|
Post by IggyWiggy on Jan 12, 2017 12:38:23 GMT
‘The Four Elements’, before 1937, by Adolf Ziegler, which hung above Hitler’s fireplaceHere in Munich, in the gallery that Hitler built, this year’s big hit show is a spectacular display of modern art. Postwar: Art Between the Pacific and the Atlantic, 1945–1965 is a massive survey of international modernism, curated with typical Germanic can-do. Talk about ruthless efficiency — even the catalogue weighs several kilograms. All the stars of German modern art are here, from Joseph Beuys to Gerhard Richter, but the most interesting exhibit isn’t in this huge central hall, where Hitler staged his Great German Art shows, it’s in a quiet corner of the gallery, at the end of a deserted corridor, up an empty flight of stairs. Haus der Kunst — The Postwar Institution, 1945–1965 charts the transformation of this bombastic building from a shrine of Aryan art to a temple of the avant-garde. It’s a fascinating insight into the history of the Haus der Kunst, a museum that became a battleground in the Kulturkampf between traditionalism and modernism — a battle the modernists won, eventually, but at a terribly heavy price. Hitler erected the Haus der Deutschen Kunst (House of German Art) to showcase the fine art of the Third Reich. The museum’s opening show, 80 years ago, was the Great German Art exhibition of 1937. The Führer supervised the selection. The focus was on healthy Teutonic heroes (soldiers, farmers, virgins, mothers), depicted in an archaic, academic style. Anything negative or experimental was condemned as Jewish and/or Bolshevik. Only art that glorified the Fatherland was allowed. The conventional wisdom is that everything Hitler approved was rubbish, and everything he vetoed was superb. It’s convenient and comforting to believe that tyrants have no taste, but the truth is a bit more complicated — and a lot more interesting — than that. Hitler persecuted some of the greatest artists of the 20th century. He promoted a vast amount of tat. However, between the Alpine kitsch he loved and the modernist masterpieces he hated lay a lot of artworks whose merits were less clear-cut. Only a few of the artworks in the Haus der Deutschen Kunst were overtly fascistic. It was seeing them all together that made them so. The majority were merely old-fashioned: muscular nudes, aping the warriors and athletes of antiquity; standard genre paintings, with an emphasis on rural toil. The propaganda value was often confined to the titles: a landscape became ‘A German Landscape’; a family became ‘A German Family’. Most of these tidy daubs would have graced a bourgeois drawing room — there was nothing revolutionary about them. That’s what made them so seductive. The most telling thing about this show was the art that wasn’t there. The Nazis were ruthless in removing modernist art from German galleries, and in 1937, right across the road from the Haus der Deutschen Kunst, they mounted a parallel exhibition of the art they most despised. The list of artists in this Degenerate Art show reads like a Who’s Who of German modernism: Max Beckmann, Ernst Ludwig Kirchner, Paul Klee… Unwittingly, Hitler had assembled the greatest modernist exhibition of all time. The close proximity of these two shows was no coincidence. The idea was to visit both of them, and make a direct comparison between the two. It was clear what conclusion you were supposed to draw. The Great German Art show was presented in a reverential atmosphere, in the palatial Haus der Deutschen Kunst. The Degenerate Art show was crammed into Munich’s far smaller, fustier Archaeological Institute — like bric-à-brac in an old junk shop. Mocking slogans told the viewer exactly what to think. Both exhibitions were popular, but there was no doubt which was the bigger draw. The Great German Art show attracted half a million visitors. The Degenerate Art show attracted two million. It’s impossible to calculate how many came to bury these modernist artworks and how many came to praise them, but the disparity between these attendance figures suggests that ‘degenerate’ art had lots of fans. The Nazis thought so too. The Great German Art show became an annual event, but the Degenerate Art show was not repeated. The Nazis burnt a thousand modernist paintings. The rest were flogged off to foreign buyers at an auction in Lucerne. The contents of these two shows are usually presented as chalk and cheese — rabid reactionaries in the Haus der Deutschen Kunst, daring progressives in the Archaeological Institute. Actually, both selections were riddled with ideological