Hitlers Kampf Against Modern Art:

A Retrospect
By ALFRED WERNER

U History,someoneobserved,is an excellentteacher-what a pity

she so often has ratherinattentivepupils!It is for the edificationof
thesethat attentionmustbe drawnagainto an eventthat took place
aboutthreedecadesago: Nazism'sprohibitionof all individualistic
artwithinits reach-art, thatis, which freelyexpresseda painter'sor
sculptor'sintentionswith all the meansat his disposal.The specific
conditionof the artsundertotalitarianism is too large a topic to be
dealt with here. StalinistRussiawould requirea special chapter.
Khrushchevtold a group of artiststhat their works looked as if
"daubedby the tail of a donkey,"but he did not demandthe arrestof
theseheretics,and afterKhrushchev's fall artists(and writers)have
beenableto makeincreasinginroadsinto the stifling"SocialistReal-
ism"thatservedas a roadblockto untrammeledexpression.It is well
known thatrecentlyin Yugoslaviaand Polandartistshaveenjoyeda
considerableamountof fredomto createin whatevermannerthey
chose. Such moderndictatorsas Pilsudski,Franco,Salazar,Per6n,
and Castrodid little to interferein artisticmatters,and Mussolini
permittedmodernart of all schoolsto be shown at the Biennalesof
Venice.
The German chapterhas no exact parallelin history,yet it
ought to be recalledas somethingthat could happenagain almost
anywhere.Duringthe pastfew years,responsibleGermaneducators
have been raisinga finger in a gestureof warning.They could do

ALFRED WERNER is SeniorEditorof Art Voicesand U.S. correspondentfor the

internationalmagazine of art, Pantheon.His articlesand reviewson art topics
have appearedwidely in the quarterliesof this countryand abroad,including
this one.
56
 HITLER'S KAMPF AGAINST MODERN ART 57

this in WesternGermany,but not in the EasternCommunist-con-

trolledpartof the country,officiallycalledthe GermanDemocratic
Republic.On a recentvisit to East BerlinI saw, in state-sponsored
exhibitions-there are no privategalleries-paintingsthat in style
and techniqueremindedme sadlyof the artencouragedby the Third
Reich.Though works by fifty, or even a hundred,differentartists
might be shown,the differencesin subjectmatteror executionwere
so slight that it seemedas if one person,with undeniableskill and
indefatigablefanaticism,had produced,in the acceptedblendingof
realism and idealism,all the various items on display. Nor can
viewerswho dislikethe stuffpublishtheirdissentingopinions.I am
not convincedthat the "thaw"has had much chanceto melt the ice
accumulatedsincethe orthodoxMarxists,Pieck and Ulbricht,man-
aged in I949 to proclaimthe DeutscheDemokratischeRepublik.
In the FederalRepublicof Germanythe arts are free, and ex-
perimentationis favoredby the preponderantmajorityof critics,
museumdirectors,and collectors.Still there are pocketsof "resist-
ance."In the controversybetween the abstractpainterWilli Bau-
meister and the art historianHans Sedlmayr(who, after having
supportedNazi tenetsfor years,becamea championof "sanity"and
"morality"in art under a Christiancamouflage)therewere many,
too many,who sidedwith the latter,too militantin his argumenta-
tion for a scholar.While his argumentswere profferedon a high
intellectuallevel, at least,severalless scholarlywritershave attacked
all unconventionalart of the last thirtyor forty yearswith proposi-
tionsseeminglylifted from the arsenalof Nazi writers.
Of course,conservatism has a legitimateplacein art,as it has in
politics,but the violenttoneassumedby someof the Germanspokes-
men for "sane"art makes one wonder whether,should they ever
gain the upperhand,theymight not try to applymethodsusedthree
decadesago. I detectedas unwarrantedinnuendoin a speechmade
by a high governmentofficialwho warned a group of architects
againstthe use of the "un-German" flat roof that might do well in
Tel Aviv,but not in Germany,wherethe Germanicgabledroof was
appropriate. In Hamburg-internationallyknown for its democratic
spirit-an exhibitionof the painterPaul Wunderlichwas closedby
the police on a chargeof obscenity,and some of the pictureswere
confiscated.(In New York City visitorsmight have utteredtheir
58 THE ANTIOCH REVIEW

