Art played a major role in Nazi Germany: it told citizens what to be and what not to be. the latter directive was achieved by a specific category of art deemed degenerate by officers of the Nazi party. two definitions of degenerate art I supplied by Frederick Spotts, the first in his own words, the second in Hitler’s: [degenerate art included] abstract, non-objective painting, and abstract, non-naturalistic sculpture… along with post 1850 works by non Germans; “ degenerate art was defined as works that ‘ insult German feeling, or destroy or confuse natural form or simply reveal an absence of adequate manual and artistic skill’. To put it simply, degenerate art is widely considered to include modern, abstract, International ( non-German) works. Since degenerate art did not embody the Aryan values Hitler imposed on his people, the dictator wanted it removed from Germany. He did this in two ways: By physically destroying works of art, and by selling or trading them to raise money for the Nazi party. one such trade, listed in the United States Military Report filed by the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) Under the Art Looting Investigation Unit (ALIU) for the years of 1945-1946, Is particularly interesting since the works treated as degenerate include works by an artist whose oeuvre does not coincide with the Nazi definition of degeneracy: Camille Corot.
The inclusion of Corot, A 19th century French Romantic-Realist, in this list of modern abstract, and hence, degenerate artists makes one question the characteristics which truly qualified art as degenerate in the era of the Third Reich. There are several possible explanations for Corot’s designation as a degenerate artist: he could have been considered an Impressionist by the Nazi party, his work could have been included in the trade as a means to attain optimum Nazi financial gain, or his degeneracy could have been derived from his nationality. Before these possible explanations can be explored, it is first Paramount to prove Corot does not belong in the degenerate category by analyzing his work against the given definition of degeneracy in terms of date, iconography and style.
Date
While the chronological beginning of modern abstract, and therefore degenerate, art is debatable, Hitler created his own date of origin: 1910. Although the above definitions of degeneracy given by Spotts lists degenerate works to include “ most post 1850 works by non-Germans,” The author also states that “1910 was the year [Hitler] considered the critical artistic Turning Point. Since Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot Was born in 1796 and completed the majority of his life’s work in the mid 19th century, the first date given might have incriminated Corot (depending on the particular work being considered). However, it seems that Hitler himself pardoned Corot from a degenerate label by creating his own artistic timeline.
Iconography
In terms of iconography it is not surprising that Hitler’s taste remained conservative, since he believed “the task of Art in the Third Reich was to impose a Nationalist Socialist philosophy of life. it had to form people’s minds and attitudes.” Hitler required an art to brainwash his followers, and he found the acceptable forms of iconography to accomplish such a task to include: nature, country life, the family, the German woman, female portraits, the German man, the worker, Nazi party portraits, and anti-semitic or overtly doctrinaire images. Therefore Hitler believed that artistic iconography that strayed from these categories could interfere with his goal of creating a submissive, compliant nation, since it would cause the viewer of the works to think for her / himself.
As stated by Spotts:
“For [Hitler] Modernism Was intolerable because it was thought-provoking, unconventional, uncomfortable, shocking, abstract, pessimistic, distorted, cynical; enigmatic, disorderly, freakish. it was exactly what you do not want if you want for yourself – and your nation- is an escape into a world of security, conventional Beauty, conformity, simplicity, reassurance.”
An obvious modern artist whose works consist of iconography antithetical To subjects Hitler idealized was Vassily Kandinsky. The Russian-born Kandinsky created “A series of progressively more liberated and abstract ‘improvisations’ that by the end of 1913 would produce what were the first free- form, Largely non-objective art of the new century.
Kandinsky Was considered so degenerate by Hitler that the artists work was selected, amongst 730 modern abstract works by 111 other artists, as a paradigm of “non-art” To be displayed in the infamous Munich degenerate art show, “Entartete Kunst (Degenerate Art), in 1937. A work such as Black-Lines Is what would generally come to mind when one thinks of degeneracy, especially in terms of iconography. With pieces like this, in which “Kandinsky initiated The Fateful process of abstracting natural appearances to create an autonomous structure where we can see lines and color take on an independent existence, creating dynamism and rhythmic movements that reflect inner agitation rather than observed events or a rational spatial existence,” the viewer is given the opportunity to postulate unfettered opinions, since his/her mind is not constrained by any iconography. On the other hand, Corot’s work consists of iconography that complies with the subjects Hitler idealized for art of the Third Reich, especially in comparison with the works which were received by the Nazi Party in reciprocation for the degenerate art in the trade.
