Nazi
endorsed art was characterized by a romantic realism based upon early classical
models. They rebelled against degenerate art, and promoted paintings about
militarism, blood and soil, and obedience. Popular themes included ideas of
love for ones homeland, the virtues of the national Socialist struggle, and the
depiction of women raising children, in the kitchen, and going to church. The
Great German Art exhibition heavily featured landscape paintings, and was
completely devoid of degenerate art. Nazi art rejected materialism and strived
to depict the ideal. Unlike Degenerate art, explicitly political paintings were
very rare, but rather heroic subjects dominated the scene. Once the war began,
romanticized depictions of war were popular, still maintaining the depiction of
heroic imagery.
The
art of the Third Reich approved of art that was of the taste of Adolf Hitler.
His background in the visual arts had cultivated a preference for a particular
type of art. He believed that art was a symptom of a healthy and strong
society, and that it showed the strength of the race that produced it. Many of
the works on view in the German pavilion were by Franz Radziwill. His scenes
were primarily landscape images focusing on the modern state of Germany. His
images encompassed all of the ideas that Nazi Art embodied and supported.
This
Nazi Art was in direct contrast to the Degenerate, or modern art of the time.
It could be said that the Art of the Third Reich was a direct reaction against
this movement and every idea and concept it supported. Because it contrasted so
greatly from the art the Nazis supported, it was often banned on the grounds
that it was Un-German. The idea of questioning preconceived idea and redefining
objects and concepts directly rebelled against the Nazi art and was therefore
banned and sometimes destroyed.
The
images below display this stark contrast. The image below is “Floodgate
Near Petershorn” by Franz Radziwill, and is an example of Nazi supported art.
It not only is a depiction of a landscape, but it is clear and simple in
organization and depiction of objects. It maintains a rationality about it that
Hitler was fond of in every element of his rule. The colors are natural and
simple and show a contemporary scene, but in a more classicizing way.
Franz Radziwill, Floodgate near Petershorn, Germany 1927.
On the other hand, a work of art by Hannah Hoch, “Cut with the Dada Kitchen Knife through the Last Weimar Beer-Belly Cultural Epoch in Germany” contrasts in every way with these ideals. The image is not orderly or rational and is an attempt to question authority, most often with regard to advertising and the acceptance of same sex couples. It is not surprising then, that with the great difference between her art and the Art of the Nazis, that they did not support her art, or the works of her contemporaries.
Hannah Hoch, Cut with the Kitchen Knife through the Beer-Belly of the Weimar republic, 1919
Article by Kristen Barrett
Did you happen to find a specific name for the style and period you are discussing? I'm asking because I found it interesting that there were so many opposing (and named) styles, such as Dada, Bauhaus, Expressionism, Neue Sachlichkeit, etc., but in my research of Weimar, I wasn't able to label the art of the Right with a specific title. I was just curious if you found that to be the case as well.
ReplyDeleteI also did this topic regarding the Great German Art Show. I thought it was interesting you brought up the point that Hitler believed a healthy society contained and produced art. Why was this art so important to him? Why would art be such a key factor in his political speeches and workings? When I researched for my blog it seemed as though art was definitely the first step in his segregation of people within the German culture. Again why was art this first step? Did you find anything in your research regarding this?
ReplyDelete