Art and Design in Nazi Germany

Author(s): John Heskett

Source: History Workshop, No. 6 (Autumn, 1978), pp. 139-153
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4288196
Accessed: 27/12/2008 22:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to History
Workshop.

http://www.jstor.org
 Anapotheosis
of theVolkswagen.
Drawingin a technical
journal,
RTA Nachrichten1938

Art and Designin Nazi Germany

by John Heskett
Comparedwiththe rangeof workavailableon the politicaland economichistoryof
the ThirdReich, therehas been, until recently,very little study of Nazi aesthetics.
Publicationsin the earlypost-waryears-such as Rave'sKunst Diktatur im Dritten
Reich (1949)[1Jtended to concentrateon dramaticevents, such as the notorious
'DegenerateArt' exhibitionheld at Munichin 1937, whereavante-gardepaintings,
sculpturesand graphic prints were displayed with such derogatorycaptions as
'Germanfarmersas seen by Jews' and 'Thus sick minds see nature'. Nazism was
identifiedquitesimplyas an 'anti-modern'movement,and little or no attentionwas
paideitherto the ambiguitiesof the modernmovement,or the contradictionsin the
140 History Workshop

Nazis' relationshipto it. In the last few years,however,a growingbody of workhas

begunto emergeon the subject,and in this shortarticleI wantto discusssoiheof the
problemsand issues it raises.
The first substantialstep forward was HildegardBrenner'sbook on the art-
policies of the Third Reich publishedin 1961.[2]This studiedthe arts in general
froma sociologicalviewpointand for the firsttimeplacedthemfirmlyin the context
of the politicalsystem.The policiesand organizationsrelatingto art were analysed
as a problemof politicalrule, and althoughit did not makean in-depthanalysisof
individualworksandtheirthemes,formsand techniques,the book remainsvaluable
for its historically-specificaccountof Nazi art.
It was not until the presentdecadethat there was any furtherprogress.A key
eventwas the exhibition'Art in the ThirdReich:Documentsof Oppression'(Kunst
im Dritten Reich: Dokumente der Unterwerfung)presentedby the Frankfurter
Kunstvereinin late 1974,whichwas subsequentlyshownin othercitiesin Germany.
The organizerswere motivated by alarm at the developmentin Germanyof an
apparentwave of nostalgiafor the past, the so-called'Hitler-wave'(HitlerWelle),
manifestedin a flood of publications,films and documentariesthat used imagery
and material produced in the Third Reich for illustrative purposes, without
questioningthe natureof the materialused. Thus, the Nazis' propagandisticimage
of themselvescouldbe perpetuatedin the mindsof a generationunfamiliarwith the
realitiesof the Third Reich. To counterthis uncriticalacceptance,the organizing
grouphopedthatthe wholesubjectcouldbe broughtout of the shadowsand be seen
and discussedon a wide scale.
The exhibitionwas controversialeven before it opened. The Association of
Victimsof the Nazi-Regime(Vereinigungder Verfolgtendes Nazi-Regimes)moun-
ted a protestcampaignon the groundsthat therewas no social necessityfor such an
exhibition,that it was an affront to victimsof the regimeand an encouragementto
fascistsympathizers.Whenit becameclearthat the exhibitionwouldtake place, the
Associationdemandedamong other things that visitorsshould be requiredto give
their reasonsfor going, and their visit should only be permittedwith a guide who
would ensurethey were fully informed of the consequencesof the Nazi regime.
After the failure of this demand the group campaignedfor a boycott of the
exhibitionon the groundsthat it was 'a mockeryof the victimsof fascismand all of
those who, at the presenttime, attemptto combatit'. [3]
The organizingcommitteeof the exhibitiondisagreed:to removeany misunder-
standing of art in the Third Reich, it was necessaryto strip away the taboos
surroundingit and 'clearlyshow the role and functionof art in national-socialism'.
For this reasonthe exhibitionwas not conceivedin termsof a 'pureart exhibition,
but as a documentationthat shows which policies art served, and in what
measure'.[4]
Contraryto the judicious tone of that statement,however,the exhibitionwas
polemicalin termsof subjectmatterand presentation.The themewas establishedin
the entrancehall by a quotation from Max Horkheimerdisplayedin large type:
'Who speaksof fascism, may not be silent about capitalism'.The materialof the
exhibitionwas groupedinto threemain areas, architectureand sculpture,painting
and graphics.Each of these displayedparticularthemes, among those in architec-
tureand sculpture,for example,werethe roleof the partybuildingsprogramme,the
autobahns,and memorials;in painting,the depictionof work, women and war.
Under these thematicheadings, objects, illustrations,plans and models from the
 Art andDesignin Nazi Germany 141

