Art and Genocide: The Führer who Loved Only Buildings · 2:25am Apr 13th, 2017
In this blog post, I want to attack the idea that art (including fiction) and religion are inherently good or noble. I don’t think they’re inherently bad or evil, but I’d like to try thinking about them in evolutionary terms.
I also want to attack the idea that the concepts of racism, greed, impiety, or evil have explanatory power, though that’s only a secondary focus.
Art and religion are sometimes said to be things that distinguish us from animals, the things that make us human. Leaving aside the aesthetic taste of bowerbirds, it would be at least as accurate to say that art and religion are the things that make us inhuman. That word is only ever applied to humans, to describe cruelty or violence taken to levels and scales not found in non-human species. This violence is often motivated by differences over art and religion.
SIDEBAR: Why am I grouping art and religion together?
Artistic taste and religion are both mysterious, complex systems that give us preferences or values we can’t explain. Today, we think of religions as elaborate systems of ethical beliefs, like Christianity or Buddhism, and of art as aesthetic systems. Values and aesthetics seem, to most people other than Nietzsche and me, to be different things.
But if we go back far enough in time, art, magic, and religion may have a common ancestor. (Webster 1939) traces the history of how the ancient Greeks thought about art. The oldest word for sculpture, from before Homer, is kolossos, ‘a substitute’, indicating the sculpture has a magical connection with a specific person, possibly denoting sacrifice or the deflection of supernatural attention. The next word is agalma, which first meant ‘a source of joy’, then ‘a source of joy to a god’ or ‘an offering’, and then came to mean ‘a statue’. This suggests statues were still ritualistic objects, but the relationship of man to god had shifted from fearful appeasement or deception to an attempt to give pleasure. In the 5th century B.C., the time of Socrates and of the most-famous Athenian playwrights, they began using the words eikon (‘a likeness’: a statue is an object that looks like something else) and xoanon (‘something carved’: a statue is a created object). This suggests that that was when people began making statues not only to please gods, but also to please humans.
AFAIK, every known culture has or had an artistic tradition and a religion. Many people have argued that religion is necessary to make us good. But the hypothesis that religion makes people act morally cannot be reliably demonstrated, experimentally or historically.
The hypothesis that religion is needed make a civilization act immorally, however, has never been tested. In evolutionary terms, genocide is often the best possible thing for us to do, as long as we’re the ones committing the genocide. We just need to get those irksome morals out of the way when it comes to people who aren’t part of our genetic in-group. Art and religion are good at that. [1]
If that hypothesis contains some truth, it would mean that art and religion are systems that evolved to shut down or bypass our moral reasoning. That would require us to be unconscious of what we’re doing when we’re being artsy or religious. It might even mean that one of the primary functions of art and religion is to sabotage our insight into the operation of art and religion. So we might have mental blocks or short-circuits that, when it comes to art and religion, direct our attention away from obvious but uncomfortable conclusions.
Let’s talk about—
Art and the Nazis
The Daily Beast, Nov. 30 2014: Top Nazis And Their Complicated Relationship With Artists
[a review of Artists Under Hitler: Collaboration and Survival in Nazi Germany (Petropoulos 2014)]
In the stories shared by Petropoulos, what really stands out, however, is the shocking level of personal involvement by the top leaders of Germany in minute decisions about the lives of artists. While Hitler’s interest in art as a failed artist is well known, one would think that his top lieutenants like Hermann Göring, Heinrich Himmler, Joseph Goebbels, and others would have more than enough on their hands to worry about the latest music from Strauss. ...
While issues of art sometimes bubble to the surface in the American political conversation—Robert Mapplethorpe in 1989 for his homoerotic images or the trashing on Capitol Hill that Frank Gehry’s Eisenhower Memorial proposal has received—it is hard to imagine President Obama or any of the former 20th-century presidents, or any of their top military and political advisors focusing so much of their time on whether dissonant sounds in music are acceptable, or how realistic painting should be.
The Daily Beast, Feb. 7 2014: Inside Hitler’s Fantasy Museum
When Monuments Men Robert Posey and Lincoln Kirstein walked into the white-washed cottage in the German forest that housed Hermann Bunjes, the Harvard-educated one-time SS officer and art advisor to Herman Goring, they learned of an elaborate plan involving the wholesale looting of Europe’s art treasures.. Bunjes… told these fellow art historians about the ERR—the Nazi art theft unit—and about Hitler’s plan to create a city-wide museum in his boyhood town of Linz, Austria: a “super museum” that would contain every important artwork in the world, including a wing of “degenerate art,” a sort of chamber of horrors to demonstrate from what monstrosities the Nazis had saved the world. … The Monuments Men had heard rumors of art theft and looting throughout the war, but had no idea of the scale (some estimate that around 5 million cultural objects were looted, lost, or mishandled during the war), the advanced level of organization (scores of Nazi officers and hundreds of soldiers were assigned exclusively to the confiscation, transport, and maintenance of looted art and archival material), and the ultimate destination of the choicest pieces—the Führermuseum. …
Hitler’s plan for his museum been on his mind for more than a decade, at least since 1934—for Hitler had long stewed upon the idea of capturing The Ghent Altarpiece for Germany, and had even dispatched a Nazi art detective (and Hitler lookalike), Heinrich Köhn, to find the Righteous Judges panel, one of the twelve that comprises The Ghent Altarpiece, which was stolen from St. Bavo Cathedral in Ghent in 1934, and has never been recovered. … An estimated 36 kilometers of galleries were included in the plan—to put that in perspective, the enormous and labyrinthine V&A Museum in London has about 8 kilometers of galleries, to display some 27,000 objects.
