Is there any good Nazi art?

[Hans1906]

Br. James,

when I first saw the "works" of Smagon, I was speechless, I could think of nothing more.
And that was not very long ago, and I've seen a lot of crude and nasty shit before.

But each of us must, and should, form a very personal opinion, a democratic principle.
I think that hits the proverbial nail right on the head.

Or not, each of us is the architect of his own fortune, what else.


Hans

[Cult Icon]

Have you read "Hitler and the power of Aethetics?".

Adding that to my list.

In college I read a book arguing that German Romanticism set them on the path to Nazism, can't remember the title now. The theme has been picked up by others, for example https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1241042.pdf.

That book surveys various fields, and is strongly focused on Nazi architecture and the purging of the German arts of "degenerate/abstract/Jewish art". I had to skim the wiki to refresh my memory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_in_Nazi_Germany

From what I gathered Nazi "art" is from a potpourri of ideological influences from Wagner to the grandeur of Ancient Greece and Rome. The Nazis and Hitler especially had a great admiration for what they perceived as the character of the ancient greek man. There is great admiration of the greeks in some of Frederich Nietzche's works (he was a greek studies academic).

When I see Arno Breker's sculptures this seems to be the core influence. However there is a menacing and physically impossible aspect to these sculptures. In architecture there is an attempt to copy and convert neoclassical styles.



This one is called the "Standard bearer", in the 30s Hitler was referred by his people as the "standard bearer of the nation", the "first soldier of the German Reich". Funny that in WW2 he mostly hid himself and limited communication during the war instead of adopting this role of leader.

[Cult Icon]

This painting of Knight's Cross holders of the Leibstandarte was prominent in a worchenshau of a war art exhibition, it resembles the type of painting commissioned by militias in the low countries during the Renaissance (these were often clubs of men who did no fighting, during Rembrandt's time).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HPurRT41aI

Besides the military, there is also a lot of agrarian artworks, in the romantic style, illustrating the "Blood and Soil" doctrine.

[Hans1906]

Hitler als Bannerträger in mittelalterlicher Rüstung, gemalt von Hubert Lanzinger. Deutsche Geschichte wurde unter der Herrschaft der Nationalsozialisten als "Volkswerdung" interpretiert, die im "Dritten Reich" gipfelte. Auch die Helden historischer Dramen waren nicht selten mit den Zügen des "Führers" ausgestattet.

Hitler as a standard bearer in medieval armor, painted by Hubert Lanzinger. Under the rule of the National Socialists, German history was interpreted as the "becoming of the people," which culminated in the "Third Reich". Even the heroes of historical dramas were not infrequently endowed with the features of the "Führer"

Hubert Lanzinger https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Lanzinger

Enough, or even more sources, you rarely, or not at all read your books on art in the Nationalsozialismus, sorry.

Source: http://www.erwin-rotermund.de/Sendung_NS.htm

Hubert Lanzinger / Google picture search https://www.google.com/search?q=Hubert+ ... 00&bih=759


Hans

P.S. Of course, these "works" are still formative, even dangerous, and are very rarely presented publicly for good reasons.
To even begin to compare these works to a painting by Rembrandt, it really doesn't get much worse than that, really, I am personally at a loss for words...

Where do you pick up all this nonsense, after almost 2500 postings here..., 50 cents for the ghosts floating around in your head...?

* I may not discuss this further, please.
It's useless, just as well you can talk with a piece of wood, about the meaning of a forest.

[Cult Icon]

I am not saying that these are "good" artworks (they are not). I am saying that they are ideological or derivative.

[Cantankerous]

Have you read "Hitler and the power of Aethetics?".

Adding that to my list.

In college I read a book arguing that German Romanticism set them on the path to Nazism, can't remember the title now. The theme has been picked up by others, for example https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1241042.pdf.

That book surveys various fields, and is strongly focused on Nazi architecture and the purging of the German arts of "degenerate/abstract/Jewish art". I had to skim the wiki to refresh my memory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_in_Nazi_Germany

From what I gathered Nazi "art" is from a potpourri of ideological influences from Wagner to the grandeur of Ancient Greece and Rome. The Nazis and Hitler especially had a great admiration for what they perceived as the character of the ancient greek man. There is great admiration of the greeks in some of Frederich Nietzche's works (he was a greek studies academic).

When I see Arno Breker's sculptures this seems to be the core influence. However there is a menacing and physically impossible aspect to these sculptures. In architecture there is an attempt to copy and convert neoclassical styles.



This one is called the "Standard bearer", in the 30s Hitler was referred by his people as the "standard bearer of the nation", the "first soldier of the German Reich". Funny that in WW2 he mostly hid himself and limited communication during the war instead of adopting this role of leader.

The depiction of Hitler as a knight in shining armor was extracted from the Nazi version of the Sleeping Beauty fairy tale, which used the Wicked Witch to represent democracy and equated Sleeping Beauty with Germany and the prince (who rescues Sleeping Beauty and breaks the spell) with Hitler in order to justify Richard Walter Darre's narrative of democracy as a Jewish invention.