Nazi period were juxtaposed with comment, texts, statistics and photographs
intendedto providea link betweenthe valuesof the art and the realitiesof life in the
Third Reich. The section on work contrastedheroic memorialsto labour with
photographsof the living and working conditionsthat prevailed,tables showing
how wages fell in real terms, and statementsabout the destructionof the trade
unions and the imprisonmentof their leaders.
Over36,000 people visitedthe exhibitionin the eight weeks that it was open in
Frankfurt,includinga large numberof school groups. In the public debatesthat
were organizedin conjunctionwith it, on 'wall newspapers'providedfor visitors'
comments, and in the huge number of press and media reports, it stimulated
widespreadand vehementdiscussion.Reactionsto the exhibitionwere many and
varied, coming from all parts of the political spectrum,and directedat both the
form and the contentof the exhibition.
Suggestionsthat similarways of commentingon art had beenused by the Nazis
themselvesin the 'DegenerateArt' exhibitionof 1937were part of a tendencythat
soughtto brandthe organizersas 'left-fascists'.This concentrationon the method
used, whileignoringthe totally differentcontext,was to be a recurringelement.On
a loftier note, other critics questionedwhetherthe exhibitionhad anythingto do
withartat all, the exhibitsbeingso uniformlybad that it was only necessaryfor the
publicto see themto realizethat 'art' and the 'ThirdReich' were contradictionsin
terms. From the left there was criticismthat the commentaryhad not gone far
enough.Thenewspaperof the GermanCommunistParty(DKP)commentedthat it
did 'not indicatethe links with the realityof Fascismin Chile or Spain', and that
'they correctlydepictedFascism as the open terroristicdictatorshipof the most
reactionarysection of monopoly capital, but did not refer to the continuity of
monopoly-rulein the Federal Republic'.[5] Such a comparisonwas not made
explicit,thoughit couldbe inferredfromthe rathercircumspectstatementby Georg
Bussman, Director.of the FrankfurterKunstverein,in his introductionto the
exhibitioncatalogue:

If in the presenttheredoes not exist a continuityworth mentioningof National

Socialistart, thereremains,however,a continuityof actualfunction.If artin the
ThirdReichhadthe task of disguisingrealityand destroyingall consciousnessof
it, so it can be asked:what kind of relationshipto realityhas art today.[6]

Much of the left and DKP criticism focussed on the exhibition as a means of
commentingon contemporarypoliticalissues.
Therewas, however,a furtherproblemrevealedby the methodof displaythat
has a wider relevance.'If art, as verifiedby the exampleof that of the National
Socialists, is to be identified as a matter of principlewith its epoch and social
structure,a workingmethodof that kind is valid for other epochs'.[7]
It is a weaknessof most art exhibitionsthat little attemptis made to place the
worksin theirsocial context.That the organizersof 'Art in the ThirdReich' did so
was an importantstep forwardand necessaryunderthe circumstances.But doubts
wereraisedby the precisemethodused and thereforeits widervalidity,particularly
the techniqueof simply juxtaposing art objects with informationon the social
context, and interpretingthem solely in terms of that information.This may be
usefulin identifyingideologicalcontent,but thereis a dangerthat a work may have
an ideologicalinterpretationimposedupon it that strainsa viewer'scredulity.One
142 History Workshop

of the problemsthat I found visiting the exhibitionwas the difficulty of relating

much of the imageryto the commentaccompanyingthem. For examplea simple
realistic portrait, 'The Entailed Farmer', was accompaniedby two pages of
cataloguetext describingthe laws of entail, of inalienableinheritance,enactedby
the Nazis which'servedto carryfascistruleon to the land',[8] and the historyand
role of this section of the farmingpopulationin the Third Reich. In all this the
paintingwas mentionedonce, in the openingsentence,andtherewas no clarification
of exactly how in artistic terms it expressedthe extensive social interpretation
attachedto it. Anotherexamplewas Ivo Saliger'spainting'TheJudgementof Paris',
a traditionalacademicthemebasedon the Greekmythin which the young Paris-
depictedby Saligerin lederhosen-was requiredto awarda golden apple to the
loveliestof threegoddesses.In the cataloguethe picturewas linkedto a statementby
Alfred Rosenberg advocating polygamy, with the comment, 'That would be
thereforea GermanPariswho in futurewouldbe ableto choose daily'.[9] In neither
case was there an analysis of the paintingthat acknowledgedany other kind of
possibleinterpretation.The depictionof the realityitself at times also left much to
be desired.A paintingby JuliusPaul Junghans,'Ploughing',showinga scene of a
farmerguidinga ploughpulledby threehorsesacrossa sunlitlandscape,was placed
next to a photographof a woman and two men pulling a plough on a Bavarian
farm in 1936. The painting was an obvious piece of idealizationthat bore little
relationshipto the practicalrealitiesof everydayrurallife, but the photographalso
aroused scepticism as to the extent that it representedthe general reality of
agriculturalworkin the ThirdReich.This techniqueof juxtapositionwas, it seemed
to me, an imprecisetool that could all too easilybe challengedand thus cast doubt
on the validityof more fundamentaland seriouspurposesof the exhibition.
The attitudesof visitors and commentatorsto the Frankfurtexhibitionwere
undoubtedlyinfluencedby their awarenessof its didacticnatureand much of the
reactionwas conditionedby politicaloppositionto, or supportof, the basicconcept
presented.Thelackof a detailedanalysisof the worksexhibitedas worksof art was
an importantcontributingreason. It meantthat the exhibitioncould be viewedin a
mannercontraryto the didacticintentionof the organizers.Thevisualexhibitshad a
scale and immediacyof impact that made it easily possible to ignore the texts.
Similarly,the absenceof an analysisconnectingthe paintingswith the illustrative
materialon the social backgroundresultedin some disjunctionbetweenthe two
becauseof theirdifferentcharacter;art, howeverrealisticin style, is not the sameas
photographicreportage.The art could thereforequite easily be perceivedas an
isolatedelement.In aesthetictermsmuchof it was poor and banal:contortedover-
muscledheroesin staticposes; lifelessnudespaintedin meticulousdetail, 'down to
the last pubichair'was one sardoniccomment;and monumentalarchitectureon a
brutallyoppressivescale. An in-depthanalysisof such characteristicscould power-
fully have complementedthe ideologicalanalysisand thus perhapscombattedthe
immediatevisual appeal of the objects. In addition, some of the comment could
have taken the form of alternativeartisticimageryequally effective in its imme-
diacy. Such possibilitieswereevidentin the section on the role of women, wherea
series of nude paintings, some academic and formal, some attemptinga lush
eroticism, and of cloying mother and childrenscenes, were set in context by a
marvellousphoto-collageby W. Bermann.Under a quotation from a speech by
Hitler, 'A wife must be a serving-maidof her husband,a child-bearingmachine,
whosedutyis to bearchildren,soldiersfor Germany',Bermanncomposedan image
 Art andDesignin Nazi Germany 143