Consider that for a moment: The Nazi’s first act of international aggression was to steal a 500 year-old painting from Belgium.
Why was art so important to the Nazis?
Art, literature, religion, and politics have always been closely connected. The classical view was that reason determined art, politics, and economics. Christians give religion priority. Marxists gave economics priority. No philosophical tradition that I know of takes art seriously as a driving force of social change, though it inspires people much more than reason does.
Maybe the evolutionary purpose of culture is less to give you something to love about your people than to give you something to hate about other people, and maybe this means it would be awkward to admit the role art plays in this. You can prioritize reason and say they’re wrong, prioritize religion and say they’re evil, or prioritize economics and say they’re oppressive. But after you’ve slaughtered your enemies, raped their women, taken their stuff, and salted their land, it would sound lame to say you did it because their art was bad.
Racism is Not an Explanation
The standard explanation for the Jewish Holocaust is that the Nazis were racists. Well, yeah, the Nazis were racists. That doesn’t explain the Holocaust any more than Rocky Marciano’s 49-0 boxing record is explained by saying that he was a really good boxer. Thinkers today pride themselves on not being taken in by “God of the gaps” arguments that do nothing but stop somebody from asking questions, e.g., “the sky is blue because God made it blue”. But saying “the Nazis were racist” is exactly that kind of useless question-stopping. Why were they racist?
For Adolf Hitler, and possibly for some of his inner circle, a big part of the reason was art.
The Two Things that Were Most Important to Adolf Hitler
1. He hated Jews.
2. He loved architecture.
Lapham’s Quarterly. Oct. 4 2010: The Master Architect
“Hitler was an astonishing walking encyclopedia of architecture. He carried in his head the detailed plans of most of the important buildings in Europe. Look at these sketches he gave me. This is the Pantheon in Paris and Les Invalides drawn by him from his memory of plans he studied before he’d ever seen them. And here is an outsized triumphal arch and domed hall he sketched in 1925 when even he believed his political dreams were over. ‘I wish I’d been an architect!’ he often used to say. … To him, architecture was a magic word. It was his hobby and his passion.” … He disappeared into the house, reappearing moments later with a pile of paper and a few big tomes. It seemed rehearsed almost, and I guessed he’d done this before. “See here. These are architectural drawings Hitler made in his beer-hall days in Munich when he’d never been anywhere. He gave them to me: detailed drawings, models, plans. Such things he found spellbinding.”
… As he walked me to my car, he asked whether I knew what the very last photograph ever taken of Hitler was. “The very last one—the final image of the Führer—was taken in the bunker,” he said. “It shows him intently examining a model of his beloved Linz. He intended to rebuild the little city on the Danube where he’d been a boy and turn it into the culture capital of the whole of Germany. What he was staring at were Hermann Giessler’s plans, with great museums and theaters and the like. Now, with Russian shells exploding forty feet above his concrete reinforced head, and Berlin in flames, it was of course nothing but a pathetic dream. Yet there he is, like Wagner’s Rienzi, bitterly imagining what might have been.”
—Albert Speer, Hitler’s architect
We drove directly to the opera, Charles Garnier’s great neobaroque building. A white-haired attendant accompanied our small group through the deserted building. Hitler had actually studied the plans of the Paris opera house with great care. Near the proscenium box he found a salon missing, remarked on it, and turned out to be right. The attendant said that this room had been eliminated in renovations many years ago.
—Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich
The Guardian, Nov. 29 2002: Mies and the Nazis
And, of course, there was Hitler's special commission, the complete rebuilding of Berlin, followed by every other major German city. Hitler so adored Speer's vast detailed model of a Berlin reborn, complete with ambitious domes and giant's avenues, that he would gaze lovingly at what might have been while burrowed deep in his bunker in 1945, with the allies at the door.
This war will set us back many years in our building programme. It is a tragedy. I did not become Chancellor of the Greater German Reich to fight wars.
—Adolf Hitler, to his friend August Kubizek, quoted in (Wikipedia: August Kubizek)
Art historian Birgit Schwarz said in 2009 that historians have consistently underplayed the importance of Hitler’s love of art. But even Schwarz sees this as important only for making Hitler arrogant. Oddly, hardly anyone says that Hitler’s decisions were in some way affected by his beliefs about the one thing in life that he seemed to care about most.
Let’s consult a seldom-cited expert on Hitler: Hitler. Turn with me now to volume 1, chapter 2 in your copies of Mein Kampf.
Was Hitler always a racist?
He said no.
p. 52-53:
To-day it is hard and almost impossible for me to say when the word ‘Jew’ first began to raise any particular thought in my mind. I do not remember even having heard the word at home during my father’s lifetime. If this name were mentioned in a derogatory sense I think the old gentleman would just have considered those who used it in this way as being uneducated reactionaries. In the course of his career he had come to be more or less a cosmopolitan, with strong views on nationalism, which had its effect on me as well. In school, too, I found no reason to alter the picture of things I had formed at home. At the Realschule I knew one Jewish boy. We were all on our guard in our relations with him, but only because his reticence and certain actions of his warned us to be discreet. Beyond that my companions and myself formed no particular opinions in regard to him.
It was not until I was fourteen or fifteen years old that I frequently ran up against the word ‘Jew’, partly in connection with political controversies. These references aroused a slight aversion in me, and I could not avoid an uncomfortable feeling which always came over me when I had to listen to religious disputes. But at that time I had no other feelings about the Jewish question.
There were very few Jews in Linz... As I thought that they were persecuted on account of their Faith my aversion to hearing remarks against them grew almost into a feeling of abhorrence. I did not in the least suspect that there could be such a thing as a systematic anti-Semitism.
