Art in the Third Reich: 19331945

By Tomislav Sunic

This is a slightly edited version of an article was first published in Ecrits de Paris (Nr. 645,

July-August 2002, LArt dans lIIIme Reich. Translated by the author.)

http://www.tomsunic.info/essays/lartdansletroisiemereich.pdfWhen writing about or discussing the plastic and figurative arts in Germany during the period from 1933 to 1945, one must inevitably

mention the art that highlighted the epoch of National Socialism. During that short and troubled

period of time, art was also a reflection of modern European history, and, therefore, it must be

examined, or, for that matter, conceptualized, within the larger geopolitical framework of Europe

as a whole.

National Socialist culture has always been a sensitive subject, whose controversial nature is more

apparent today than ever before in the ongoing media warfare between so-called anticommunists

and antifascists. If one accepts the conventional wisdom, widely accepted in all corners of he

world, that National Socialism was a form of totalitarianism, one must then also raise the

question as to whether there were any authentic cultural successes achieved during the Third

Reich at all. Certain parallels can and should be drawn between artistic efforts in the U.S.S.R.

and National Socialist Germany, in view of the fact that culture in both systems was dominated

by a specific ideology. Does this therefore mean that there were no valuable works of art created

in the U.S.S.R. or in National Socalist Germany? What both National Socialism and

Communism had in common was the rejection of art for arts sake (lart pour lart) and the repudiation of middle-class aestheticism. Instead, both political systems favored a committed and

normative approach to art, which was supposed to be a tool for the creation of the new man. On the other hand, from the thematic, aesthetic and stylistic point of view, the differences

between art in Communism and art in National Socialism were immense.

After the Second World War, as the result of pressure from the Allies, Germany was forced to

open its doors to abstract art (Jackson Pollock, Piet Mondrian, et al.), and, consequently

Germany had to stifle the production of its traditional figurative art. Even German artists who

were not implicated in the National Socialist regime, including those whom the National

Socialist propaganda had labeled degenerate artists (entartete Knstler) came under the ban. A large number of paintings and other works of art executed during the Third Reich were either

removed or destroyed. Several hundred sculptures were demolished or trashed during the Allied

air bombardments. After the war, a considerable number of works of art were confiscated by the

Americans, because of their pornographic character. In the spring of 1947, 8,722 paintings and sculptures of German artists were transported to the United States. Of these, only a small number

have been returned to the Federal Republic of Germany.

A short outline of art under National Socialism requires knowledge of the historical and political

framework of that epoch. Who were those German artists? Were they sympathetic to the

National Socialist regime? What did they do before the National Socialist seizure of power in

1933? What became of them after the fall of the Third Reich?

It is important to emphasize the fact that to be an artist in National Socialist Germany did not

always imply self-enslavement to the ruling class or blind obedience to political decrees, nor did

it necessarily entail membership in the National Socialist Party (N.S.D.A.P.). Yet to be able to

have ones artistic works accepted for public exhibition during the period between 1933 and 1945 presupposed at least tacit respect for the concept of beauty as defined by the National

Socialist regime. A large number of German artists, who were by no means followers of the

National Socialist regime, nevertheless well understood which type of works they could exhibit

or display if they wished to remain within the public eye. As was the case with countless artists

in every historical epoch and in all political systems from the dawn of time, many German artists

were the simple, timorous types the flag wavers, as it were, who understood that it was necessary to yield to the whims of the new regime if they did not wish to be left out of the

spotlight completely.

Such a servile attitude is not a novel phenomenon in European cultural history. Being a good

artist or a good writer does not always entail the artists possession of moral integrity, guaranteeing that the artist will always be found siding with the oppressed or shouting at full

breath for universal justice. Throughout European history, there were (and still are) excellent

artists and thinkers who served (and still serve) criminal governments. A well-known Croatian

sculptor, Antun Augustini, who was influenced in his youth by the French sculptor Auguste Rodin, made busts of the Croatian pro-fascist Ustashi leader, Ante Paveli. After World War II, in the new communist Yugoslavia, Augustini did the same thing for the communist ruler Marshall Josip Broz Tito. To ponder the question as to the moral and political integrity of the

sculptor Augustini is one thing; to try to define the subtlety of his artistic achievements is quite another.

Moreover, any appreciation of an artistic work created during the National Socialist epoch

requires a precise knowledge of the mentality of the German people, a good knowledge of the

Zeitgeist, as it influenced a specific work of art at the very moment when it was created. Ignoring

the dominant ideas of the first half of the twentieth century cannot help us more accurately to

comprehend the artistic range of a particular artist. The famous French painter, Jacques-Louis

David (17481825) served with devotion three widely different regimes: the French revolutionary Jacobins; Napoleonic imperialism; and, later, the reactionary monarchists of the

French Restoration. David knew well how to adapt his skills to each new system (like that

metaphorical and proverbial French demi solde decommissioned officers from the former army of Napoleon who decided to serve the new rulers).