contradictions: ‘degenerate’ artist Emil Nolde was a member of the Nazi party; Goering commissioned portraits by ‘degenerate’ Georg Grosz (and helped himself to confiscated artworks by ‘degenerates’ like Munch, Gauguin and Van Gogh). Franz Marc’s ‘Tower of Blue Horses’ was removed from the Degenerate Art show after protests by war veterans (Marc had died fighting for the Fatherland in the first world war). Nazi artist Adolf Ziegler (nicknamed ‘the master of German pubic hair’ on account of his pervy Nordic nudes) curated both exhibitions, and inadvertently included works by German sculptor Ernst Barlach in each of the displays. In 1945, after 80 air raids, most of Munich lay in ruins. The Haus der Deutschen Kunst and the Archaeological Institute were among the few public buildings to escape unscathed. After a short spell as an American officers’ club, the Haus der Deutschen Kunst became a gallery again, dedicated to promoting modern, international art. Renamed the Haus der Kunst, it put on an exhibition of Der Blaue Reiter (Munich’s expressionist pioneers, led by the ‘degenerate’ Franz Marc) and a retrospective of Oskar Kokoschka, a veteran of the Degenerate Art show. The museum marked its silver jubilee with a rerun of the Degenerate Art show (but without the angry Nazi slogans). For post-war Germans, modernism now reigned supreme. The old Archaeology Institute, which staged the Degenerate Art show, now houses the historic Munich Kunstverein. Before the Nazis came along, this artists’ guild was a bastion of conservatism. Now, even this august institution has embraced the avant-garde. Thanks to the Nazis, and their crass aesthetics, traditionalism ended up on the wrong side of history. In Germany modernism remains the new orthodoxy, as it has been since 1945. Yet at the Pinakothek der Moderne, Munich’s answer to Tate Modern, there’s a sign that things are changing. Amid the usual trawl through 20th-century modernism, one room has been set aside. ‘Artists under the National Socialists’ comprises only 11 paintings but it’s the most interesting room in the whole museum. It shows that in Nazi Germany, things were rarely black and white. For every diehard Nazi or ‘degenerate’, there were dozens of artists whose political position was more vague. Some supported the regime then turned against it. Others opposed it, then gradually acquiesced. Dominating this display, on show here for the first time, is ‘The Four Elements’ by Adolf Ziegler. Of course when you know how Ziegler sucked up to the Nazis, and hounded brilliant artists like Beckmann and Kirchner (Beckmann driven into exile; Kirchner driven to suicide), this painting seems revolting. But when you strip away that knowledge, something far more challenging emerges. It would be so much easier if bad men and bad politics made bad art. If only life were that simple. But when you look at this picture with fresh eyes, you’re forced to acknowledge an awkward truth. Despite the repugnant morals of the man who made it, it’s actually not that bad. Ziegler’s work is too close to the Third Reich, too complicit in its crimes against humanity, but several other paintings in this room are strong enough to stand alone, regardless of the time when they were made. Eighty years ago, modernism was bold and radical, realism was reactionary. Today, the most risqué show in Germany would be a display of realistic art. House of Art — The Post-War Institution, 1945–1965, is at the Haus der Kunst (www.hausderkunst.de) in Munich until 26 March. www.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/was-nazi-art-really-that-bad/
|
|
|
Post by johnnyh on Jan 13, 2017 23:57:10 GMT
Was Nazi art that bad??? Are you honestly serious
Art that was produced by artists who were close to and supported by the state often being paid by the state that was incinerating tens of thousands of people in death camps. The whole art thing was Danny some of the world's greatest war criminals.
Just cause it's a painting it does it make it anymore acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jan 14, 2017 12:50:50 GMT
hmmmm
will have to chew this one over
|
|
|
Post by sɐǝpı ɟo uoıʇɐɹǝpǝɟ on Jan 14, 2017 14:08:20 GMT
It's a tough one... is Wagner's music bad? Were Ford cars bad? Is Peggy Olson bad? is Michael Jackson bad (no pun intended).? It's the ago old question of can we separate a person's accomplishment from their personal beliefs? no easy answers but a fascinating question
|
|
|
Post by johnnyh on Jan 15, 2017 6:42:19 GMT
Slightly different Re an individual's actions each can make up their own mind on each individual.