objectionsto this aspectof the prominentpainter'swork, but there

would have been no interferenceon the part of the police.) In the
same city I witnesseda heated discussion,in the courseof which
several men in the audience-composed mainly of middle-aged
businessmen-demandedthat certainpiecesof abstractsculpturein
publicplacesbe dynamited.
Caveantconsules!But even such a respectedleader as Chan-
cellor Erhardrecentlyassailedwhat he called "phenomenaof de-
generationin modernart."While he aimed at Giinter Grassand
othernovelists,manywere startledto hear a spokesmanof the new
democraticGermanyuse a phrasevery common in the Nazis' vo-
cabulary.So far,no pictureshavebeenburnedin West Germany,but
membersof a militantly Protestantyouth organizationpublicly
burned books by Giinter Grass, Erich Ka'stner,Albert Camus,
FransoiseSagan,and VladimirNabukovin disapprovalof theircon-
tents. Time and again philistineanger has led to the removalof
sculpturethat is not strictlyrealisticportraiturefrom public build-
ings or publicsquaresfor-which it had beencommissioned.
Mostlyfor the enlightenmentof West Germanswho were too
young to have experiencedHitler'swar againstmodernart, or wlho
were alreadyadultsin 1933 but had convenientlyforgottenthe hor-
rorsof life undera dictatorship,Germanscholarsfelt compelledto
arrangethe highly informativeexhibition,EntarteteKunst: Bilder-
sturmvor 25 Jahren(DegenerateArt: Destructionof Art 25 Years
Ago). It was held in Munichin I962-ironically in the same Haus
der Kunstwhich, in I937, as Haus der deutschenKunst,had played
host to the sortof things Hitler approvedof. Though,by necessity,
only a smallfractionof the condemnedand confiscatedart couldbe
shown, the lesson for the astutevisitorwas overwhelminglyclear.
After all, the artistswhose works had once been removedfrom
German museums included Archipenko, Barlach, Beckmann,
Braque,Chagall,Corinth,Ensor,Feininger,Gauguin, van Gogh,
Grosz,Heckel, Jawlensky,Kandinsky,Kirchner,Klee, Kokoschka,
Laurencin, Lehmbruck, Liebermann, Marc, Masereel, Munch,
Nolde, Pascin,Picasso,and Schmidt-Rottluff. This selectedlist alone
readslike a "Who'sWho in ModernArt."
The battleagainstprogressiveart in Germanyreacheda climax
in 1937,but it startedmuchearlier.Alreadyin I9II a groupof more
 HITLER'S KAMPF AGAINST MODERN ART 59

than one hundredand twenty Germanartists,nearly all now de-

servedyforgotten,issueda ProtestdeutscherKuenstier,a manifesto
assailingCezanne,van Gogh, Gauguin,and theirGermandisciples,
and demandingtheir boycott.The fight went on. When, irnI930-
i93I, Nazis temporarily ruledthe governmentin Thuringia(one of
the stateswithin the WeimarRepublic),one of their officialactions
was to eliminateworks by expressionistsfrom the Schlossmuseum
in Weimar. However, while under the Kaiser, and during the
Weimar Republic,all kinds of groups of individualscould fume
againstmodernart, they were not empoweredto do physicalharm
eitherto artistsor to worksof art.
This changedwhen, with Hitler,the Babbittcameto power,the
spokesmanfor the worst taste, the worst instincts in Germany's
KleinerMann.Hitler was shockinglylimitedin his appreciationof
artand spectacularly untalentedas an artist.Yet, to the detrimentof
all Germanpainters,sculptors,architects,critics,collectors,and just
appreciatorsof art, Hitler consideredhimself above everythinga
bornartist.As a teen-agerhe infuriatedhis fatherby declaringthat
he wanted to be an artist."Artist!"Aloys Hitler shouted:"Not as
long as I live, never."In his autobiography,Hitler adds:"Myfather
would not abandonhis 'Never.'I becameall the more consolidated
in my 'Nevertheless.'"
In I907 the young Hitler preparedhimself to enter Vienna's
Academyof Fine Arts. His first attemptwas unsuccessful;"Test
drawingunsatisfactory," was the verdictin the Academy'sClassifi-
cationsList. A yearlater,when he presentedhimselffor the second
time,he was not evenadmittedto the examination,for the drawings
he submittedwere too poor. (He neverforgot this personaldefeat,
and as late as I942 grimly recalled,beforehis assembledstaff, the
Vienneseprofessors'lack of insight and discrimination.)He never-
thelesscontinuedto refer to himself as an artist.Legal documents
drawn up only a year beforethe Nazis becameGermany'ssecond
strongestparty describehim as a "Kunstmalerund Schriftstcller"
(professionalpainterand writer). He told Fritz Wiedemann,his
consulin SanFrancisco,that had Germanynot lost the FirstWorld
War, he, Hitler, would have become a great architect,"such as
Michelangelo." A few daysbeforethe outbreakof the SecondWorld
War, he explainedto the BritishAmbassador,Sir Neville Hender-
6o THE ANTIOCH REVIEW

