Jump to content

Talk:Art in Nazi Germany

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Nazi art)

Rename (2007)

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

renamed to Art of the Third Reich

Rather than delete this article, formerly called Heroic art, another editor suggested renaming it Art of the Third Reich or something similar, with appropriate redirects, which I propose to do if there's no objection -- this subject warrants an article, but the premise that the Nazis promoted something called "Heroic Art" seems unsubstantiated. Ewulp 08:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been done, and expansion started using material, mostly my own writing, from Degenerate art. Ewulp

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Pictures

[edit]

A picture tells a thousand words and would seems especially important in a n article about paintings. I've had a look on Commons but haven't been able to find anything useful. The Otto Dix painting from his article asserted fair use for an important painting, can we do the same? There are a couple of websites with what are important examples of Nazi art such as Adolf Wissel's, Farm Family from Kahlenberg, can we copy from those websites without copyvio problems?KTo288 14:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way there's I think there is a painting of flaxen haired volk purposefully bringing in the harvest in a background of golden fields and rural idyll that is meant to be important to this genre, does anyone have an idea of the pictures name and artist.KTo288 14:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Art history problems

[edit]

I am currently writing a paper about nazi promoted art and I am astonished at how the subject of "nazi art" is treated. Most, if not all, treaties and catalogs about german art of the 20th century state there is no art between 1933 and 1945. Peter Adam quote Nikolaus Pevsner in his introduction (p.7) : "every word about it is too much". This seems to still be the rule, at least in nearly all of the english and french sources I have consulted. This is why I propose to add a section to this article titled "Art history controversy" and explain the lack of work, information and interest in this field of research. Any objections?


And congratulations for the author of this article to have been able to avoid the trap in which Adam fails miserably: the art of the Third Reich "cannot be considered in the same way as the art of any other periods. One can only look at [it] through thelens of Auschwitz". (p.9) (This is one of many ridiculous statements I would like to discuss and comment; they always come alone, unjustifed, based on the premise that nazi art is pure propaganda decided entirely by the state, assertion that a study of the social context proves wrong.) Icitonpere 21:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A section dealing with the judgments of art historians would be welcome. The postwar invisibility of much of this work has often been noted (e.g. William Feaver, "German Art in the Seesaw Century", ARTnews December 1985) and warrants mention here. While Adam's statement may seem dogmatic, his book is a main source for this article, and recognizes the complexity of the subject—exemplified by the position of artists like Nolde (Nazi supporter condemned as degenerate artist), Georg Schrimpf (not a party member, the Nazis liked his work for a few years before deciding he was degenerate), or Franz Radziwill (joined party out of opportunism, ignored warnings about his art & soon expelled). Ewulp 00:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My condemnation of such an important work on the subject may seem a little strong; I only meant to point the fact that no one would seriously take in account an article saying something as « one can only look at the construction of pyramids through the lens of slavery » Icitonpere 03:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Realism vs Modernism

[edit]

This article glosses over the fact that there was a vigorous debate between 1933 and 1937 on whether modernism could be adapted to Nazi ideology. Pre-Nazi ginger groups like the German Art Society and the Combat League for German Culture who advocated classical realism were not initially incorporated into the cultural apparatus of the Nazi state. Indeed there was a struggle for supremacy between adherents of Nordic Expressionism such as Goebbels and realists such as Alfred Rosenberg. Artists for the Reich by Joan L. Clinefelter details some of this. Moreover I think this article is in danger of falling into that post-hoc narrative that inevitably equates classicism with totalitarianism and modernism with democracy which Leon Krier discusses in Krier on Speer. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 17:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luftschutz.png Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Luftschutz.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:GDKM.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:GDKM.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Music and collective identity of the Third Reich

[edit]