The trade described in the ALIU Report Involved twenty-five degenerate works (including Corot) exchanged by Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering, Hitler’s second-in-command, For seven works of German Renaissance origin (including four by Lucas Cranach the Elder) Presented by the popular Swiss art dealer Thomas Fischer. A work by Corot which might have been involved in the trade, Monk in White, Seated, Reading Extremely similar in iconography to an acceptable work (also possibly involved in the trade) by Lucas Cranach the Elder, Madonna and Child in a Landscape. The iconographical similarities between these two works are uncanny; without labels, one might find it difficult to determine the degenerate from the accepted. Both paintings feature a religious figure as the main subject. The figures are both seated in front of a landscape, facing to the right, and holding an object to which his/her focus is drawn. in terms of iconography, these paintings are almost identical, and since both Works iconography are contrary to paintings by such artists as Kandinsky, it is therefore impractical to entertain the possibility that Camille Corot Considered degenerate for his works iconography.
Style
Style was the critical factor in determining a work’s degeneracy; Hitler only tolerated realistic images depicted with a “ photographic exactitude.” He was a classicist living in a modern age: he was extremely conservative and adhered strictly to Bourgeois ideas of traditional elegance. Hitler required that art present perfect images of the world, much like his Aryan citizens were meant to represent perfect human specimens. the abstraction of figure in painterly brushstroke, practiced by most modern artists of the time, was not appreciated by Hitler for its revolutionary qualities, but was considered by him to be non-art. Peter Adams recapitulates using Hitler’s own words from a 1935 speech:
For that [Aryan] race, Hitler demanded from art an ideal model. He postulated an Aryan Beauty able to heal the German body and soul. The function of art was ‘to create images which represent God’s creatures, not miscarriages between man and monkey… Art must be the Prophetess of Sublimity and beauty and the sustain that which is at once natural and healthy. The cult of the primitive is not the expression of the naive unspoiled soul, but utterly corrupt and diseased degeneracy.
Due to Hitler’s disdain for abstraction, paintings of the style were abundant at the “Entartete Kunst” show. One artist who is displayed several times for his abstract style was Ernst Ludwig Kirchner, the leader of the German Expressionist group, Die Brücke (“The Bridge”). Although most of what Die Brϋcke Would have been acceptable to Hitler in terms of iconography, since the artists were interested in studying figure and landscape, it is the abstract technique that would ‘earn’ their degenerate status. A work of Kirchner’s that exemplifies this abstraction of figure and painterly brushstroke is Bathers Beneath Trees, Fehmarn. In works such as this one, Kirchner removes naturalism from a scene of nature. “ Both the nudes and the Lush landscape are painted with Jagged and angular brushstrokes suggestive of both tribal and Gothic forms. Both scale and perspective are distorted to heighten expressive force. Verticals and diagonals are set against, and emphasized by, the irrational curve of the horizon. It is obvious that such abstraction of figure and nature found in this type of painting is not an aspect intrinsic to Corot’s work. The monk from Monk in White, Seated, Reading resides in a completely contrary visual world than the nude bathers from Bathers Beneath Trees, Fehmarn, The former belongs to a world of realism, the latter belongs to a world of abstraction. however, the painterly brushstroke integral to Kirchner’s work is not completely contrary to the loose brushstroke employed by Corot.
When one views the above comparison of Corot’s Monk in White, Seated, Reading and Cranach’s Madonna and Child in a Landscape, And looks past the similarities in iconography, the difference in brushstroke is apparent. Corot’s loose brushstroke Is most evident When comparing the cloaks of the figures and the landscape background. Cranach Obviously exercised a substantial amount of effort to create Sharp details, while keeping his brushstroke hidden.However , Corot Did not go to such lengths; he was more interested in studying the relationship between light and tone in his works, which he was able to achieve through his plein-air composition. Some might find his loose brushstroke of Corot’s enough to convict his work as degenerate, however those with this opinion have obviously not been exposed to Hitler’s personal artwork.
Art was not only a means of achieving social conformity for political gain to Hitler – It was his first career choice. Hitler long to be a painter; however, during 1907 – 1908 He failed his three attempts for admission to the General School of painting at the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna. He was forced to live as a starving artist, selling his works as a means of survival, until 1914 when he joined the 16th Bavarian Reserve Infantry Regiment. He continued to paint throughout his life, and though it is assumed by Peter Adam that Hitler protected his artistic privacy (by forbidding ratings and exhibitions involving his art) in order to hide his work because he realized that the quality of his compositions was subpar. He still considered them his most prized possessions. Interestingly, these compositions Hitler valued so dearly were created in a more radical style than one artist he considered degenerate. The paintings used for this comparison were chosen for their similarity in iconography (both depict places of worship in natural, water-side settings), and because the Corot, The Church at Marissel, near Beauvais, might have been one of the works involved in the trade. Haubourdin, The Seminar Church typical of Hitler’s oeuvre In hand technique as well as the focus on architecture, is surprisingly more deviant in traditional realism than the work by Corot.
