Minutes of the Class Discussions

Representations of the Holocaust 1.21.2003

Elizabeth LeBarron
Handouts (4)
- “Polanski’s Holocaust” by Stuart Klawans
This article is a review of Roman Polanski’s movie “The Pianist”, along with five other movies.
- “The Power and the Silence in the Vatican” by Alan Riding
This article is a review of Constantin Costa-Gavras’s movie “Amen”.
- “FDR’s Auschwitz Secret” by Michael Beschloss
This article deals with Beschloss’s book The Conquerors and the United States decision not to bomb the Nazi death camps.
- Course Reader- Representations of the Holocaust, LS2 195. Spring 2003. Reinhard Mayer.Assignments (1)
An assignment sheet was handed out that is to be completed in the next class on Thursday January 23rd. The movie “Jeckes” will be shown in class. The class was divided into discussion groups and each group is to spend the last 25 minutes or so of class discussing the movie. Each person is then to write an essay dealing with the movie.


Class Discussion
Class began with a general introduction and overview of the syllabus. The job of scribe was detailed. The duties of the scribe are as follows; to take copious class notes, record and handouts or assignments given, type and e-mail them to Professor Mayer. The notes taken by the scribe are then posted on the class website. There is one scribe per class meeting. The name of the person is listed by day on the syllabus.
It was noted that there are several speakers who will be attending class. Bill Sherpman a survivor who escaped to Shanghai will be presenting. Mary Beth O’Brien will be presenting on the significance of film and how Jewish people are portrayed within films. Katie Hauser a art historian will be presenting on the significance of art, specifically paintings, sculptures and memorials.
Many films will be watched and analyzed throughout the duration of the course. Since there are so many not everyone will be responsible for analyzing every film. Instead each film will be analyzed and presented by a discussion group, which will then present its ideas to the class.
A class project was announced. Students are to look for information pertaining to the class or related topics in the newspaper, on television etc. This information should be brought to and shared with the class. It will be kept and archived as to show the ever- increasing interest of people in the Holocaust.
The word Holocaust itself was defined as a “burnt offering” or “sacrifice”. Holocaust did not gain widespread use until the late 50’s. It is not known who coined the specific term. There was discussion about the use of the word sacrifice to describe this time period. Many people thought that using sacrifice implied that the murders were justified. It was a majority class sentiment that this implication of justification was not an accurate representation, and therefore the word sacrifice did not seem to be an appropriate term to use. A list of other words was derived some being: genocide, final solution, extermination, shoah and khurban. The last two are Hebrew terms referencing destruction.
A major theme of the class and the readings for next week is silence. Why there was such a silence about the Holocaust and why it was broken in the late fifties, early sixties. The class came up with words to describe silence, or things that would invoke silence in a person. They are: confusion, embarrassment, waiting, fear, deliberation (meaning dumbfounded or speechless), anticipation, apathy or indifference, intimidation, extreme loss or trauma, denial, patience, shame, breakdown and uneasiness.
The two films, “Amen” by Constantine Costa-Gavras and “The Pianist” by Roman Polanski were discussed. Reviews of each were handed out. “Amen” is based on a play written in 1964 by Rolf Hochhuth “The Deputy”. It talks about the Pope’s knowledge of the Holocaust and other dealings with the church etc. “The Pianist” details the life of a man in Warsaw, Poland. It is similar to Polanski’s own life and experiences during the Holocaust. This is Polanski’s first movie dealing with this issue. There was some discussion as to why he waited so long to address this issue. Maybe it was because he had repressed his own feelings and has only recently been able to deal with them. He was not before ready to face his own life and the reality of being a Jewish man. It was also suggested that he was waiting for a time when it would be more accepted by people.
The next discussion dealt with poetry and how it would be perceived after the tragedies of the Holocaust. A philosopher Theodore Adorno said, “to write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric”. This idea was briefly discussed. It was mentioned that maybe there are no words to describe the Holocaust and that one is bound to fail if they try, therefore one should not even try. W.D. Snodgrass’s poem, “In the Fuhrer’s Bunker” was discussed. It is basically monologues of people of the Holocaust. It is an attempt to give them a voice. There was a brief discussion on the relevance of doing this. The question was posed of whether Hitler’s actual bunker in Berlin should be open to visitors. It is feared that it may become a neo-Nazi Mecca of sorts if this is done.
The discussion ended here and the class was divided into 5 discussion groups for the movie “Jeckes”. About 10 minutes of the film was shown. The course reader was then distributed at the end of class.


