After reading Mirroring Evil, I began thinking about the reactions that people had prior to the show opening. When people heard the exhibition was going to feature Nazi imagery, the negative comments began. Since the institution hosting the exhibition was a Jewish Museum (and Jews were exterminated by Nazis during WWII and the Holocaust), I would assume that people would ask questions about why they would host these works. More often than not, if a museum or curator dislikes the art or finds it to be distasteful, they probably would not want to show it in their facility. The photos, movies, new articles about the Holocaust tell about the horrible things done to Jews, among other groups; rarely do you hear about any other views of what happened. It is understood that what the Nazis had done was beyond horrible and those individuals involved are ruined people because of what they had done. There are not many survivors of WWII/ the Holocaust still alive today- the majority of the people going to see the exhibition did not directly experience what happened. The Holocaust effected people on both sides, the victims and the participants (Nazis). Both have left legacies. The public is use to seeing and sympathizes with the victims' side. The time and place seem kind of odd. It was shortly after the terrorist attack on September 11, the country was not in a happy and open-minded place. The Jewish Museum hosting this exhibition was controversial. This exhibition was of "contemporary artists using 'imagery from the Nazi era to explore the nature of evil'" (107). I think that quote best explains it. It was not an attack on anyone; it was an exploration.
I found it interesting that Hitler was compared to Duchamp. "...Adolf Hitler, murderer of millions of Jews, and Marcel Duchamp, murderer of the traditional art often found in Jewish museums. The very presence of images of Hitler and Duchamp in a Jewish museum provokes questions about what forms of representation are allowed when and where" (110). I understand that they were both the death of something but I'm not sure that I understand why these two men should have any influence on what is or is not represented in a museum. The curators in the institutions have the authority/influence of what ends up being shown.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I also thaught the Hitler/Duchamp comparison was a little strange, but not because I don't understand that they "were both the death of something." I think when anything is compared to Hitler, that comparison changes that thing. Hitler is seen as the pentacle of evil, and he deserved that title, but comparing Marcel Duchamp to Hitler is an unbalanced comparison. That inbalance causes the piece to seem some-what like a mockery and that is what would be offensive.
ReplyDeleteI also never understand why Hitler and Duchamp were used as a comparison. It seems like a far fetched example. I understand Duchamp being an extremest but to compare him to a murderer is just silly.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that the Hitler/Duchamp analogy is a bit tenuous. Of course, one rarely thinks of art as being 'evil,' and perhaps that is what the author is trying to get us to contemplate, but this analogy seems to put human life on par with the creation of the inanimate.
ReplyDeleteThe Hitler duchamp allegory is odd to me, but I do understand why people were upset about the show. I understand that it was showing a differnt view and not condoning the behavior but it is still a sensitive subject among many people. I think that the show could have ben set up a bit better,and maybe ecplained a bit more.
ReplyDelete