|
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.
|