Then I came to Vienna. [This was in 1908. 92% of Austria’s Jews lived in Vienna in 1934, comprising 10% of Vienna’s population.]
...
In the Jew I still saw only a man who was of a different religion, and therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I was against the idea that he should be attacked because he had a different faith. And so I considered that the tone adopted by the anti-Semitic Press in Vienna was unworthy of the cultural traditions of a great people. The memory of certain events which happened in the middle ages came into my mind, and I felt that I should not like to see them repeated. Generally speaking,these anti-Semitic newspapers did not belong to the first rank - but I did not then understand the reason of this - and so I regarded them more as the products of jealousy and envy rather than the expression of a sincere, though wrong-headed, feeling.
Why did Hitler become a racist?
Hitler made 7 claims that he said made him hate the Jews. I’ll spare you the quotations and summarize them:
p. 55: All Jews are secretly Zionists. (I don’t understand why Hitler would have cared.)
p. 56: They created “hideous” art, literature, and drama.
p. 57: They controlled the liberal press.
p. 57: They controlled prostitution and the “whiteslave traffic” [?].
p. 58: They controlled & manipulated the Social Democrats (SDs), whom Hitler hated.
p. 59-60: The SDs use language deceptively and debate dishonestly.
p. 61: Marx was Jewish, and Marxism would end human life on Earth [not sure if this was hyperbole or madness].
He said nothing about bankers. This is an eccentric list of reasons to hate Jews. The ones that seemed to be primary, and to upset him the most, were his claims that they made bad art, and that they controlled the SDs.
In my eyes the charge against Judaism became a grave one the moment I discovered the Jewish activities in the Press, in art, in literature and the theatre. All unctuous protests were now more or less futile. One needed only to look at the posters announcing the hideous productions of the cinema and theatre, and study the names of the authors who were highly lauded there in order to become permanently adamant on Jewish questions. Here was a pestilence, a moral pestilence, with which the public was being infected. It was worse than the Black Plague of long ago. … The fact that nine-tenths of all the smutty literature, artistic tripe and theatrical banalities, had to be charged to the account of people who formed scarcely one per cent of the nation—that fact could not be gainsaid.
—p. 56
His charge regarding the SDs is part of his hatred of Marxism. This seems to have begun earlier, perhaps in 1908, though it’s hard to determine the chronology, as Hitler jumps forward and backward in time in the narrative here without giving dates. He began a new job and was told he had to join a union. He refused, indignant at being told what to do. Over the next few months, the union men, who were social democrats, talked politics during the lunch hour.
But all that I heard had the effect of arousing the strongest antagonism in me. Everything was disparaged - the nation, because it was held to be an invention of the ‘capitalist’ class (how often I had to listen to that phrase!); the Fatherland, because it was held to be an instrument in the hands of the bourgeoisie for the exploitation of’ the working masses; the authority of the law, because that was a means of holding down the proletariat; religion, as a means of doping the people, so as to exploit them afterwards; morality, as a badge of stupid and sheepish docility. There was nothing that they did not drag in the mud.
—p. 43 (volume 1, chapter 1)
He began to argue with them, and they began to argue back, and eventually “ordered me to leave the building or else get flung down from the scaffolding.” So he quit his job.
He did not say that any of these men were Jews!
There is a long discussion—too long for me to read—of the SDs and the Jews in (Jacobs 1993) chapter 4, “Austrian Social Democrats and the Jews: A Study in Ambivalence”, p. 86-117. It begins:
The SDAP[Oe] was far less influenced by anti-Semitism than any of its major competitors and was the most important opponent of anti-Semitic political movements. The SDAP[Oe], moreover, allowed a large number of individuals of Jewish origin to take highly visible roles within the party itself. It ought also to be noted that the SDAP[Oe] provided both material and moral support for those East European Jewish refugees who continued to live in Vienna during the later years of the First Republic. These facts notwithstanding, the party publicly claimed that so-called philo-Semitism was every bit as noxious to social democrats as was anti-Semitism, declined opportunities to defend individuals who had been the victims of anti-Semitic attack, and used anti-Semitic stereotypes in its publications…
… and ends...
By the final years of the First Republic, the SDs were receiving approximate ¾ of the Viennese Jewish vote. But precisely because the SDs understood that they could count on the Jewish vote, the Austrian SD party did not engage in strenuous efforts to solicit Jewish support… By accepting the premise that Jewish origin was a burden to the party, by allowing unflattering stereotypes to be used in socialist literature, and by refusing to defend Jews per se, Austrian SDs allowed themselves to be put on the defensive. Precisely because there were so many Jews prominent in Austrian socialist ranks, the defensive policy on the Jewish question followed by the party ultimately tended to undercut the party itself.
—p. 117
Their founder, Victor Adler, had been Jewish, but had converted to Christianity. And Marx, of course, was genetically Jewish. But the SDs were not a Jewish party, and would not associate either with Poland’s Jewish Social Democratic Party or with Socialist Zionism. The chapter says that the SDs were anti-Zionist, because their Jewish members were pro-assimilation and so against Jewish nationalism. According to Jacobs, they were not so much pro-Jewish as they were less anti-Semitic than everyone else. But this made them the party of choice for Vienna’s Jews, which was sufficient for Hitler.
What did Hitler do and think about in Vienna while he was becoming a racist?
Hitler was orphaned at age 16, and left for Vienna a few months after, in 1908.