in profile of a careworn,middle-agedwoman in an advancedstage of pregnancy,

with heavy, musculararms that indicateda life of hard work ratherthan languid
ease. Her distendedabdomen was covered with a white apron, on which was
superimposedthe imageof an invertedfoetus wearinga steel helmet. The technical
masteryand savage wit of Bermannresultedin an image of enormousforce that
bearscomparisonwiththe workof John Heartfield;it was directand haunting,and
totallysuperiorin termsof politicalcommentand imaginativepowerto the textsand
imagesthat surroundedit, its confidentexploitationof the possibilitiesof a modern
technologicalmedium in itself a biting comment on their traditionalacademic
forms.
Nevertheless,not all the objectsdisplayedwereso poor as to deservethe blanket
derision heaped on them by critics who, on grounds of taste or the political
connotations of the works, refused to countenancethem as art. The officially
approvedrealisticstyle of the paintingsand sculptureof the Third Reich was still
capableof arousingnumerousreportedcommentsalongthe linesof, 'Butthey really
knew how to paint'. The problemis that realisticforms and treatmentin art did
withoutdoubt correspondto the taste of a majorityof Germansin the 1930s, and
one has only to visit the art sectionsof large departmentstoresor considerlists of
the most popularprintspurchasedto see thatit stilldoes. And not only in Germany,
a similarinvestigationmight reveal a comparablepatternin Britain.Again, there
was a gap in the exhibition's coverage and commentary:the characteristicsof
realismand its popularappeal,the notion of the natureand social role of art that it
represents,and why it was officially approved in the Third Reich were not
examined.
This problemof realisticstyle was to be the centre of what was probablythe
greatestelementof controversysurroundingthe exhibition.It was pointed out in
numerousnewspaperreportsthat no comparisonhad been made in the exhibition
with Socialist Realist art, with which there was a markedsimilarityin style. The
inevitableconclusionwasthat this similarityof formreflectedthe totalitariannature
of both the Nazi regimeandof contemporarySocialiststates.Typicalof this vein of
commentwas an articlein the 'RheinischeMerkur',which gleefullywrote of the
exhibition,

The left-taintedintellectualsmust in any case be very naive, otherwisethey

would have noticedin time the boomerangof this exhibition.Everywhereone
heardyoung men tellingtheirwivesthat the art of the SovietUnion was exactly
the same.Also on the sheetsof a wall-newspaper
on whichvisitorscould set their
opinion,one foundnothingmorefrequentthan referencesto the art of the com-
munistdictatorships.(10]

There were indeed such referenceson the wall-newspapers,for example, 'Who

speaksof fascism, cannot remainsilent about socialism',and 'Just take away the
Nazi emblems,and you will find yourself in the present-dayGermanDemocratic
Republic'.
Linkedto such commentswas the tendencyalreadynoted to dismissthe art of
the Nazi periodas 'Non-art';

... in totalitarianrepressivesystemsthe 'decreed'art cannot indeedbe art and

144 History Workshop

... no greatartisthas eitherservedthe Nazisor servesthe Sovietstoday... I have

thereforeunwittinglymadethe greatmistakeof bringingin the idea of Quality,
which does not matterto people who judge art only accordingto its political
tendency,indifferentto whetherit is turgidrubbish.[11]

Argumentsof this kind, basedon theoriesof the autonomyof art had, in fact,
been one of the main targetsof the exhibition.In his cataloguearticle, Berthold
Hinz, a member of the organizingcommittee, quoted a statement in Werner
Haftmann'sbook, Paintingin the TwentiethCentury,on the close relationshipof
'such apparentlyopposed movementsas the Bolshevismof the Leninist-Stalinist
phase, the Fascismof Mussoliniand the NationalSocialismof Hitler', concluding
that, 'The official style of art in totalitarianlands is everywherethe same'.[12]To
which Hinz replied,

Thatkindof arguablearthistoryrepresentsthe thesisof politicaltotalitarianism,

servesthe 'theory'of internationalanti-communism.Againstthat is to be stated:
whatis conclusiveis not that artis generallyplacedin service,but in what service
it is placed; nor is it conclusivethat painters, consciouslyor unconsciously,
submitto purposes,but that they submittedto fascist purposes.[13]

Thisstatementwas quotedmorefrequentlythanany otherin newspaperreports.