January 28, 2003
Alissa Alter


-Read minutes from previous class
-scribes from each study group read their minutes from Jeckes discussions
-paintings are silent yet still speak, it is the individual that interprets the messages and allows the painter to relay ideas.
-Jews were blamed for Germany's depression, it was Hitler who solved the problem.
-we discussed the differences between a personal account of an event and ahistorians account. Historians are objective in their observations andpresentations, while this may not be the case with personal accounts.
-Language presented a large problem to Holocaust survivors. Many could notdecide whether or not to pass the language on to their children or stopspeaking it all together.
-In Jeckes, the painters wife had hated the sound of the German language untilshe met her husband. There was a strong negative connotation connected withthe German language after Hitler's regime.
-There were others who felt strong connections with the German language andenforced the difference between the Nazi culture and the German culture andstated that therefore there was no direct correlation between Nazis and theGerman language.
-Some survivors were silenced by their experiences and denied all emotional connection with their lives in Germany.
-We also discussed the difficulties of making films based on such sensitivetopics especially with how to present the material.
-Many German owned businesses in Israel were closing down as a result ofgeneration gaps and language issues. German Jews of the Holocaust generationwere caught in the middle.
-we discussed how the woman in Jeckes who had been friends with Yitzchak Rabinrotated languages often while speaking. This showed the dynamics of thedifferent languages and how each affected her life, what role they played, andwhat may have been going on in her life while speaking each language.
-also, we touched on the topic of how the interviewers presented the materialto the interviewees. For the upcoming Stephen Speilberg documentaryon the Holocaust, the interviewers are highly trained to deal with the topicsthat will be addressed and how to cover the most material with ease. Theinterviewers in Jeckes were not focusing on accessing as much material aspossible so much as trying to identify where the gap between Germans andGerman Jews from the Holocaust was and has been, and whether or not therewould be hope for a bridge in the future.
-The age difference between the interviewers and interviewees allowed for thefilm to work. This film was able to show the progression of the Jewsinterviewed since the Holocaust and see how their experiences affected theirlives afterwards.In Germany Jews were afraid to walk down the street for fear that they wouldbe pushed off. The German Jews are still striving for a place to be. Onewoman stated that she would rather have a smaller place to live and live free,happy, and peacefully than to have a larger place to live than be constantlyfighting over it.
READINGS
1) Ernestine Schlant, Introduction to her book: The Language of Silence
2) Peter Demetz, On Auschwitz and on Writing in German: a Letter to a Student.
3) Time Magazine article on e. Schlant
-The Warsaw Ghetto memorial shows on one side a group of Jews walking withheads bowed like a herd of sheep and on the other side it shows the Jews asheroes with weapons in their hands. This shows the two sides of what mostJews were like during the Holocaust. There were many Jews who just listened to what the Germans ordered them to do and followed along like sheepto theirdeaths while there were others, members of uprisings, who fought back. Israel promotes the fighters in their memorials while displaying the testimonies ofboth.
-We discussed the connection with Polanki's movie 'The Pianist.'
-Due to the high regard of Germans, the Polish were surprised that there were ghetto uprisings.
-It is a hard question why more Jews didn't resist. Historians debate how todepict what resistance there was and it's importance. Many believe that sinceHitler's coming into power was so gradual that it was too late when peoplenoticed the damage that was being done. Also, since all of the concentrationcamps were located in Poland and not Germany, it was kept secret, that whenpeople did find out about them, they didn't believe it.
-In literature, the Holocaust is a topic that is used, but there is an absencein all of the works, and that is the absence of Jewish characters. Authors are not willing to identify the experiences of the Holocaust within fiction.
Wiithin the readings take note of names and works you don't recognize
Next time: turn to the historians debate, short excerpts by historians.


LS2-195
Minutes for Thursday February 6, 2003


Brendan Drew

Class opened with a discussion about Normal Finklestein. He has a webpage, www.normalfinklestein.com/id26.htm. He would like to see all information pertaining to the Holocaust public. In that respect, he is a liberal. Next we discussed the Holocaust compared to the North American slave trade in terms of uniqueness and comparability. We pondered the questions “Does comparison destroy the uniqueness of events?” and “Are these two events even comparable?” We decided that one thing the Holocaust did was bring more awareness in terms of the North American slave trade in terms of reparations given to African American families who are decedents of slaves. We also discussed various tones to historical writing would leave into our discussion of individual authors. A few tons being used are apologetic, without passion, rational, and non-clouded. It was determined the readings today were not like this. They were in fact passionate and directed towards the audience. The first author discussed was Fritz Stern. Mr. Stern wrote in objection to Daniel Goldhagen’s writing. He called Goldhagen’s writing incorrect, false and a deliberate provocation of misused information. This was a direct and outward criticism and it was viewed by the class and being abnormally harsh for literary criticism. His main criticism comes from Goldhagen’s belief that the road to the Holocaust era was straight – from the Reformation and Martin Luther down to the Holocaust. That Germany was destined to religiously persecute Jews for centuries. Next we moved onto Goldhagen, who talks about Stern’s criticism of his writing. He says the German translation of his work that says it is not an accusation of German guilt. His book was even defended at German academic debates. He says he work led Germans to re-discover this time period and it has done great service to the German political culture. The book, he says, was well received by the German public and that it is, in fact, legitimate in quality as contested by Stern. The final author we discussed on the day was Adam Schultz. Schultz is very objective as a writer. Schultz wrote a commentary on the debate between Goldhagen and Browning. In his writing he described Browning as having a darker view on humanity because he feels “ordinary” people were capable of creating the Holocaust-type situation, not just Germans in that era. One distinct difference between the two is Goldhagen believes in witness testimony where as Browning does not. That concluded class.