I went to Vienna to take the entrance examination for the Academy of Fine Arts…. I felt convinced that I should pass the examination quite easily. At the Realschule I was by far the best student in the drawing class, and since that time I had made more than ordinary progress in the practice of drawing….
But there was one misgiving: It seemed to me that I was better qualified for drawing than for painting, especially in the various branches of architectural drawing. At the same time my interest in architecture was constantly increasing…. I went to the Hof Museum to study the paintings in the art gallery there; but the building itself captured almost all my interest, from early morning until late at night I spent all my time visiting the various public buildings. And it was the buildings themselves that were always the principal attraction for me. For hours and hours I could stand in wonderment before the Opera and the Parliament. The whole Ring Strasse had a magic effect upon me, as if it were a scene from the Thousand-and-one-Nights.
…
I went to see the Rector and asked him to explain the reasons why they refused to accept me as a student in the general School of Painting… He said that the sketches which I had brought with me unquestionably showed that painting was not what I was suited for but that the same sketches gave clear indications of my aptitude for architectural designing… Within a few days I myself also knew that I ought to become an architect.
—p. 28-29
During the years when he came to hate Jews, Hitler was occupied with art all day, every day, for work, study, and all leisure outside of books.
These were years when well-off Jews in Vienna were a major clientele for modernist designers and architects such as the Wiener Werkstätte and Adolf Loos (Bedoire, Shapira 2016, Wikipedia). Many upper-class Viennese Jews wanted to distance themselves from Zionism and their Jewish heritage and show they were becoming culturally Viennese, and did this by prominently supporting the latest German artistic movements (Shapira 2006). Ironically, it was this attempt to assimilate into German culture that led Hitler to hate them—for Hitler hated those artistic movements.
Jews built, or had built for them, structures like this:
The Steiner House, by Adolf Loos, 1910
and this…
The Fagus Factory, by Adolf Meyer, 1913
Hitler was not wrong to associate Jews with the SDs, but he was wrong to identify the Jews among the SDs with the Jews who funded modern art and theatre. The former were radical Marxists; the latter were the rich bourgeois parents they were rebelling against.
Hitler wrote that, meanwhile, he spent his spare time adoring these classical and Beaux-Arts buildings:
The Hof Museum
The State Opera
The Parliament
Lapham’s Quarterly. Oct. 4 2010: The Master Architect
“In my opinion,” Speer told me as we watched the long slow twilight settle in over the Palatine hills, “Hitler’s true architectural tastes never really progressed beyond the style of the Viennese Ringstrasse which he first set eyes on in 1907 as an impressionable eighteen year old. He arrived from provincial Linz to sit the entrance exam of the visual arts academy, and was bowled over by Null’s opera house and the other grand buildings in the center. Yes, he pretended to embrace a kind of neoclassicism later on and used it to dramatic effect. But deeper down, all his tastes, all his ideas—artistic, architectural, and political—came from the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth-century world of his youth.”
Hitler was obsessed with art and architecture before he was obsessed with Jews. Jews were a minority among the SDs and among modern artists. I propose it was only because he was angry about Marxism and art at the same time that he hit on blaming it on the Jews.
Art and Genocide
Many of Hitler’s inner circle, notably Goebbels and Goering, were also obsessed with art and architecture. Hitler even made his architect, Albert Speer, his Minister of Armaments and War Production, apparently so he could talk to him more often about architecture.
Did their hatred of modern art fuel their racism more than their racism fuel their hatred of modern art? [2] I suspect so. There was plenty of anti-Semitism in Europe at that time, but as far as I know, it wasn’t usually directed at modern art outside of the Nazi party. Correct me if I’m wrong.
I eventually found one book that emphasized the importance of art to the Nazis: Michaud & Lloyd’s 2004 The Cult of Art in Nazi Germany.
The Cult of Art in Nazi Germany presents a new interpretation of National Socialism, arguing that art in the Third Reich was not simply an instrument of the regime, but actually became a source of the racist politics upon which its ideology was founded. Through the myth of the “Aryan race,” a race pronounced superior because it alone creates culture, Nazism asserted art as the sole raison d’être of a regime defined by Hitler as the “dictatorship of genius.” Michaud shows the important link between the religious nature of Nazi art and the political movement, revealing that in Nazi Germany art was considered to be less a witness of history than a force capable of producing future, the actor capable of accelerating the coming of a reality immanent to art itself.
—from the jacket cover
Hitler himself wrote (p. 223) that “the struggle between the various species does not arise from a feeling of mutual antipathy but rather from hunger and love.” There is no doubt he was thinking of his own “struggle” against the Jews, and that was his way of saying that he struggled not because he hated Jews, but because he loved… well, who or what did he love?
He spoke about hypothetical other people being motivated by love of their families, yet he himself apparently loved no one. He wrote endlessly about loving Germany and Germans in the abstract, but the only named people or things he mentioned having strong positive feelings for were certain buildings in Vienna; the city of Munich, particularly its art; and his father and his mother, who were both dead.
Hitler uses the word “friend” or its inflections 30 times in Mein Kampf: sarcastically on pages 29, 51, 54, 110, 121, 189, 223, 237, 245, 286, and 432; comically on page 71; to refer to political allies on pages 68, 89, 133, 144, 165, 276, 472, 475, 477, 483, and 521; as a very bad way of describing German demands for “Lebensraum” on p. 118; to refer to other people’s friends on p. 281; to talk about worthless friends on p. 284; to describe Destiny on p. 310; and to talk about military comrades, though only in general, on p. 144, 164, 426-427, 513. It appears he did not, at any time between 1907 and 1924, have a friend. He had, in fact, had just one friend, for two or more years, August Kubizek (Waite p. 41), but Hitler cut off contact with him in 1908 (Wikipedia: August Kubizek).