However, Davids lack of political or moral integrity does not belittle his gift for artistic composition or his powerful and realistic brushwork. One might be tempted to mention hundreds

of similar cases today, notably when gifted artists and writers accept political correctness without any scruples and always with the full approval of their good conscience.

The Political Apparatus in the Service of Culture

It is often forgotten that the major goal of National Socialist propaganda was not the

rearrangement of the political field, but rather the promotion of culture. This was especially true

in the area of figurative and plastic art. The four most influential people in the Third Reich, i.e.,

Joseph Goebbels, Albert Speer, Alfred Rosenberg, and the Fhrer, Adolf Hitler, were focused,

over the 12 years of the National Socialist regime, on the concept of the new art, the new

architecture, and the new painting.

In his youth, at the beginning of the twentieth century, Hitler had painted hundreds of

watercolors, some of which have, without doubt, a certain artistic value and seem to be held in

high esteem among WWII artifacts dealers, especially in the United States. As a teenager,

imbued by the art and culture of the period of Romanticism, Hitler was influenced by the

watercolors of Rudolf von Alt and the oil paintings of Carl von Spitzweg. Toward the end of

his reign, in 1945, Hitler dreamed of opening the largest art gallery in the world, which he had

long determined to house in the Austrian city of Linz. Immense architectural and scientific

efforts, such as the launching of the first model of the popular automobile named the

Volkswagen and the construction of vast and well-designed autobans, were to a large extent Hitlers own ideas. Nevertheless, he did not regard himself as a first-rate artist. In his answer to the editor in chief of the cultural newspaper Kunst dem Volk, on June 2, 1937, Hitler remarked:

The fact that I made paintings in order to survive, does not mean that they now deserve to be exposed in the Haus der Deutschen Kunst [The House of the German Art].

During the National Socialist regime many journals dealing with art were launched: Kunst der

Nation, Kunst dem Volke, Die Kunst im Dritten Reich, etc. In 1937, the propaganda minister

Goebbels inaugurated the Chamber of Arts (Kunstkammer), a cultural institution that, from 1935 to 1937, enrolled more than one hundred thousand members. During the period from 1933

to 1945, thirty large art exhibitions, on average, were held each month. This was the case even

during the period from 1940 to 1945, when Germany was subject to the regular air

bombardments carried out by the Allies. In 1937, the opening of the Haus der Deutschen Kunst took place in Munich. At that time this was the most significant establishment of its kind in Europe. The first stone of this building which was 175 meters long was laid by Hitler himself. Approximately, thousand German artists exposed their works in it from 1937 to 1939.

The Archaic Postmodernity

National Socialist dignitaries devoted much energy to the promotion of German sculptors and

helped them considerably in the execution of massive bas-reliefs and in the erection of

monumental stone and bronze sculptures. The political goal was obvious: to bring German art as

close as possible to the German people, so that any German citizen, regardless social standing,

could identify himself or herself with a specific artistic achievement.

It should, therefore, come as no surprise that the German art of that time witnessed a return to

classicism. Models from Antiquity and the Renaissance were to some extent adapted to the needs

of National Socialist Germany. Numerous German sculptors benefited from the logistic and

financial support of the political elite. Their sculptures resembled, either by form, or by

composition, the works of Praxiteles or Phidias of ancient Greece, or the sculptures of

Michelangelo during the Renaissance.

The most prominent German sculptors of that time were Arno Breker, Josef Thorak, and Fritz

Klimsch, who although enjoying the significant logistical resources of the National Socialist

regime, were never members of the N.S.D.A.P. Sculptures of naked women, such as Flora by Breker, Girl by Fehrle, or Glance by Klimsch, show excessively beautiful and geometrically pruned women who, sometimes, with their perfect bodies, with their narrow and lengthened

ankles, with their well rounded and well-proportioned breasts, tire the eye of the observer.

In addition, the fact that many sculptures show naked males embracing naked females indicates

that National Socialism was by no means a conservative or reactionary movement, and that Puritan Anglo-Saxon prudishness was completely alien to it. It is difficult to deny the great talent

of Breker or Klimsch, even if some critics justly characterize their sculptures as workmanlike

copies of classic artists.

As a young man, Breker lived in France where he was influenced by his future friend and

sculptor, Aristide Maillol. After the war, many of Brekers sculptures were destroyed by the American soldiers. In spite of his political troubles, Breker continued to work after the war

making busts of his friends and protectors, (Salvador Dali, Hassan II, Louis-Ferdinand Cline,

etc).