Jeff Foy
Minutes 2/11/03


No announcements or handouts
Presentation on after-word from Browning’s Ordinary Men:
- Browning agrees with Goldhagen that many ordinary Germans participated in the Final Solution voluntarily.
- Browning criticizes Goldhagen’s methodology positing that Goldhagen had his thesis before conducting research, consequently Goldhagen ignored a lot of contradictory evidence and distorted some of his evidence.
- Browning contends that anti-Semitism, while an important factor in German history, was not the sole driving force in German history.
- Goldhagen believes that the Germans wanted to commit genocide; Browning asserts that many Germans were bothered by the genocide.
- Browning tests Goldhagen’s thesis, which states that Germans were propelled by an especially virulent form of anti-Semitism, by showing that Jews were not treated worse than other victims of the Holocaust and that people from other countries participated just as willingly in the Holocaust as Germans.
Presentation on Birn’s criticism of Goldhagen:
- Discusses how he disregards evidence that contradicts his thesis.
- Claims that Goldhagen distorted information.
- Birn states that Goldhagen’s book is misleading because it uses only secondary sources to state that every German was anti-Semitic.
- Points out that Goldhagen highlights Jews as the only victims.
- Birn highlights contradiction in Goldhagen’s statement that he is indicting individuals while trying to prove that they are products of their culture.
Presentation on Finkelstein’s essay of Goldhagen:
- Finkelstein shows Goldhagen’s circular arguments.
- Finkelstein states that if the Germans were so violently anti-Semitic, why were they against anti-Semitic violence?
- Finkelstein claims that the Germans supported anti-Semitism that helped them materially, and disapproved of anti-Semitism that hurt them.
- Compares Nuremburg laws to Jim Crowe laws.
- Contains a chart on the various ways Goldhagen manipulated evidence
Video of Steven Katz lecture on the singularity of the Shoah:
- Katz states that he doesn’t make moral comparisons, and that numbers do not make the Shoah unique.
- States that the word genocide was coined during World War II to describe what happened, genocide is defined as the intentional killing of a group.
- States a principle: the ideology which drives the violence mass tragedies also limits the violence. Katz believes that the Shoah is the only event where there had been no limits set by the ideology.
- Examples:
1. Medieval witch hunts were against women, but were not intended to kill all women.
2. Slave trade where the goal was a profit, so the slave traders wanted to keep the slaves alive and in a condition that would get the most profit.
3. Russian Gulags which were intended to use prisoners to produce wealth for Russia by getting resources that nobody would get voluntarily.
4. Armenian case which was driven by Turkish nationalism. The goal was to get the Armenians off Turkish land by any means necessary. They could remain alive anywhere except Turkey. Many were converted to Islam, demonstrating that it was not racially motivated and did not require eradication.
- Shoah – Katz states that the Shoah cannot be centered in bureaucracy or technology because they are servants of the ruling ideology. Jews were considered parasites and a disease which must be completely eliminated to save the pure Aryan race. Shoah was genocidal because its intent was to totally annihilate Jews. The killing of women and children to prevent reproduction in Jews supports the fact that the Shoah was intentional.


Minutes February 13, 2003
Jeffrey Goldberg
"l'espinit d'escalier." - The spirit of the staircase.
Study groups were assigned various readings in order to prepare class
presentations.
The assignments are as follows:
1) Germany: The Ambiguity of Memory (Feb 18)
2) Poland: The Ruins of Memory (Feb 20)
3) Israel: Holocaust, Heroism, and National Redemption (Feb 27)
4) America: Memory and the Politics of Identity (March 4)
5) Jakob the Liar (March 6)
We then broke into study groups to discuss times to meet and prepare the presentations.


A brief explanation was made pertaining to the John Brown presentation and panel discussion at the Tang. Some important terms included were: slavery, terrorism, uprising, and revolution.
We then discussed the principle of functionalist vs. intentionalist. Raul
Hillberg states that beurocracy and technology made the Holocaust possible. The functionalist investigates what surrounds events to make them happen. The intentionalist states that there was a direct intent to kill all the Jews. Stephen Katz, an intentionalist, believes that there was direct intent surrounding the Holocaust, rather than events surrounding it.


Stanley Milligram, a functionalist, conducted an obedience study which helps to illustrate the why the Nazis carried out their duties without objection. We then watched the remainder of the Stephen Katz interview and the following question and answer period.


Uniqueness of the Holocaust was the next issue discussed. David Stannard is against uniqueness, and believe the Holocaust was another form of genocide. Katz believes that the Holocaust is unique for several reasons. One point is that women and children were murdered. Unlike the Armenian genocide, which Katz believes is "ethnic cleansing," the Nazis constructed extermination camps to carry out their goal. The original goal of simply making the Jews go away was changed at the Wannssee Conference (1942), where the Final Solution was proposed. The extermination camps began to be built and the the Final Solution was carried out.


Group presentations are scheduled to start next class.