son, that he was an artistby natureand that,if the Polishquestion

were solved,he would retireto live his life as an artistratherthan
as a war lord.
All who have seen Hitler'spaintingsagreethat he had not the
slightesttalent.His stiff,precise,angularvistasof Viennawerecopied
frompostcards;his humanfiguresstandlike stuffeddolls in frontof
the palaces;he was unableto draweithera humanbodyor a human
face.His tasteveeredtowardsthe sentimentalin paintingand sculp-
ture, and towardsimitationsof Greek templesin architecture.He
admiredthe pagan idylls of the nineteenth-century Swiss painter
Arnold Boecklin,about whom the critic Julius Meier-Graefehas
written:
The noisinessof his pictureschallengescuriosity;they are fragments
of pretentiousphraseswhich at a distancesound like revelationsand tempt
us to come near.A great thing is being attempted;here is a man who is to
speak to his contemporariesin the tongue of the Old Masters!Painful
indeed is the disillusionwhen one realizesthe paltryresult of these dam-
orouspreparations, the trivialityof these bombasticsplendors.We expect a
philosophyof life and find nothing but a turgid melodrama.

Hitler'snostalgiafor sleepyGormanprovincialtownswas grati-

fied by anothernineteenth-century master,Munich'sKarl Spitzweg.
Among the manypictureshe admired,only a few were indisputable
masterpieces,but all were "safe"art: for instance,Jan Vermeer's
Artistin His Studio,whichhe pressuredthe Czerninfamilyinto sell-
ing to him for a song.
HermannGoering also posed as a connoisseurand patronof
the arts.Like Hitler,he appreciatedonly the safe,trustworthyart of
the last century (and paid a fortune for a "Vermeer"that, after
Goeringhad beenhung at Nuremberg,turnedout to be a forgery).
Only twice did Goering enter the Kronprinzenpalast, which was
Berlin'smuseumof modernart. He did not like a show of modern
Italians,includingCasorati,Carrai,Di Chirico,and Modigliani,he
was irritatedby the quiet and undemonstrative war memorialby
KiatheKollwitz (a sculptureof a kneelingcouple),and the paintings
of EdvardMunch disgustedhim despitethe counselof those who
pointedout theirNordicelement.
Alfred Rosenberg,founder of the Kampfbundfuer deutsche
Kultur,a militant organizationthat proclaimedthe superiorityof
 HITLER'S KAMPF AGAINST MODERN ART 6i
all manifestationsof Germanicculture,was the Nazi party'schief
theoretician.He was himself the maker of tame and tediouslittle
landscapepaintings,and he had no understandingof modern ex-
pressionisticart.He attackedNolde'soils as "Negroid"monstrosities
and the figuresin Barlach'swar memorialat Magdeburgas "little
half-idiotsunderSoviethelmets."
The only one in the Nazi hierarchywho had a moredeveloped,
more sophisticatedtaste was Goebbels.He is said to have owned
works by Ernst Barlach.But he did not intercedewith Hitler in
behalfof the Germanexpressionists, sincehis sole concernwas win-
ning overthe Germannationto NationalSocialismby cleverexploi-
tationof propagandathroughthe pressandthe movieindustry.
The drivingforce behindthe "purification" of art was Hitler.
Ironically,no German,French,or Amenrcanpresident,no European
king ever devotedso much time and energyto art and architecture
as did this frustratedex-artist.At the same time, thereneverwas a
ruler who had such completeconfidencein his own artisticjudg-
ment,andnever(not evenunderStalin) wereartistsand artscholars
so unfree as they were in the Third Reich. As early as 1933 all
museumdirectorswho had encouragedmodernartwereoustedfrom