(Before making suggestions on this topic I would like to preface my remarks by saying that I am a student at Denison University and submitting suggestions as a class exercise.) Although this article maintains a wide scope of information--mostly historical in nature--I believe that an addition of theory may be applicable--in all areas--but specifically in the realm of music. I may be incorrect in my assertions, however, I maintain that there is much scholarly research on the the study of music incorporated in the Third Reich. The question that fuels this study is whether or not Hitler or his master propagandists had agency over the messages being sent by Wagner, Schoenberg, Beethoven, etc. If so, then how did he make the music indexical? How did Germans draw similar signification while listening to these composers? Basically, how was the "German-ness" constructed? This is a topic I want to explore in this piece, and help parse together. I propose that there is an addition to the music headline, allowing for the readers to enter the conversation that scholars are having about German collective identity, portrayed through music. I believe that theories of semiotics, frame analysis and interpretive communities could be useful. I understand that I will have to first submit my addtions via this page to be criticized, but I felt that a discussion and/or a heads up was needed. Tell me what you guys think! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabailey223 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent question, which has received a fair amount of research by scholars like Pamela Potter, Erik Levi, and Fred Prieberg. Michael Kater has written about it as well, but his work has come under increasing criticism and some of his claims don't hold up when one examines the sources. Ultimately, there was a wide range of new music performed in Germany during the Third Reich, and a wide variety of styles were accepted. Nazi officials lacked the sophistication to come up with coherent guidelines beyond "be life-affirming" (Hans Hinkel) or "don't be Jewish," and they were able to fit anything successful into their narrative propaganda. Paul von Klenau (1883–1946) even justified his use of twelve-tone early on! Here are the citations:
Hans Hinkel, “Reichstagung des Berufstandes der deutschen Komponisten auf Schloß Burg. 1. Die Ansprache des Reichskulturwalters Hans Hinkel,” Zeitschrift für Musik, Jahrgang 103, 6. Heft (June 1936), 699–702
Joseph Goebbels, “Zehn Grundsätze deutschen Musikschaffens,” in Amtliche Mitteilungen der Reichsmusikkammer, 5. Jahr, Nummer 11, 1 June 1938 (Berlin), S. 1 — reprinted in Albrecht Dümling and Peter Girth, eds., Entartete Musik: Zur Düsseldorfer Ausstellung von 1938. Eine kommentierte Rekonstruktion (Düsseldorf: Landeshauptstadt Düsseldorf / Düsseldorfer Symphoniker, 1988), 2. korrigierte Auflage, 123.
Paul von Klenau, “Wagners »Tristan« und die »Zwölftönemusik«,” Die Musik, XXVII Jahrgang, Heft 10 (July 1935), 727–733 AskohlerOpus111 (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


History 208 Peer review.

My first impression is that the article is immensely informative and relevant to the subject but lacks proper citation in several places. To explain, the information appears to be accurate but would benefit from said extra citation and referencing to further bolster the information contained. That being said, the article is extremely well written and constructed in a thorough way, approaching the subject from the various angles of art, sculpture and music which were used to exploit propaganda opportunities on the German home front and abroad. The article suitably conveys the stilted atmosphere in which stylistic art forms were produced and makes for disquieting reading given the heinous nature of the Nazi regime. This was a vast topic to take on and credit must be given to the effort taken to construct this article which must have been daunting. The section on art theft is particularly interesting and should probably merit a separate article in its own right, although there is a sub heading of "Nazi Plunder" which is a related article to this section.. As a point of reference on the subject, this article would be an excellent starting point for further research. The language used is academic and descriptive. There is little ambiguity on the various aspects of the subject to which the author refers and the information remains contextual and germane. I don't think any further analysis of the subject would benefit this article, as alluded to in other reviews posted above, as that would transcend the role of Wikipedia as a reference tool rather than an academic forum,in my opinion. Markbreth (talk) 05:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)MarkbrethMarkbreth (talk) 05:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