Minutes February 18, 2003
Nicole Greatorex
Presentation:
James E. Young – Texture of Memory
Study Group 1:
Derek Tim
Amanda Mike
Jeff Alissa
Discussion of the tone and idea of the book:
The tone of this book is very different than that of the historians; clearer, concise, direct, and uses more plain language. The uniqueness about Germany’s memorialization of the past is ambiguous and fully recognized; the Germans are not sure who they want to remember and how to go about doing it, yet they feel an obligation to remember all groups who were victimized. Germany’s memorials are not glorifying the country but instead showing and admitting the crimes that they committed. Memorials in the U.S. have names of victims of American soldiers. Having a memorial to slavery with names of slaves, or a memorial to Native Americans with their names would be comparable to the German memorials to the Holocaust.
Chapter 1 “The Countermonument: Memory Against Itself in Germany”
Countermonuments:
The definition of a countermonument is a brazen, painfully self-conscious space. The construction of these monuments is fueled by younger generations and their desire to disconnect from the Nazis. These monuments mark the evolution of memory over time.
Black Form
This monument was designed by Saul Levit in 1987 and installed in the middle of the plaza in front of Munster Palace. It was built to remember missing Jews. However there were some problems with the monument; people drew graffiti on it and it wasn’t ascetically pleasing. In 1988 it was destroyed because of its high level of controversy.
It is in the shape of a large black rectangular box and resembles a coffin. It is intense attention grabbing, contrasting to the beautiful palace behind it, and it causes the viewers to have to make an effort to find out about it and discover its true meaning.
Monument Against Fascism
This monument was built in Hamburg by Jochem and Ester Gertz in 1986. It stands 12m high x 1m sq; made of hollow aluminum and lead. The monument is a tall four-sided gray/silver freestanding rectangle that had pens dangling from it with which people can approach the monument and inscribe their names or messages. Each time 1.5m of the monument were written on or filled up the monument was lowered into the ground until only the top of it was showing. The top serves as a plaque or headstone to the monument. The monument displays the idea of palinpsest which is to take a tablet or piece of parchment and write on it and then to have someone inscribe over it. There were also problems with this monument. People were defacing the monument with graffiti, swastikas, and cruel messages. (Majority of the messages were of sorrow.) The Gertz’s felt that this was appropriate because they wanted the meaning of this monument to be dictated by people’s responses to it. “The viewer becomes the subject of the work.” (31)
“Monuments themselves cannot rise up against injustices, only people can.” (?)
Hardlicka’s Countermonument
This monument has no specific name. Originally it was constructed as a military monument by Rich and Kuohl in 1936 to commemorate survival of the wars of 1870-71 and the first World War. After WWII it was undisturbed except for an inscription that someone had made which read, “Germany must live even if we must die.” (This was part of the monument in 1936.) After the war people began to vandalize the monument, however it was left in place. A new monument was constructed next to it which consisted of 4 smaller monuments: 1. The Hamburg Fire Storm which consists of holes in a slate wall thought which the Nazi monument can be seen. There is also a statue of the “Emaciated Victim” which can be viewed as either a Holocaust victim or someone killed in the war. This figure is propped up against the wall with the holes in it. 2. Figure of a woman is a woman who is broken up into pieces and mangled. There was a lack of funding to complete the 3rd and 4th smaller monuments. This monument depicts two monuments in conflict with each other.
Radermacher
This monument is located in Berlin in what was once a work camp but now serves as a field. As people walk by they trigger a light beam that projects a text which is a recount of the events that occurred in that area. The words are projected onto the trees, houses, and street and aren’t very easy to read until they are at the street level. The goal of this monument was to keep the area the same and not really add anything to the atmosphere. The script that is read is constantly changing. This site has an air of innocence because of this monument which betrays its historical past.
Negative Form
This monument was built and designed by Honst Hoheisel. There was a neo-gothic fountain erected in City Hall Square in Kassel which was destroyed by the Nazis because it was funded by a Jewish man named Sigmund Flschvott. In 1943 the city filled the ruined fountain’s basin with soil and flowers; however people became angry with this because it seemed to be disrespecting this Jewish man’s work and his so to speak “grave”. This also suggests that the citizens of Kassel remembered Aschvott’s gift to the town. In 1984 Hoheisel proposed the Negative Form Monument which was a recreation of the fountain, the only difference being that it was inverted. Nothing is explicitly obvious from viewing this monument. Each person who views it is forced to make their own decisions about it and become an active participant in its meaning.


Chapter 2: “The Sites of Destruction”
Memorializations in Concentration Camps


Plotzensee Prison in Berlin was rebuilt to memorialize Hitler’s political prisoners who died. There is also an urn there with soil from other concentration camps to remember those who died there. In 1943 the Wchvmacht Officers of the German army tried to assassinate Hitler with a suitcase bomb because they didn’t approve of his political platform at the time. It is controversial as to whether or not these men who died should be placed in the same category as the actual victims of the Holocaust. Their intentions seem to be good however it will never be known if they were truly on the side of evil or not. They were actually part of the Nazi Regime. Germany is confused as to how to memorialize these men.


Memorialization of Concentration Camps
In Berlin there is a large black sign next to the subway entrance with all of the names of the major death camps inscribed on it. On the top it reads, “Places of Horror We Will Never Forget.” This monument can have two effects; it can cause people to constantly remember the atrocities that occurred at the concentration camps or it could trivialize them because people will see the monument each day, and thus it may become just a permanent meaningless fixture in their lives. SS Cap-Arcona Memorial is a series of graves that were put in place by people eon the shores of the Baltic sea after the British bombed two ships that were liberating prisoners from Camp Nourem. The one problem with these graves is that there is no mention of how or why these people died. There is no mention of the events that lead up to their deaths which seems to in some ways defeat the purpose of the monument.


Dachau Entrance
This monument is located outside Munich. The U.S. liberated this concentration camp and used the barracks for 20 years. There were small makeshift memorials built in and around the camp and a small museum. People in town didn’t like the museum and make-shift memorials; they were destroyed and then rebuilt again. In 1960 a Catholic memorial was established to commemorate other religions and people persecuted. Funding was received to rebuild and fix up the camp. Nador Glid, in 1968 created a memorial sculpture with mangled people on barbed wire to show the atrocity of the Holocaust. The monument is 50 feet long and 15-20 feet high. It is very impacting because it is so large and can be seen from a distance far away. In 1967 a Jewish Memorial chapel was constructed to resemble a crematorium. There is a Star of David on the gates and a menorah on top to represent the smoke of the burning bodies. The monument is large and attracts attention. Dachau wasn’t the most important camp but has become more so because of the monuments that have been constructed there. The problems with this monument is that due to funding they have painted the camp walls and cleaned it up. This may seem like a positive thing, however there is controversy over this because it makes the camp seem pristine and park-like. The beauty of the camp argues against the ugliness that it encompassed in the past.