their positions.To pursuetheir vocationand exhibit their works,
Germanartistshad to be "Aryans"and, in addition,to conformto
Party-approved aesthetics;if they did, they could becomemembers
of the Reich Chamberof Art (a departmentof the generalReich
Chamberof Culture,attachedto the PropagandaMinistry).
Mediocrities,who in the twentieshad often used a pseudo-mod-
ernisticvocabulary,quicklyadoptedthe "Bloodand Soil"aesthetics
when Hitlercameto power,choosingcareersthatguaranteedthema
good living in returnfor certainservices-the making of idealized
officialportraits,the carvingof Reich eagles and of huge athletic
types,the decorationof Partyheadquarters, and so on. But beside
theseopportunists(and the numeroussincereand simpletraditional-
ists) therewere scoresof first-rateartistswho couldnot silencetheir
conscience,who refusedto conform,and who sufferedseverelyfor
theirobstinacy.
The realKampf was delayedfor a little overthreeyears,a time
duringwhich the Nazi regimeconsolidatedits positionswithin, and
tried-all too successfully-to win confidence abroad. The first
62 THE ANTIOCH REVIEW

majorblow was struckin the fall of I936, soonafterthe departureof

all foreign visitorsto the Olympic Games that had been held in
Berlin.The modern sectionof the Kronprinzenpalast was closed.
Next came the purgingof museums:all in all, I6,550 works of art
wereconfiscatedas undesirable.One thousandtwo hundredseventy-
three items were removedfrom the MuseumFolkwang in Essen,
and the new director-a certainCount Baudissin-who rid himself
of these treasures,including many works by Kirchner,Schmidt-
Rottluff,and Nolde, became"famous"for his astonishingassertion
that the greatestwork of art was the steel helmetworn by the Ger-
man soldier.Anothersuffererwas the Kunsthallein Hamburg,to
the extentof nine hundredeighty-threeobjects.
The most "degenerate"of these objects were dispatchedto
Munichwherethe Nazis wishedto confronttheseabominations with
a demonstrationof the sole healthytype of art. In July, I this
confrontationtook placein Munich,which now receivedthe honor-
ary title of "Cityof GermanArt."All of the Nazi hierarchycame
to the openingsof the two much-heraldedexhibitions.While I did
see the show of i962, I confessthat no curiositycouldhaveprovoked
me in I937 to leave the relativesafetyof my nativeAustriato view
the giganticshenanigansin Munich,only a few hoursaway. But I
readavidly,and with horror,the reportsthat seepedfrom neighbor-
ing Germanyinto an Austriathat was still free to publishobjective
descriptionsby independentjournalistsof what they experienced
during that long summerin Germany'sthird-largestcity, one that
for a hundredyearshad beena capitalof the artsin CentralEurope.
Hitler was introducedby Goebbels,who eulogizedthe Fuehrer
as the idealcombinationof statesmanand artist,describinghim as a
"masterbuilder."Not to be outdone,the BavarianMinisterof the In-
terior,Wagner,hailedHitleras "thegreatestof livingartists."Hitler
then madea ninety-minutespeechthat drew attentionto the "clean
and healthy"art in the Haus der deutschenKunst, and the filthy,
subversive,and abominablethings displayed,as a warning to all
good Aryans,in severalrooms in old buildingsof the Hofgarten.
Beforethe opening of the Haus der deutschenKunst show, thirty
thousand,packing the huge squareon Prinzregentenstrasse, heard
Hitler thunderagainstworksof art that "cannotbe understoodbut
need a swollen set of instructionsto prove their right to exist and
 HITLER'S KAMPF AGAINST MODERN ART 63

