Christine Birnbaum

Research Paper

3/15/21

 

Self-Portrait as a Soldier & The Degenerate Art Museum

 

Following his rise to power in 1933, Adolf Hitler initiated one of the worst acts of art censorship in modern history: the campaign to confiscate what he deemed “degenerate” artwork from German museums. With the display of modern artwork in what became the “Degenerate Art Museum,” Hitler used the exhibition as a way to destroy the careers of many modern artists. While most of the stolen works may never be fully recovered, a number of museums are dedicating exhibits to degenerate artists as a way to acknowledge Hitler’s devastating effects. One of the more globally recognized “degenerate” German Expressionist artists, Ernst Ludwig Kirchner’s Self-portrait as a Soldier, is one piece that stood the test of time. Although today, Self-Portrait is in the possession of the Allen Memorial Art Museum in Ohio and is highly sought after around the world, it did not always have such a large outreach.  Painted in 1915 as an ode to Kirchner’s experience during World War l, Self-Portrait had a difficult journey. From the demise of his career during the Nazi regime, to producing one of the most globally recognized degenerate paintings to date, Self-Portrait is not only a testament to the fact that the Nazi regime actually helped to preserve the work of modern artists, but that modern art did indeed aspire to rattle the emotions of the public, resulting in a more realistic picture of the true anxieties surrounding Nazi Germany. (Mette, Meghan E.)

The rise in Expressionism can be traced back to 1905, when Ernst Ludwig Kirchner, along with several other young artists, founded the German Expressionist group, The Bridge. The Bridge was influenced by primitive art, where artists would adopt a natural state, accompanied by rough sketches and long limbs. It advocated the expression of individual emotions, opposed to fueling the ideas of the bourgeoises. Following a medical discharge from military service during WW1, “Self Portrait as A Soldier” depicts Kirchner in military uniform with a cigarette dangling from his lips. Alarmingly, his right hand had been cut off, leaving a bright red stump. The left hand seems to merge with a naked woman, who is seen in the background.  Although his face appears to brush against the arm of the woman, there appears to be no connection between the two, who are gazing off in the distance, emotionless. Little did he know at the time however, that his expressionist style, with its bright colors and sharp lines, portrayed the exact style deemed “inferior” by the Nazi regime only a few years later. (Leonard V. Smith.)

The problem with degenerate art, such a Kirchner’s, has its roots in the historical context surrounding Germany in the early 20th century. Following the politically driven conflict of the First World War, the imperial government was replaced by the Weimar Republic from 1918-1933. As artists fled from conventionality and began to explore an innovative artistic movement, the 1920s saw an explosion through Expressionism, Dadaism, and Cubism, which did not strive to portray objective images of reality, but instead, subjective emotions. However, although culture seemed to be exploring new frontiers, the Weimar Republic faced numerous problems throughout its 14 years of existence. Because of the cultural freedoms granted in the Weimar Republic, citizens soon became skeptical of where their country was headed under its influence. The art soon became highly controversial, as expressionism challenged many traditional views by the German population, especially through the rise of Adolf Hitler in 1933. (Dinsmore).

According to Hitler, two things were essential to having a united Germany: racial identity and universal cultural attitudes. He continuously blamed the Jewish population for the growth of modernism and held a strong resentment for what modernism stood for. To be considered true German art: “it must develop from the collective soul of the people and express its identity; it must be national, not international; it must be comprehensible to the people; it must not be a passing fad, but strive to be eternal; it must be positive, not critical of society; it must be elevating, and represent the good, the beautiful, and the healthy.” – (Adolf Hitler, speech inaugurating the Haus der Deutschen Kunst). As a way to promote his message, Hitler called on the German people to judge German art deemed “inappropriate,” and issued a warning to the “pitiful misfortunates,” “incompetents,” and “art criminals,” who didn’t meet those requirements. This not only made modern artists outcasts, but it also served as propaganda for the Nazi regime. (Goggin, Mary-Margaret).

In an attempt to clarify what true German art looked like, the Nazi Regime opened The Degenerate Art Exhibition in 1937. Thrown together in less than three weeks, the exhibition became a traveling showcase of all banned modern artwork. The idea of the exhibition was to demonstrate Hitler’s distaste for modern art, with the intention of “educating” the public on the “art of decay.” (Dinsmore). The exhibition labeled all works that were part of  Cubist, Dada, Expressionist, Impressionist, New Objectivity and Surrealist styles, as sick and degenerate. During this period, over 5,000 pieces were seized, including 639 by Ernst Ludwig Kirchner, as well as from other well-known artists such as Otto Dix. By 1939, about 21,000 art pieces were taken from institutions, where they were put on display in dark rooms, and accompanied by derogatory messages accusing the art of insulting German war heroes, being anti-governmental and overall, dangerous to German culture. The exhibit was presented in juxtapose to the “Great German Art Exhibition,” which showcased Nazi-approved art. However, the Degenerate Exhibition ended up having more than 2 million visitors in Munich alone. Ironically, it seems that without even wanting to do so, the Nazi regime did more to promote modern painting than any government before or since. (“Degenerate Art – Modern Artworks Dismissed by the Nazi as ‘Filth’) Although some of those works were later destroyed, others were officially declared “internationally marketable,” and were sold through art dealers acting on behalf of the German government.  Due to the disposal of modern artwork, many pieces, including Self-Portrait, ultimately found new homes in museum collections abroad, promoting a new-found appreciation in outside countries. (Mette, Meghan E.)