All of the aspects of the paintings are comparable, and in all but one case, Hitler’s work is more visually abstract. The most obvious difference in the arrangement of the compositions is prospective. The Church at Marissel, near Beauvais Is constructed using linear perspective, a practice developed during the Renaissance in order to depict depth realistically. However, Hitler does not utilize the traditional linear perspective, and instead creates his own perspective which portrays the dimensions of the buildings poorly, causing the scene to look unnatural. The body of water in Corot’s work Is realistic in regards to the play of light and reflection; however, the body of water in Hitler’s work is composed of thick autographic brushstrokes, lacking any realistic form, color, or reflection. The trees in The Church at Marissel, near Beauvais Shaped realistic, detailed lines; while the plants in Haubourdin, The Seminar Church Merely dashes of paint creating only the impression of fully bloomed trees through blurs of color. even the clouds in Corot’s Work are more realistic than the ones Hitler created in terms of shape, density, color and detail.
The one feature inherent to both paintings is the style used to represent the respective monuments. The church in Corot’s painting seems to have been fashioned in the same technique as the buildings in Haubourdin, The Seminar Church: Both artists created the buildings with few loose brushstrokes, forming nebulous structures. However, this technique is justified in Corot’s case, since the church is far in the background. It can be assumed from the remainder of the composition that Corot would have used a more definitive brushstroke in creating the building had he placed the structure in the foreground.
It is shocking that Hitler could create a work in a style that he considered degenerate. This painting is just one example of Hitler’s oeuvre that is similar in style and appearance to the modern abstract he reviled so intensely: his architectural studies are clearly visually similar to impressionist paintings and some of his figure studies resemble Cubist forms. Since among Hitler’s most cherished properties were works of art more radical in style and execution than works by Corot, it can be inferred that Corot could not have been considered degenerate, otherwise Hitler himself would have been included amongst the depraved artists he condemned.
Camille Corot’s lack of defined degeneracy has been thoroughly verified by the above argument. Though Corot’s exemption from the degenerate group is now proven warranted, it is still necessary to determine the grounds for the artists inclusion in the Nazi art trade by exploring the aforementioned possible explanations: he could have been considered an impressionist by the Nazi party, his work could have been included in the trade just to add the Nazi Financial gain, or his degeneracy could have been derived from his nationality.
Impressionist Identity
Impressionism, a term applied to the French art movement (c. 1860-1900) devoted to the study of light and motion and landscape and scenes of Bourgeois Modern Life, is widely considered the first modern movement since it was “anti-academic In its formal aspects and involve the establishment of venues other than the Salon for showing and selling paintings.” Therefore, the art and the artists involved in the movement were considered degenerate by the Nazi party for their stray from realism and tradition as well as for their responsibility in launching modern art. Though Corot Seems to fall into the impressionist category (being that he is French, painted landscapes, and worked into the 1870s) he was not an impressionist. While some might argue that his loose brushstroke and plein-air technique categorize him as an impressionist, some experts believe that Corot’s aesthetic goals were not as radical as those of the Impressionists. undoubtedly, Corot’s Work influenced Impressionists, including Berthe Morisot, Camille Pisarro, and Claude Monet, , he was not an active member or a noted artist of the movement. As indisputable as it seems that Corot was not an impressionist, it does not mean that this belief always existed: in the early 20th century the view of Corot might have placed him among the impressionists. This possibility arises because the military authors of the ALIU Report categorize the degenerate works exchanged by Goering as “French Impressionists.” Whether this was an error of the military personnel or a contemporary belief of the Nazis can be determined by researching the view of Corot in the early 20th century.
Within art historical study it must be taken into account that the interpretation of style changes depending on the point of view of the authors of contemporaneous texts. An example of a current study of this phenomenon is a published article by Keith Moxey entitled “Impossible Distance: Past and Present in the Study of Dürer and Grünewald.” In this essay Moxey Discusses the disconnect between past and present art historical belief regarding Drürer and Grünewald by exploring the way “historical narratives respond to the social agendas of the cultures that create them.” In order to determine if a label of impressionism could be the cause of Corot’s degeneracy, it is crucial to perform a similar exploration to Moxey’s by examining the texts of the time as well as the ‘social agendas’ of the authors who wrote them.
