National Socialist Ideology: A Paradox Concerning German Modernist Art by Jeremy Lyn Schrupp

National Socialist Ideology: A PARADOX CONCERNING GERMAN MODERNIST ART A Thesis by Jeremy Lyn Schrupp

In 1880, Eugen Dühring, a well-known German philosopher and economist, coined the term “degeneration” in reference to the purity of the German race. To Dühring, this was a degeneration of the blood caused by an infection known as the Jew. Dühring wasn’t the only one to use this term. In the 1890s, Jewish author and social critic, Max Nordau, applied the term “degeneration” to modernist art. Nordau, although not anti-Semitic, noted that society was in the process of degeneration and that the modernist movements within the art world directly influenced this degeneration.1 Thirty years later, in the 1920s, the deeply anti-Semitic National Socialist (Nazi) Party would return to this theme. Ignoring his Jewish lineage, the Nazi’s grabbed hold of Nordau’s ideas and spliced them together with Dühring’s beliefs. They were able to gain power and influence throughout Germany by promoting the idea that the degeneration of German culture had been allowed to happen under the government of the Weimar Republic, and claimed that they would be able to put a stop to it. Dühring was also strongly opposed to the growing influence of Marxism on the German people. In the very early 20th century Marxism had proven extremely popular in Russia, becoming intertwined with the Bolshevik revolution that later led to the Communist takeover of Russia. The Nazis believed that the Jews were at the center of this revolution and later coined the term “Jewish Bolshevism” in order to link Jews with Communists. The Nazis’ platform was an amalgamation of philosophical and racial propaganda, which prominently included art. They believed that all art was national art, i.e. a cultural representation 1 Stephanie Barron and Peter W. Guenther. Degenerate Art: The Fate of the Avant-Garde in Nazi Germany. New York: Harry N. Abrams Inc., 1991,16-17.

of the German people, and that race and nationhood and culture were inseparably linked.2 They also believed that degeneration could be seen most clearly in Germany’s modernist works of art. The Nazis believed that modernist art was, in fact, a visual form of Bolshevism. They felt that this art had developed in response to the loss of World War I, and was considered to be a spiritual degeneration instigated by foreign elements.3 The Nazis firmly believed that art influenced by Jews needed to be removed from the body of the Germanic people so as not to infect them. Much of the art they had in mind was modernist, a broad stylistic tendency in art that the Party called “Degenerate”. To the Nazis, this art was emblematic of both Jewish and Bolshevist ideologies which ‘deliberately’ deformed German character and traditions. The Nazis combined morals, politics, and eugenics in their propaganda denigrating modernist art as morally depraved and perverted. They even went so far as to belittle modernist artists as racially inferior or alien.4 In 1928, the Nazi Party created the National Socialist Society for German culture, with the goal of enlightening the German people about the connections they imagined between race, art, science, and moral and military values. Members of the organization began to infiltrate schools, universities and museums as well as radio, film, theater and literature with hopes of securing a monopoly on cultural ideology centered on the ideas of the Party leader, Adolf Hitler.5 Political pressure was applied to these institutions in order to influence the German people’s cultural preferences so that they would become congruent with Party ideology and the “German norm.” The Nazis’ definition of what was “German” was based on a biomedical worldview based 2 Jonathan Petropoulos. Art as Politics in the Third Reich. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996, 175. 3 Glenn R. Cuomo. National Socialist Cultural Policy. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995, 9. 4 Barron and Guenther, 18. 5 Barron and Guenther, 22-3.

on a fictitious norm (The Master Race, a concept in Nazi ideology in which the Nordic or Aryan races were considered the ideal; defining characteristics included blond hair, blue eyes and fair skin.). They claimed that anything or anyone deviating from this norm was like a cancer that needed to be removed from the body of the German people, and that body had to be protected from or immunized against the influence of degeneration.6 On May 29th 1944, a few weeks before D-Day, a shipment of 321modernist art works from Germany was off-loaded at New York Harbor. The works--modernist masterpieces created by Ernst Barlach, Max Beckmann, Emil Nolde, Käthe Kollwitz, Gerhard Marcks, Otto Dix, Marc Chagall, Paul Klee, Oskar Kokoschka, and August Macke—were destined for the Karl Buchholz Gallery. But they never arrived there. Instead, they were immediately seized by the U.S. government under Vesting Order 3711 and sent to the Office of Alien Property under the direction of James E. Markham.7 (Figures 1-4) Similar shipments of art had arrived in ports throughout the world while the Nazis were in power. Many of these modernist masterpieces came from Germany’s national collections. Why was Germany so willing to rid itself of its modernist artistic heritage? The Nazi party purposefully and publicly condemned much of the modernist art produced in Germany during the Zweite Reich and the Weimar Republic. They specifically targeted Impressionism, Expressionism, Cubism, and Dadaism, which they denounced as historical aberrations and degenerate. They referred to this art, as well many Weimar art institutions (such as the Artists Labor Council and the Bauhaus) simply as “the System”.8 They also denounced the 6 Cuomo, 5. 7 Susan Ronald. Hitler's Art Thief Hildebrandt Gurlitt and the Looting of Europe's Treasures. New York: St. Martin's, 2015, 10-11. A vesting order is an order of a court, an administrative agency, or public officer passing the legal title in lieu of a legal conveyance. Vesting Order 3711; NARA, RG 131, Office of Alien Property (OAP) Entry 65F-1063.