However comparing MJackson and the others with the Nazis is somewhat ridiculous
One had a bit of a thing for young boys. The Nazis between 1941 & 45 were responsible for the genocide of beteween 6 & 11,000,000 Jews.
Which if one thinks about it or places pictures that are available on the treatment and process alongside the wonderful Nazi art works it may just put their production into a little more perspective
|
|
|
Post by sɐǝpı ɟo uoıʇɐɹǝpǝɟ on Jan 15, 2017 13:40:14 GMT
Slightly different Re an individual's actions each can make up their own mind on each individual. However comparing MJackson and the others with the Nazis is somewhat ridiculous One had a bit of a thing for young boys. The Nazis between 1941 & 45 were responsible for the genocide of beteween 6 & 11,000,000 Jews. Which if one thinks about it or places pictures that are available on the treatment and process alongside the wonderful Nazi art works it may just put their production into a little more perspective I'm not comparing what MJ did to what the Nazi's did - just that separating someone's art from their personal life/beliefs is tricky. Yes perhaps some Nazi artists were technically gifted artists, but were their artistic talents a bi-product of the Nazi regime? Or were there talent artists who felt pressure to join the Nazi party least they be in danger themselves?I'm just saying it's a difficult question that can't be easily answered, and perhaps should be treated on a case by case basis, rather then lumping everyone together
|
|
|
Post by sɐǝpı ɟo uoıʇɐɹǝpǝɟ on Jan 15, 2017 13:45:23 GMT
also re: Ford - his anti-semitism directly influenced Hitler himself and therefore contributed to the Holocaust (including the killing of some of my own family) so yes I think it's fair to bring people like him up in the conversation. He produced cars, not art, but why do we continue to give the Ford Motor Company a free pass? or IBM who's early machines helped the Nazi's cataloge their reign of murder?
|
|
|
Post by sɐǝpı ɟo uoıʇɐɹǝpǝɟ on Jan 15, 2017 14:14:34 GMT
also to add to the conversation - DPRK and USSR propaganda artwork - commissioned,, paid for, and distributed by hostile and sometimes murderous regimes who couldn't feed their citizens and inprisoned dissenters,, but it did produce some beautiful artwork. Were these cases of talented artists willingly supporting their states, or talented artists sought out by their leaders and forced to make art for them or pay the consequences? probably both
|
|
|
Post by johnnyh on Jan 16, 2017 9:22:20 GMT
You can continue to ask those questions? Likewise people can stop buying Fords not invest in North Korea art etc etc etc.
However none of this justifys the glorifying of Nazi artists who were a part of the state regime that caused the genocide of 6-11 million Jews.
Nazi art is bad. It is not about whether the artist is good or bad it is about the fact that these artists worked for the regime and were involved in glorifying the regime.
Now these artist willingly took part so they are guilty of supporting the regime and being darlings of that regime that caused and created the genocide.
My comments are on the questioned posed. "INazi Art that bad?" Well err yes it is.
Ford may well have been anti Semitic but that's different to supporting the regime. Similarly IBM make and made computers. They did not while the Genocide was going on make specific machines or make stuff to specifically support the regime. Similarly neitherFord or IBM were specifically under the control of the regime and making stuffthatoarticulary supported the regime and its values. That's not to defend them in anyway either
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jan 16, 2017 10:21:34 GMT
If we were to distill out artists that fell within a narrow range of arbitrary political limits, then you would have a world of People who paint plates with pictures of cats, bambi and 85% of the unmitigated shite that pops up under the category of *urban art* across on the Nostromo
Silly fuckin argument when it comes down to arguing about numbers of deaths caused by a regime. Can we chuck in Malevich, Klutsis, Dali & Mondrian then ?
there are too many fucking mechanists around, too many fucking people who assess on the basis of number crunching and taught logic ( someone elses logic - this is important - this is why the world is presently fucked) Not enough discussion, not enough art, too much posturing and position taking based on reams of binary written by some else.Are we surprised that *experts* are now held in such low regard ?