Buchenwald Camp
This monument is titled “Revolt of the Prisoners” built in East Germany. The Communists wanted to preserve the camp; however they didn’t fix it up. The German Democratic Republic believed that the communists liberated the victims of this camp and it is controversial as to whether or not the U.S. was involved. This is the largest memorial located in any of the camps. There is a bell tower located in the back and a statue of 11 bronze men standing located in the front. In 1958 this memorial was commemorated in honor of the communist party members, and there is an issue because it doesn’t remember the Jews who died. This monument would be difficult to imagine in West Germany because it would remind people of fascism and Nazism because of its monumental size. In 1993 renovations were made and there was a hope that the memorial would evoke emotions referencing both Hitler and Stalin’s reigns of terror.


Chapter 3: The Gestapo- Gelande: Topography of Unfinished Memory
History of Gestapo Headquarters
The headquarters were bombed and ruined during the war. It was feared by the people that the SS men would try to build a monument to memorialize themselves. In 1951 the destructed headquarters became a dumping ground and was untouched until 1978. People wanted a memorial and so they had a competition for the design. 194 designs were proposed and one winner was chosen. The chosen design was to lay iron slates with the text of the SS men rising out of the slates over the ruins. People didn’t embrace this idea. The Active Museum of Fascism and Resistance in Berlin excavated the ruins and left some of them. Thus the monument is the actual site of the bombed headquarters.


Chapter 4: Austria’s Ambivalent Memory
Austria was not sure how to represent the Manthausen Camp. They wanted to represent all of the nationalities of people who were persecuted and imprisoned during the Holocaust. They erected 20 different monuments to serve this purpose. One of these is called the “Former Soviet Union Monument to Victims of Fascism” and it depicts10 figures carrying a wreath. Another monument is depicted as 7 prong menorah. This monument was erected to remind people that the Jews died because they were Jewish. The monument is abstract. On the bottom there is a plaque that reads “Remember”. The “Steps of Death” are actual steps that lead through a grave site where prisoners were worked to death. This monument is in its original form and has not been touched or changed. In 1938 the Nazi’s had a celebration in Graz, Austria. They erected a giant statue of the Virgin Mary. It was taken down shortly thereafter because it was too harsh a reminder to the people of the Nazi Regime. In 1988 it was reconstructed as one of the 16 points of reference that are in the shape of a cross. This shape was used in order to compare the Jews struggle to that of Christ. This new statue was very controversial because it is draped in black and red, the Nazi colors. The new monument seems to represent Austria’s inability to confront their memories of the past. In the center of Vienna, a monument built by Alfred Redika was constructed in 1988. the monument consists of 5 pieces. Part of the monument consists of 2 gates; the first gate represents the people killed by German soldiers. The second gate represents the concentration camp victims. Another part of the monument is titled, “Jew on the Ground” This monument is a Jewish man lying on the ground. He is covered in barbed wire. The idea behind this was to represent how the Austrian people abused the Jewish people and made them clean the streets with their clothes, skin, or whatever else they had available. The barbed wire was a later addition. It was added because people were sitting on the monument without even realizing its importance or what it represented.


Minutes for February 25, 2003
Amanda Ingram
Artists to be discussed:
Hans Haacke
Anselm Kiefer
Alan Schechner
Zbigniew Libera


Prof. Hauser began by asking us general questions to help orient the lecture to come. These included, who does image ask you to identify with? In what position does it put you, the viewer? As the victim, the silent observer, the majority, or the perpetrator? What difference does the position put on the work?
Hauser then stated that her lecture would progress from less emotionally engaged works of art to more emotionally engaged works. She then affirmed her belief that visual culture is able to say with image what one cannot say in any other way. She then gave us background on the visual culture of the Nazis. She explained that the Nazis were very visually oriented as a culture, utilizing visual spectacle, coming up with a brand/logo (swastika and the eagle), and color coordinating everything (red, black, and white).


While we may perceive these as negative traits, we must also recognize that we too use a visual mode, commercials!
Hauser then presented the first of a series of slides. These showed Nazis saluting, banners/flags covering everything, marching, the eagle, and the swastika. Hauser explained that these visual aids sought to emphasize the Nazis’ identity.
Hauser then proceeded with the first of the artists in focus: HANS HAACKE.


In 1988, Haacke completed his monument entitled And You Were Victorious After All.


The monument was completed as part of a cultural festival held every fall in the Austrian city of Gratz. In ’88 (the 20th anniversary) the festival’s theme was based on the history of the Nazis in the city. The city, the province (state), and the government (federal) funded the festival and artists. The festival sought to show the guilt and innocence of Art in the Nazi period. Hauser then proceeded with a little history of the city of Gratz during the occupation. Austria was annexed by Germany in 1938. There was a ceremony held in the central plaza of Gratz entitled “City of People’s Insurrection.” Hitler erected an obelisk of sorts around the Virgin Mary Statue (a 17th century statue commemorating victory over the Turks). He entitles this “And They were Victorious After All.” The obelisk was topped with an “eternal flame.” In 1988 (50th anniversary) Haacke reconstructs the obelisk with a few changes. He covers the statue of the Virgin Mary with same logo and Eagle but adds text at the bottom in Nazi type describing the terrible effects of the war, the people killed from the area surrounding Gratz. Again, in the common square (where people ate lunch!) the monument was disturbing and obstructing.
Haacke also erected 16 placards, which Hauser showed in slides. The placards each had a swastika in the center with the same inscription that Hitler’s placards had: “Gratz city: the people’s insurrection”. However, Haacke also pasted articles of everyday classified ads in the centers. These showed that the general people accepted Nazi propaganda and occupation and did not resist.


