Talk:Art of the Third Reich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Germany may be able to help!
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

[edit] Rename

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)

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

[edit] Pictures

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)

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)

[edit] Art history problems

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)

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)

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)