|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 18, 2022 14:21:44 GMT
I'm not really into groups these days. Anyway, no more Twenty Questions, let's get on with the show. What show? The show where you tell us that 'dispiriting and demeaning' art should be excluded, even though that has been your favourite form of art for most of your life? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 18, 2022 16:37:10 GMT
And so on to music. The standard story is that after 1933 musical life in Germany was stifled and hamstrung through a combination of the forced emigration of key figures, particularly Jewish ones, and the regime’s constraints on genre and repertoire which resulted in music offerings that were “boring and unspectacular”. First then, turning to the matter of the Exodus, who actually left and why? Here I am relying on as a key source the Austrian emigré Richard Grunberger whose ‘A Social History of the Third Reich’ remains a standard work on the subject. Another source I will refer to from time to time is Frederick Spotts ‘Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics’. *Hindemith did not consider himself an apostle of atonality: **Webern was not part of the Exodus, although as a disciple of Schoenberg much of his work was unpopular and in little demand. Webern was shot accidentally by a drunken US soldier near Salzburg in 1945. So looking the other side of coin, who was left to shoulder the burden? Well a surprisingly large number of first-rate talents as it turned out. Charles, A., 1998, Journal of Historical Review No matter which list you consult, the list of emigres is confined to Schoenberg and the rest of his gang of dissonants, plus a couple of second-raters like Kurt Weill “Weimar’s answer to Andrew Lloyd Webber” as well as –regrettably - a couple of outstanding directors in Klemperer and Walter. The latter however were amply covered for by the likes of Böhm, Fürtwangler and von Karajan, so the damage was effectively minimised. The only first-rate talent that was lost was Paul Hindemith who, from all accounts, was more a victim of his own irascibility and political naivete than any ideological hurdles erected by the regime. So what was the point of all this upheaval, and who was it intended to benefit? Spotts explains: Although there was already in existence an impressive physical and artistic infrastructure including an ‘extraordinary number of orchestras (around 180), opera houses (nearly 90), career musicians (some 94,000), choral groups, conservatories and music publications [Spotts 271]’, Hitler proposed an enormous increase in investments in the cultural realm, including over twenty new opera houses and complete renovations of most of the existing ones. And finally to Grünberger again: Not what you would ordinarily consider characteristic of a ‘cultural desert’.
There's a lot more that could be said about musical life in the Third Reich but I'm concerned about attention spans so we'll move quickly on to Architecture - coming up next.
|
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Nov 18, 2022 19:26:27 GMT
I remember a line in a book (sadly can’t remember the author) about a British pow who was captured by the gestapo.
whilst they kicked the crap out of him he shouted “Kultur Kultur “ at them,happily he survived their interrogation I hope they eventually did not.
The only good thing that happened as a result of that period was its defeat and the Nuremberg trials.
You can take the music architecture or whichever you like,none of that really matters,cultural desert? don’t really care but what it most certainly was a desert devoid of any humanity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 18, 2022 19:54:14 GMT
Hitler was a failed artist. Perhaps that why he hated successful artists so much.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeg er on Nov 18, 2022 20:04:23 GMT
Hitler was a failed artist. Perhaps that why he hated successful artists so much. good point |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 18, 2022 21:44:01 GMT
The Case for Third Reich Culture – Part II: Architecture
Let’s start off with a historical perspective from the Deutsches Historisches Museum in Berlin, probably the most prestigious such museum in the capital city. The original is in German so my translation follows (usual disclaimers apply).
Although at the beginning of the 1930s a diverse style strongly influenced by the Bauhaus movement still held sway, by mid-decade a monumental, neo-classical architecture had aspired to establish itself as expressing the absolute political power of the NS regime. National socialist architecture did not, however, bring forward in any sense a new and unique buiding form; instead it based itself firmly on the neo-classical genre of the previous century. On the other hand, most buildings [of the period] carry an unmistakable trace of a unique NS signature. Straightforward (but monumental) symmetry, strong rectilinear detail, minimal ornamentation, and solidly horizontal frontal stonework provided for a sense of impenetrability and permanence.
[/quote][/div]
So there we have it. NS architecture was by all accounts an unlikely amalgam of the Bauhaus-inspired mitteleuropäischen contemporary vernacular, that being readily apparent as a default even today in the many thousands of buildings in German-speaking Europe from Hamburg to Bern to Vienna to Rostock, and the greco-roman classical style that was the norm throughout Europe for all public and also upscale private property in the 19C and earlier. It all sounds like a recipe for the proverbial dog’s dinner, but to the consternation of the philistines for whom nothing of any consequence or cultural value emerged from the Third Reich, be prepared to be surprised. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2022 10:46:39 GMT
We all know that Hitler and most of his cohorts in the inner circle were psychos. We all know that much of nazi Germany's art and architecture reflected Hitler's mania for power, glory and huge, stark depictions of strength. One can see this in today's neo nazi fancies of muscular men and stern expressions of Aryan strength and supremacy. The precision marching, the uniforms with their appropriated pagan Germanic symbols, the Nordicism of some fantastic racial idea that won everything and did everything to perfection, etc. It all reflects the mindset of the creators. It does not, as art usually does, imitate life. It goes beyond life and creates its own mythology, often by borrowing and then misinterpreting symbols from the past. The Germanic Pagans have been saddled with this horror since the War and now most think those of us who are Nodic Pagans are all neo-nazis. It is unfortunate but is utilized by many to trash us even though we have nothing to do with what others may have done to our heritage.