find theirway to neurotics,"and also againstthose"degenerate half-

wits who on principlesee blue fields, a green sky, and sulphurous
clouds."True to form, he added a sharpwarning: "If they really
paint in this mannerbecausethey see things that way, then these
unhappypersonsshould be dealt with in the departmentof the
Ministryof the Interior,wherewe sterilizethe insane... ." He con-
trastedthis "conspiracyof Jews and Bolsheviks"with those noble
Aryanartistswho were "seekingafter the true and genuinequality
of our nationalbeing and aftera sincereand uprightexpressionof
the inwardly-divined law of life."
The approvednationalartwas shownin the Hausderdeutschen
Kunst, a dull, imitationGreek temple by Hitler's chief architect,
Troost;solidlybuilt, it was designed"to projectlike a cathedralof
the past into the millenia of the future."(Renamedthe Haus der
Kunst, it is now filled with nineteenth-and twentieth-century art,
most of which would have made Hitler squirm;dislikedby many
people of Munich,partlybecauseits cornerstonehad been laid by
Hider, and partlybecauseit is such an uninspiredpiece of architec-
ture,it is expectedto be demolishedin the nearfuture.) This build-
ing and its contents,in that summer of 1937, caused one of the
numerousfoes of Hitleriteart to composea quatrainthat suddenly
madethe rounds:
Kennst du das Haus, auf Saeuen ruht sein Dach,
von Blut und Bodenstrotzetdas Gemach,
und Zieglers nackte Maedchensehn dich an
was hat man dir, du arme Kunst getan?

This take-offon a well-knownpoem by Goethe can be freely

translated:"That high-roofedcolumnedmansion,long ago, today
with Bloodand Soil is all aglow,and Ziegler'snakedwenchesmoon
at you, 0 Art, poorthing, what havethey doneto you!"
The referenceis to ProfessorAdolf Ziegler,head of the Reich
Chamberof Art (with a membershipof 42,ooo!),who was in charge
of bothexhibitionsin Munich.In the Haus he was representedwith
his notoriouspicturesof blondeAryannudes.Ziegler'spaintingtech-
nique was flawless.He also professeda high standardof morality
that madeall the moreludicrousthe distinctlypornographicunder-
tonesof his paintings,quite overlookedby his friendsbut not by his
64 THE ANTIOCH REVIEW

foes, who dubbedthem "masturbation pictures."The Zieglerswere

among the approximatelyone thousandworks of art (culled from
abouteleven thousandentries) that had receivedthe Fuehrer'sap-
provaland thus could be shown. As a foreign observerput it, the
exhibitionappealedto all feelings-religious,patriotic,racial-except
to the aesthetic.Everythingcateredto Hitler's spiessermentality:
representations of the happyGermanfamily,motherhood,heroism,
farm life, smiling landscapes,and female nudes. Everythingwas
highly descriptive;the drawing and painting were tight and me-
ticulous,sinceHitler would not tolerate"unfinished"pictures;men
and objectswerephotographically realistic,and therewas little room
for imagination.Two pictureswere the stars in the show: The
Alarm-two grim-facedSA men fasteningtheirbeltsandcaps,ready
for the frayin the good causeof NationalSocialism,and,in particu-
lar,a portraitof Hitlercladin the armorof a medievalknight,carry-
ing a swastikabanner.The sculptureswere on the level of the
paintings.
From thesevapid,characterless effigiesthe burghercould stroll
to the HofgartenArcadesand see the sevenhundredand thirtyob-
jects condemnedas "Bolshevisticatrocities"and "artificialitiesim-
posedby Jewishtastein art."The postersinvitingto this show read
asfollows:
Torturedcanvas-
Spiritualdecay-
Sick visionaries-
Lunatic incompetents-
Awarded prizes by Jewish cliques, praised by literati, they are the
productsand producersof an "art"upon whom governmentaland munici-
pal institutionsirresponsiblysquanderedmillions of the German people's
money while Germanartistswere starvingto death. Like the "state"[i.e.,
the WeimarRepublicthat had been destroyedby Hitler] was its "art."
Look at it! Judgefor yourself!