Major Art historian of the turn of the 20th century was Julius Meier-Graefe. In what is considered his most significant contribution to art history, Die Entwicklungsgeschichte der Modernen Kunst (“The Development of Modern Art”), Meier-Graefe discusses Camille Corot. He explains that Corot acted as a traditional rock in modern rapids. “Revolutionaries came, and were bound to come. The age called them fourth. the programme followed automatically… but Corot had no place in the programme. He was a heaven sent surprise. It was just the non-revolutionary nature of his genius that was wonder-working.” Meier-Graefe goes on to discuss Corot’s career, In comparison to artists throughout the canon of art history, and in doing so he discusses the debt the Impressionists owe Corot his artistic influence. Therefore, Meier-Graefe declared Corot To be an accomplished artist who is distinguishable from impressionism and all modern art. If this was the only major voice of art history of the period, it would be established that the Nazis could not have classified Corot as a degenerate impressionist. However, Meier-Graefe was not the only major art historian of the time; Henry Those was another.
Hans Belting states that Meier-Graefe and Thode Of separating opposing factions in the German art historical world, who’s divergence centered on modern art. Belting explains:
Controversy about modern art had originally flared up shortly before the turn of the century, when the definition of impressionism divided the German art world into opposing camps… It was the habit of the group opposing Meier-Graefe To throw all works of Modern Art into one pot with impressionism, which was then employed as a catchword for all the offending tendencies of the modern movement. Meier-Graefe, Other hand, represented an artistic ideal best described as secessionist or progressive: the kind of art collected by wealthy, politically liberal Germans. The kind of art that outraged the conservatives and powerful civil servant class, and it was officially rejected by the Kunstpolitik of Imperial Germany.
In other words, the traditionalist Henry Thode would have disagreed with Meier-Graefe, and placed Corot in the category of Impressionism. Belting continues to state that Meier-Graefe, being a ‘progressive,’ Invited modern and international art to Germany; whereas Thode took a position against modern and international art – a position sympathetic to Nazi ideology. Therefore, despite Meier-Graefe’s Influence or popularity, the Nazis would have ignored his opinions due to his liberal taste and would have instead strictly followed the writings of Thode. This knowledge explains Corot’s degenerate label through an Impressionist classification; unless there is evidence proving that the title of “French Impressionists” listed in the AlIU Report Was it designation given by the allied military officers, and not the Nazis. in fact, such evidence does exist.
The documents the ALIU officers obtained while conducting their investigation of the looted art in Europe after World War II were incorporated as attachments to the report. Among these documents include correspondence between Nazis and art dealers, in which the parties established plans to trade confiscated art. One such letter deals with the trade on which this writing is focused. the letter was addressed to Herman Goering by Walter Hofer, his art advisor, in order to encourage Goering To participate in the trade with Thomas Fischer, stating “I should strongly advise you to make the exchange, as among the French pictures there are some very insignificant ones, also some drawings, whereas all the Fischer objects are first class early German works in the best condition, mostly Cranach …” When discussing the degenerate works, Hofer never refers to the works as ‘Impressionists’ and instead calls the works ‘French nineteenth-century pictures.’ Since Goering’s own art advisor does not group all of the works under the term ‘Impressionist,’ It must have been a misnomer made by the Military Officers investigating the trade. Although this letter suggests that the Nazis did not View Corot as an Impressionist, it cannot fully prove it; however there is no evidence to prove that they did not consider him an Impressionist. Therefore the classification of Corot as an Impressionist being the cause of his degenerate designation is still a possibility, yet not a persuasive one.
Financial Gain
As discussed above, the first motivation Hitler had in removing modern degenerate art from Germany was ideological: he wanted to purify the visual arts just as he wanted to purify the German race. therefore in 1937, he ordered his propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, to confiscate all abstract modern works from German museums in Jewish families. This ideologically-charged project soon became a profitable one. Hitler Put the degenerate Works to good use toward his dream of creating a national museum in his hometown , Linz. He allowed the confiscated modern Works to be sold to raise money in foreign currency, or traded for realistic works he sought for his future museum. Although this latter use of the degenerate art seems fitting in the case of this trade, Goering’s presence creates a difficult motive of financial gain.
Hermann Goering Was Notorious for his greed, evidenced even by his corpulent exterior. He had a love for the arts and started a collection in 1920. After the Nazi rise to power, he took advantage of Hitler’s willingness to confiscate works, and added to his collection through such confiscations. In terms of looting Hitler and Goering made a “gentleman’s agreement that either would keep whatever he found.” Goering Stayed True to this agreement, allegedly collecting around 2,000 works during the Nazi reign. He was able to collect such an overwhelming number of Works through the trade of degenerate art and reciprocation for ‘acceptable’ works. Peter Harcelode states:
The prominence of exchange as opposed to purchases as a means of acquiring works for the Goering collection is attributable not only to the Reichmarchall’s notorious reluctance To part with money but also to the scarcity of foreign currency available to him. whereas he was outwardly opposing to receiving confiscated works, he was perfectly content to use them as payment in kind for acquisitions, particularly as they cost him nothing in the first place. furthermore, the works of art used instead of currency belong to the categories deemed ‘degenerate’ and thus were considered of little value.