[Cult Icon]

The depiction of Hitler as a knight in shining armor was extracted from the Nazi version of the Sleeping Beauty fairy tale, which used the Wicked Witch to represent democracy and equated Sleeping Beauty with Germany and the prince (who rescues Sleeping Beauty and breaks the spell) with Hitler in order to justify Richard Walter Darre's narrative of democracy as a Jewish invention.

source for this?

....

The construction of the Reichs Chancellory is also covered in that book. The building of it was designed to impress people of the glamour and the power of the Reich & also intentionallly designed to intimidate foreign dignatories on their way to greet and meet the Fuhrer.

[Sid Guttridge]

I would suggest that there is no such thing as "good" art.

It is all a matter of personal taste.

Sid.

[Br. James]

Thanks, Sid -- AMEN!

Br. James

[Mannheim]

Couldn't agree more, Sid.

[Max]

I would suggest that there is no such thing as "good" art.

It is all a matter of personal taste.

Sid.

Good Art / Bad Art [ includes Not Bad Art. / Not so Good Art]

Bad Art has too much sameness / repetition - imagine a piano piece of one note played endlessly.- boredom
Bad Art has too much variety – imagine a chimp pounding the keyboard. - chaos.
Good Art has a balance of repetition and variety.
Bad Art doesn't quite get the balance.

What is the right balance?
How much repetition?
Just enough not to be boring.

How much variety?
Just enough so that it's not chaotic.

Good Art has repetition with just enough variety.
Good Art has variety with just enough repetition.

Good Art makes you want more.
Good Art stimulates the senses - aesthetic.
Bad Art dulls the senses – anaesthetic.
Good Art is like running towards a cliff and stopping at the last moment - it's exhilarating / aesthetic.
Bad Art is taking that step too far [over the top] or retracing your steps / pedestrian /anaesthetic

Bad Art panders to your prejudices / slows or stops your thinking.
Good Art makes you wonder about other possibilities.

Much of the "Degenerate Art" was about exploring new horizons while state sanctioned art either reinforced the ideal of home and hearth or the might of the Fatherland; both rather inward looking.

Some of the Degenerate Art was probably also a bit “over the top”


Q. Why is one piece of Good Art worth $10,000,000 and another piece of Good Art only $10?
A. Marketing.
Q Why does so much Bad Art have a $million price tag?
A. Marketing

All of the above is still only my opinion, so Sid, maybe you are right after all.
? ? ?
Nah! You're wrong. You have to draw the line somewhere.

[Hans1906]

Famous quotes by Herr Joseph Beuys, a german WW2 veteran, on art and war.


"Ich bin also bereit, hier sofort zu provozieren! / So I am ready to provoke here at once!"

"Man hat mich damals zurechtgeschossen. / I was shot down at the time"
("zurecht / passend gemacht" translates as "made to fit")

"Phantasie an sich ist sehr positiv / Fantasy in itself is very positive"

Beuys was unique, as a person, and as an artist, a more than fascinating personality.

Joseph Beuys https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Beuys

Weekend greetings!


Hans

[Cult Icon]

Bad Art has too much sameness / repetition - imagine a piano piece of one note played endlessly.- boredom
Bad Art has too much variety – imagine a chimp pounding the keyboard. - chaos.
Good Art has a balance of repetition and variety.
Bad Art doesn't quite get the balance.

Good art has innovation, timelessness, and profound meaning, basically it has an impact, stands on its own and isn't easy to copy. I do not not think that it is 100% subjective.

The movement to abstract/metaphysical styles was strongly influenced by the rise of photography and also intellectual movements. Why do so much illustration when one can take a photograph and get the real thing? Abstract art is where there was more room for innovation.

Modern and post-modern art thus requires a lot of education to understand, and it became "elitist" in that respect. This was what the Nazis, and Hitler opposed, as they favored art that was Nazi and also understood by the masses.

[TheMarcksPlan]

Modern and post-modern art thus requires a lot of education to understand, and it became "elitist" in that respect. This was what the Nazis, and Hitler opposed, as they favored art that was Nazi and also understood by the masses

It was also perceived as being progressive and internationalist/universalist in way that threatened a reactionary ethos of blood and soil. That perception was not always accurate on specific art/artists but broadly was true.

would suggest that there is no such thing as "good" art.

It is all a matter of personal taste.

That art is a matter of personal taste in no way establishes that only subjective statements can be made about it. Objectively true things can be said on subjective matters: older people liked rock music less than younger people in the 1960's.

We can make similar objective observations about the kinds of people who like various kinds of art - their education, measured intelligence, propensity for this or that kind of activity.

On more disputed grounds of objectivity, we can correlate measures of people's ability to tolerate, live with, and articulate moral nuance. People deficient in these categories will gravitate towards morally simplistic art like Marvel movies (though not everyone who likes these movies is so deficient). They are also liable to read moral nuance as moral transgression, labeling all nuance as "degenerate" for example (though much good art is transgressive).

A lot of Nazi art strikes me as akin to Marvel movies (albeit where one roots for the bad guy). Hitler as the White Knight, for example. Though it seems a skilled painting on technique grounds it's kitsch, bombastic, absurd.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Cult Icon,

"Good art has innovation, timelessness, and profound meaning, basically it has an impact, stands on its own and isn't easy to copy" only applies if one subscribes to those criteria, which is a subjective choice.

Cheers,

Sid.