That aside, Hitler was not a bad painter at all. In fact is buildings were very good. It doesn't help to try to trash his art just because he was a raving nutter with infinite power on the brain. One must be realistic, and objective. There were many in that time and place who didn't suddenly lose their talents or abilities because the nazis were in power. It was a time of quite staggering scientific and engineering advances. Mostly because Hitler was determined to get ahead in war and technology.
The holocaust (including all who died in it or were victims of it) is a catastrophe that no amount of explanation can absolve. It was just incredible that the upper echelons of the party thought they could do this. In itself it reveals something quite inhuman and barbaric about the Third Reich mentality that defies anything it may have achieved in any other sphere.
I don't find looking to that time and that series of events to be helpful in any way other than to illustrate the perils of madness when it becomes political and ideological. And one must be prepared to treat all ideologies and politics in the same way if one is to see them in perspective against the backdrop of reality and the human condition of believing everything it is told by authority.
Looking at our own era, one sees the degradation of art, music and architecture, of moral beliefs and now of scientific means with the recent utterly unacceptable mutilations performed on children who imagine they are the wrong sex. Our era is as dreadful, with its hordes of ghoulish drug addicts and its pornography, overindulgence and dumbing down any other. Things look different to the nazi era in our age but that doesn't make any age any less unlikely to be reflecting life. Our age simply reveals the decline of most things once considered to be desirable in those who strive for excellence and a higher order of thought and action. In general, humans are slowly drifting from their moorings in Nature and descending into a bog of their own making. I have little sympathy for them or any of the social engineers pretending this is a good thing. It's a disastrous thing.
This may have nothing to do with Dan's thread theme but I think it is important to state certain things about periods considered to have been either "good" or "bad". They usually contain some good but are often also dragged into the gutter by what might be considered the opposite of "good". I blame humanity's inability to control its basic instincts. I don't see any of us as demi-gods or victims. I simply see our species as a combination of intelligence and idiocy woven into something that has the seeds of destruction in it by its own hand. We do not appear to be able to escape this. We seem to keep on rebelling against things and trying to create the perfect state of being, when no such thing exists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 19, 2022 10:59:18 GMT
That aside, Hitler was not a bad painter at all. In fact is buildings were very good. It doesn't help to try to trash his art just because he was a raving nutter with infinite power on the brain. One must be realistic, and objective. There were many in that time and place who didn't suddenly lose their talents or abilities because the nazis were in power. It was a time of quite staggering scientific and engineering advances. Mostly because Hitler was determined to get ahead in war and technology.
I'm not sure Hitler's paintings could be described as 'art'. There are arts and crafts, and his work was more on the craft side. He was a competent craftsman, though |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Nov 19, 2022 11:02:30 GMT
Churchill's watercolours had far more artistic value and he still found time to win two world wars and suppress the Irish.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2022 12:18:43 GMT
That aside, Hitler was not a bad painter at all. In fact is buildings were very good. It doesn't help to try to trash his art just because he was a raving nutter with infinite power on the brain. One must be realistic, and objective. There were many in that time and place who didn't suddenly lose their talents or abilities because the nazis were in power. It was a time of quite staggering scientific and engineering advances. Mostly because Hitler was determined to get ahead in war and technology.
I'm not sure Hitler's paintings could be described as 'art'. There are arts and crafts, and his work was more on the craft side. He was a competent craftsman, though A good artist also has to be a competent craftsman. If Hitler had not been rejected by the snooty art academy he applied to, he may never have done what he did and continued to produce art.
(There is obviously no God.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 19, 2022 12:40:44 GMT
I'm not sure Hitler's paintings could be described as 'art'. There are arts and crafts, and his work was more on the craft side. He was a competent craftsman, though A good artist also has to be a competent craftsman. If Hitler had not been rejected by the snooty art academy he applied to, he may never have done what he did and continued to produce art.
(There is obviously no God.)
I don't agree that a good artist has to be a competent craftsman. Magritte was a barely competent craftsman, but a wonderful artist. Warhol was an artistic genius, yet he didn't actually paint many of his works. Duchamp's best work was 'readymade'. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2022 13:10:23 GMT
I don't agree with any of that. 