8 Klemperer, Victor. The language of the Third Reich: LTI – Lingua Tertii Imperii: A Philologist’s Notebook. 4

makers of this art as inferior and degenerate. Most of the works the Nazis labeled “degenerate” were not allowed to be shown publically, except in government-sponsored exhibits where the party could propagandize the art in order to extol its own ideology. At the same time, many German museums, galleries and private collectors began to dispose of their modernist pieces in a variety of ways. In 1933, when the Party finally gained control of the German government, 101 public collections were stripped of their modernist art works.9 Very few of the directors of these collections, save certain of those in positions of great power, freely participated in the disposal of this art. Most complied because they feared reprisal if they did not. Whole collections of art throughout Germany as well as in German territories were supposedly sold or destroyed. For The Führer, the removal of modernist art from these public collections was based on his view that its appearance was subnormal from a racial point of view. A good deal of modernist art contained distorted images of the human figure; this was difficult for the Nazis, as they viewed these distortions as examples of human defects and degeneration (The Nazis later used this comparison in its campaign against modernist art, as can be seen in Figure 5). Additionally, he saw these works as diseases and considered them Bolshevist monstrosities. He questioned whether it was permissible to dish up the hallucinations of lunatics or criminals to the healthy world.10 So what actually happened to Germany’s modern masterpieces? Who were they sold to and why? If most were sold or destroyed, why does Germany have so many today? Were pieces “sold” in name only, for purposes of retrieval at a later date? Who was responsible for gathering and assessing them? What was really destroyed and for what purpose? Who collected them and London: Continuum, 2000.

9 Ronald, 181. 10 Cuomo, 10. 5

why? Why indeed? The focus here is to analyze the behaviors of particular Nazi leaders in regard to modernist art and what the official Nazi cultural policy said about it. In the midst of Hitler’s campaign against modernist art, select Nazi officials sold, traded and collected modern masterpieces. I believe a paradox exists between National Socialist ideology regarding modernist art, and how certain well-known Nazis actually engaged with it. Their preferences, in fact, were in direct violation or incongruent with the Party’s ideology and practice. These officials were aware of both the art’s artistic and monetary value. Regardless of their support of Nazi ideology or their indifference to the arts’ provenance, their actions inadvertently preserved Germany’s modernist artistic heritage. In an effort to understand to what degree certain Nazis strayed from Hitler’s official policies regarding modern art, I will explore the habits of a few of Hitler’s top officials and speculate about what might have been behind their aesthetic preferences and purchases. I will rely heavily on sources that document the activities of the infamous Nazi art dealer, Hildebrand Gurlitt. He and others working within the Commission for the Seizure and Disposal of Degenerative Art (Kommission zur Verwertung Beschlagnahmter Werke Entartete Kunst), might be able to provide me with much of the information I need to understand the gap between Nazi art policy and the actual practices of Nazi officials in regard to modernist art. The Nazi Party truly believed that modernist art was a form of cultural Bolshevism or was elitist, unintelligible, and internationalist,11 factors that threatened the Party’s ideological Germanocentrism. Hitler articulated this Germanocentrism, as well as his master plan for Germany, in Mein Kampf in 1925. In Mein Kampf, Hitler claimed that artistic expression was an affair of the state. He 11 Cuomo, 129. 6

believed that it was the most effective medium through which to communicate and propagate national and cultural identity. Simultaneously, he claimed that the Jewish artists and Russian artists were also expressing the same message in works of modernist art. 12 He wrote: “For if the time of Pericles appears incorporated in the Parthenon, so does the Bolshevistic present in a cubistic grimace...”13 He believed that Jewish and Bolshevist ideology were as innate to modernist art as the ideals of Pericles were to the art of Classical Greece. He also believed that the removal of modernist art from the public sphere should be based on its “factual” evidence that the artwork was an expression of a person who was subnormal, from a racial point of view. He suspected that the day modernist art became the cultural norm or the standard by which society viewed the world, that the human brain at that point would have begun a backward slide or degeneration.14 Several years before the publication of Mein Kampf, Hitler had devised a cunning means of demonstrating to the public what he claimed was the superiority of true German art over degenerate Bolshevik and Jewish art.15 In a 1920 party program he demanded legal action against all art and literature that undermined German culture, and demanded the closure of all cultural events that violated their demands.16 This was an early warning of things to come after the National Socialists came to power. Following the unofficial cultural takeover conducted in 1928, in 1929 the NSDAP elected Dr. William Frick to the Ministry of the Interior and Education. He was the one eventually responsible for closing a German institution known for 12 Adolf Hitler. Mein Kampf, Complete and Unabridged, Fully Annotated. New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, 1939, 353.