|
|
|
Post by sɐǝpı ɟo uoıʇɐɹǝpǝɟ on Jan 16, 2017 11:02:59 GMT
You can continue to ask those questions? Likewise people can stop buying Fords not invest in North Korea art etc etc etc. However none of this justifys the glorifying of Nazi artists who were a part of the state regime that caused the genocide of 6-11 million Jews. Nazi art is bad. It is not about whether the artist is good or bad it is about the fact that these artists worked for the regime and were involved in glorifying the regime. Now these artist willingly took part so they are guilty of supporting the regime and being darlings of that regime that caused and created the genocide. My comments are on the questioned posed. "INazi Art that bad?" Well err yes it is. Ford may well have been anti Semitic but that's different to supporting the regime. Similarly IBM make and made computers. They did not while the Genocide was going on make specific machines or make stuff to specifically support the regime. Similarly neitherFord or IBM were specifically under the control of the regime and making stuffthatoarticulary supported the regime and its values. That's not to defend them in anyway either I'm not giving artists that were Nazis a free pass and I'm not saying art that glorified Nazi thinking should be supported. Im saying that you can't lump all art made while the Nazis were in power under the same umbrella. There was resistance art made under Nazi rule too, and art made by Germans who did not support what the Nazis were doing. Not all Germans were Nazis party members or sympathizers and in fact many risked their lives to make that known and to alert the world to what was happening whhike the West ignored it. Look at it from a different angle - the US and UK killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians when we invaded them in the early-mid 2000's. Will history lump American and British art created during this time period in with the terror that Bush and Blair caused in the Mid-East, or will it be able to separate to judge each artist's work on its own merit? Some artists, yes, painted images that showed support for our own reign of terror - flag waiving and all that, but there was also a ton of art that opposed the occupation, as well as art that was non-political
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jan 16, 2017 11:40:46 GMT
< 100,000 dead = Acceptable > 100,001 dead = Unacceptable
|
|
|
Post by johnnyh on Jan 17, 2017 10:23:08 GMT
You can continue to ask those questions? Likewise people can stop buying Fords not invest in North Korea art etc etc etc. However none of this justifys the glorifying of Nazi artists who were a part of the state regime that caused the genocide of 6-11 million Jews. Nazi art is bad. It is not about whether the artist is good or bad it is about the fact that these artists worked for the regime and were involved in glorifying the regime. Now these artist willingly took part so they are guilty of supporting the regime and being darlings of that regime that caused and created the genocide. My comments are on the questioned posed. "INazi Art that bad?" Well err yes it is. Ford may well have been anti Semitic but that's different to supporting the regime. Similarly IBM make and made computers. They did not while the Genocide was going on make specific machines or make stuff to specifically support the regime. Similarly neitherFord or IBM were specifically under the control of the regime and making stuffthatoarticulary supported the regime and its values. That's not to defend them in anyway either I'm not giving artists that were Nazis a free pass and I'm not saying art that glorified Nazi thinking should be supported. Im saying that you can't lump all art made while the Nazis were in power under the same umbrella. There was resistance art made under Nazi rule too, and art made by Germans who did not support what the Nazis were doing. Not all Germans were Nazis party members or sympathizers and in fact many risked their lives to make that known and to alert the world to what was happening whhike the West ignored it. Look at it from a different angle - the US and UK killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians when we invaded them in the early-mid 2000's. Will history lump American and British art created during this time period in with the terror that Bush and Blair caused in the Mid-East, or will it be able to separate to judge each artist's work on its own merit? Some artists, yes, painted images that showed support for our own reign of terror - flag waiving and all that, but there was also a ton of art that opposed the occupation, as well as art that was non-political Sorry but your changing this to suit yourself. The conversation is not about German art, resistance art nor is it about US art. As per the title of the Thread it is pretty clear in my view that this is about Nazi Art. Likewise the US Iraq thing is irrelevant to the point. It is not about US v Germany.Or saying the US was right etc The US does not own or control its artists. Lots of US artists were anti war. The US allowed anti war demenstrations etc. Nazi art was created by the direction and order of the regime just as the regime destroyed art and artists against its principles. That is the difference and why Nazi art is so bad it was created by the Nazi's to support and embrace their concept As for ourobros last comment both ridiculous and childlike