Not having any respect for either the viewer, or the subject and just plastering paint onto a surface and calling the resultant abomination "symphony" or "untitled" doesn't make one an artist. Training helps a lot as one is taught all the various materials and methods of painting and then the facets of composition and form and then, if one feels like it, one can do one's own thing and flout some of these conventions. Art, has to a large extent, evolved , or rather devolved, itself out of existence. Many so-called artists are just taking the p. I rate the later Picasso as one of these. I don't rate Warhol at all. He was an enormous bullshitter.
Going to an exhibition of some of this contemporary junk and watching the gullible and the ignorant and the sycophantic standing about sipping wine and nibbling crackers and nodding sagely at these awful monstrosities is quite an experience.
Hitler was an artist. It doesn't mean that to say so is tantamount to supporting genocide. It is just a fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 19, 2022 13:25:23 GMT
I don't agree with any of that.
Not having any respect for either the viewer, or the subject and just plastering paint onto a surface and calling the resultant abomination "symphony" or "untitled" doesn't make one an artist. Training helps a lot as one is taught all the various materials and methods of painting and then the facets of composition and form and then, if one feels like it, one can do one's own thing and flout some of these conventions. Art, has to a large extent, evolved , or rather devolved, itself out of existence. Many so-called artists are just taking the p. I rate the later Picasso as one of these. I don't rate Warhol at all. He was an enormous bullshitter.
Going to an exhibition of some of this contemporary junk and watching the gullible and the ignorant and the sycophantic standing about sipping wine and nibbling crackers and nodding sagely at these awful monstrosities is quite an experience.
Hitler was an artist. It doesn't mean that to say so is tantamount to supporting genocide. It is just a fact.
I'm afraid I don't agree with any of the above, Vanna. Hitler was a competent craftsman; he was no artist. Art is an idea; craft is technical skill. Warhol had incredibly witty ideas. He was working in a time when art was questioning itself, asking itself what it was and how it was useful to society. His portrait of Chairman Mao provided an incredibly witty insight into the art world and capitalism. He painted a mediocre picture of Chairman Mao, the very symbol of communism, with the ironic intention of selling it for millions of dollars on the capitalist market. The idea that an art collector should have a picture of the leader of the communist world hanging on his wall which he paid millions of dollars for was a very clever statement about the art world. Duchamp's Urinal answered the question: what is art? It was an extremely profound visualisation of Wittgenstein's linguistic philosophy. Neither of the above required great technical expertise (none whatsoever in the case of the latter), but both were masterpieces. Art is intellectual - it is an idea. Craftmanship is technical skill. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2022 13:41:50 GMT
Art is not an idea. An idea may form the composition and form of a painting or drawing or sculpture, but in itself is not art. I agree that it is difficult to pin down what art is, but one needs to be able to say what it isn't. It isn't Marilyn Monroe in various colours, for example. It isn't a row of coke bottles. A statement, maybe, but not art as such. All pictorial depiction including the craftsmanship of pure illustration belongs under the umbrella of art. Fine art has gone AWOL, alas.
I am very fond of some of the modernist painters but others simply didn't manage to make anything but an horrific mess on the canvas or a terrible tangle of anguished metal in sculpture. I have looked upon some of the rusting specimen's in their travail and pitied them.  I have considered their decomposition to be more of an at form than their creation. As time moves beyond them, it tends to leave them behind.
I think the definition of art will always be elusive as it is different things to different people. I think, as an artist myself, I will always look for a soul in the work and if I can't find one then I can't find the artist either. The canvas needs to bleed, weep, scream or lay its soul open to plunder or praise. Or the work is just an awkward cock up of what might have started out as an idea but ended up as a lie. Tracy Emin tends to do this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 19, 2022 13:52:02 GMT
Art is not an idea. An idea may form the composition and form of a painting or drawing or sculpture, but in itself is not art. I agree that it is difficult to pin down what art is, but one needs to be able to say what it isn't. It isn't Marilyn Monroe in various colours, for example. It isn't a row of coke bottles. A statement, maybe, but not art as such. All pictorial depiction including the craftsmanship of pure illustration belongs under the umbrella of art. Fine art has gone AWOL, alas.
I am very fond of some of the modernist painters but others simply didn't manage to make anything but an horrific mess on the canvas or a terrible tangle of anguished metal in sculpture. I have looked upon some of the rusting specimen's in their travail and pitied them. I have considered their decomposition to be more of an at form than their creation. As time moves beyond them, it tends to leave them behind.
I think the definition of art will always be elusive as it is different things to different people. I think, as an artist myself, I will always look for a soul in the work and if I can't find one then I can't find the artist either. The canvas needs to bleed, weep, scream or lay its soul open to plunder or praise. Or the work is just an awkward cock up of what might have started out as an idea but ended up as a lie. Tracy Emin tends to do this.
Fine. We have different ideas of what art is. |
|
I have considered their decomposition to be more of an at form than their creation. As time moves beyond them, it tends to leave them behind.