN muddle of everything. (personal communication, Septem - bilities. She wrote that a teacher should not direct the child ber, 23, 1999) toward particular preferences; a child who is trusting and in need of love will eagerly accept direction from an adult Helga Kinsky (nee Pollak), who as a child had studied because it will assure a certain success.