Even when designing cities, he forgot the people.
He had no real interest in the rest of the plan, in residential districts, traffic plans, parks. Obviously I had to deal with those things behind his back. You can’t just have monuments. There must be an organic urban scheme as well. I can hear him now when I showed the other districts of the city I was working on. ‘But where are the plans for the Grand Avenue, Speer? ...’ To him it was one gigantic operatic stage.
—The Master Architect
In short, Hitler was able to hate so powerfully because he was so passionate about art and architecture. The only possessions he mentioned in his will, written the day before he shot himself, were his art collection. In his last minutes, he was not thinking of all the people who had died for him, but of art and of the buildings that would not be born. One of the last things he said was, "Ah, what an artist dies in me!" (Waite 1977 p. 64) He was a monster to people because he only cared about paintings and buildings.
[1] I use “morals” to mean “values and behavior that benefit the in-group more than the individual.”
[2] The notion that all Nazis hated modern art, or that Hitler and his associates hated all modern art, is incorrect. In the early
Thirties, there was an internal Nazi debate on the subject, with one group led by Alfred Rosenberg, the party’s ideologue on racial
matters, denouncing all Modernism as “degenerate”. But another, led by the Berlin League of National Socialist Students, argued that
Expressionism had “Nordic roots” and was an integral part of the Nazi revolution" (The Telegraph). See also Top Nazis And Their Complicated Relationship With Artists.
References
Fredric Bedoire & Robert Tanner 2004. The Jewish Contribution to Modern Architecture, 1830-1930. Ktav Pub.
Adolf Hitler 1926. Mein Kampf, volumes 1 and 2. Translated 1939 by James Murphy. London: Hurst & Blackett. I’m using a differently-formatted version of this edition, which has an additional Epilogue and a different pagination, running to 525 pages. You could probably download it from your friendly neighborhood white supremacist website, but they use huge fonts and never have page numbers.
Jack Jacobs 1993. On Socialists and "the Jewish Question" After Marx. NYC, NY: NYU Press.
Eric Michaud & Janet Lloyd 2004. The Cult of Art in Nazi Germany. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Jonathan Petropoulos 2014. Artists Under Hitler: Collaboration and Survival in Nazi Germany. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Elana Shapira 2006. “Modernism and Jewish Identity in Early Twentieth-Century Vienna: Fritz Waerndorfer and His House for an Art Lover.” Studies in the Decorative Arts Vol. 13, No. 2 (SPRING-SUMMER 2006), p. 52-92.
Elana Shapira 2016. Style and Seduction: Jewish Patrons, Architecture, and Design in Fin de Siècle Vienna. Brandeis.
Albert Speer. Inside the Third Reich. MacMillan.
T. B. L. Webster 1939. Greek Theories of Art and Literature down to 400 B. C.. The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 3/4 (Jul. - Oct., 1939), pp. 166-179.
My stance on religion and morals is that religion provides a base for which to compare morals. Without something to compare our actions to, such as religion, how would we know what is moral? Furthermore, what morals even are? There has to be a reference point. Yes, some believers use religion as a justification for "immoral" actions, but, without a reference point, who are we to say it was actually immoral? From their point of view, what they did (say, shoot someone "innocent") was righteous and moral. But from ours, it is immoral, and that distinction can only come from religion.
That was my piece, go ahead and agree or disagree with it, your opinions are your own.
Art and religion both inspire people.
What they inspire them to do is another question, and one that depends heavily on the actors involved and the forces at work at the time.
I can see the argument that part of that ability inspire is the ability to make us blind to the process. In the same way that being immersed in a book requires suspension of disbelief. Which is actually a pretty long way of saying "faith," now that I think about it.
I said it before and I say it again, it's the nature of a student of any discipline, to argue that that discipline it's the key to all the important that happened in history
Certainly a really interesting point of how Hitler anti-semitism developed, I won't limit to only art, but it's an interesting powerful point. Of course, I have the tendency to think that individual and social elements have an intricate relationship; anti-semitism was widespread in Europe since a long time ago and I don't think it can be explained for the hate of jewish art. But there was an rise of that anti-semitism with nazism, in which a individual like Hitler had the opportunity to flourish so much, and it's interesting to see it's own personal reasons.
I think it's interesting to think the social sector from which much of the nazi party came from. Actually, the Nazis never got massive support of the workers (Which persisted loyal to the socialist, communist and catholic organizations) neither of the big business (which never really favourited then, and which liberal sector actually opposed) but instead they got they strong base support and militancy from the small business owners, small professionals, and overall the ruined and broken middle class that neither had the protection of the unions (again, leftist or catholics) or of the big banks. (Just like Hitler own family).
What I wanted to point out, relevant to this post, is that, it was precisely in this sector (of small business and professionals) were jews offered the biggest "competence" to "true germans" (since historical reasons had concentrated the jew population on that kind of jobs) and it's at the same time a sector that always was specially interested and invested in their cultural education, as a way to show status and show themselves as different and superior of the "lower classes". Two things that probably converged in the members of the nazi party.
4494593
The common denominator of art and religion (and of philosophy, come to think of it, especially classical philosophy) is the sort of will-to-transcendence. It's the concretization of the thought-pattern "Things are more than they appear to be." To act beyond the momentary impulse[1] for good or ill you need a conception of yourself and things around you as mattering in some profound sort of way. There needn't be a supernatural component to this, either. Indeed the concept of the supernatural is an anachronism in all ages but the modern one[2]. It just needs to be a vision of humanity as having some grander purpose: either imposed by outside agency or chosen, either by an intrinsic quality of the individual or by partaking in a grander whole. After all, if you think about it, nationalism and cosmopolitan universalism are the same belief-structure, with just the 'greater whole' part switched out.