13 Ibid., 359. 14 Ibid., 359. 15 Herschel B. Chipp. Theories of Modern Art, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1968. 247.

16 Cuomo, 8. 7

being the arbiter of the German modernist art: the Bauhaus.17 Adolf Hitler believed in many things, but three stand out: self-promotion (through the realization of projects of unprecedented scale which were conceived to elicit pride and awe in his people), his superintendency (i.e. his leadership ability and his ability to make such dreams a reality), and the triumph of the German-Aryan culture. He believed that Aryan Germans were the originators of culture and, in turn, it was their rightful responsibility to guide it, nurture it and control it.18 He saw this happening especially in classical or volkisch German art, which he loved. In fact, he wanted to bring all of the displaced volkisch Germanic art back to the fatherland.19 One important goal of the Nazi Party was to reshape the German art world in its own image, and in doing so motivate the German people to adopt a Germanophile view on cultural nationalism. To expedite this, the Party flooded the media with Nazi propaganda about art.20 A decree issued on May 4, 1930, entitled Against Negro Culture for our German Heritage, provided legitimization for and spurred the frontal attack on “Jewish” and “Bolshevist” art.21 This art was art with “primitive” or “Negro” influences created by German artists and obviously inspired by internationalism. This decree incited the purge of many modernist works of art from the National Museum. But it was only a prelude to the cultural policies that were to be implemented by the Third Reich in 1933.22 In 1933, the Party, now in total control of the government, demanded that all artistic productions with Jewish or Cosmopolitan (referring to the international urban experience found 17 Berthold Hinz. Art in the Third Reich. New York: Pantheon Books, 1979. 25. 18 Petropoulos, 241-3. 19 Ibid., 247. 20 Ibid., 175. 21 Hinz. 25. 22 Cuomo, 10-11 8

in cities across the globe) tendencies be removed from German museums and public collections. The Nazi government tried to demonstrate what it considered to be German or not, and what they intended to do with whatever or whomever they perceived as un-German.23 It is here that we find our first and most important contradiction, because while the government called for the destruction of all degenerate art, a majority of it still exists, leading us to believe that there was an additional internal and covert program or policy that saved it from destruction. It is obvious that the Nazi Party had no intention of actually destroying its modernist heritage. It chose, instead, to exploit the global popularity of modernist art work by selling it. Initially it was believed that the sale of art on the global market would be a means by which to generate the funding needed to carry out a full scale war, plans for which were already being disseminated as early as January of 1933.24 Yet very little moneys were actually generated on the behalf of the Party from the sale of modernist art. The point, it seems, was not to generate income but to trade modernist pieces for works of art more congruent with Party policy. Because the majority of modernist art was held in private collections, it was easy for those collectors to disregard the official Nazi policy against displaying modernist artwork. Up until 1934 there was still an ongoing debate within the Nazi Party over the place of modernism within the Kulturpolitik.25 Considering that much of the talk revolved around publicly-displayed works of art, many Germans understandably felt that private art collecting was, indeed, a personal and private matter. To add to the confusion, Hitlerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s active opposition to modern art emerged only gradually during the first years of the third Reich. He even employed the

23 Ibid., 6. 24 Barron and Guenther, 109 25 Petropoulos, 19. Adolf Hitlerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s personal opposition to modern art emerged only gradually during the first years of the Third Reich. Despite his dislike of abstraction; he privately praised the Expressionist painter Emil Nolde (20).

prominent German expressionist Emil Nolde within his chancellery. In a speech given early in 1933, Hitler condemned modernist art, but asserted that “today’s tasks require new methods,” a statement that implies a diversion from the original plan.26 In September1934, he defined and set the course of the cultural policies for the years to come. He also identified two cultural dangers threatening National Socialism. First he targeted the Modernists as the corrupters of art. He proclaimed that there was no place in Germany for modernist art and that such charlatans (modernist artists) were mistaken if they thought that the creators of the Third Reich were foolish or are cowardly enough to let themselves be intimidated by their (modernist artists) protests (the artist were protesting that the Nazi government proclaimed that both their art and their person were a degeneration). He would not tolerate any works of art that were incongruent with Party ideology, and he demanded that art be integrated into the Nazi political program. Secondly, he condemned the traditionalists (followers of Rosenberg’s Combat League for German Culture) for attempting to revive “their own version” of the history of the Germanic people. Instead, he insisted that the cultural history of Germany be dictated by and align with National Socialist ideology. This became the official program of Nazi cultural politics, and there was to be no significant deviation from it.27 But, here too, we find a contradiction. In several speeches given between 1934 and 1937, Hitler expressed his horror of the era’s contemporary artists, who were allowed to create freely, in whatever style they wished. Yet at the same time he expressed sympathy for artists who had to navigate the restrictive laws the National Socialist government placed upon their freedom. Simultaneously, he warned the avant-garde or modernist artists who worked according to their personal visions and not according to those of their heads of state that they would have to choose 26 Cuomo, 15. 27 Ibid. 10

