Degenerate Art

If the Barron/Guenther book were only about the pictures, it would still rate five stars. It has to catalog "degenerate art" (a weak translation of "entartete Kunst", but the one that has become standard) better than most of its competitors.But Barron and Guenther were not content to stop with a catalog. Even without the pictures, this book would rate five stars. Guenther for one writes about having viewed this exhibit as a 17-year-old, giving true historical context for the gallery.From an essay on music (which tackles the sticky wicket of Wilhelm Furtwaengler) to an explanation of the structure of the Nazi art and culture hierarchy, "Degenerate Art" provides literate and precise insight to the cultural philosophy of the Third Reich. It remains as objective as you can be about that era, refusing to stoop to shouting "rabid Nazi idiots" -- Barron and Guenther allow their readers to come to that conclusion all on their own.The unsolved riddle, however, is one we have yet to resolve for ourselves. Witness Rudy G., and the dung-laden Virgin. How can art and government live side by side? One is empty without the other, but how do we define fine lines?Barron and Guenther's book does not answer that question, but it certainly gives both sides of the debate a ton of ammunition.

by now it's presumably common knowledge that the nazi's had very firm ideas on art. Other than pictures of heroic nazis, grandiose mountain views and happy peasants, all modern art was considered degenerate, especially if it was painted by a jew. It's not enough just to know this, however, one wants to see what the fuss was all about. This book brings the reader reproductions of the censured works in question and provides excellent essays that discuss the painters, their work and what happened to them under the nazis. This is a work which is essentially an excellent idea. It's a fascinating period for anyone interested in the role of the state in the production of art. What is perhaps even more fascinating is that the "modern" art which was the main target of the nazis, is so often the subject, to this day, of layperson's attacks on art. Think of the classic cliche remark, "oh, my three year old could have done that". This link raises many questions about the link between the fascist outlook and many commonly held views. We are appalled by the nazis and yet their views on art are not neccessarily radical in comparison to many commonly held views. What does that mean about our political leanings? what does that have to say about democracy? Can people truly handle freedom? Or at heart do they want somebody just to step in and take care of things for them? Why is it that people find it so hard to deal with the strange, disturbing and indeed, occasionally absurd images that artists come up with when they are truly are free to express their visions? I have nothing bad to say about this book on any technical level. The essays are uniformly brilliant and useful and the art speaks for itself. the book serves not only as an excellent resource for all those interested in art history, but as a beautiful and necessary tribute to the memory of so many persecuted artists. It reminds us of the importance of artistic freedom, particularly when the results are not to our liking, or are unsettling, or disturbing. It also happens to serve as a useful primer and introduction to a lot of the great art of that time period. I salute the authors and highly recommend this book.