Therefore, to be _properly_ evil or _properly_ good you need art/philosophy/religion/the thing which is the sublation[3] of the three.
(Grand post, by the by)
[1] You will note that the there are really two types of dictator: the corrupt sort which burrow in, ticklike, into the body politic and extract base pleasures from their stations and the ones who wish to remake the world or significant portions of it based on some private conception of the Good.
[2] Up until quite recently magic was just accepted to exist, and unicorns were thought to be no more fanciful than leopards, say.
[3] I know how much you like the Hegelian dialectic, after all. ;)
I knew I was onto something when I blamed Better Lairs and Landscaping for Tirek's rampage!
More seriously, this is interesting, though not really surprising; people have long suggested that Hitler being rejected from art school resulted in the Holocaust, via a circuitous route. This is just less circuitous.
Find a few things you hate about some group, and you can find many more from there.
That said, I'm not sure if it is fair to say that he hated because of art and architecture, and more that he didn't really have anything else. When I see some people who are really devoted to various causes, I get the same general sense of them not really caring about people because they are fundamentally empty people who don't have anything else filling them up.
Communists, hardcore vegans, some of the nuttier environmentalists, libertarians... when dealing with some of these folks, I get the impression that their thing is all that matters to them. They rant about the bourgeois, about the people who eat meat, about how humanity is destroying the Earth, and about how THE MAN has their boot on their face - but I don't really see much concern about actual people in many cases, just rage at their enemies.
4494593
Yes, but people generally know that books aren't real. When people start thinking fictional books depict real things, we call them madmen or priests, depending on the book in question. You're supposed to suspend disbelief, not expel it.
It's been a familiar modern anti-semitic refrain for years that Jews control Hollywood in order to create movies that rot the morals of the youth. And music studios to produce rock music to rot the morals of the youth. And etc. I didn't realize how closely those people were hewing to the Hitler playbook with that.
Reactionaryism in general has frequently included being angrily against rotten new art for quite some time, really. Art is an emotional thing that we react to emotionally, because it's big and complex and actively resists being picked apart (because art being picked apart is like explaining the joke or dissecting the frog). That makes one's reactions to it happen in the same part of the brain as one's reactions to other things that are big and complex and apparently resistant to being picked apart, like... 'society in general'. I guess you end up with a cross-contamination mish-mash of anger.
4494792
Are you sure? While you're reading the book, you're expected to be in a "faithful" mindset, and having your suspension of disbelief broken has similar results to questioning a religion; it starts coming apart at the seams, and the "magic" doesn't work.
Once, a long time ago, I commented on Bad Horse's blog in response to people who wanted literature to challenge their viewpoint and potentially change their way of seeing the world that it made reading essentially voluntary brainwashing. And many people can name books or movies or games (or TV shows) that "changed their lives" and taught them something important. And somehow that's always a good thing to the person whose life was changed or who gained this new understanding.
And while we can hopefully snap out at the end of a book and undo anything we don't like... well, are we sure we're undoing it all? Or is it leaving behind a scrap of self-righteousness and a shade of certainty? A (totally fictional and carefully constructed) argument that we don't even realize we're counting as a "win" for <monarchy, science, objectivism, faith, friendship, etc.>?
4494879 I'm reading... well, was reading until yesterday... a book called Resisting Novels that argues that novels are brainwashing devices. Unfortunately, it's written by a leftist English lit prof from Wellesley, so he says that all novels inherently and accidentally indoctrinate their readers into a bourgeois capitalist ideology, whether the authors want them to or not. He makes some interesting points, but, as is typical of these people--and I feel totally justified saying "these people" by now--he has no logical or analytical capability, so his supporting arguments, and the lengths to which he takes his ideas, are absurd.
4494901
Makes sense. All the things you don't agree with in books are probably brainwashing. The things you do agree with are just "how the world works."
4494918 It drives me crazy. The tragic thing is that his world is so small. This same prof edited a book called Left politics and the literary profession (1990), which is a collection of essays by literature professors asking, basically, how we can use English literature departments to promote Marxist revolution. One prof in it, Richard Ohmann, wrote that stupid old lit profs used to believe in The Humanities, in which literature is naively read for its content rather than for its value as a tool. But if you take the long perspective, he says, you see it's all about class, gender, and race.
And that's the whole story of literature, to many contemporary English lit profs. Class, gender, and race. That's it. That is the entire sum of human experience. Nothing other than class, gender, and race is worth talking, writing, or thinking about. No one has any troubles except troubles imposed on them due to their class, gender, and race. There is no search for meaning, no love, no sense of wonder, no questioning of received dogma--only class, gender, and race, forever.
Well, that art is a fundamental aspect of culture and that culture dictates a lot of our behavior seems obvious.
I also expect that if the high hierarchies of the Third-Reich weren't obsessed with art as anything else as a tool when they started out they would become so as time passed. There is a feedback loop between art and society, so when you have a very specific aesthetic (which many dictatorships develop) then you reinforce the values that you want to communicate. Submerge your population in a single ideology (through art, philosophy, etc.) to shape society, which then influences you back.
I can't say much on the specifics about how much of Hitler's antisemitism stemmed from his despising what he perceived as "their art" and how much it was something else. I haven't read enough about it to either agree with you or to point out some fallacy.