between exile, sterilization or prison.28 It was the job of Joseph Goebbels to both facilitate and enforce these policies. Joseph Goebbels was elected party speaker and representative for Rhineland-Westfalia in 1925. He was then elected to the position of party Gauleiter (was the party leader of the regional branch of the NSDAP) for Berlin in 1926. In 1930 he was given control over Nazi newspapers across the country. When the Nazi Party came to power in 1933, Hitler appointed him to his cabinet. He then became the head of the newly created Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. He created the Reichskulturkammer (The National Chamber of Culture) later that year, which oversaw German broadcasting, fine arts, literature, music, the press and the theater.29 The Reichskulturkammer’s mission statement was to promote German culture on behalf of the German people and government and to regulate the economic and social affairs of the cultural professions.30 Officially, the Reichskulturkammer was invented as a blow against economic liberalism and as a mechanism for ridding the German theater of the so-called Jewish Bolshevist virus, which supposedly thrived in liberal environments.31 Contradictory to Party policy, Goebbels’ Ministry promoted a more pro-modernist policy in regard to art.32 During the first half of the Nazi era, he was actually the leading proponent in the defense of modernist artwork. He encouraged support for German Expressionism, citing it as a source of modern German nationalism and culture. 33 He believed that Expressionism aligned with Nazi ideology and that it, too, exposed the faults within “the System”. He felt that 28 Kieth Holz. “Brushwork thick and easy” or a “ beauty-parlor mask for murder”? Reckoning with the Great German Art Exhibitions in Western Democracies. RIHA Journal 0055. September 28, 2012. Accessed April 18, 2016. http://www.riha-journal.org/articles/2012/2012-jul-sep/holz-reckoning/#sdfootnote39sym. 29 Cuomo, 11-12. 30 Ibid., 24. 31 Ibid., 26. 32 Ibid., 13. 33 Petropoulos, 24.

Expressionism exposed, responded to, and rejected the deep economic and social issues that were occurring during the Weimar Republic. Throughout his tenure he endorsed many modernist groups. As head of the Reichkammer der bildenden Künste (Reich Chamber for the Visual Arts), he oversaw a publication that included abstract art works. In addition, he served on the honor committee for an Italian Futurist exhibition. He spoke out in praise of modernism and experimentation in art. The New Objectivity movement, he claimed, was to be the German art of the next decade. He was an ultra-nationalist and supported any art that brought acclaim to Germany and opposed any doctrine that would hinder Germanic artistic creativity.34 Not only did Goebbels view himself as an arbiter of culture, but he collected a variety of art throughout his twelve-year tenure as head of the RMVP. He had an independent and sophisticated taste in art, which was characterized by his buying prior to 1936.35 He had an immediate resistance to volkisch ideals.36 Visitors to his house in the mid 1930’s report having seen works by Käthe Kollwitz, which is shocking considering her left-wing political philosophies. Goebbels also appreciated Ernst Barlach and prominently displayed on his desk his expressionist sculpture Man in the Storm. His offices were filled with modernist art until Hitler outlawed it, when he moved it to his home. He also had commissioned, from a prominent impressionist, a self-portrait by Leo Von König.37 Interestingly, in 1935 Goebbels completely changed his views on art, especially art in the public realm. In a journal entry from December 1935, he applauded the purging of modernist art from Germany’s museums.38 It’s possible that he was simply trying to save his job or perhaps his 34 35 36 37

Ibid. Ibid.,195. Ibid., 26. Ibid., 25. A sculpture for which there is no record of, could this be a mistranslation? For Barlach does have a statue entitled Man in stocks, which in this scenario is far more telling. 38 Ibid,48.