Hinz's argumentwas widelyinterpreted,and accuratelyI believe,when set against
its full elaboration,as meaningthat the centralcriterionin evaluatingart is its
politicalcontext. He wrote of 'the real determinantsof Germanfascism' finding
'their limits in form'[14], arguingthat paintingin the Third Reich was 'as little
revolutionaryas the systemthat bore it, and exactly as counter-revolutionary as
it'.[15] The formsof art producedin the ThirdReicharethus seen as expressiveof
fascist rule and ideology, art having no identityother than that of the system in
which it is produced.
Thisis essentiallya reductionistapproachwhichin denyingthe autonomyof art,
also denies the possibilityof art having distinctivecharacteristicsas a mode of
expressionand bearerof meaning.The relationshipbetweenart and society is not
discussed,becausethereis no relationship,everythingbeing part of an expressive
totality,whichby imposinga dominantinterpretationfails to cometo termswiththe
dialecticalnatureof a work of art in relation to its specific context and to the
possibleperceptionsof it. Art is regardedas objective,a fixed entity.The ambiguity
of its possibleinterpretationsis denied.
The limitationsof this theory have more seriousimplicationswhen the tenden-
tious interpretationof fascismthatit applies,andthe extensionof thisinterpretation
in time, are taken into consideration.Fascismis regardedas a crisis of capitalist,
bourgeoissociety, even the inevitableoutcomeof it: a counter-revolutionary stage
of capitalistdevelopmentthatin aesthetictermsuses the 'mundane'taste and forms
of earlybourgeoissocietyand overthrowsthe innovatorybourgeoismodernart. The
extensionof this results in a teleology of the artistic forms of the Third Reich,
reachingback in time to interpretthe origins of those forms in terms of their
outcomes, relatingtheir developmentin nineteenth-twentieth-century Germanyto
the rise of capitalism,and suggestinga direct continuityof aestheticform as an
expressionof bourgeoiscapitalistinstitutionsand relationships.
In aesthetictermsit can resultin absurdities,with nineteenth-century
artistssuch
 Art andDesignin Nazi Germany 145

as Hans Makartbeingevaluatedin termsof the fact that he was Hitler's favourite

painter,with the implicationthat he is in some senseproto-fascist.Carriedforward
into the presentthis viewpositsa furthercontinuityof aestheticformsand functions
relatedto the institutionsof monopolycapitalandsuggestinga furthercontinuityof
fascism.A revivalof interestin Hans Makartcan therebybe seen as evidenceof a
'neo-fascist'revival.Differencesof politicalstructureand institutionsare regarded
acrossthis span of time as being peripheraland marginallyrelevant.The contem-
porary political consequencesof this theory are, however, profound, especially
when employedas justificationfor the actions of groups such as the Red Army
Fraction, which regardsthe present-dayFederalGermanRepublicas fascism in
anotherguise.
Againstthis theorywas placeda counter-interpretation that deniedthe validity
of the aesthetic forms produced in the Third Reich as 'art' because they were
politicallyinfluenced,and drewa lateralformalcomparisonto establisha relation-
ship betweenfascism and socialism. The lines of the main argumentswere thus
drawnon the basisof two antitheticalconceptsof art and its role in society,both of
which were clearlyrelatedto contemporarypolitical attitudesin Germany.Both
pointsof view, however,insofaras theyconsideredart, dependedupon a characteri-
zation of a particularform of art, and the drawingof comparisonswith similar
forms elsewhere,and neitherexpoundeda concept of the relationshipof art and
society that went beyond such coincidental characterization,nor presented a
possiblealternativeinterpretation.As alreadypointedout, the Frankfurtorganizers
failedto establishhow the art of the ThirdReichwas specifically'fascist', but the
same kind of criticismcan be directedat the proponentsof the totalitarianthesis.
They similarlyfailed to explainin what sense the official art of, for example,the
Soviet Union and GermanDemocraticRepublicwas 'socialist'. If that indeedwas
the casethe use and acceptanceof non-figurativeart in Polandand Hungarywould
have to be considerednon-socialist.And if one looks a little fartherafield this
interpretationof the role of formbecomesevenmorequestionable.Realisticart was
the prevailingform in Scandinaviain the 1930swhich does not imply that those
countrieswere politicallyfascist; Mussolini'sItaly toleratedmodern art but that
does not necessarilymeanthatmodernart is fascist, or conversely,that Italyat that
time was democratic.
The relationshipof art to society was thereforeone of the most fundamental
issues raised by the Frankfurtexhibition. The nature of these issues were not
exploredin depth.Nevertheless,the clarificationof opposingviews,andthe scaleon
whichthe conflictingargumentswerepublicizedwere,in themselves,a tributeto the
successof the project,and an importantstimulusto the furtherdiscussioncalledfor
by its organizers.
Whetherintendeddeliberatelyor not as a counterto the Frankfurtexhibition,a
second exhibition, 'The Thirties: Showplace Germany' (Die Dreissiger Jahre:
SchauplatzDeutschland)openedin Munichin February1977, presentinga diamet-
ricallydifferentapproach,the essenceof whichwas that 'modern'Germanart and
design survivedthroughoutthe 1930s (which in some sense it indeed did). The
overwhelmingmajority of works, however, were by artists who were exiled or
suppressedby the Nazi regime. This exhibition was concernedabove all with
individualartistsand artisticmovements,and referencesto the Nazi regimeonce
again concentratedon its anti-modernistaestheticpolicies. By selectingthe period
1930-39a muchbroaderrangeof work was exhibited,and a continuityof German
146 History Workshop

achievementin modernart suggested,againstwhichthe Nazi periodwas reducedto

the level of a philistine interruption.The section on applied art and industrial
design, for example, was headed 'Practicalitydespite Dictatorship'(Sachlichkeit
trotzDiktatur),withitemssuchas a prototypeVolkswagenand a Siemenstelephone
beingexhibitedin isolation againstwhite-paintedmuseumwalls as objects of pure
form. Suchobjectscan be consideredas pureform, it is true, and an analysison that
basis is essentialif the object is to be fully understood.But there is a distortion
involvedwhen objects for functionaluse, for applicationunderparticularcircum-
stances at a specific time, are exhibitedsimply as contemplativeart-objects.The
cataloguearticleon this section concluded:

