Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
What matters is not so much what a person likes, but how they justify it for themselves.
Nazi art was exclusively affirmative — it always says only “for”. It was a monolithic discipline, closed to negativity in any form, because-see the rules of ur-fascism-the ideal has already been found, and there is no room for anything but constant repetition. Nonideality is not allowed, even in the form of mention, even to humiliate.
Well, accordingly, in Nazi art, things are glorified that are really beautiful. And what? Youth, brotherhood, idealism, strength, readiness, the future-wir Jungen werden der Gewalt nicht Weichen, ancestors nod, mothers do not get enough. And most importantly, these are things that are really needed — not for everyone, but for many — in one form or another, as part of their cultural diet. Which automatically raises the question of whether a given discourse can exist in principle without a double bottom, where we know what is underneath the plywood.
On the one hand, the same ancient art from which the monumental Nazi aesthetic was borrowed perfectly glorifies everything more or less the same, is valued and recognized, and is completely separated in our minds from the context of its time, with slavery, sexism, xenophobia, et cetera-although its advantage over the results of the Third Reich is also that from a purely artistic point of view it is also disproportionately better.
On the one hand.
On the other hand, even the propaganda “Aeneid” is a story of conquest as much as the history of burial sites — almost directly reminding that war is the extermination of generations and the desecration of temples, that following fate deprives a person of everything worth living for, and it is much better to be the lowest of mortals than a hero in the shadow realm.
Art that aims to portray all this youth and readiness, but does not want to portray what they generate — by default, insincere. Ancient art and its subsequent branches still contained their own antithesis. Nazi-no. It is deliberately one-dimensional. It can't afford to open up the other side in any way, because the other side is the worst thing you can imagine.
What conclusion do I draw about such a person? I won't do anything. Let him see what he wants. But let him fully understand what he is looking at.