The response to Haacke’s memorial was mixed: some were mad and angry, some rejected it, while others welcomed the information (although controversial) about their heritage. Toward the end of the instillation, the controversy led to the firebombing of the monument. It damaged the Virgin Mary statue as well (melting parts). Haacke simply asked for a silent demonstration and the ability for people to talk and respond to the event. The bomber, a neo-Nazi, was arrested. Haacke was not angry: instead, his response was that the people’s response is as much a part of the memorial as the physical parts and that the fire/burning can only be integrated into the meaning of the work.


Prof. Hauser then engaged the class’s response by asking us what we thought an equivalent of this monument would be in the United States. It was decided that such a monument would represent the United States actions against the Native Americans. However, forming a monument in the US would be more difficult because we are not at present a Totalitarian government and the event is so far in our past. Americans also do not memorialize in this way; they tend to play through the sympathy of victims. Prof. Mayer then suggested the Vietnam War. Hauser asked how we would feel if when visiting the Mall in Washington, DC we found a monument showing all the bombs dropped, the helicopters used, and the Vietnamese killed instead of the names/dates of the dead American soldiers? Would we feel angry, guilty, responsible, or uncomfortable? Is the goal of such memorials to create discomfort? Hauser then concluded her section of Haacke by stating that his work was a direct provocation against the popular belief that Austria was the first victim of the Nazis and that Haacke’s art makes us face a history that we would rather not see.


Hauser then moved on to the next artist: ANSELM KIEFER. She first discussed and showed the photos taken in 1969 by Kiefer entitled “Occupations.” These show Kiefer himself standing in different settings doing the Nazi salute. Hauser asked one student how he would feel if he were a German in the 1960s and saw these photos. The student responded that he felt that some were worse than others (the one in front of the statue being worse than the one in front of the ocean). He also said that they were not as disturbing to him as the documentary photos of the Nazis and their followers. Hauser also mentioned that the photos were taken in countries other than Germany because to do the Nazi salute in Germany is illegal. The photos also speak to the German silence (putting head in the sand syndrome) and the annexation (all taken in countries invaded/annexed/in Europe). The physical appearance of Kiefer in these photos was also discussed: he appears in German military pants but also disheveled (not characteristic of the Nazis). The controversy surrounding these photos was whether the photos were honest or critical. Many felt that he might be making fun or actually be a Neo-Nazi. Whatever the true meaning, it was decided that the pictures are disturbing.
Kiefer, however, was most well known for his LARGE paintings. Hauser showed two paintings entitled “Your Golden Hair Margarethe” (1981) and “Nuremberg” (1982). She then shared information about the poet who wrote the poem that the painting “Your Golden Hair...” is based on. Paul Celan was a Holocaust survivor. He was Romanian with German Jewish background (wrote in German). “Todes Fugue” or “Death Fugue” is the poem whose refrain is “Your Golden Hair Margarethe.” His parents were sent to Auschwitz and killed but he hid, changed name, and survived. After the war, he lived in Vienna then Paris, where he taught at the Sorbonne & wrote.
In the “Golden Hair” painting, you see the blond hair depicting the Aryan and a splash of black depicting the Jewish woman, Schulamite. The painting is abstract and has the same landscape as the painting entitled Nuremberg; Nuremberg was a Nazi rallying ground and a place of mass spectacles. Kiefer applied straw to both paintings. The painting is also over photographs. They depict the importance of land and soil to German ideology, however, the land is not beautiful but charred and black. Neither shows the victims but alludes to them through the burning. Prof. Hauser made an interesting comment that the architecture of the government buildings in Albany resemble the “monumentalism” of Nazi architecture. The very impersonal, inhumane, and immense characteristics of fascist architecture. Another of Kiefer’s famous painting is “Schulamite” (1983). It is far back into space, a perspective piece (eternal quality). It was discussed that this may allude to other options to turn, niches in the wall. However, it was decided that really there is only one way. You are contained. There are flames at the end in the shape of a Menorah (where the bodies should have been now is turned into a religious miracle). The walls are oven shaped, blackened, and charred with soot. Hauser then explained that this painting is based on a Nazi monument: Berling Hall of Soldiers (1930s) and was very controversial in Germany. Hauser then pointed out that the viewer in the painting is very small or lowdown looking into the hall. This still reflects Fascist architecture and one cannot help respond to Fascist architecture the way Fascism wants.


Kiefer's paintings were all controversial: Is he serious? They were too nationalistic and grand for Germany. They were seductively beautiful. Is this appropriate for Holocaust art? Kiefer then turns to self-portraits.


Hauser then proceeded to the next two artists who both had pieces presented in an Art Exhibit last year at the National Jewish Museum. She first explained the exhibition. Its theme was the Holocaust but not in a traditional way. It did not focus on the victim but instead sought to understand the mindset of the perpetrators. Much controversy and protesting surrounded its opening. Some believed by “understanding” you pardon (Nolte & Habermas debate). We then discussed the work of ZBIGNIEW LIBERA who designed the Concentration Camp box set of Legos (7 pieces) in 1996. We discussed how these maybe sought to make children recognize the Holocaust. What would happen if you opened the box and started working? Anyone could build what the Nazis did. There is this great potential of what YOU- and I could create. Also for a tiny instant, because Legos are popular toys, you might have a pleasurable response to the toy.
Another interesting question was raised: Did the artist actually construct the legos in order to take the pictures for the boxes or were they created on a computer? Hauser did not have an answer to this question.