Thanksto artistslikeWolfgangTumpel,WilhelmWagenfeld,MargueriteFried-
lander,HermannGretschetc., 'Good Form' survivedin Germanyand could be
taken over withouta breakafter the war into the art of the present.[16]

There is more than a touch of unrealityabout the way in which the survivalof
particularaestheticstandardsis emphasizedas somethingof unquestionedsignifi-
cance,togetherwithan assumptionthat designerssuch as those mentioned,because
of their artistic achievement,were untaintedby any involvementin the political
events of the period. Yet Wilhelm Wagenfeldwas a member of the organizing
committeefor the German pavilion at the 1937 Paris InternationalExhibition,
whichwith large-scalegovernmentfundingwas a monumentalpiece of propaganda
for the ThirdReich,and HermannGretschdesignedfor the GermanLabourFront,
the party organizationfor workers.Both were outstandingdesignersin terms of
technical and aesthetic achievement, but both worked on projects that were
importantcomponentsof the economicprovisionsof the Four YearPlan begunin
1936, the object of whichwas to prepareGermanyfor war. This is not to suggest
that Wagenfeldor Gretschwerein fact fascist, in termsof guilt by association;I do
not yet knowthe extentof theirpoliticalinvolvement.I would argue,however,that
theirachievementcannotbe consideredas havingtakenplacein some aestheticstate
of limbo, but was often directly related to the dictatorshipand its programme
(ratherthan despite it). Their work must therefore be subject to standardsof
judgementother than complacenthallelujahscelebratingthe survivalof 'Good
Form'.
The last two yearshave also seen importantdevelopmentsin contactsbetween
researchworkersin this field. The Frankfurtexhibitioninspiredtwo German-born
artists living in London, Gustav Metzgerand Cordula Frohwein, to organize a
symposium,'Artin Germanyunderthe NationalSocialists'(AGUN), in Londonin
September1976. This event was a remarkableachivement.Its organizers,without
any outside financial support, brought together some 25 hitherto unconnected
researchersfrom Germany,Britainand the U.S.A. for four days of discussions.
It was out of the AGUN discussionthat the idea of a larger conferencewas
developed by a working-partyof the 'Ulmer Verein: Verbande fur Kunst und
Kulturwissenschaften', an organizationfoundedin 1968 in an attemptto counter-
balancethe restrictedacademicismof older-establishedart-historicalorganizations
in Germany.The conference,entitled'Fascism- Art and Visual Media' (Faschis-
mus-Kunst und visuelleMedien),took place in October 1977 in Frankfurt.An
importantinnovationof this conferencewas that the range of subjectmatterwas
extendedto give as wide a coverageas possible to all forms of visual media. The
 Art andDesignin Nazi Germany 147

value of this approachbecame apparentduring the conference,with over thirty

papersbeinggivenin four days, a veryheavyprogramme,but coveringa wide range
of meansand media.
The limitationsof conventionalacademiccategoriesin studyingvisual commu-
nication in the Third Reich were demonstratedin a paper by BertholdHinz. He
showedthat film and photographycould not be regardedsolely as separatemedia,
but were often used as the meansof communicatingother forms. The imageryof
paintingsor architecturalmodelswerephotographedandwidelyreproducedthereby
obscuringthe boundariesbetweenthe idealizedforms of paintingsand everyday
reality,betweenwhat was projectedand what had been realized,in an attemptto
aestheticizeNazi policies and ideology. A detailed example of this relationship
betweendifferentmedia was given in Angela .....iberger'spaper on 'The New
ReichChancelloryin Berlin 1937-9',which describednot only architecturalplans,
buildingprocedureand structure,but the methodsand meansby whichthe building
was publicisedand presented.Film and photographywere widely used to impress
the imageryof the buildingon the mindof the public, and althoughlittle used, the
multiplereproductionof images of the buildingcreateda realityof its own. The
cabinet-room furnished with expensive materials and repeating Nazi symbols
createdan impressionof a solemn settingfor meetingsconcernedwith mattersof
high state-meetingsthat, in fact, nevertook place since Hitlerhad no cabinet. His
vast personalstudywas rarelyused and only then to impressoccasionalvisitors,he
generallyworkedin morepracticalaccommodationthat housedthe secretarialand
supportingstaff. The building was not in fact related to any of the normal
functionalneedsof governmentandadministration,but was conceivedas a pieceof
representativearchitecture,as a memorial,'the presentdepictedas the past'. This
monumentalqualitywas emphasizedby the lack of human figuresin the illustra-
tions of the building,even of Hitlerhimself.
Another example of the gulf between image and reality was shown by Karl
Stammin 'The "Experience"of Warin the "DeutschenWochenschau"',in which
techniqueand imageryin the weeklyGermanwartimenewsreelwere analysed.The
cumulative power of highly selective, and sometimes specially staged, visual
imagery,togetherwith words and music, was used to create a monumentaland
grandioseimpressionof the irresistibleforce of Germanarmsand technologythat
bore little relationshipto the realitiesof the struggle. One such example was a
newsreelpurportingto show the attackon Sevastopolin the Crimea,whichlinked
shots of huge rail-bornesiege artillerywith enormouslylong barrelsdramatically
pointingupwards,firingto the poundinginsistentrhythmsof Liszt's 'Les Preludes',
and interspersedwith sequencesof an ever onward-thrustinginfantryattack. In
actualfact, the guns requiredseveralminutesto reloadand adjustfor each firing;
theyweresimplyincapableof the rateof firethat was suggestedby the film, and the
infantry'attack'was stagedsome days after the captureof Sevastopol.
The need to reconcilethe 'blood and soil' element of Nazi ideology with the
technologicaldemandsof a modernstate embarkingon a rearmamentprogramme
presentedcontinualproblems.Archaic,traditional,ruralformswerewidelyused to
obscure modern developmentsand satisfy the anti-modernistwing of the party
without endangeringessential policies. Roswitha Mattausch'spaper on the new
towns built to house workersin the Volkswagenplant and the HermannGoering
steelworksshowed traditionalforms being used and layouts derivedfrom garden
city designs that were anti-urbanand anti-industrialin appearanceand original
above: HerbertRimpl Heinkelfactory, main entrance,1936-7.
below: HerbertRimpl Heinkelfactory, the Leegebuchestate
 Art andDesignin Nazi Germany 149