|
|
|
Post by sɐǝpı ɟo uoıʇɐɹǝpǝɟ on Jan 17, 2017 10:58:25 GMT
I'm not giving artists that were Nazis a free pass and I'm not saying art that glorified Nazi thinking should be supported. Im saying that you can't lump all art made while the Nazis were in power under the same umbrella. There was resistance art made under Nazi rule too, and art made by Germans who did not support what the Nazis were doing. Not all Germans were Nazis party members or sympathizers and in fact many risked their lives to make that known and to alert the world to what was happening whhike the West ignored it. Look at it from a different angle - the US and UK killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians when we invaded them in the early-mid 2000's. Will history lump American and British art created during this time period in with the terror that Bush and Blair caused in the Mid-East, or will it be able to separate to judge each artist's work on its own merit? Some artists, yes, painted images that showed support for our own reign of terror - flag waiving and all that, but there was also a ton of art that opposed the occupation, as well as art that was non-political Sorry but your changing this to suit yourself. The conversation is not about German art, resistance art nor is it about US art. As per the title of the Thread it is pretty clear in my view that this is about Nazi Art. Likewise the US Iraq thing is irrelevant to the point. It is not about US v Germany.Or saying the US was right etc The US does not own or control its artists. Lots of US artists were anti war. The US allowed anti war demenstrations etc. Nazi art was created by the direction and order of the regime just as the regime destroyed art and artists against its principles. That is the difference and why Nazi art is so bad it was created by the Nazi's to support and embrace their concept As for ourobros last comment both ridiculous and childlike I was referring to the article itself, not just the title of the thread. So yes - Nazi art is bad but not all German art made during Nazi rule was Nazi art, is my point
|
|
|
Post by Still Hate Thatcher on Jan 17, 2017 10:59:37 GMT
Sorry but your changing this to suit yourself. The conversation is not about German art, resistance art nor is it about US art. As per the title of the Thread it is pretty clear in my view that this is about Nazi Art. Likewise the US Iraq thing is irrelevant to the point. It is not about US v Germany.Or saying the US was right etc The US does not own or control its artists. Lots of US artists were anti war. The US allowed anti war demenstrations etc. Nazi art was created by the direction and order of the regime just as the regime destroyed art and artists against its principles. That is the difference and why Nazi art is so bad it was created by the Nazi's to support and embrace their concept As for ourobros last comment both ridiculous and childlike I was referring to the article itself, not just the title of the thread. So yes - Nazi art is bad but not all German art made during Nazi rule was Nazi art, is my point “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
|
|
|
Post by johnnyh on Jan 17, 2017 13:00:45 GMT
Ha ha wondered when the twat would turn up with the usual ridiculous comment
|
|
|
Post by IggyWiggy on Jan 17, 2017 19:38:45 GMT
... Ford may well have been anti Semitic but that's different to supporting the regime. Similarly IBM make and made computers. They did not while the Genocide was going on make specific machines or make stuff to specifically support the regime. Similarly neitherFord or IBM were specifically under the control of the regime and making stuffthatoarticulary supported the regime and its values. That's not to defend them in anyway either Only with IBM's technological assistance were the Nazis able to achieve the staggering numbers of the Holocaust. Aided by the company's custom-designed and constantly updated Hollerith systems, the Nazis were able to automate their persecution of the Jews. The fact is, IBM technology was used to organise nearly everything in Germany and then Nazi Europe, from the identification of the Jews in censuses, registrations, and ancestral tracing programs to the running of railroads and organizing of concentration camp slave labour. IBM and its German subsidiary custom-designed complex solutions, one by one, anticipating the Reich's needs. They did not merely sell the machines and walk away. Instead, IBM leased these machines for high fees and became the sole source of the billions of punch cards Hitler needed. IBM's carefully crafted corporate collusion with the Third Reich's genocide is widely documented.