Somehow, though, the Nazis misjudged their nation's taste.

While they did want the people to see the "DegenerateArt,"they
must have been alarmedupon noticing that three times as many
peopleflockedto see it as cameto see the desirableart.This despite
the fact thatcriticsbestowedglowing praiseupon the latter.Accord-
ing to the BerlinerBoersen-Zeitung und Boersen-Courier, the show
 HITLER'S KAMPF AGAINST MODERN ART 65

in the Haus produceda "new day for German art" and for the
"Germanview of life in its entirety,"while the influentialDeutsche
AllgemeineZeitungspokeof a "liberationof Germanart from the
tyrannyof sadism,and the creationthroughHitlerand the National
Socialistregimeof a truly Germannationalart." (Did the writers
mean what they wrote? I assumethat most of. them simply wrote
what was expectedof them in orderto keep their jobs and to feed
their families; some journalists,unwilling to function as soul-less
toolsof the Nazi propaganda,did quit theirjobsand found employ-
ment in industryor trade,but they were rareexceptions.)
The settingin the Haus was as glamorousas that in the Hof-
gartenArcadeswas dismal.The late Paul Ortwin Rave,in Kunst-
diktaturim DrittenReich (iT49), thus describedthe latter:
All the pictures . . . were huddled together in these long, narrow
gallerieswith the worst possiblelighting, becausethe windows were partly
obscuredby the screensprojectingin front of them in which there were
gaps that dazzled the eyes. The pictureswere hung as though by idiots or
children, just as they came, as close together as possible, obstructedby
piecesof sculptureon standsor on the ground,and providedwith provoca-
tive descriptionsand obscene gibes...." (Quoted in Art Plunder, by
Wilhelm Treue.)

EntarteteKunst was arrangedin a seriesof departments.There

wereworks,includingthoseof Nolde, "deriding"religion-there is a
bitterironyin the fact that the anti-Christian
Nazis, who dispatched
hundredsof priestsand pastorsto concentrationcamps, suddenly
posedas defendersof a Christianityallegedly"defamed"by expres-
sionistpaintersand sculptors.It is also ironicthat the Nazis turned
their wrath againstpicturesshowing prostitutesand other personi-
ficationsof urbanvice, since the StormTroopersand the so-called
Elite Guards(SS) were notoriousfor a sexualdepravitythat went
uncheckedby the authorities.Singledout for scornwere, of course,
worksattackingmilitarismand chauvinism.A sectionwas devoted
to Germanartinspiredby Africaand Oceania,the Nazi notionbeing
that the only lawful canonof beautywas the one createdby ancient
Greece.Works by Jews, captionedwith vicious anti-Semiticcom-
ments,were shown in a separateroom. Among the displayeditems
was Zeichnungen,a book of drawingsby Ernst Barlachthat had
been confiscatedby the Gestapoon a law for "theProtectionof the
66 THE ANTIOCH REVIEW