intention.Descriptionsof them as 'rooted in the soil, "natural", and "organic"'

obscuredtheirpurposeand the economicrealitythat lay behindit. The planningof
such settlementswas the responsibilityof the Labourand Social Ministryand the
GermanLabour Front, and their policy was to use garden-cityideals to create
workercommunitiesthat were tied by home-ownershipto a particularplace and
employment,and thereforemore easilysubjectto control than the 'rootless' urban
masses.The conservativeideology of the garden-citymovementin Germanycould
thusbe usedas a meansof creatinga docile labourforce whichwas politicallystable
and pliable.
A furtherproblemthat is a repeatedfeatureof contemporaryGermanacademic
controversyconcerns the relationshipbetween economic and political factors.
WolfgangSchache'sstudyof -theplansto rebuildBerlinas the capitalof an enlarged
Reich arguedthat it was necessaryto go beyond describingexternal forms and
relatingthem to prevailingpolitical conditions;an examinationof the economic
basisof the buildingindustryand its technicaland organizationalstructurewas also
necessary.The plans for Berlinwere thus describedas the expressionof a complex
networkof political,economicand aestheticfactorsthat were comprehensibleonly
in the context of the plans for a calculatedpolicy of territorialexpansion.
ChupFriemert'spaper'FascistProductionAesthetics:the organization"Beauty
of Labour"', placedthe emphasisfirmlyon the economic.The 'Beautyof Labour'
organizationwas the section of the German Labour Front concernedwith the
workingenvironmentand standardsof design in industry.The developmentof a
'production-aesthetic' in these two areas, it was argued, was an expressionof the
concentrationof capital and the social policies of manufacturingorganizations,
which sought to emphasizeaestheticvalues as a means of increasingproductivity
and diverting attention from the increased profit resulting from this higher
productivity.Thestate'Beautyof Labour'organizationformulatedthe propagation
of aestheticvaluesin ideologicalterms, of the 'factorycommunity'expressingthe
'newpowerof a renewedGermany',and not in termsof the benefitsthat accruedto
individualconcerns.This has led, it was argued, to erroneousinterpretationsof
these aestheticmeasuresas manifestationsof the Fascist political system, which
neglectedthe role of capital,particularlythe large cartels,that successfullyutilized
the apparatusof the statefor theirown ends. Aestheticfactorswerethus determined
by the interestsof privatecapitalit wasconcluded,'not the primacyof politics', and
this impliedthat the role of production-aesthetics in the FederalRepublicrequired
investigationin order to determinethe equivalencesand differences to Fascist
production-aesthetics.
The inclusionof work on fascismin othercountrieswas anotherfeatureof this
conference.There was an impressivepaper on the memorialto the dead of the
SpanishCivil War, 'Santa Cruz del Valle de los Caidos', by Peter K. Klein, the
historyof whichrevealsthe links betweenfascismand catholic-traditionalelements
in Spanishsociety. The basic ideal of this monumentalstructurewas suggestedby
Francohimself, and representsin its scale and sepulchralatmosphere,an attempt
- similarto those of the Nazi regime- to providean architectural manifestationof
the stabilityof its rule. It differed, however,in using in its iconographyelements
from Spain's imperialpast and traditionalreligiousforms. In this, it typified the
distinctcharacterof the Francoregime,in whichthe Falangeand fascist ideology
wasless dominantthanin Italyor Germany,andwas but one elementin the political
support of the regime, together with traditionalists,monarchistsand right wing
catholics.
150 History Workshop

