Tuesday, February 18, 2014

"The Rape of Europa " Review

Alexa Wirth
The Rape of Europa
World War II has always been a very interesting historical topic to me. My whole life, I continue to learn new things about this war. This documentary had me engaged the whole time because it was yet another part of WWII brought to light. I was not aware of the extent the Nazis were going to in order to obtain precious works of art. I think that in a way, this information reshaped how I was viewing the war. For the longest time I just thought it was Hitler's hatred toward anyone but the aryan race, but really it went much deeper than that. He was on a mission to destroy the people and their culture, which is far worse.
This video didn’t seem bias I think I was assigned to watch this video beacause it shows that art is

a commodity to all kinds of people for many reasons, the main one being that it is our culture and 

destroying that leaves very little. Art is a part of us and our history. In some places, certain buildings 

that were the staple of that society were knocked down in an act to suppress these people. The people 

showed strength by rebuilding their monuments. This is what helped me realize how important art and 

art history are to our people.

Monday, February 17, 2014

The Rape of Europa by Lorena Pfaender

The documentary, “The Rape of Europa” shows how the fate of Europe’s treasures in the Third Reich during the Second World War was decided mainly by Nazi plunder of looted art as well as their appropriation, storage, concealment, destruction and smuggling. The Allies worked to preserve as much culture as possible from being destroyed and forever being lost. This was not easily done for one could not anticipate which historical monuments and masterpieces would be targeted. Even historical rich cities such as Florence, which one believed would remain completely unharmed, were bombed and countless priceless objects were effected. All one could do is hope for the best and prepare for the worst. Museums were constantly relocating their treasures, trying to stay one step ahead of the bombings. Through precautionary planning the regular accounts of impending destruction of Europe did not completely demolish the entire cultural background that built Europe’s history.
The documentary, which successfully shows the course most pieces of art in Europe took during that time period, creates a great appreciation for the art that remains nowadays, knowing how these masterworks were nearly destroyed if not for the actions of several brave individuals. By showing the grand efforts of individuals such as the Monuments Men, curators and other citizens, questions such as the lengths individuals should go to protect artworks arose. Should people die in trying to protect these works? When everyone and everything is dying around one, do artworks remain a priority? These questions had to be pondered by each region separately at the time and the decisions that were made really show how important culture is to the individual regions based on their efforts of preservation.
            The information presented in The Rape of Europa does not only provide an insight to the past but remains very much present. The generation of the war still remains with us and the conflicts and emotions considering the war and the art during the war are far from dealt with. Much of the lost art, which has not been victimized by the war, is still turning up in the most remote places of Europe. The art which we find ourselves lucky to possess creates heated conflicts, for the puzzle of to whom the art rightfully belongs to remains unsolved. The film successfully portrays the devastating repercussions of the war, which creates enough motives for it to hopefully never happen again.

            The film is slightly biased for it portrays the Germans as the sole destroyer of European culture and although the Germans do portray the villains and are accountable for most lost art, the actions of art dealers in the rest of Europe during this troubled time are also questionable. Although the allies were using destruction as a mean of defense, they too took infrastructure and hundreds of cultural monuments down in their mission of justice. This prompts another controversial question on how the Nazis could have been planning museums and worrying about the survival of art, while they were simultaneously killing innocent people and destroying valuable infrastructure left and right. 

Sally Hammel's review of "The Rape of Europa

"The Rape of Europa" ~ review by Sally Hammel

I was not aware of the loss of (and then the return of) artwork during WWII before this weekend and then I watched both "The Monuments Men" and "The Rape of Europa" one after the other.  It will be difficult to not review both films at the same time as the subject matter is the same in both, but "The Monuments Men" is obviously a Hollywood movie and "The Rape of Europa" is a documentary that goes way more into depth about who, where, what, and when these things disappeared and reappeared.  "The Rape of Europa" has an historical perspective while "The Monuments Men" is more romantic.  I find myself THANKING GOD that someone cared enough to preserve the artwork of Europe during WWII.  I'm pretty sure that, had I been alive during that time and living in Europe, artwork would not have been foremost in my thoughts.  I also thank God that I have never had to live with bombs going off around me and having my life and the lives of my loved ones threatened constantly.  I can't believe that it never occurred to me that all that beautiful artwork was in such eminent danger during WWII while those bombs were being dropped all around it.  I'm sure that I am not the only one who's ignorance of this subject will take them by surprise as we view these movies in this class.

Everyone knows what a terrible human being Hitler was and about the terrible acts against humanity that he inflicted, but after watching these movies I have come to realize how far he would go... He wasn't going to be happy with just destroying people and their lives ~ he wanted to destroy all evidence of their existence by destroying their culture and history too. Through old black & white, archival pictures from the 1940s and interviews with descendants of Hitler's victims, PBS writer/director/producers Richard Berge, Bonni Cohen, and Nicole Newnham showed us how the Nazi's race-based morality wanted to dehumanize their victims by wiping all traces of their existence off the face of the earth.  Hitler wanted to erase people AND their memories from the history of the world.  Thank God that he didn't succeed!  The Germans wrought havoc in Europe and systematically looted masterpieces of many forms of art but they thought they were going to win the war, so they kept them, so they could fill Hitler's "Acropolis" in Lintz and the homes of Nazi elites such as Guering.  They planned to destroy everything before the allies had a chance to save them but because of a few people these pieces were saved and returned to their rightful owners whenever that was possible.