|
|
|
Post by sɐǝpı ɟo uoıʇɐɹǝpǝɟ on Jan 17, 2017 21:30:50 GMT
... Ford may well have been anti Semitic but that's different to supporting the regime. Similarly IBM make and made computers. They did not while the Genocide was going on make specific machines or make stuff to specifically support the regime. Similarly neitherFord or IBM were specifically under the control of the regime and making stuffthatoarticulary supported the regime and its values. That's not to defend them in anyway either Only with IBM's technological assistance were the Nazis able to achieve the staggering numbers of the Holocaust. Aided by the company's custom-designed and constantly updated Hollerith systems, the Nazis were able to automate their persecution of the Jews. The fact is, IBM technology was used to organise nearly everything in Germany and then Nazi Europe, from the identification of the Jews in censuses, registrations, and ancestral tracing programs to the running of railroads and organizing of concentration camp slave labour. IBM and its German subsidiary custom-designed complex solutions, one by one, anticipating the Reich's needs. They did not merely sell the machines and walk away. Instead, IBM leased these machines for high fees and became the sole source of the billions of punch cards Hitler needed. IBM's carefully crafted corporate collusion with the Third Reich's genocide is widely documented. what ^ he said
|
|
|
Post by johnnyh on Jan 18, 2017 10:24:47 GMT
... Ford may well have been anti Semitic but that's different to supporting the regime. Similarly IBM make and made computers. They did not while the Genocide was going on make specific machines or make stuff to specifically support the regime. Similarly neitherFord or IBM were specifically under the control of the regime and making stuffthatoarticulary supported the regime and its values. That's not to defend them in anyway either Only with IBM's technological assistance were the Nazis able to achieve the staggering numbers of the Holocaust. Aided by the company's custom-designed and constantly updated Hollerith systems, the Nazis were able to automate their persecution of the Jews. The fact is, IBM technology was used to organise nearly everything in Germany and then Nazi Europe, from the identification of the Jews in censuses, registrations, and ancestral tracing programs to the running of railroads and organizing of concentration camp slave labour. IBM and its German subsidiary custom-designed complex solutions, one by one, anticipating the Reich's needs. They did not merely sell the machines and walk away. Instead, IBM leased these machines for high fees and became the sole source of the billions of punch cards Hitler needed. IBM's carefully crafted corporate collusion with the Third Reich's genocide is widely documented. So don't buy or support IBM either. Is there a difference. You asked is Nazi art ok I said no. If your asking if IBM collaborated with the Nazi's do I think that is ok then the awnser is the same as the art no. So I really am not sure of the point your trying to make. The fact that IBM are now accepted or their history etc has disappeared. I cannot answer to that. But the point on IBM does not make Nazi art ok or acceptable in my view nor does it make IBMs history ok either Seems odd you are either trying to prove Nazi art is ok or acceptable in some format. You'll be all promoting the next Charles Craft show at Stolen Soace next!!
|
|
|
Post by sɐǝpı ɟo uoıʇɐɹǝpǝɟ on Jan 18, 2017 10:48:52 GMT
Only with IBM's technological assistance were the Nazis able to achieve the staggering numbers of the Holocaust. Aided by the company's custom-designed and constantly updated Hollerith systems, the Nazis were able to automate their persecution of the Jews. The fact is, IBM technology was used to organise nearly everything in Germany and then Nazi Europe, from the identification of the Jews in censuses, registrations, and ancestral tracing programs to the running of railroads and organizing of concentration camp slave labour. IBM and its German subsidiary custom-designed complex solutions, one by one, anticipating the Reich's needs. They did not merely sell the machines and walk away. Instead, IBM leased these machines for high fees and became the sole source of the billions of punch cards Hitler needed. IBM's carefully crafted corporate collusion with the Third Reich's genocide is widely documented. So don't buy or support IBM either. Is there a difference. You asked is Nazi art ok I said no. If your asking if IBM collaborated with the Nazi's do I think that is ok then the awnser is the same as the art no. So I really am not sure of the point your trying to make. The fact that IBM are now accepted or their history etc has disappeared. I cannot answer to that. But the point on IBM does not make Nazi art ok or acceptable in my view nor does it make IBMs history ok either Seems odd you are either trying to prove Nazi art is ok or acceptable in some format. You'll be all promoting the next Charles Craft show at Stolen Soace next!! I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make. Not all "Nazi Art" was Nazi Art. Much of it was just typical art of the era that the Nazi state deemed "Nazi-worthy" if they thought the work promoted "good German values". That's different than art commissioned by and promoting the ideology of the Nazi party.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyh on Jan 18, 2017 11:07:30 GMT
Actually no it's not. The state managed paid and look after a certain style of artist that suited, supported and promoted its values. Hence the termNazi art
Now if your saying that somewhere in that bracket there is a tiny amount that passes some kind of almost clean element to it. I am sure there possibly maybe. However there is also a reason that the pieces are termed Nazi art. I do not know of any resistance artists or any Jewish artists who have had their work termed Nazi art.