The Nazi party greatly went out of its way to ensure that the “original” German spirit of art was preserved.  The Nazi- approved style was classical, romanticized, Greek and Roman art. The main reason behind this was Hitler’s belief that while modern art was corrupted by Jewish influence, Greek and Roman forms were still uncontaminated. The ideal German artwork was meant to portray national pride, family, discipline, heroism and moral purity. Approved paintings would often feature images of the countryside, soldiers, or women in traditional gender roles. Overall, life was displayed as wholesome, which promoted the false idea that Germany was a peaceful and traditional country. (Goggin, Mary-Margaret). However, Self-Portrait vastly differentiated from this picture of “perfection.” Instead of showcasing a pro-war image, Kirchner showed his internal thoughts by portraying “distortion, exaggeration and primitivism through the vivid, jarring, violent, and dynamic application of formal elements” (“Expressionism” Britannica). Kirchner’s color is applied boldly and his expressionist style is featured with darker, colder colors.  According to the Allen Memorial Art Museum, the “soldier has an elongated face and other blurred features, while the woman’s shoulders are disproportionate to that of a true human form.” The figures in Self-portrait fill most of the space, making it cramped and unnatural. The fictitious image is enforced with steep and exaggerated brush strokes, and the soldier appears in the foreground, as if pushed toward the viewer. The use of muddy green and bright red colors are used to highlight the injury to his right hand. (Jeffery. K Aronoson et. al.) Behind his portrait, Kirchner has included a naked female figure which is defined by harsh black lines. According to Peter Springer, among others, the differences in scale between Kirchner’s self-depiction and the female figure emphasizes “the corruption of power and imbalance of gendered autonomy and responsibility.” Overall, through his art, Kirchner is able to make the viewer feel the anxieties that he was feeling after the First World War.

This vastly differs from Otto Dix, another degenerate artist featured in the museum, who instead of depicting his own personal struggles, directly attacked war efforts in his painting titled “War Cripples.” Unlike Kirchner, Otto’s painting is in black and white, and is painted in a way that makes it seem as if it is made of magazine clippings. In it, Otto depicts 4 soldiers happily marching down the street in uniform. However, they all appear to be crippled from war as some are missing limbs or are walking with canes. The painting is meant to ridicule everyone, including the “military for crippling poor men, the public for their strange fascination with the handicapped, and the injured men themselves for retaining pride in a country that sent them to war.” (Litverse.) Dix’s background, including his participation in WWll as a machine gunner, led to his interest in Expressionist art.  Although different from Kirchner’s approach, Dix used finely painted lines to portray caricature-like depictions through the enhancement of angles. However, Dix and Kirchner had similar approaches in using metaphors. By portraying the veterans as being more machine-like opposed to human-like, Dix uses the wounded soldiers as a way to show the dangers of the country’s national pride, just as Kirchner used his amputated hand to reveal his internal thoughts as an artist. (The Artist’s Job.) Although both scenes are fictional, the reality is that both pieces were portraying political and emotional statements, which the Nazi Regime disapproved of.

Although images were portrayed in both The Degenerate and Great German Art exhibitions, it was done with extreme dissimilarity. While the German Exhibit tastefully showcased works of art that promoted the Aryan race as healthy, hardworking, and family oriented, the Degenerate Art Exhibition did the opposite. For example, in the German House, women were portrayed as the “ideal” woman, with countless paintings of soft skinned, beautiful mothers (Goggin, Mary-Margaret.) In contrast, the degenerate museum mocked the German ideal, portraying women as prostitutes. Two paintings displayed in the Great German exhibit was from Nazi-approved artists, Max Bergmann and Adolf Ziegler. The painting “Fruhling” by Max Bergmann in 1925, depicts two cows dragging a plough. It is a classic scene, where the artist has attempted to convey the beauty of the farmland. The cows are facing directly out of the picture, part of the farmer is seen, and a light is coming from the front, giving the viewer a sense of being in the picture itself. Hitler approved of this style because it depicted German tradition and it adhered to the old traditional values of people tending to their business. Similarly, Adolf Ziegler’s “The Four Elements,” which was in Hitler’s personal collection, also showed those traditional roles, with four, statuesque blonde women, each representing a season. This not only shows a clear, realistic image with restrained emotion, but the subjects also embody the German ideals of attractiveness and purity. (“Degenerate Art” BBC).

Overall, between the years of 1937-1941, the Great German Art Exhibit traveled throughout a total of 13 German and Austrian cities. At the time of its closing, many modern masterpieces were destroyed or sold abroad. Although the majority of artists displayed in the Great German Exhibit are now largely forgotten, many of the modern artists displayed in the Degenerate Art Museum, actually came out on top. Today, many staged museums are exhibiting modern artwork including the Neue Galerie in New York, bringing to viewers a new-found appreciation for the German modern art that was spit from the fatherland years ago. Although, sadly, Kirchner did not live to see Self-Portrait become the great modern piece that it is today, as he took his own life in Switzerland in 1938, we cannot overlook the fact that Self-Portrait as A Soldier, along with many other degenerate artworks, portrayed the true anxieties surrounding Nazi Germany.

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Goggin, Mary-Margaret. “‘Decent’ vs. ‘Degenerate’ Art: The National Socialist Case.” Art Journal 50, no. 4 (1991): 84–92. https://doi.org/10.2307/777328.

 

 

  • K Aronoson, and Manoj Ramachandram. “The Diagnosis of art: Ernest Ludwig Kirchner’s ‘nervous breakdown'” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine103, no.3 (2010) 112–113.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • .” Springer, Peter Ernst Ludwig Kirchner’s Self Portrait as a Soldier.(Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2002.) 112–140