changing views reflect his desire to be in total agreement with his idol, Hitler.39 Although the artistic habits of Joseph Goebbels figure most prominently here, other highranking officials within Hitler’s inner circle also enjoyed and purchased modernist art. Hermann Göring, for example, Hitler’s second in command, was the first to recognize the value of German modernist art for the export market, and maintained a fondness for and collected French impressionist and Dutch post-impressionist works of art.40 This was also true of Hitler’s Foreign Minister, Joachim Ribbentrop.41 Another prominent cabinet member who figures into this equation was Albert Speer. When designing his new home, Speer chose works for its walls by Emil Nolde depicting bright water colored flowers (Figure 6). On many occasions Speer was known to say that he felt at home with modern art.42 The liquidation of modernist works from state collections in many cases marked the beginning of business relationships between art dealers and the Nazi leaders.43 Until 1935, modernist works confiscated from both private public collections were being delivered to the National Gallery for storage.44 But now the party wanted to rid itself of that artwork. To do so, they engaged some of the most renowned firms and individuals in the German art world for the task of selling modernist art abroad in exchange for foreign currency and more desirable traditional art. 45 One of these individuals, whose name would eventually become synonymous with Nazi 39 40 41 42 43

Ibid. Ibid., 197. Ibid.,206. Ronald, 168. Jonathan Petropoulos. The Faustian Bargain: The Art World in Nazi Germany. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000. 67. 44 Barron and Guenther, 110. 45 Jonathan Petropoulos. The Faustian Bargain: The Art World in Nazi Germany. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000. 67-8.

art, was Hildebrandt Gurlitt. Gurlitt was a prominent German art historian and dealer. He became director of the KĂśnig Albert museum in Zwickau in 1925. In 1930, after hanging many shows of modernist German work, from Kollwitz to Kokoschka, he was dismissed. In 1930 he was made curator and managing director of the Kunstverein in Hamburg. He was fired by the Nazi Party three years later for exhibiting degenerate art. Curiously, he was appointed dealer for the FĂźrermuseum in Linz later that month. There he was responsible for the trade of modernist art under direct orders from the Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, headed by Joseph Goebbels. He was one of four dealers appointed by the commission for the exploitation of degenerate art to market confiscated works of art abroad.46 This appointment contradicted the very nature of Nazi policy. First, Gurlittâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s family roots were Jewish, and secondly, his family was friendly with prominent members of the German Expressionist movement, 47 including Ernst Ludwig Kirchner, Schmidt-Rottluff and Erich Heckel. Gurlitt was passionate in his love for modern art.48 It was most likely this passion that led to his role within the Nazi Party. The Party, in turn, wanted to capitalize on his knowledge of modernist art. Gurlitt believed that art was the bedrock of any culture. Fine art, in particular, was the most visible form of that culture and was the silent battleground for its propaganda.49 . He and other dealers sincerely believed that they were saving modernist art by exporting it.50 When, in 1935, museums began to rid themselves of modernist art, Gurlitt and others snapped it up at a fraction of its original value in order to use it for bartering purposes, for sales abroad, or to keep 46 Ronald, 130-145. 47 Ibid., 106. 48 Ibid.,22. 49 Ibid., 62. 50 Petropoulos. The Faustian Bargain, 67-8. 14

for their own future stock.51 Secretly, Gurlitt and a patron and friend, Karl Kirchbach, a prominent Nazi manufacturer, made a plan to save modernist art, which including looting.52 Unfortunately this plan was made difficult by a gradual radicalization of policy that began in 1936. The crucial cultural event in this process was the Degenerate Art Exhibition held in Munich, which opened on July 19, 1937.53 Historian Glenn Cuomo makes the claim in his groundbreaking book that there were three stages of Nazi cultural Gleichschaltung (coordination). The first stage was infiltration (the systematic insertion of Nazi Party members into Germany’s cultural institutions). The second was domination (complete control over all social, political and cultural institutions), which lasted until the Great German Art Exhibition of July 1937 and the Degenerate Art Exhibition. The third was propagation (a shift in the cultural ideology of the German people that is congruent with the ideological culture of the Party).54 In 1937, The Nazis’ politics were firmly established and enforced in all cultural institutions. In his speech given on the opening day of the Great German Art Exhibition, Hitler reiterated his aversion to modernist art in strong terms, and demanded what he called “eternal standards of beauty” for art.55 He went on to state that works of art, which cannot be understood and cannot speak for themselves, will from now on no longer reach the German people (i.e. after the conclusion of the Degenerate Art Exhibition all modernist artwork would be disposed of and no new modernist work would be displayed). Hitler said that people had attempted to recommend modernist art by saying that it was the expression of a new age. But he responded by 51 Ronald,172. 52 Ronald,162. 53 Petropoulos. Art as Politics in the Third Reich, 51. 54 Cuomo, 5-17. 55 Ibid., 16-17. 15