We then addressed the final artist: ALAN SCHECHNER. Schechner created a piece of art entitled “It’s the Real Thing.” Hauser began by explaining that the piece of art was digital (on the computer). Schechner took a famous image of concentration camp victims being liberated and inserted himself holding a can of diet coke. We discussed this as a commentary on Coke’s collaboration with the Nazis in 1930s and that this was a very strong commentary on American society. The artist contrasts with the other people in the picture because he is cleaner, shaven, and nourished. We saw this as a comment on the amount of wastage in our society: drinking diet (no calories) while others are starving! We also saw this work as a comment on consumerism & commercialism: are we at the same risk as the German population? Are we brainwashed by commercialism?
Finally, we discussed briefly a video shown in the exhibit in which one of Hitler’s speeches was re-spliced so that he apologizes and offers forgiveness. Prof. Mayer laughed at this. The video is disturbing and eerie but also it crosses the line of comedy.


The current exhibition in the Tang was mentioned briefly and all were encouraged to attend.
The lecture then ended with the idea that we live in a consumerist world and thus is that the only medium to which we can relate? Are we truly being brainwashed? Were the Jews, as victims, brainwashed? Was the general population?
In the next class, the Presentation of Group 3 will be finished and Group 2 will present.


Minutes for March 4, 2003
Melissa Koven


Professor Mayer addressed what we would be doing the next couple of classes. This Thursday, Group 5 will make their presentation on Jakob the Liar.


Two handouts were distributed: An essay entitled The Longest Shadow and a news article called Turning Memory into Travesty.
For next Tuesday the class should also view the video testimonies located at www.library.yale.edu/testimonial/excerpts/rachelg.html. We should consider how these testimonies deliver information.

Group 4 Presentation:
Members of Group 4 are Lori Lerman, Jeff Goldberg, Kate Marantz, and Melissa Koven. The topic presented was “America: Memory and the Politics of Identity” from The Texture of Memory.


Jeff introduced the topic by showing how America’s remembrance of the Holocaust is unique. One way in which it is different is that private money is used to construct many of the museums and memorials.
In December of 1942 there was a 10 minute silence in which the entire US Jewish population stopping working and mourned the dead.


Kate then discussed the idea of: The American Monument: Forever Unbuilt. Many different types of monuments were proposed. In 1947 there was a dedication ceremony and a plaque was put down. However, there were many problems with the original design and with the new design of the Scroll of Fire. The fundraising broke down and the monument was never built. The plaque still remains at the original site on Riverside Drive between 83rd and 84th Street.


Kate then spoke about the Babi Yar Memorial in Denver. “Babi Yar” was a poem by Yevgeny Yevtushenko, a Russian poet who was allowed to travel outside Russia. He thus noticed the anti-Semitism found in the world. The poem was so powerful, that people wanted a park to be dedicated to it. Two granite chunks line the entranceway to the memorial park. The location was chosen because it reminded people of the place in Ukraine that is spoken about in the poem. The Ukrainians objected because, originally, the memorial was meant to represent just the Jews who were killed. Thus, the memorial was changed to represent the Ukrainians as well. However, today the site is unvisited and not taken care of.


Kate also mentioned the Dallas Memorial Center for Holocaust Studies. The purpose of this center was to show personal experiences. One of the key features is the original boxcar that was found in Belgium and then transported to Dallas for this memorial. This boxcar forms the entrance to the center. The class discussed the idea that survivors objected to this, and thus were given a different entrance through which to enter.
Finally, Kate spoke of the Tucson Jewish Community Center. It was formed in April of 1990. Of the memorials mentioned so far, this is the most successful. It is composed of a 43 foot high column, a relief wall, and a reflecting pool, all located at the entranceway to the JCC sports center. The column can represent a broken candle or a chimney. The wall is falling into the reflecting pool and there are names inscribed in the wall. There is a quote at the bottom of the pool, reflected through the water, which says “there is hope for thy future.” This memorial also relates the Holocaust to the genocide of the Native Americans who used to live in Tucson.