History 208 Peer Review

• The introduction is a slightly hard to read because the way in which the information is provided is a bit awkward, in which –in my opinion- is due to the sentence structure used to describe the information. Although it is not something that you added it is something you could consider revising because it is an important area of each article. • Also there is an over use of commas in the beginning of the article. • Recommend some referencing for the introduction so the first impression of the article is that it looks credible. • There is an abundance of links most are helpful because of the terminology but ones such as in category 1 “painting” is unnecessary because it does not assist the reader in a further understanding of the topic. Furthermore, some terminology links such as “volk” repeats twice and some artists name like “Picasso”. • I like how graphic design is a genre. I was not expecting genre to go that specific. • Plural contradicting singular “Führer also included the return of art that were looted by Napoleon from Germany in the past.” • Recommend more pictures added because the context of the article is about art: sculptures, paintings, est. • The area about art theft was very interesting to read. StAnMc18 (talk) 06:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC) StAnMc18StAnMc18 (talk) 06:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move to "Nazi art" (2015)

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I would like to move this article to Nazi art for a couple of reasons:

  • Brevity and clarity - "Nazi" is shorter and not everybody knows the term "Third Reich"
  • Consistency with other pages like Nazi architecture, Nazi archaeology, or Nazi concentration camps.
  • The term "Third Reich" was a propaganda term adopted by the Nazis to legitimize their dictatorship as a continuation of the Holy Roman Empire (Reich 1) and the German Empire (Reich 2). I generally steer clear of uncritically adopting the term. See: Nazi Germany#Name or de:Drittes Reich, which is an extensive German page addressing the term "Third Reich".

I don't imagine there are a lot of people who would object but if there are no objections in a couple of weeks, I'll perform the move.-Ich (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While the move should be uncontroversial, "Third Reich" is a redirect of Nazi Germany, I wonder if the scope can be expanded to include art in Neo-Nazism? There are art topics in Nazi chic and Nazi punk. Dimadick (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dimadick: That's another good point - the title as it stands limits the scope to Nazi art before and during the war. Thanks.-Ich (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather it didn't. In fact I would rather it be renamed with a more descriptive "art in Nazi Germany." Mark Schierbecker (talk) 08:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This really should have been proposed as a proper WP:RM move request -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who plagiarizes whom?

[edit]

Reading this Web page, in particular chapter 4.1 Painting, it is quite difficult to understand if it was copied from Wikipedia's Nazi Art page or vice-versa. They say they sourced the text from World Heritage Encyclopedia, and in fact that's so, with notes, references and all the rest. If they sourced from Wiki, they should at least make a citation. Don't they? Carlotm (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They do, sort of, almost. See the small print at the bottom: "... World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed ....". A very dubious effort if you ask me - it seems a pretty comprehensive scrape of Wikipedia, as at an unspecified date. Johnbod (talk) 11:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nazi art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 February 2016

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to Art of the Third Reich. There is clear consensus to move away from the current title, but a split as to the appropriate target. Support for reverting to the previous title slightly edges support for the title initially proposed. It is also well-noted that the previous page move was not properly listed, and is of little force. There appears to be a minimal preference for using "Arts" rather than "Art". bd2412 T 20:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi art → Art of Nazi Germany – Per WP:TITLE this article is not about the 'Nazi art', but the 'Art of Nazi Germany'. "Nazi" can mean anything in today's world, including a multitude of non-German productions, installations, exploitation film, and fringe memorabilia. Meanwhile, the actual subject of this article pertains only to Nazi Germany as a geopolitical entity. Poeticbent talk 13:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, as nom. The misleading name has already been noted before requested move. Poeticbent talk 03:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC) — The Third Reich (Wikipedia redirect) is known in English as Nazi Germany. There would be no rhyme or reason today in trying to use a MOS:FOREIGN in the WP:TITLE of this one particular article. Also, art is a generic term (as in "philosophy of art"), referring to disciplines targeted by the Nazi state, as oppose to arts (plural) traditionally used to denote skill and craftsmanship. See Art in Medieval Scotland (just one example of WP:GA devoted to a specific historical period). And, no personal attacks please. Poeticbent talk 16:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, I'm afraid. The usages are confusing, but most English, and Wikipedia, consistently uses "Art in..." for Art, meaning the visual arts, and Arts for all the means of artistic expression ("craftsmanship" is craft or decorative arts), and we should stick to this. Third Reich is self-evidently an English term, and as I say below, usefully suggests here that we dealing with the officially-approved output. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, makes sense. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename differently This was Art of the Third Reich until May last year, when an unlisted "discussion" (see above) moved it here, after very few comments (one opposing). It should probably go back there, but the proposal now is a very slight improvement on the current title. But is should be "Arts" not "Art" as literature, music etc are also covered. Art of the Third Reich is better because the article restricts itself to "official", regime-approved arts, and does not cover the large dissident/expatriate production, now considered far more important. Johnbod (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I'm now proposing Arts of the Third Reich (or Arts in the Third Reich). Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Art has two basic meanings, as in "poetic art" and "art gallery" (see any dictionary). In article titles and in categories we restrict ourselves to the second, that is the branch of the arts that is visual art. So English poets are certainly artists, but should not be placed in Category:English artists. Otherwise it all just becomes much too confusing for the reader. I can't help noticing that neither of the editors objecting to "Arts" rather than "art" are native speakers of English. Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please, WP:don't be rude ... "art" (not "arts") is the only answer if the "art theory" (i.e. the standard of beauty and taste as defined by the Nazis) is featured in the WP:scope of this article, which it is. Poeticbent talk 20:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
?? That link goes to Aesthetics, btw. Johnbod (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Error or deception?