I think anything that can evoke love can evoke hatred as well. They're both strong, passionate feelings, and emotional attachment can be like a drug... I can certainly see art and religion, or any dearly-held ideals or ideas, become the driving force of genocides.
Got a bit of the myself with MLP one time, actually. When I first watched MLP I most identified with Twilight, and really loved her character. As I wasn't in a good spot emotionally at the time, I got a bit (too) attached. When I first watched 'Lesson Zero', I stopped watching halfway through and wrote an angry comment in the video's youtube comment section. I went on being angry for about half a week until I watched the rest of the episode, but I still hated it for some time because of how it toyed with my favourite character. It broke some kind of magic for me.
Today I laugh about it, and I file it under "how silly can you be?", but I can't deny the emotions were strong and unpleasant at the time. The Hitler way would've been assassinating Megan McCarthy I suppose.
4494879
We talk about suspension of disbelief, but I'm not even sure that it is the right term for it. When I'm watching a movie or reading a book or whatever, I'm never not cognizant of the fact that I'm watching a movie or reading a book.
I wonder if maybe it is better to think of reading such works as being something else entirely.
Humans are very good at operating under the auspices of arbitrary systems. Chess and poker are arbitrary, abstract systems which have a certain internal logic to them; they have little actual external relationship to the world, but within their own world, they make sense. Why do you only get to move one piece at a time in chess? Because that's a rule. Why do some card combinations beat others in poker? Because that's a rule. You can argue that the latter, at least, arises from probability, but the probability of the various card combinations in Poker is kind of arbitrary, and indeed, the probability of card combinations changes depending on what variation of Poker you play.
Games in general have such abstract rules.
When I'm playing a game, I don't forget that I'm playing a game, but I do temporarily act under the auspices of that game's ruleset. When that game's ruleset operates in an arbitrary manner, people get upset.
I think this may be a better analogy than suspension of disbelief. When you're reading a novel, you're temporarily adopting a ruleset - whatever fundamental assumptions that genre may bring, as well as whatever the author brings along with them. When magic happens in a work which is not otherwise fanciful, that tends to bother people - but if Doctor Strange or Harry Potter start casting spells, that's fine. 1960s Batman worked on its own internal logic; so did The Dark Knight's Batman. This internal logic was not the same between these things, which is why Batman using Bat Shark Repellant Spray he keeps around in the Batcopter in Batman: The Movie was hilarious, while him pulling Bat Shark Repellant Spray out of his tank in The Dark Knight would be bizarre.
Which is probably why Batman and Robin is so loathed - everyone thought it was 1989 Batman, but it was actually 1960s Batman.
Except, you know, with nipples on the batsuit.
But if you go into Batman and Robin with your primary Batman experience being 1960s Batman (as I did), the fact that he and Robin pop ice skates out of the bottom of their shoes, and that Batman has a Bat Credit Card, is entirely reasonable. He's Batman. Of course he has ice skates in his Bat Boots in case some ice-themed bad guy shows up.
People don't think Batman is real, even while watching a Batman movie or reading a Batman comic book. But they do follow along with the internal logic of it. Indeed, even when not consuming source material, we are aware of these rulesets, and indeed, countless Internet arguments have been made over how various rulesets in various universes function. People get upset when these rulesets aren't followed.
But no one thinks that Batman is real.
Well, almost no one.
It is more about accepting the internal logic of a piece than suspending disbelief. It isn't that I think that this is real - it is that there's rules in a work, and that work follows those rules. What if magic was real and there was a secret wizarding school in Britain? Obviously there isn't, but it is the sort of question people can think about.
4495159
I don't agree with you, simply because I have had suspension of disbelief broken by things that were technically within the rules of the story. Or a game, really.
Even in a game, you get into the groove of working within these rules, and making people question whether something is within the rules -- that is, reminding them that the rules are artificially imposed and not simply "how you play the game"-- is often enough to make the game less fun. It's why rules lawyers are so unpopular in RPGs, even when they're right.
But that's tangential to the point. If you've never felt that you learned something or were exposed to another point of view in a piece of fiction, you're in the minority. People recognize that it's fiction, but still feel it's portraying something fundamentally true. And it's only after feeling that that someone can analyze whether it is true, so the idea is starting out with a weight on the scales; a weight that was put there under completely controlled and manipulated circumstances.
4494999 Heh. I was upset by Lesson Zero, too, though nowadays I'd just say, "The writers failed to give a shit again!"
Though if someone had assassinated Megan McCarthy after Lesson Zero--
--no! Bad horse! Think of ice cream sundaes. And Rick and Morty.
4495159
Even Batman doesn't really believe in Batman. That's how edgy he is.
The grouping of religion and art may be a sidenote, but it reminded me of some similar ideas in an unrelated culture and topic.
This is a great read on how Hitler formed his racist beliefs, though it feels like it's easy to unintentionally come away from this with the simplistic explanation, "architecture caused the Holocaust" (just like videogames caused Columbine, and the Beatles caused the Manson Family). From the excerpt about the union workers trashing every traditional value he holds dear, it's easy to see how those same values are reflected in his favorite classical architecture (and later in Riefenstahl's films which he loved), so I do think there's something to this. The modernism in the arts seemed closely tied to philosophy at the time? He fears those values are under attack, and identifies these enemies, Marxists and Jews, are the ones who want to destroy everything important to him. I suppose anyone would feel protective over what they love (family, friends, waifus), but aren't driven to push back with violence unless they feel cornered. It's not just the architecture, but his entire system of values.
