Essays

Degenerate Art and Its Most Effective Opponent

DEGENERATE ART is the term used by the German National Socialists to describe the art, sometimes called “modern art,” used to degrade popular taste. The German phrase is entartete Kunst. In the extract from Wikipedia below it is claimed that there were changes in the arts. This is true; they were made degenerate. Adolf Hitler was right.

Jews use Blacks. Jews use anyone.

You could say the same about a lot of Hollywood’s output — but then Hollywood is also run largely by Jews. In Berlin after the First World War the Jews were trying to take over politically, using, e.g., the Communist Party of Germany, as well as intellectually. (Giles Auty, an artist in his own right, explains better than I can in Postmodernism Versus Civilization.) Pornography is another very profitable form of degeneracy, with Jews at the forefront. Similarities in its results to the Bolsheviks’ desired effects on marriage and the family are more than mere coincidence.

Wikipedia’s unknown editors do acknowledge Joe Stalin’s approach but not the involvement of Jews like the homosexual, Sergei Eisenstein.

Wikipedia:

Degenerate art is the English translation of the German entartete Kunst, a term adopted by the Nazi regime in Germany to describe virtually all modern art. Such art was banned on the grounds that it was un-German or Jewish Bolshevist in nature, and those identified as degenerate artists were subjected to sanctions. These included being dismissed from teaching positions, being forbidden to exhibit or to sell their art, and in some cases being forbidden to produce art entirely. Degenerate Art was also the title of an exhibition, mounted by the Nazis in Munich in 1937, consisting of modernist artworks chaotically hung and accompanied by text labels deriding the art. Designed to inflame public opinion against modernism, the exhibition subsequently traveled to several other cities in Germany and Austria.

While modern styles of art were prohibited, the Nazis promoted paintings and sculptures that were traditional in manner and that exalted the “blood and soil” values of racial purity, militarism, and obedience. Similarly, music was expected to be tonal and free of any jazz influences; films and plays were censored.

The early twentieth century was a period of wrenching changes in the arts. In the visual arts, such innovations as cubism, Dada and surrealism — following hot on the heels of symbolism, post-Impressionism and Fauvism — were not universally appreciated. The majority of people in Germany, as elsewhere, did not care for the new art which many resented as elitist, morally suspect, and too often incomprehensible [or downright ugly perhaps, but Wikipedia is not going to tell us that — Ed.].

Under the Weimar government of the 1920s, Germany emerged as a leading center of the avant-garde — the birthplace of Expressionism in painting and sculpture, of the atonal musical compositions of Arnold Schoenberg, and the jazz-influenced work of Paul Hindemith and Kurt Weill. . . .

The Nazis viewed the culture of the Weimar period with disgust. Their response stemmed partly from a conservative aesthetic taste [as distinct from a taste for ugliness – Ed.], and partly from their determination to use culture as a propaganda tool. On both counts, a painting such as Otto Dix’s War Cripples (1920) was anathema to them. It unsparingly depicts four badly disfigured veterans of the First World War, then a familiar sight on Berlin’s streets, rendered in caricatured style. Featured in the Degenerate Art exhibition, it would hang next to a label accusing Dix of “an insult to the German heroes of the Great War.”

As dictator, Hitler gave his personal taste in art the force of law to a degree never before seen. Only in Stalin’s Soviet Union, where Socialist Realism was the mandatory style, had a state shown such concern with regulation of the arts.

In the case of Germany, the model was to be classical Greek and Roman art, seen by Hitler as an art whose exterior form embodied an inner racial ideal. Henry Grosshans points out in Hitler and the Artists that Hitler “saw Greek and Roman art as uncontaminated by Jewish influences. Modern art was seen as an act of aesthetic violence by the Jews against the German spirit. This was true for Hitler even though only Max Liebermann, Ludwig Meidner, Otto Freundlich, and Marc Chagall, among those who made significant contributions to the German modernist movement, were Jewish. But Hitler “. . . took upon himself the responsibility of deciding who, in matters of culture, thought and acted like a Jew.”

