|
War is a common theme in art and has inspired great works of art. Throughout history, most representations of war depict military achievements and often show significant battle scenes. However, in the 19th century a “turn” in the visual representation of war became noticeable. Artists started to show the disastrous aspects of war instead of its glorified events and protagonists.〔Laurence Bertrand-Dorléac (ed.), ''Les désastres de la guerre, 1800-2014'', exh. cat., Lens, Musée du Louvre-Lens, Somogy, 2014 ; Laura Brandon, ''Art and War'', London: IB Tauris, 2007, p. 26-35〕 Such a perspective is best exemplified by Goya’s series, The Disasters of War (1810-1820, first published in 1863), and Otto Dix’s portfolio, ''Der Krieg'' (published in 1924). During World War Two, both traditions are present. For instance, Paul Nash’s ''Battle of Britain'' (1941) represents a scene of aerial combat between British and German fighters over the Channel. On the other hand, André Fougeron’s ''Street of Paris'' (1943) focuses on the impact of war and occupation on civilians. In connection to World War Two, the relations between art and war can be articulated around two main issues. First, art (and, more generally, culture) found itself at the centre of an ideological war. Second, during World War Two, many artists found themselves in the most difficult conditions (in an occupied country, in internment camps, in death camps) and their works are a testimony to a powerful “urge to create”. Such creative impulse can be interpreted as the expression of self-preservation, a survival instinct in critical times. == The Fate of Art in Nazi Germany == In totalitarian regimes (especially in Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union), the control of art and other cultural expressions was an integral part of the establishment of power. It reflects totalitarianism’s aim to control every single aspect of society and the individuals’ lives. However, art and culture had a special importance for at least two reasons: they have the power to influence people, and they embody the identity of a nation, a community, a group of people. In Nazi Germany, Hitler’s cultural politic was twofold. The first step was a “cultural cleansing”. The idea was that German culture and society were in decline because forces of decadence had taken over and corrupted it (it is the idea of the “enemy within”). These decadent and “degenerate” forces had to be eradicated. Cultural actors who were labelled “un-German” by the regime were persecuted: they were fired from their teaching positions, artworks were removed from museums, books were burnt. All artists who did not fall in line with the party’s ideology (above all Jewish and Communist artists) were “un-Germans”. The cleansing was to be accompanied by a “rebirth” of German culture and society (Hitler had grand plans for several museums), which involved an exaltation of the “true spirit” of the German people in art. This officially sanctioned art was conservative and figurative, heavily inspired by Greco-Roman art. It was often grandiose and sentimental. In terms of contents, this art should represent and convey the regime’s ideals. In 1937 in Munich, two simultaneous events demonstrated the Nazis’ views about art. One exhibition displayed art that should be eliminated (“The Degenerate Art Exhibition”), while the other promoted, by contrast, the official aesthetic (“The Great German Art Exhibition”). The Exhibition of “Degenerate Art” (Munich, 19 July-30 Nov. 1937) was made out of works confiscated in German museums. The works were placed in unflattering ways, with derogatory comments and slogans painted around them (“Nature as seen by sick minds”, “Deliberate sabotage of national defense”…). The aim was to convince visitors that modern art was an attack on the German people. Mostly, these works of art were Expressionist, abstract or made by Jewish and Leftist artists. The term “degenerate” was used in connection with the idea that these artists and their art were compromising the purity of the German race. They were presented as elements of “racial impurity”, “parasites”, causing a deterioration of German society. The exhibition was displayed in several German and Austrian cities. Subsequently, most of the artworks were either destroyed or sold. Modern art could not fall in line with the Nazi values and taste for several reasons: * its constant innovation and change, the fact that it was “of its time” rather than “eternal” * its independency and freedom * its cosmopolitanism and reticence to profess any type of nationalist allegiance * its ambiguity and its lack of clearly and easily understandable and definitive meaning * its rejection and deconstruction of the mimetic tradition of representation During the rise of Nazism, some artists had expressed their opposition. The German artist John Heartfield (who had been part of Dada Berlin) is one of the most famous examples. While Hitler’s popularity was growing in Germany, he consistently produced photomontages that denounced the future dictator and his party. Most of them were published in ''Arbeiter-Illustrierte-Zeitung'' (Workers' Illustrated Newspaper ), and a lot of them appeared on the cover. His artworks were like visual weapons against Nazism, a counter-power. In them, he subverted Hitler’s figure and Nazi symbols. Through powerful visual juxtapositions, he revealed Nazism manipulations and contradictions, and showed the truth about them. As soon as Hitler came to power in 1933, Heartfield had to run away, finding refuge first in Prague and in the UK. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Art and World War II」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|