I think I share the idea that morals didn't come from religion, but religion was born out of those morals, and art works similarly. I'm not entirely sure about your evolutionary explanation that they motivate us to be violent. I see it as more of a justification/rationalization, a defense mechanism after the fact. Genghis Khan was very religiously tolerant, and probably wasn't motivated by Mongolian art. He didn't have a selective enemy to blame like Hitler did. He just wiped out populations indiscriminately because it was practical for preventing rebellions. Alexander the Great had a pretty similar approach to conquering the world. Practical stability, that's what they valued. Afterwards, they'll build lots of art to stamp the world with these great values they killed for. (I want to include Stalin too because he was indiscriminate and seemed ambivalent on religion, but it's hard to tell with him)
Not everyone kills for religion or art specifically, but I think they're common reflections of these lofty values. And if people have to die along the way, it's for The Greater Good (The Greater Good)
4495212
Well, there's always this:
4495179
Totally arbitrary and random sets of rules bother people, even though there's nothing "inconsistent" about them. There's a certain level of aesthetics to rules sets, and I think that applies to stories as well.
I mean, Poker could have entirely arbitrary hands be "winning hands", but it goes with ones which fit certain ideas of aesthetics (straights, pairs/triplicate cards/quadruple cards, cards of the same suit).
I wasn't even finished reading this when I thought "Damn, that sounds like Browning's Bishop."
Because he's laying there dying, surrounded by his sons and his sins, and all he can think of is architecture--the stone, style and decoration of his tomb, mostly, but also "that brave Frascati villa with its baths" and bits of ornamentation like Latin quotations, defeated rivals, and his wife.
And that globe of lapis lazuli. Which he stole while his church burned--no, really: why else does Browning have him go right from talking about the fire to talking about the lapis with the line "so much was saved if aught was lost?" Why was the lapis buried in the vineyard? For so many years? Where only he knew?
(Personally? i think he burned the church himself, just to get it--the guy does seem to love him some fancy stones. Oh, and he blamed the fire on the Jews, something that happened a lot in the Middle Ages. Hence the analogy for the globe's size).
So there's your nexus of evil and architecture. Also of religion and art. It's like Hitler read the thing and thought "that's who I want to be!"
(See? It's not architecture that's the source of all evil. It's poetry!)
4495285 If I rewrite this, I want to steal that quote about shamans. Plato has Socrates say in Phaedrus that poets may be inspired by the Gods, but it sounds like maybe he's not putting this forward as his own idea, but sneakily criticizing a then-popular idea, because he ends up ranking the value of poetic inspiration as just above tyrants and manual laborers.
I suppose. I think architecture played a crucial role, because it represented Hitler's values under the magic halo of Art. Most people wouldn't be able to get so worked up over financial policy.
4494794 Ironically, I've heard that Hitler loved Hollywood movies, and Hollywood really was controlled by Jews through at least the 1940s. 20th Century Fox, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Universal Pictures, Columbia Pictures, and Warner Brothers were all founded by Jews.
Sometimes Jews were kept out of well-established industries, so they started new industries (such as the movies), and then were accused of controlling those industries. Which they did, but what can you do?
Why don't they teach any of this in schools? In there it is just "hitler was bad, because Nazis". There really should be more to the curriculum than that.
4495876 Yeah we learned a lot about how Hitler came to power and how he used certain things like the Stab-in-the-back-myth to manipulate masses. We also learned a lot about what he actually did, down to stupid military decisions. What actually motivated him to do all of it? No fucks given.
I don't feel like this conclusion is warranted from the link in question. He talks about people in there.
He doesn't seem to care about his personal possessions other than his art, but he talks about the GERMAN PEOPLE, and he bitches about the people who TOTES BETRAYED HIM and who stayed loyal to him.
4496661 The conclusion may be overstated, but talking about "the German people" doesn't mean he cares about them as people. He cared about loyalty and disloyalty, but that's not the same thing, either.
Pretty interesting take on the whole thing, and I think it explains a lot regarding the origins of Hitler's hatred of Jews. One thing I don't think it explains, though, is why he took this hatred so far as to want to exterminate the Jews from the face of Europe, and input quite a bit of effort towards that end. If what he hated about them was their art, wouldn't it have been enough to completely destroy their influence over their culture and fully replace it with his superior Aryan art? Did he think their ability to influence art was so insidious that Europe wasn't safe until every Jewish man, woman, and child had been exterminated? Seems a bit extreme for me. Then again I think any explanation for the Holocaust would be similarly extreme, so I suppose it's just as likely.
4502685 Hitler explained his motivation for going to the step of killing in "Mein Kampf". He said that the Germans were idiots and sheep, and in order to get them to cooperate and do anything, you had to tell them a bunch of lies to convince them they had some powerful enemy, and make them hate that enemy. But then, once you'd started persecuting that enemy, you couldn't stop until you'd annihilated them, because otherwise people would eventually feel sorry for them and throw you out of power.
This is pretty disturbing when you realize he wrote that 1925, in a book that sold millions of copies all around the world, and that every German was supposed to read, and yet (A) the people he had said he was going to lie to--the people who were all supposed to read his book telling them he was going to lie to them--still believed him, and (B) everybody else in the world was shocked when they discovered he'd done what he said he'd do. It's like nobody in the entire world actually read the book. If I were fighting a war against a madman who'd written all his plans down in a book that was in the public library, I'd get at least one person to read that book.
It makes the efforts people make to keep their thoughts and plans secret kind of hilarious. Even if you print a million copies of your book telling everybody your darkest secrets, nobody listens, nobody cares, nobody thinks.
4502971
Well that does explain it. Now I feel as stupid for asking as the German people who were handed a manual on how they were going to be manipulated and went along with it anyway. I really should pick up a copy of Mein Kampf some time.