I really am not sure of the point of your trying to prove their is a piece of Nazi art that is ok.
But good luck finding it and enjoying the Nazibart you guys find acceptable. Excuse me but I cannot be arsed looking for some
|
|
|
Post by sɐǝpı ɟo uoıʇɐɹǝpǝɟ on Jan 18, 2017 11:17:52 GMT
Actually no it's not. The state managed paid and look after a certain style of artist that suited, supported and promoted its values. Hence the termNazi art Now if your saying that somewhere in that bracket there is a tiny amount that passes some kind of almost clean element to it. I am sure there possibly maybe. However there is also a reason that the pieces are termed Nazi art. I do not know of any resistance artists or any Jewish artists who have had their work termed Nazi art. I really am not sure of the point of your trying to prove their is a piece of Nazi art that is ok. But good luck finding it and enjoying the Nazibart you guys find acceptable. Excuse me but I cannot be arsed looking for some say you're an artist, and you're making a living painting whatever it is you paint - religious scenes, landscapes, whatever - nothing overtly political or anti-Semitic about them. Then your country gets taken over by a madman and he decides that your artwork suits his agenda and he displays it at the national gallery. Now all of a sudden your painting of cows out to pasture or whatever will forever be known as Nazi art. you don't see a difference between that and the art the Nazi's commissioned for themselves to further their ideological mind fuckery? There's a major difference between art of the Third Reich and art approved by the Third Reich, but they're often both called Nazi Art because of their place in a terrible chapter of our history
|
|
|
Post by pingoo on Jan 18, 2017 12:31:02 GMT
Seems odd you are either trying to prove Nazi art is ok or acceptable in some format. Nazi art is ok whatever the format is. It is a valuable witness of those times, they belong to Art History and should be carefully preserved as such. So many artworks through time and history have been destroyed on a few people convictions and beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by IggyWiggy on Jan 18, 2017 17:58:15 GMT
Only with IBM's technological assistance were the Nazis able to achieve the staggering numbers of the Holocaust. Aided by the company's custom-designed and constantly updated Hollerith systems, the Nazis were able to automate their persecution of the Jews. The fact is, IBM technology was used to organise nearly everything in Germany and then Nazi Europe, from the identification of the Jews in censuses, registrations, and ancestral tracing programs to the running of railroads and organizing of concentration camp slave labour. IBM and its German subsidiary custom-designed complex solutions, one by one, anticipating the Reich's needs. They did not merely sell the machines and walk away. Instead, IBM leased these machines for high fees and became the sole source of the billions of punch cards Hitler needed. IBM's carefully crafted corporate collusion with the Third Reich's genocide is widely documented. So don't buy or support IBM either. Is there a difference. You asked is Nazi art ok I said no. If your asking if IBM collaborated with the Nazi's do I think that is ok then the awnser is the same as the art no. So I really am not sure of the point your trying to make. The fact that IBM are now accepted or their history etc has disappeared. I cannot answer to that. But the point on IBM does not make Nazi art ok or acceptable in my view nor does it make IBMs history ok either Seems odd you are either trying to prove Nazi art is ok or acceptable in some format. You'll be all promoting the next Charles Craft show at Stolen Soace next!! Merely raising a point of fact in relation to your IBM faux pas old boy.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyh on Jan 19, 2017 1:50:45 GMT
@iggywiggy. Great you scored a point. Hope it made you very happy!! great reason to support Nazi Art.
Fed there are a lot better and more informed art historians etc and Other scholars who define what is and what isn't Nazi art.
It is defined that way for a reason and one assumes there are a number of reasons and criteria. So it is more than just the fact that the regime liked a picture of two cows etc. So it is wrong to over simplify the criteria used.
|
|