It should be noted that Breker, in the wake of the Allied occupation of Germany, was requested

by the Soviets to continue his artistic career in the Soviet Unionan offer that he refused. It goes without saying that it is possible to draw certain parallels between the gigantism of the plastic art

in National Socialist Germany and that of the Soviet Union (the naked Prometheus vis--vis the

muscular and shirtless hammer-holding proletarian!). Yet the differences are again glaring: in

Communist countries one could never find sculptures representing nude women and

menwhich confirms our thesis that Communism, although politically frightening, was primarily a prudish and conservative system. Indeed, even today, one can hardly encounter

pictorial or plastic representations of embracing couples in China, Cuba, or in North Korea.

Neverthless, the sculptures of Venus or nymphs by Breker or Thorak display nothing provocative

or pornographic; they never trigger sexual fantasies or erotic dreams, as is perhaps the case with

the naked beauties painted by the Jewish-Italian artist Amadeo Modigliani. Upon the faces of the

sculptures representing nude women made by German artists, one comes across an enigmatic and

aristocratic smile and a deep sense of the tragic, which reflect, symbolically, the pessimism of a

whole nation in search of its geopolitical identity. No trace can be found of female coquetry or

flirtatiousness, such as one encounters among the nudes painted by the French realist, Gustave

Courbet, by the Impressionist Edouard Manet, or by Paul Czanne.

German painting of that time represents a chapter apart. Contrary to widespread ideas, kitsch was never part of art in National Socialist Germany. Indeed, the German National Socialist

authorities adopted repressive measures against kitsch in the arts resembling those invoked against alleged degenerate art.

Regarding painting of that period, Germany suffered a considerable regression in the quality of

its pictorial production. The early school of expressionism was abandoned and even severely

repressed by the authorities as degenerate art. Expressionism, as opposed to Impressionism which originated in France, is paradoxically the typical feature of the German character and

temperament, just as it is of other Germanic peoples (Flemings, Scandinavians).

Nevertheless, German artists of the expressionist school did not obtain the regimes green light to exhibit their works. Schools of thought that had emerged from cultural circles such as Die

Brcke or Neue Sachligkeit at the beginning of the twentieth century and had produced some of

Europes great masters, were assailed by the National Socialist censorship.

Nevertheless, Dr. Joseph Goebbels was a great admirer of expressionist artists, and was on

friendly terms with the Norwegian forerunner of expressionism, the famous painter, Edvard

Munch. In December 1933, Goebbels sent a telegram to Edvard Munch on his seventieth

birthday describing him as the spiritual heir of the Nordic spirit. Goebbels was also among the

first to send condolences to his family on the occasion of his death in January 1944.

There were thus serious differences among NS politicians and academics regarding the nature

and artistic value of expressionism, not just in its pictorial form, but also as poetic expression, as

indicated by a still much admired German expressionist poet and cultural pessimist, Gottfried

Benn, who was himself very close to National Socialism, and who, in his earlier days, conceived

of National Socialism as first and foremost a cultural movement.

This is important because it shows that the National Socialist experiment, contrary to the later

liberal-communist propaganda, was by no means a monolithic movement and that considerable

personal and esthetical differences prevailed among its high ranking members and sympathizers.

The German painters, who, between 1933 and 1945, gained considerable reputation were

neo-classicist portraitists and landscape painters who avoided pathetic and exaggerated

compositions, and attempted to rid artistic work of every trace of the influence of Cubism and

abstract art. Overall, one can sense in their paintings the revival of the taste for primitive art and

a return to the Flemish masters of the fifteenth century.

Certain parallels can again be drawn with the paintings known as socialist-realist in the Soviet Union and other communist countries. However, even here the difference is obvious. Whereas

one can see on the paintings of Soviet artists peasants and workmen adorned with their perpetual

grins and in the background a factory under construction, on the German paintings of that time

seldom can one see signs of industrialization. Traces of the asphalt, chimneys spewing fumes, or

factories in full gearsuch as one can observe among socialist-realist painters (and in their titanic and apocalyptic form among the futuristic artists in fascistic Italy!), very rarely appear in

the German paintings of that period. Just as one can draw a comparison between German

sculptors and Soviet sculptors, one can also notice a difference between figurative art under

Communism and figurative art under National Socialism.

In the art galleries of the Third Reich the scenes of handsome rural nymphs abound (Amadeus

Dier, Johannes Beutner, Sepp Hilz, etc). These pastoral beauties, which can be observed on oil

paintings, exude family harmony, and seem to anticipate a well-deserved rest after a hard days work in the cornfields. Also worth mentioning is the artist and a wood engraver, Ernst von

Dombrowski, whose scenes of country life and young children playing, still win great praise

from critics.

In conclusion, one can state that the German sculpture of that time, proclaims, at least as a rule, a

message of racial and promethean hygiene, while the paintings of that time reveal a distinct and

populist (vlkisch) tendency that can hardly be misconstrued for any ideological or political

speculation.