Therefore, because the outcome of the trade Goering established benefited himself, and not not see Germany as a whole, Goering’s greed could have caused them to trade as many works as possible in order to gain the most in reciprocation. Since paintings by Corot have always been prized (sans the Third Reich), The four involved in the trade could have significantly added to the monetary value of the degenerates. Therefore, it is possible that the paintings by Corot were included in the trade, not because they were viewed as degenerate, but because they could gain more value in return. However, the involvement of Corot in the trade, even if he was not seen as a defined degenerate, means that his work was not liked enough to be kept for Hitler or Goering’s personal collections, making it inferior in some way. Thus, while material gain was definitely a motive involved in the trading of Corot’s work, it must have been secondary to the most compelling possible explanation of Corot’s degeneracy: nationality.
Nationality
Contrary to popular belief, the Jewish ethnic group was not the only nationality detested by Hitler: Germany’s history with France caused Hitler to feel animosity towards the nation and its citizens. The earliest relevant conflict began with the franco-prussian war of 1870, which France initiated and lost. as a provision of the Treaty of Frankfurt, Germany annexed Alsace and a portion of Lorraine from France. The Encyclopedia Britannica summarizes the result of this provision:
…Germany’s annexation of Alsace-Lorraine aroused deep longing for revenge in the French people. the years from 1871 to 1914 were marked by an extremely unstable peace, since France’s determination to recover Alsace-Lorraine in Germany’s mounting imperialist ambitions kept the two nations constantly poised for conflict.
At the end of world war i, France gained its opportunity to take revenge on Germany through the Treaty of Versailles. The two harshest provisions of the treaty for Germany were the reduction of its land by 10% (including the return of Alsace-Lorraine to France) And the mandatory disarmament (which was mostly encouraged by the French president, Georges Clemenceau). This treaty produced great humiliation and resentment in the German people, which many historians claim led to the rise of German aggression in the 1930s. It only seems natural that Hitler, a dictator so ‘devoted’ to his nation that he attempted to exterminate a race to ‘purify’ it, would want to take retaliation on the French for the degradation Germany felt after the Treaty of Versailles. Therefore, perhaps in a gesture of umbrage, Hitler regarded French art as degenerate and rejected it from Germany in order to psychologically persuade his citizens to recognize anything French to be inferior.
This is a convincing argument especially in the case of Corot, since he was not just a French artist, he was known for his ‘Frenchness.’ Julius Meier-Graefe elucidates:
It was the spirit, and not the form of tradition which lived in [Corot], and all unconsciously inspired him. He determined to paint only what he saw, but in reality he painted at the same time all the impressions of a man who was a Frenchman to his fingertips, all the optimism of his happy race, all the rich legendary lore of a son of a people.
Since Corot Was considered a painter who represented the soul of France in his work, it seems obvious that Hitler would want to defame Corot’s name and expunge his work from the country. In addition, when considering the other paintings traded as degenerate with the four works by Corot, the ‘Frenchness’ of the group is overwhelming; the only non Frenchman being the Dutch artist Van Gogh who, coincidently, Completed his most significant compositions in france. Therefore the extermination of French nationalism from Germany is a likely motivation for Corot’s inclusion in the trade.
Accordingly, this post postulates that the most compelling argument for the three possible explanations for Corot’s undeserved label of degeneracy is the final case of nationality. However, it is most probable that financial gain was an additional motivation for the trade of the degenerate works, allowing Hitler to achieve two goals simultaneously: to acquire funds in the form of realistic works for Germany, and to eradicate French nationalism from the country. while this post proves that Corot was not aesthetically degenerate, it also proves that other social and political factors were at play in determining a works degeneracy, blessing a general opinion of Nazi deemed degenerate art to be modified
In true deconstructionist manner, I will end this post with a series of questions in order to yield contemplation concerning the common opinions of the definition of degenerate art: why might Camille Corot’s Degenerate classification come as a shock? Why might one be predisposed to associate artistic degeneration with modern abstraction? Why might it come easy to justify the Nazi argument for modern abstraction to be considered inferior? Our overall society’s acceptance of tradition and rejection of abstraction makes one wonder if Hitler’s mind control survived his death.
Thoughts in Harmony 