The supposedly “Jewish” nature of all art that was indecipherable, distorted, or that represented “depraved” subject matter was explained through the concept of degeneracy, which held that distorted and corrupted art was a symptom of an inferior race.

Wikipedia sounds hostile to Adolf Hitler but does not give us any reason for believing he was wrong about art — or about Jews for that matter.

Degenerate art is very much with us today, even dominant. Here is one example of millions, in the illustration below.

We are naturally horrified by the gross failure of good taste embodied in this so-called “chair” and so-called “work of art” — and revolted by its racial implications. The controlled media were tactful enough not to tell us that the pictured user, perhaps owner, of the chair, Dasha Zhukova, is a Jew or that she was then the sexual partner of Roman Abramovich, another Jew who is widely thought to be a very rich thief, one who robbed Russia blind. The kind of art represented by this “chair” is what “evil” Adolf Hitler called degenerate art. He had views about the producers thereof, which is why the most flagrant corrupters and destroyers were put in concentration camps, where the damage they could cause would be minimized. The perpetrator [a much better word than “artist” in such cases, I think — NV Ed.] of this objet d’art is Bjarne Melgaard, pictured below, who claims to be Norwegian. Here’s more of his “work” — but click on the hyperlink only if you are not sensitive and have a strong stomach. I have a feeling Herr Hitler would have had no doubts about Melgaard’s future residence.

Bjarne Melgaard

* * *

Source: based on an article at Sunray and Culture Clash

For Further Reading

Previous post

The Definitive Debunking of the Cheddar Man Lies

Next post

The Road to Infinity

2 Comments

  1. Arvin N. Prebost
    October 22, 2018 at 10:24 pm — Reply

    I think that the topless Negro woman chair is rather ingenious.

    But I would not want some authority telling me that I could not design (or own, if designed by others) a topless Negro woman chair.

    But there is nothing to worry about. Just look at that topless Negro woman chair again—it would not be comfortable at all.

    Human beings want art to make them feel good, to validate their world-view and values . . . and the topless Negro woman chair does not do that! It would be very hard on anyone’s back.

    Some art galleries appeal to rich degenerates, who have not really had to toil for anything. That is their marketing decision!

  2. Travon Martinberg
    October 23, 2018 at 11:45 am — Reply

    Compare the works of modern idiocy to the inspiring art of Arno Breker: https://www.pinterest.com/lorriesnelson/sculpture-arno-breker/ (click Continue without Account button to scroll down). Breker’s art does have a limitation – the lack of a human emotional connection to figures whose likeness is superior to our own, or in situations more trying than ours. But there are many European artists who captured human emotion in marble, such as Gian Lorenzo Bernini: https://www.pinterest.com/jesusmartinez/gian-lorenzo-bernini/ . What’s amazing and unique about European classical sculpture is that within the same genre, there is a striking variation in the viewer’s reaction due to the subtle differences in art style and physical expression of the figures, from awe and smallness from Breker, to grace and sympathy from Bernini. The master Michelangelo, his works at https://www.italian-renaissance-art.com/Michelangelo-sculptures.html, sought piety and adulation. So what emotion was the artist who made the negroidess chair seeking from its viewers, embarrassment, disgust, contempt at defilement of the genre? The worst thing about modern art isn’t its expediency, but the lack of sensitivity it imparts to its viewers, as if it were a private joke and the viewer a mope who can only guess at it. Now is the time for whites to visit Classical and Neo-Classical works (only photos remain for most of Breker’s), before the PC police say that they must be relegated to store-rooms (at best), because the funding to make them came from sources of oppression of indigenous peoples (by Spain, the Roman Catholic Church, etc. in the New World) and women, and that such art is chauvinistic because it presents only Europeans as worthwhile subjects.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.