Jeremy Zuke

Speech by Adolf Hitler

�

In his “Speech on the Opening of the House of German Art,” Adolf Hitler attempts to rationalize his theory of the value art and his desire to segregate artistic pieces based upon certain criteria. Before getting into the bread and butter of the speech, I feel compelled to suggest that Hitler’s motivations may not have solely to do with a desire to better Germany’s artistic scene, but rather to further his policies of anti-Semitism by continuing to define what is and is not “German.”

That said, there are many intriguing implications made by this speech about the nature and value of art and the artist. First, he suggests that art is linked with culture in an infinite relationship. Thus, there is no such thing as “modern art,” as the works themselves are function of culture and society, not of time. In other words, art that is “trendy” has no more value to society than the latest trends in fashion. As a means of displaying the immortality and living development of art, Hitler developed the House of German Art in Munich to hold artistic exhibitions. Alongside exhibitions of appropriate art was held an exhibition of so called “Entartete Kunst” (Degenerate Art) which was comprised of everything thought to be non-valuable to German society.

Much of the art considered degenerate was considered so because of its creative and imaginative nature. To Hitler, art needed to reflect the ever increasing homogeneity of German society. Qualities such as strength, health, and joy (all qualities of the German people according to Hitler) were to be central themes of good art. Such standards leave little room for artistic interpretation of human events. An artist who sees objects in a different form, shape, or color from what they are in reality was considered by Hitler to have a defect of vision. Not only were such an artists works considered defective, but they were also considered part of a greater conspiracy of mediocrity. The conspiracy involved artists of average talent trying to pass off poor works of art as valuable because of their mysterious/confusing characteristics and the Jews who supposedly pursued the de-nationalization of art in general.

Finally, Hitler addressed the reason behind the existence of art as a whole. Common thought suggests that artists create their works for their own satisfaction and expression as well as for the public to view and think about them. Hitler’s theory contradicts this idea; he believes that the sole purpose of an artist is to create works for the people and that his personal agenda and ideals are irrelevant in the grand (infinite) scheme of things. It logically follows then that the judge of any individual work of art should be the masses of Germany and not small groups or sects of people within the masses.

I think a quote from the text that combines these three ideas and goes to the true meaning of the text is as follows: “A new epoch is not created by litterateurs but by warriors, those who really fashion and lead the peoples and thus make history.”

Points For Discussion

I believe this speech to be at least in part a ruse whose main purpose is to justify the furthering of cultural anti-Semitism in Germany by suggesting what works are and are not “German”. How does this relate, if at all, to other texts we have read in terms of the creation of a society not by self-definition, but by definition those who are outside of it?

There is no denying the fact that art has value to a society because it is a means of expressing the social concerns and triumphs of the time. That said, is Hitler accurate in his assertion that the artist’s job is to create works solely for the greater society or is the purpose/meaning of a work of art to be determined by individuals alone?

Does great art ever die or is it, as Hitler suggests, immortal? If so, what qualities make a piece of art immortal and not just fashionable in its own time?