GermanReich";the chargewas that the contentsof the book were

"of such natureas to endangerpublic securityand order."Zeich-
nungen was exhibitedin a glass case,unopened,lest the publicsee
one of the drawingsand form an independentopinion.
Manycame to jeer, but many also came to say good-byto pic-
turesthey had grown fond of, for it was fearedthat they might be
destroyedafterthe show. Among thesevisitorswas a Germanartist
friendof mine who found it hardto represshis tears.He refusedto
be misledby Zieglerandhis ilk who showedthe creationsof lunatics
to prove that the "similarities" between their works and those of
Nolde, Kirchner,and Dix justifiedthe persecutionof the entireex-
pressionistgroup. He saw through the tricks of the Nazis who
repeatedlycalledattentionto the "vast"sum for which this or that
"worthless"objecthad been purchasedby a museumwith the tax-
payers'money,for in mostcasesthis "vast"sum consistedof inflation
marksand was the equivalentof the priceof a pair of shoesor, at
most,an overcoat.He did not allow himselfto be fooled by the fact
that, here and there,a pictureor sculpturewas includedthat was
unsuccessfulby any yardsticksof criticism-cunningly,the exhibitors
had mixedthe gold with the drossproducedby untalentedimitators
of the greatmodernmasters,in orderto confusethe public.
This particularartistwas still young,still unknown,and hence
able to escapeattention.It was differentwith the more than a thou-
sand well-knownartistswhose work had been removedfrom the
museums.Most of those who were Jewish managedto emigrate.
(Emigration,however,was not alwayssufficientprotection:in Italy,
Rudolf Levy, a gifted pupil of Matisse,and in Francethe abstract
sculptorand painterOtto Freundlichwere caught by the Gestapo
and suffereda martyr'sdeath.) Paul Klee returnedto his native
Switzerland;LyonelFeininger,who was bornin New York,to the
U.S.A.; Beckmann,Campendonk,and othersemigrated.The ma-
jority,however,stayedon in Germany.Of these"inneremigrants,"
ErnstBarlach,Kithe Kollwitz, and OskarSchlemmerdid not live
to seethe end of the Nazi regime.Othersdid,but theywere,in many
instances,forbiddento exhibit,and even to work, until V-E Day
restoredfull freedomto them.
The only majorfigurein Germanart to have been sympathetic
to Nazismwas the painterEmil Nolde. Naivelyhe believedthatthe
Nazi regimewould honorhim whosework was so deeplyrootedin
 HITLER'S KAMPF AGAINST MODERN ART 67

Blut und Boden, in the traditionand soil of his native Schleswig-

Holstein.Yet his bold expressionismwas contraryto the philistine
tasteof Hider and his cohorts,and no fewer than 1,052 of his works
were confiscated.Notwithstandinghis pro-Nazi leanings (his en-
thusiasmfor the new regimedeclinedrapidly) there is no traceof
Nazism in any one of his works.On the otherhand,the important
sculptor,GeorgKolbe,was not a Nazi at all; yet he executedcom-
missionshe receivedfrom the new regime,and the athleticnudeshe
shapedafter 1933 are far inferiorto the charminglittdedancershe
createdas a youngerman.
The opportunistKolbe was the only importantGermanartist
exemptedfrom the EntarteteKunst. Of the hundredswho got ad-
mittedto the Haus der deutschenKunst,not a singleone is remem-
beredtoday (though,with the currentreadinessto "forgiveand for-
get,"an importantartistwould find no difficultyin reappearingin
the Bonn Republic,whateverhis past Nazi affiliations).The simple
truthis: not a single paintingor sculptureof significancewas pro-
ducedduringthe Third Reichapartfrom what was createdby out-
lawed artistsin the secrecyof their studios,often at the risk of im-
prisonment.For while the notionthatthe artistmustbe freein order
to producefirst-ratework is a relativelynew one, during the past
hundredand fifty yearsartistshave gotten so used to this idea that
they cannottolerateany restrictions.Delacroixsoundedthe keynote
for the modernartistby insistingthat mankindwould have to find
beauty"wherethe artistputs it." In the recentpast, artistsdefied
rulerslike Napoleon III or Wilhelm II, who could not graspthe
significanceof modernart but at least did not dare go very far in
theirendeavorsto curbit.
Hitlerdid-and the resultsweredisastrousfor Germany.In this
country,the late FranklinD. Roosevelthad little interestin, or feel-
ing for, any of the arts,but he and his advisersknew how essential
freedomwas for everycreativeman. In I939, at the openingof the
new buildingof the Museumof ModernArt in New York, he ex-
presseda truththat was to remainhiddenfrom Hitler,Goering,and
Goebbelsuntil theiringloriousend, when he spokethesememorable
words: "The arts cannot thrive except where men are free to be
themselvesandto be in chargeof the disciplineof theirown energies
and ardors.... What we call libertyin politicsresultsin freedomin
the arts.... Crushindividualityin the artsandyou crushartas well."