Fascist Italy representedanother importantpoint of comparison.In conven-

tional art-historythe early developmentof the Futuristmovementbefore.theFirst
WorldWar is well documented,but the relationsliipof the Futuristmovementin
Italy with Fascism is too often avoided or skirted over. Ingo Bartsch's paper
'Modificationsof FuturistPaintingin ItalianFascism'questionedthe art-historical
interpretationof the post-1918declineof Futurism,whichmaintained'the myth of
the "revolutionarypre-war avant-garde"in its untroubledpurity'. Instead of
post-war decline, Bartschargued that Futurismunderwenta modification from
pre-war initial experiment to a post-war stabilization, a 'classical phase' of
Futurism,with a continuingbasis of Futuristideas that constantlysought to serve
the regime as its state art. This paper therefore suggested the need to reassess
prevalentand erroneousinterpretationsof the social characterof bourgeoisavant-
gardemovements.
Anothercontributionin this sectiondemolisheda commonapologyfor the artof
the ThirdReich,whichattemptsto justifyit by comparingits realisticstyle with that
prevalentin the artisticprogrammeof the New Deal administrationin the United
States, once againusinga comparisonof forms! FrankSteele, in comparingthem,
went beyondsimilaritiesin stylisticrepertoiresto analysethe motivesand purposes
of the two governmentsas revealedin the structureand administrationof the arts.
At this level fundamentaldifferencesemerge,art in the ThirdReichbeing a closely
controlledinstrumentof propaganda,thatin the U.S.A. beingmoreflexibleandless
deterministic.While Hitler maintaineda strong interest in artistic matters and
played an importantpart in policy formation, Rooseveltwas, in contrast, barely
interestedbeyond not wanting artists 'painting bearded Lenins on government
property'.The movementfor a generallycomprehensiblepopularart in the U.S.A.
was thereforeless a matterof governmentpolicythanan expressionof artists'social
commitmentand concern.
In retrospectthe conferencerepresenteda considerableprogressin the study of
the relationshipof visual form in fascist regimes. It broughttogether a range of
researchthat, at best, is characterizedby an attemptto move beyond the stage of
simply negating the work and policies prevalentin the Third Reich and other
systems,towardsa detailedanalysisof the use of visualformsand mediain relation
to the purposesof fascist regimes:a standpointthat seeks to understandhow and
why aestheticmeansand values can be used as a calculatedpoliticalweapon.
In the Englishspeakingworld, apartfromthe AGUN initiative,our knowledge
of Germanart betweenthe Wars is confined to a small numberof avant-garde
movements,suchas Expressionism,the New Objectivity(die neue Sachlichkeit)and
the Bauhaus.Withthe brandingof most modernart as 'degenerate'after the Nazi
takeover, and the closure of the Bauhaus in May 1933, art and design in any
meaningfulsenseis depictedas havingcome to an end. For understandablepolitical
reasons,this was the viewof the victimsof Nazi persecution.Butthe same cannotbe
said for art-historians.Their neglect stems from an unsatisfactoryview of what
art-historyis: the extrapolationof greatworksof art from their surroundingsocial
context, and the uncriticalacceptanceof the self-conceptionsof the twentieth-
centuryavant-garde.Such a view blocks out importanthistoricalquestionsand is
incapableof providinga coherentexplanationof the successionof aestheticforms.
In the case of Germany,it fails to provide any specific explanationof why the
avant-gardeof the 20s arousedsuchwidespreadoppositionand ignoresthe aesthetic
ambitionsof the Nazi leaders, the way in which they were able to draw on these
 Art andDesignin Nazi Germany 151

discontentsand finally the way in which they were also able to incorporatesome
elementsof 'modern'designin their buildingand industrialprogrammes.[17]
Perhapsone reasonfor the indiscriminateacceptanceof the avant-garde'spoint
of view lay in its retrospectivelysuccessful claim to legitimacyand supremacy,
regardlessof other developmentspast and present.There were other movements,
however,particularlyin architectureand design, that w.ereat the time considered
'modern'but whichemphasizeda continuitywith the past ratherthan its rejection.
For example,the work of Peter Behrensand HeinrichTessenowdrewon the neo-
classicaltraditionthat was particularlystrongin nineteenth-century Germany.The
interiordesignsin the same traditionof Fritz Breuhaus,Paul LudwigTroost and
Bruno Paul for the new North GermanLloyd transatlanticliners 'Bremen'and
'Europa'at the end of the twentieswere hailed both in Germanyand Americaas
outstanding examples of modernism. The concept of modernism in Weimar
Germanywas, in fact, more complex and multi-facetedthan has been generally
depicted.Whatcameto an end in 1933was only one strandof modernism,and one
that it could _besuggestedwas somethingof an aberrationin the overallpatternof
developmentin Germany.In otherareastherewas an essentialcontinuityof forms,
though this does not necessarilyimply a continuity in the significanceof those
forms. Paul Ludwig Troost became Hitler's official architectand designed the
House of GermanArt in Munich.Troost was succeededafter his death by Albert
Speer, a pupil of Tessenow.
In general, the art-historicalschema of Weimar Germany as a period of
democraticcreativityand the ThirdReich as one of dictatorialnegationis a gross
oversimplificationand has to be revised, particularlywhen, as indicatedat the
beginningof this article,relatedhistoricaldisciplinesprovidean extensiveand much
more penetratingbody of work on the period. It is, in general,obvious that there
was a strongelementof continuityin art and designbetweenthe WeimarRepublic
and the Third Reich, but the nature of this continuityis complex, riddled with
paradoxesand ambivalences.There were groups in the Weimar Republic who
supportedthe systemof parliamentary democracybut emphasizedtraditionalforms
and methods in art and design that were later to be officially recognizedby the
Nazis, andtheycertainlycannotbe consideredas proto-Nazi.Therewereindustrial-
ists and military leaders whose political ideas were ultra right-wing but who
advocatedand developeda sophisticatedtechnicalmodernityin many aspects of
design:an aspectof modernitythatwasto be absolutelyessentialto the rearmament
programmeof the Third Reich. In 1937, for example, a major exhibition was
organizedin Dusseldorfunderthe title 'A WorkingNation' (SchaffendesVolk). It
was specificallyintendedas an instrumentto publicizeand mobilizesupportfor the
programmesof the Four Year Plan. It concentratedon showingthe potential of
modernindustrialtechnologyand muchof the architectureand designweremodern
in both techniqueand form, even to the extent of exhibitinga key artefactof the
'modernmovement'in designof the 1920s:a tubularsteel cantileverchair.
Thepatternis thereforecomplicatedand to understandit visualformsneed to be
evaluatedin relationto the processesthat producedthemand the purposesfor which
they wereapplied.It is clear, however,that thereis no simpleequivalencebetween
formalisticstandardsof 'good' artor designandethicalvaluesin social and political
life, nor between 'progressive'avant-gardeart and design and political progress.
Looked at from anotherpoint of view ideologicalvalues that are predominantin
political life may well also be discerniblein contemporaneousart and design,
152 History Workshop

but it is unlikelythat they will be manifestedin preciselythe same way.