Germany DID destroy much of Europe in the 6 years of WWII. 50 million people died and the world lost much of it's most beautiful pieces of artwork, but many pieces were also saved and, even though many of us don't even know the effort involved in saving these masterpieces, I know that the world is grateful!!!!

Sunday, February 16, 2014

Weekly Article Review by Lorena Pfaender

Title: Remastering the Old Masters
Author: Hilarie M. Sheets
Source: ARTnews
Scholarships, collecting and our views of the past are constantly being revised and our notions are constantly being questioned. Museums have undergone a transition from the traditional style to the emerging style to keep the public intrigued. This transition includes new aspects such as public outreach and an urge for active participation, however also requires a well thought out layout for the exhibitions. The task of having different styles from different time periods being grouped together to spark the ultimate amount of curiosity in the public has become crucial. Curator Keith Christiansen succeeded in giving the Met’s European paintings galleries a fresh new look and the new organization of the Old Masters has been praised for its coherence and revelations.
Many Old Masters in Europe are exhibited in museums carrying their own names such as the Rembrandt Museum in Amsterdam, Rubens Museum in Antwerp, Goya Museum in Madrid, or are under one roof like at the "Alte Pinakothek" in Munich or the "Art Galerie Old Masters" in Dresden. The work of Old Masters in the United States is usually spread over many different museums and usually have to be borrowed from a number of private art collections and museums for exhibition, such as the Rembrandt Exhibition in 2011/2012, that was hosted by the North Carolina Museum of Art, the Cleveland Museum of Art and the Minneapolis Institute of Arts.
Curator Keith Christiansen managed to expand the permanent Collection of Old Masters at the Met from 450 to nearly 700 artworks, which can be viewed in 17 galleries continuously throughout the year. The arrangement of the exhibit gives the public a better understanding of the artist’s life and work as a whole. It has become a space, where one can go to receive a deeper understanding of the particular artists and of the art period and because it is a permanent exhibition one can always go back.
So by which means of displaying these Old Masters does one truly engage the public? 

Sunday, February 9, 2014

Weekly Article reviewed by Sally Hammel

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/07/jessica-harrison_n_4740198.html


Title: Feminist Artist Gives Porcelain Dolls An Awesomely Grotesque Makeover
Author: Priscilla Frank
Source: The Huffington Post


I looked up "controversial art" on the internet and found several articles linked from the Huffington Post. I'm not exactly sure where this magazine comes from (the site has links to NY, LA, and Detroit) but it seems to veer toward articles with shock value. I chose this article about Priscilla Frank because I remember these pretty little porcelain figures in my grandmother's cabinet when I was a child. I thought they were pretty and was curious about them but I never would have wanted to own them… they were too fragile for me. I really can't say that I like what the artist, Jessica Harrison, has done to these pieces either. She claims that she has altered these pieces in the name of feminism but I think they are just grotesque! If a man had made these pieces, noone would ever have called it feminism. Jessica Harrison says that we "all look alike on the inside" but she doesn't use any male figures to show this. Her idea of showing feminism is just not what I think of when I think of that term. I do find her alterations to what she calls her "broken" pieces unique and it is certainly a form of art, but it's just not my choice of art.

Priscilla Frank does not offer her opinion of the art in this article. She simply shows it to us and asks our opinion. She quotes the artist on several occasions but doesn't make any personal observations. This material is hard for me to look at but that doesn't mean that I don't appreciate the artist's ability to completely change the purpose and the feeling of these pieces. I too, am curious about the public's perception of this art. I definitely feel it is relevant to our Art History course. It's not really the blood & guts that gross me out, it's the fact that it is coming from these pieces that I remember with some fondness from my childhood.

Sunday, February 2, 2014

Weekly Article Reviewed by Alexa Wirth

Article Review:




Title: Controversial art finds home
Author: Randi Bjornstad
Source: The Register-Guard


Recently, censorship has become more and more prominent in the art community. But at what point to we draw the line between censoring content and restricting artists from sharing their thoughts and feelings? In this case of Linda Cunningham's piece, School Days, a few of a gallery's board members decided that her piece “didn’t fit”. The author of this article provided insight from both Linda and the board which supported the idea that her piece should have been allowed to be shown. The only generalization made about the piece was from the artist herself when she claimed that it was a response to her “feelings about [the shooting at]Sandy Hook and all the little children and teachers who were killed there”. It was also stated in the article, each of the censoring guidelines that the board uses to determine if a piece can be shown in the gallery and it was clear that School Days didn’t relate to any of the topics. With that being said, I 100% agree with the author and I feel that art will loose it’s integrity if it continues to be so harshly censored. Not to say that some things shouldn’t be censored. I just think it’s important for people to remember to be fair especially when it relates to art which is meant to be an outlet for artists to share their feelings with the world.

Overall, I think this article was easy to understand and analyze. The author did a good job of keeping his own opinions out and using an array of quotes and facts to support the topic at hand. This article relates to our course very much so because censorship is becoming a pressing issue that could greatly impact the Field of Art History. Like I stated in the previous paragraph, too much censorship could be damaging to the art community.What would we be left with then?