Mirroring Evil

“Who can speak for the Holocaust?” This question was asked by the Jewish Museum displaying the exhibition Mirroring Evil: Nazi Imagery/Recent Art. Is it right that some believe that the only people who can examine the impact of a traumatic event such as the Holocaust are those who were involved or those immediately affected? Can the Holocaust be addressed in ways other than from the perspective of the victims? The Jewish Museum in New York felt that it was time for today’s generation to be given the opportunity to show the way in which they were impacted by the Holocaust. For today’s Jewish people, WWII and the Holocaust are closely tied to their identity. The exhibition discusses Hitler, Nazi paraphernalia, and other things that are incorporated with the Holocaust but unlike traditional Holocaust museums, the imagery is removed from the victims.

With Jewish culture being so closely connected to these elements, it is easy to say that even though the exhibit is different from the accepted Jewish exhibits, the viewers mind can still be brought to the idea of the Holocaust and the murders that took place during that time period. The artists within the exhibit decided to take a different approach in how they wanted to discuss its legacy. Being all young, mostly under 40, none of the artists have a direct personal experience with the event in which they are discussing. The artists understand that “younger generations have no direct experience of the Holocaust and know it only through images” (Greenberg 106). It is this understanding of the image that allows for some age groups to see this as more of a documentation of the Nazi regime in an artistic fashion while still being able to see the Jewish place in their history, instead of seeing it as a glorification of their reign.

By having these images in a Jewish museum, I believe that it makes it more understandable than if a person walked into the Metropolitan Museum of Art and saw a huge swastika on the wall. If it were in a Jewish museum, my immediate thought would be what its relation to the Jewish race was, I would not think it was trying to make a political statement, as would have been my first thought had it been somewhere else. Placement for these exhibits is a key element. This exhibit was accused of not adhering to time constraints for the victims. With some survivors and their descendents still alive, some believed that the exhibit “reopened the wounds of [the] trauma” too soon for some of these victims (Greenberg 108). However some feel that by not addressing these traumas can cause just as much pain than by reopening the injuries.

“Who can speak for the Holocaust?” This question was asked by the Jewish Museum displaying the exhibition Mirroring Evil: Nazi Imagery/Recent Art. Is it right that some believe that the only people who can examine the impact of a traumatic event such as the Holocaust are those who were involved or those immediately affected? Can the Holocaust be addressed in ways other than from the perspective of the victims? The Jewish Museum in New York felt that it was time for today’s generation to be given the opportunity to show the way in which they were impacted by the Holocaust. For today’s Jewish people, WWII and the Holocaust are closely tied to their identity. The exhibition discusses Hitler, Nazi paraphernalia, and other things that are incorporated with the Holocaust but unlike traditional Holocaust museums, the imagery is removed from the victims.
With Jewish culture being so closely connected to these elements, it is easy to say that even though the exhibit is different from the accepted Jewish exhibits, the viewers mind can still be brought to the idea of the Holocaust and the murders that took place during that time period. The artists within the exhibit decided to take a different approach in how they wanted to discuss its legacy. Being all young, mostly under 40, none of the artists have a direct personal experience with the event in which they are discussing. The artists understand that “younger generations have no direct experience of the Holocaust and know it only through images” (Greenberg 106). It is this understanding of the image that allows for some age groups to see this as more of a documentation of the Nazi regime in an artistic fashion while still being able to see the Jewish place in their history, instead of seeing it as a glorification of their reign.
By having these images in a Jewish museum, I believe that it makes it more understandable than if a person walked into the Metropolitan Museum of Art and saw a huge swastika on the wall. If it were in a Jewish museum, my immediate thought would be what its relation to the Jewish race was, I would not think it was trying to make a political statement, as would have been my first thought had it been somewhere else. Placement for these exhibits is a key element. This exhibit was accused of not adhering to time constraints for the victims. With some survivors and their descendents still alive, some believed that the exhibit “reopened the wounds of [the] trauma” too soon for some of these victims (Greenberg 108). However some feel that by not addressing these traumas can cause just as much pain than by reopening the injuries.

Greenberg, Reesa. "Mirroring Evil, Evil Mirrored: Timing, Trauma, and Temporary Exhibitions." (2002): 104-17. Print.