declaring that art does not create a new age. Instead, it is the general life and welfare of the people that do.56 He stated that Germany’s collapse and general decline were not only economic and political, but also cultural. That cultural decay did not necessarily have to do with the loss of World War I, but rather with Judaism, which supposedly had taken possession of the forms of communication that affect public opinion. He also talked about a homogenous Aryan race and asked, “What does it mean to be German?” His response: “To be German is to be clear.” He declared that modernist art has nothing to do with the German people and he promised that from that point on it would no longer find its way to the German people. Hitler claimed that a true artist does not create for himself but for the people, who will now be art’s judge and jury.57 The message was clear. Artistic degeneration in any form, including in works of art that were privately owned, would not be tolerated. A law passed in 1938 supported this idea; it stated that all modernist work was now the property of the state.58 In November 1938, the commission for the seizure and disposal of degenerate art, headed by Rolf Hetsch, was initiated. The new law made it legal for this commission to confiscate private works from so-called “enemies” of the state, such as Jews.59 This law also applied to Nazi-occupied territories. As a result, the third Reich could strip the occupied countries of Europe of a large part of their artistic heritage. The Nazis took millions of items of incalculable artistic and sentimental value, estimated to be worth hundreds of billions of dollars. By the end of the war it was estimated that they had stolen roughly 1/5 of the art treasures of the entire world.60 56 Fritz Kaiser. Degenerate Art: The Exhibition Catalogue Guide in German and English. [S.l.]: Lulu Com, 2012, 62-66. 57 Chipp, 474-483. It’s interesting that Chipp note the Nazis used Expressionism in their propaganda posters(474). 58 Barron and Guenther, 114. 59 Ronald, 184. 60 Kenneth D Alford. Hermann Göring and the Nazi Art Collection: The looting of Europe’s Art Treasures and Their Dispersal after World War II. Jefferson: McFarland, 2012, 2.

Even after Hitler made quite clear his policy toward modernist art, certain party officials continued to collect it. One was Baldur von Schirach, who didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t agree at all with the party line regarding aesthetic policy. In 1943, he sponsored a show featuring German modernist works that in turn caused Hitler to accuse him of sabotage. 61 Although public art exhibitions of this nature were rare, it is important to note that the market for modernist art was alive and well amongst German citizens during the Nazi regime. In fact, wealthy Germans had been buying modern art from underground dealers like Hildebrand Gurlitt for years.62 Susan Ronald, who has written about Gurlitt, notes that he discreetly sold German modernist art to German customers and created a safe place for them until the end of World War II where they could congregate and discuss modern art.63 Considering the policies in place at the time in regard to modernist art, their daring behavior was highly risky and possibly could have been fatal. What is most interesting is that Gurlitt and a handful of other dealers not only bought art from and sold it to the wealthy elite but also did the same for prominent members of the Nazi regime. Some of Gurlittâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s most notable transactions were with party members in positions closest to Hitler. From 1943 Gurlitt often acted as agent for such notables as Gustav Rochlitz, Albert Speer and Joseph Goebbels. In addition, Gurlitt bought and sold art for Hitler, Goebbels, GĂśring and Ribbentrop.64 By the end of the war most countries had placed an embargo upon German goods, including art. Foreign sales in German modernist art had stopped completely. At the start of the 61 Jonathan Petropoulos. Art as Politics in the Third Reich. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996. 222.

62 Ronald. 227. 63 Susan Ronald. Hitler's Art Thief Hildebrandt Gurlitt and the Looting of Europe's Treasures. New York: St. Martin's, 2015. 209. 64 Ronald. 273.

war, there was much talk that the funds raised by selling degenerate art would go to fuel the German war machine, but the reality was quite different. Much of the money raised went into private hands.65 The remaining art was stockpiled in a warehouse outside of Berlin. Nazi leadership decided at this point that because the works could no longer be sold, they should be symbolically destroyed. As of February 1939, 12,167 modernist artworks were still in storage. 66 On May 27, 1943 the ERR (Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg, or Special Staff of Reichsleiter Rosenberg)) supposedly set fire to the artwork of Paul Klee, Picasso, Fernand Leger, Max Ernst and others. It is believed that 500 to 600 modernist artworks were lost. There were no reliable witnesses to the conflagration.67 Secretly, Gurlitt and the other dealers must have looted the most valuable from the stock before this occurred.68 Where did the thousands or remaining works of modernist art end up? According to journalist Lutz Hachmeister, "Only a maximum of one third of the Nazi treasure was found, the rest is still around somewhere."69 A collection of 9,250 Nazi-era works of art, which was amassed by the U.S. Army in 1946–47, has long been suspected by journalists and scholars of fascism and the Third Reich to reside in the U.S. archives. Knowledge of the whereabouts, the full contents, and the provenance of this collection, the largest surviving remnant of Nazi culture, has eluded researchers for over sixty years.70

65Petropoulos. Art as Politics in the Third Reich, . 81. 66 Ibid., 82. 67 Ronald, 238. 68 Ibid.,186. 69 Stefan Aust. “N24-Dokumentation: Die Verschwundenen Schätze Der Nazis – N24.de.” N24.de. June 05, 2015. Accessed February 10, 2016. http://www.n24.de/n24/Wissen/History/d/6596940/die-verschwundenen-schaetze-dernazis.html. 70 Gregory Maertz. “The invisible Museum: Unearthing the Lost Modernist Art of the Third Reich.” Modernism/Modernity 15, no 1 (2008): 63-85.