[edit]

Among the Individual NSDAP artists, Writers section, I can read the name of Trygve Gulbranssen. How so? Carlotm (talk) 06:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noted below in a reply under "Writers" that the musicians list is so unverified and erroneous that I'm deleting it altogether. AskohlerOpus111 (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Art of the Third Reich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music

[edit]

The section describes almost exlusively classical music. What about popular music?Xx236 (talk) 07:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nazis believed very strongly in the power of music. Instead of yet another list of the banned, how about a list of NatSoc Composers and their major works? Not a SINGLE name or work cited. Who got oppressed/suppressed is interesting but no more so than who thrived, who was successful. What did successful music sound like? For piano? For Chamber music? For Orchestra? 12 YEARS of German Nazi Classical Music, I've never heard a note, never seen one CD. Are there any printed collections? Even ONE ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.234.190 (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly you have been looking in wrong places. Richard Strauss continued living and composing in Nazi Germany. Some of his war-time compositions include:

Writers

[edit]

Some comments are needed, the current list is a trash.

Dead classical writers like Goethe should be selected.

Xx236 (talk) 07:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. Traven - his connection to the Third Reich should be sourced, at the moment I'm removing the name form the list.Xx236 (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A big part of the page has been written by User:Elizabeth.Fleming (unsourced, the editor perished). The text sould be soiurced and verified.Xx236 (talk) 08:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Along the same lines, the list of composers is so bad (Werner Egk, Hans Pfitzner, Carl Orff, Richard Strauss, Richard Wagner) that I am going to delete it. It gives not one single person who joined the NSDAP, and Richard Wagner died in 1883!! Yes, Wagner was beloved by Hitler and "Das Judentum in der Musik" is one of the most odious and shameful things in music history, but given that the first year of the Third Reich was the half-centennial of his death, he wasn't participating in Nazi culture. Of the persons who lived in the Third Reich, it gives only the most famous German composers at that time. Paul Graener (1872–1944), whose music I enjoy but who deplorably aligned himself with the Party, is a better candidate than any of the others, even though Pfitzner was worse regarding anti-Semitic writings. Orff was successful in the Third Reich despite attacks from the Alfred Rosenberg wing of the Party, and he compromised himself ethically on various occasions, but he was not interested in advancing political agendas and unsympathetic to Nazism. Egk and Strauss are complicated, but neither could be facilely termed a "Nazi composer." Norbert Schultze and Gottfried Müller wrote actual propaganda music. I could go on, but for now I'm just scrapping the list to get the misinformation off the page. AskohlerOpus111 (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Art of the Third Reich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Art_in_Nazi_Germany&oldid=1244824265"