Melissa spoke about the three memorials located in Los Angeles. The first was the public monument at Pan Pacific Park, created by Joseph Young in the fall of 1991. It is an abstract memorial made of six triangular columns of black granite. Each column is 24 feet high and can be understood to represent the six million Jews killed, the six death camps in Poland, chimneys, or commemorative candles. The second site discussed was the Martyrs’ Memorial and Museum of the Holocaust. It is a museum filled with photographs where tours are led by Holocaust survivors. It was the first Holocaust museum in the US. The third site discussed was Beit Hashoah – Museum of Tolerance. The museum was divided into two sections. The first focused on prejudice and race hatred while the second focused on the Holocaust. The museum portrays the idea of Hollywood meets Holocaust. It uses glitzy modern entertainment technology to appeal to young visitors and manipulate their emotions.
Melissa then discussed George Segal’s memorial, Holocaust, located in San Francisco. It was unveiled on November 8, 1984. The memorial is at a site overlooking the Pacific Ocean. It is made up of 11 cast-white figures behind a barbed wire fence. Ten figures lie in a pile while one survivor stands behind the fence, looking out over the Ocean. The class discussed the idea that Segal chose to use friends’ bodies for the memorial, rather than dead ones. He wanted to portray the humanity and life force surrounding the victims. It was also discussed as to whether or not the memorial is better when viewed indoors at its other location at the Jewish Museum in New York. Indoors, the attention of the viewer is more focused on the figures rather than the beautiful environment. Four days after the dedication the figures were spray painted with swastikas, which shows how controversial the remembrance of the Holocaust still is.
Lori then spoke about Liberation, located at Liberty State Park in New Jersey. This memorial forms a triangle with the Stature of Liberty and Ellis Island. The statue represents a young GI holding an emaciated survivor. It emphasizes the helplessness of the survivor. It also shows the American understanding of itself as a type of liberator. The memorial was made in honor of the liberation of Dachau. The artist was Nathan Rapoport. This memorial helped to bring together the American survivors.
Jeff talked about the New England Holocaust Memorial in Boston. Its precise site is along Boston’s Freedom Trail. It consists of six towers, each 65 feet tall. Numbers of the Jews and names of concentration camps are engraved in the glass. The memorial is very abstract; a lot of interpretation is left to the viewer.


The class discussed Martin Niemolder’s quote, which basically says that first they came for the communists, then they came for the socialists, then the trade unionists, and then the Jews. The Boston monument contains a variation of this quote, but lists the Catholics first. The class was told to look up Martin Niemolder and find other variances of the quote.
Lori then spoke about the US Holocaust Memorial in Washington, D.C. It was finished in 1993. Most of the money used for the project was donated by private sources. The museum contains thousands of artifacts, including shoes, hair, and original books and documents. There is a lot of controversy as to what the purpose of the museum should be. Lori was not able to finish her presentation, but will continue on Thursday.


Minutes 3/6/03
Susanna Kremer

- Next week we will be watching documentary films and survivor testimony. The readings are William and Christine Schurtman’s articles in the course reader.

- Handout- Baba Yar poem which was discussed in the previous class regarding a memorial in Denver.

- Discussed article “Turning Memory into Travesty,” which debates over whether a World War II monument should be built on the Mall in Washington D.C. Some claim that it is already a monument and should be left open. There was also the argument of modern art vs. monuments, and how the proposal is not considered aesthetically valuable. There were quotes from two people we have studied: James E. Young was quoted on how memory is never pure, and Nathan Rappaport was also quoted, and his memorials criticized.
- Also discussed article from NY Times which described the current controversy concerning American museums who bought work from Nazis which was previously owned by Jews. Because the work was originally owned by Jewish families, it is thought that a provenance should be paid to the relatives of the original owners.
- Different interpretations of Martin Neimuller’s quote regarding his apathy during the Holocaust were read. Although most contain the same words, they are often put in a different order, such as beginning with Catholics, Communists, etc.
- There was a continuation of last class’s presentation of the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C.
-cost 147 million, most of which was private donation
-10,000 authentic artifacts, including shoes and human hair
-largest Holocaust study center in America
-initial debate over private sorrow vs. public grief
-meant to reinforce United States as a safe haven, while expressing sympathy to victims


- Group 5 presentation- Jakob the Liar. The group consisted of Sorange Rodriguez, Katelyn Kershaw, Nicole Greatorex, Zach, and Brandan


Jurek Becker, author of Jakob the Liar, was imprisoned in the Holocaust, and survived along with his father. He didn’t remember any experiences of the Holocaust, partly because he moved to Germany after the war. While in Germany he began writing screenplays, including Jacob the Liar, which was originally rejected and then turned into a book. Since then, different movie versions have been made.


*Summary- The story takes place in an unnamed Poland ghetto. At the beginning, Jakob is accused of being out passed the 8:00 curfew, and is sent to ask for appropriate punishment. While in the building he is sent to, he goes into a room where he sees a radio. The radio is broadcasting that Russians are near, which gives Jakob a sense of hope. After his friend Mischa tells Jakob that he wants to steal food, Jakob tells him that he has a radio in order to convince him not to. Mischa then tells everyone in the community, who then come to Jakob to hear updates. Jakob, seeing the hope that it brings to everyone, continues to lie and give fake reports. Jakob also takes care of an orphaned girl, Lena, whose parents were sent to a concentration camp. Having heard about the radio, Lena asks to see it, and Jakob agrees. He sits her down and goes behind a wall, pretending to be Winston Churchill. Although Lena knows that it’s only Jakob, she doesn’t say anything. Jakob continues to lie, despite the pleas of a professor who reminds him of the consequences. Jakob tells his friend Kowalski that he is lying about the radio, which then causes Kowalski to commit suicide. There are then two endings:


1) Jakob attempts to escape and dies. The ghetto is soon after liberated
2) Boxcars arrive at the ghetto to load everyone to go to concentration camps
There are two movies: 1974 East German directed by Frank Beyer, and 1999 Hollywood directed by Peter Kosovitz.
The 1974 version portrays Jakob as being passive. It realistically portrays its characters as weak and malnourished

The 1999 version portrays Jakob as being active, heroic, and not afraid to talk back. This version is less realistic, as its characters don’t appear to be malnourished.


 


<< home | syllabus | minutes | texts | links >>
 

Reinhard Mayer (rmayer@skidmore.edu) x5214
Office: Palamountain 429
Office Hours: Monday / Wednesday 3:30 - 5:00