In November 2013, the case of a Munich art collector made headlines worldwide. His name was Cornelius Gurlitt, the son of Hildebrand Gurlitt. Discovered in his Munich apartment were 1500 works of art with unknown provenance and valued just over one billion dollars. At least 300 paintings in the collection are thought to belong to a body of about 16,000 works once declared "degenerate art". (Figures 7-28) Others are suspected to have been owned by fleeing Jewish collectors who had to leave belongings behind. This finding has sparked a passionate contemporary debate concerning Nazi-era looted art.71 The Nazi party publicly denounced modernist art as a sign of cultural degeneration. Hitler’s policies on it were quite clear, especially after his 1937 speech at the opening the Great German Art Exhibition in Munich. Yet, instead of destroying it, the Party and its leaders used it for a variety of reasons, which directly contradicted its own policy. In addition, subtle evidence is available which points to the possibility that the Nazi party preplanned the acquisition and subsequent sale and use of modernist German art sometime before the Party takeover in 1933, possibly as early as 1930. Nazi officials didn’t necessarily want to rid the world of modernist art but chose to use it as a visual device, which they claimed symbolized the degeneration that occurred during the Weimar Republic. Subsequently, modernist art was spared as it proved to be of more used to the Nazi party as a commodity than as ideology. In the 1950’s Hildebrand Gurlitt hosted a Max Beckmann exhibition in Germany. To complete his show, Gurlitt contacted Albert Speer (who at the time was incarcerated) in order to get permission to retrieve a few of Beckmann’s works in his possession. Gurlitt traveled to Switzerland to do so.72 In March of this year (2016) many Swiss bank accounts and vaults that have remained dormant for the last 70 years are being opened and their contents revealed to the 71 Stefan Aust. 72 Susan Ronald. Hitler's Art Thief Hildebrandt Gurlitt and the Looting of Europe's Treasures. New York: St. Martin's, 2015. 297.

public.73 Who knows what treasures may await?

The Art 73 Stefan Aust. “N24-Dokumentation: Die Verschwundenen Schätze Der Nazis – N24.de.” N24.de. June 05, 2015. Accessed February 10, 2016. http://www.n24.de/n24/Wissen/History/d/6596940/die-verschwundenen-schaetze-dernazis.html.

Figures 7 through 28 are just a few of the pieces discovered in home of Cornelius Gurlitt, a massive collection with questionable provenance known today as The Gurlitt Collection. Hildebrandt Gurlitt believed that the Modernists were the founders of a modern German culture that tried to make sense of life as it had become. What they have become is an antithesis of Hitler’s and the Nazis’ vision of modern art.74

(Figure 1) Max Beckmann, Descent from the Cross, 1917, oil on canvas, Museum of Modern Art, New York.

(Figure 2) Käthe Kollwitz, War, wood block print, 1923, Museum of Modern Art, New York.

74 21

(Figure 3) Otto Dix, CafĂŠ Couple, 1921, watercolor and pencil on paper, Museum of Modern Art, New York.

(Figure 4) Emil Nolde, Magicians, 1931-5, watercolor on paper, Museum of Modern Art, New York.

(Figure 5) Juxtaposition of works of â&#x20AC;&#x153;degenerate art by Karl Schmidt-Rottluff and Amedeo Modigliani and photographs of facial deformities, from Paul Schultze-Naumburg, Kunst and Rasse, 1928.

(Figure 6) EMIL NOLDE, Schwertlilien, Dahlien und Mohn auf dunkelblauem Grund, 1920s, Watercolor, Emil Nolde Foundation.

(Figure 7) Franz Marc, Pferde in Landschaft, 1911, gouach on colored paper. Gurlitt Collection.

(Figure 8) Fritz Maskos, Sinnende Frau / Musing woman, 1922, glassine paper / etching. Gurlitt Collection.

(Figure 9) Otto Griebel, Kind an einem Tisch / Child at a table, year unknown, watercolor, oil, pen and pencil on paper. Gurlitt Collection.

(Figure 10) Conrad Felixm端ller, Paar in Landschaft / Couple before landscape, 1921, watercolor. Gurlitt Collection.

(Figure 11) Otto Griebel, Die Verschleierte / Woman with veil, 1926, watercolor. Gurlitt Collection.

(Figure 12) Otto Dix, Selbstportr채t, rauchend / Self-portrait of the artist, Smoking, 1932-9, oil on canvas. Gurlitt Collection.

(Figure 13) Emil Nolde, Dalliance, 1917, Woodcut. Gurlitt Collection.

(Figure 14) Emil Nolde, Male Head, 1912, Woodcut. Gurlitt Collection.