What is emerging, however, is a critical approach that rejects such simple
equationsand seeksto clarifythe natureof the relationshipof art in society, which
goes beyondfinishedartefacts,a staticconceptof art as object, to focus also on the
methodsand meansby whichthose artefactsare produced,utilizedand evaluated:a
concept of art as process, which opens up for investigationthe dynamicsof the
interrelationshipbetweenart and a range of social institutionsand forces. This
couldbe a verypositivecontributionto the developmentof criticaltheoryin art and
design which at present is divided into two broad and seemingly antipathetic
groupings:one emphasizingthe formal identityof art, the individualrole of the
artistand the autonomyof values;the other concernedwith the social significance
of art, the artistas an instrumentof, andvaluesan expressionof, socialand political
relationships.Both are deficient in important respects. What is needed is the
extensionof the marxistcritiquein a mannerthatis capableof encompassingartistic
processesand concepts, in their own terms, in a dialecticalrelationshipwith the
social context.

1 Paul OrtwinRave, KunstDiktaturim DrittenReich, Hamburg1949. See also Josef

Wulf, Die BildendenKunsteim DrittenReich, Gutersloh1963.
2 HildegardBrenner,Die Kunstpolitikdes Nationalsozialismus,Reinbek1963.
3 Pressreleaseof the Initiativeagainstthe Diffusion of NS Art, October1974, in Georg
Bussman(ed.) Betrifft:Reaktionen.Anlass:Kunstim 3. Reich- Dokumenteder Unterwer-
fung. Ort Frankfurt.Frankfurt1975, p.169. This latter title is of a volume of documents
publishedby theexhibitionorganizersafterit hadclosedin Frankfurt,whichincludesamongst
othermaterial,interviews,protestdocuments,photographsof the exhibitionlayout, and a full
selectionof pressreviewsand comment.
4 GeorgBussman,Introduction,in GeorgBussman(ed.) Kunstim DrittenReich.Doku-
menteder Unterwerfung. Frankfurt1974,p.3. Not just an exhibitioncatalogue,but a seriesof
essays,extensivelyillustratedon all aspectsof the exhibition'sthemes.
5 UnsereZeit, 26.10.1974,in Betrifft:Reaktionen,p.224.
6 GeorgBussman,Introductionin Kunstim DrittenReich, p.3.
7 GeorgBussman,Introductionin Kunstim DrittenReich, p.3.
8 DieterBartetzko,StephanGlossmanand GabrieleVoigtl1nder-Tetzner, Die Darstel-
lung des Bauernin Kunstim DrittenReich, p. 152.
9 ChristianGross and Uwe Grossman,Die Darstellungder Frau in Kunst im Dritten
Riche, p.182.
10 RheinischerMerkur,8.11.1974,in Betrifft:Reaktionen,p.238.
11 Die Welt,29.9.1974, in Betrifft:Reaktionen,p.226.
12 WernerHaftmann,Malereiim 20 Jahrhundert,Munich1954, p.421.
13 BertholdHinz, Malerei,in Kunstim DrittenReich, p. 122. An extendedversionof the
argumentsin this article can be, found in Berthold Hinz, Die Malerei im deutschen
Faschismus-Kunst und Konterrevolution,Munich1974.
14 BertholdHinz, Malereiin Kunstim DrittenReich, p.123.
15 BertholdHinz, Malereiin Kunstim DrittenReich, p.122.
16 ErikaGysling-Billeter, Die AngewandteKunst:Sachlichkeittrotz Diktaturin Exhibi-
tion Catalogue,Die DreissigerJahre:SchauplatzDeutschland,Munich1977.
17 The only work in English to give a general account of the visual arts is Helmut
Lehmann-Haupt, Art undera Dictatorship,New York 1954,long out of printbut still useful.
It is basedon an extensiveofficialinvestigationof the subjectby the authorwhilean officerof
the U.S. occupationforcesafter the war. BarbaraMiller-Lane,Architectureand Politics in
Germany1918-1939,Cambridge,Mass., 1968, is strongeron the period of the Weimar
Republicbut is an excellentstudy of the politicalbackgroundto architecturaldevelopments
and explainswhy architecturebecamesucha powerfulpoliticalsymbolin this period. Robert
Taylor,The Wordin Stone, Berkeley1974,discussesarchitecturein the ThirdReichbut relies
 Art and Design in Nazi Germany 153

too heavilyon contemporarydocumentarysourcesand accounts.What the Nazis said and

what they did were often very different.In additiontwo books by Albert Speerare widely
available,Inside the ThirdReich, London 1971, and Spandau:The SecretDiaries, London
1976. Speerwas Hitler's chief architectand head of the 'Beautyof Labour (Schonheitder
Arbeit)sectionof the GermanLabourFront. The books give useful informationinto many
developmentsfrom the point of view of someone deeply involvedin the formulationand
executionof policyandpractice.Buthis accountis a personalone, is in no way complete,even
of the extentof his own work, and has been acceptedsomewhatuncritically.