(Figure 15) Max Ernst, Woman Soldier House, year unknown, Newspaper & gouache on cardboard. Gurlitt Collection.

(Figure 16) Oskar Schlemmer, Four heads, year unknown, watercolor. Gurlitt Collection.

(Figure 17) Ernst Kirchner, Two nudes, sketch on recto, 1905, pastel on paper. Gurlitt Collection.

(Figure 18) Ludwig Godenschweg, , year unknown, etching. Gurlitt Collection.

(Figure 19) Ludwig Godenschweg, Ex Libris Georg J채ckel, year unknown, etching. Gurlitt Collection.

(Figure 20) George Grosz, Matchseller and Patrol, 1920-1, lithograph. Gurlitt Collection.

(Figure 21) Christoph Voll, Mönch / Monk, 1921, watercolor. Gurlitt Collection.

(Figure 22) Christoph Voll, Sprengmeister Hantsch / Demolition expert Mr. Hantsch, 1922, ink and pencil on paper. Gurlitt Collection.

(Figure 23) Max Beckmann, Löwenbändiger - Zirkus / Lion Tamer - Circus, 1930. Gouache and pastel on paper. Gurlitt Collection.

(Figure 24) Max Beckmann, 1934, watercolor and gouache on paper. Gurlitt Collection.

(Figure 25) Max Liebermann, Zwei Reiter am Strand / Two Riders on the beach, 1901, oil on canvas. Gurlitt Collection.

(Figure 26) Ernst Ludwig Kirchner, Melancholisches M채dchen, 1922, woodcut. Gurlitt Collection.

(Figure 27) Otto Dix, Untitled, year unknown, watercolor. Gurlitt Collection.

(Figure 28) Hans Christoph, Paar / Couple, 1924, watercolor. Gurlitt Collection.

Bibliography Alford, Kenneth D. Hermann Göring and the Nazi Art Collection: The looting of Europe’s Art Treasures and Their Dispersal after World War II. Jefferson: McFarland, 2012 Aust, Stefan. “N24-Dokumentation: Die Verschwundenen Schätze Der Nazis – N24.de.” N24.de. June 05, 2015. Accessed February 10, 2016. http://www.n24.de/n24/Wissen/History/d/6596940/die-verschwundenen-schaetzeder-nazis.html. Barron, Stephanie, and Peter W. Guenther. Degenerate Art: The Fate of the Avant-Garde in Nazi Germany. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1991. Chipp, Herschel B. Theories of Modern Art, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1968. Cuomo, Glenn R. National Socialist Cultural Policy. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995. Feliciano, Hector. The Lost Museum: The Nazi Conspiracy to Steal the World’s Greatest Works of Art. New York: BasicBooks, 1997. France. Commission des Archives diplomatiques. Le catalogue Goering. Paris: Flammarion, 2016. Hickley, Catherine. The Munich Art Hoard: Hitler's Dealer and His Secret Legacy. 2015. Hinz, Berthold. Art in the Third Reich. New York: Pantheon Books, 1979. Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf, Complete and Unabridged, Fully Annotated. New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, 1939. Holz, Kieth. “Brushwork thick and easy” or a “ beauty-parlor mask for murder”? Reckoning with the Great German Art Exhibitions in Western Democracies. RIHA Journal 0055. September 28, 2012. Accessed April 18, 2016. http://www.riha-journal.org/articles/2012/2012-jul-sep/holz-reckoning/#sdfootnote39sym. "Home - Stiftung Deutsches Zentrum Kulturgutverluste." Home - Stiftung Deutsches Zentrum Kulturgutverluste. Accessed February 10, 2016. http://www.kulturgutverluste.de/en/. Jeuthe, Gesa. Kunstwerte Im Wandel: Die Preisentwicklung Der Deutschen Modern Im Nationalen Und Internationalen Kunstmarkt 1925 Bis 1955. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2011. Kaiser, Fritz. Degenerate Art: The Exhibition Catalogue Guide in German and English. [S.l.]: Lulu Com, 2012. Klemperer, Victor. The language of the Third Reich: LTI – Lingua Tertii Imperii: A Philologist’s Notebook. London: Continuum, 2000. . Munich: Prestel, 2014. Maertz, Gregory. “The invisible Museum: Unearthing the Lost Modernist Art of the Third Reich.” Modernism/modernity 15, no 1 (2008): 63-85.

Petropoulos, Jonathan. Art as Politics in the Third Reich. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996. Petropoulos, Jonathan. Art as Politics: The Nazi Eliteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Quest for the Political and Material Control of Art. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI, 1990. Petropoulos, Jonathan. The Faustian Bargain: The Art World in Nazi Germany. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000. Ronald, Susan. Hitler's Art Thief Hildebrandt Gurlitt and the Looting of Europe's Treasures. New York: St. Martin's, 2015.