an email from her:
neeeawwwwwwwwwww how cute....my little girl is alll...........big! i guess i'm the real little one though
i think the smarter you get, the more potential you have to be extremely immature. it's like climbing the stairs of immaturity. you start at the bottom and ur like, a baby. then you get smarter and take a step, and you also get a cookie and eat it, signifying smartness (now in the stomach). an so on and so forth. but if the right thing comes along to push you over, you fall down. you don't lose your cookies (aka your smarts) because you ate them....but you're back down on the immaturity. and the higher the stairs you go....the more potential to fall.....muahahaha physics. keep your cookies. but fall down the stairs every now and then (i'll make sure that happens)
love,
me
Monday, March 24, 2008
Sunday, March 16, 2008
The Art of War
No, I'm not actually talking about or reading the famous book, "The Art of War," but the title is still appropriate. The last week in Germany was good for many reasons. Some questions that arose during the trip, which included a good amount of WWI/II/Cold War sights: How are we to remember the victims of a war who were on the "bad guy" side? For how many generations should a nation actively remember/repent/ask forgiveness for wrongs done in the past? Is it necessary and proper to remember/repent/ask forgiveness for wrongs done by your culture/nation in which you yourself played no active role? If these steps are not taken, will the conflict always live on, however well masked it may be? What would international politics look like if world leaders acted as Daniel did when he asked forgiveness not only for his own wrongs but for those of his whole nation? And finally, what role should art play in remembering the past? They are not new questions, but newly surfaced.
Berlin is a city full of the histories of different wars. Wars though, I believe, are never fully history- they live on into the lives of future generations, the way cities are constructed, the demgraphics of cities and countries, and the art that is produced decades and centuries later. War changes people, places, and things. War changed me when I was called "nazi girl" in 6th grade, and this week, when I was reminded of my Oma's time spent in a Russian concentration camp. Where there is war, there is art. I've become pretty sure of that. War brings battle songs, propaganda drawings, victorious murals and scuptures of battle heros, carefully designed memorials, new clothing styles, and new literary genres. It transcends all types of art and no theme is left untouched, from religion to fashion to sports.
It was not until recently that Berlin [and Germany in general] began to think more intently about how to remember the Holocaust in art and education. The Berlin Holocaust memorial was constructed only this year, and the Jewish museum remembering WWII is also new to the last decade. In addition to two other main sights, the Topographies of Terror and Checkpoint Charlie, these are the main Holocuast sites of rememberance. Both of them are considered modern art and the artists intentionally left their message open to interpretation. It would take too long to describe the memorial and museum in this post [maybe the next], but the theme of using modern art that is intentionally open to interpretation to remember/memorialize the Holocaust is pretty provocative, I think.
I don't know tons about the theory and and philosophy of modern art. Wikipedia says: Modern art refers to the new approach to art which placed emphasis on representing emotions, themes, and various abstractions. Artists experimented with new ways of seeing, with fresh ideas about the nature of materials and functions of art, often moving further toward abstraction. More generally, I've always though of modern art, particularly in the late 20th and 21st centuries, to be focused on the the viewers interpretation and experience. WWII is different than other wars in that it's hard to argue about who the "bad guys" were. In some wars its hard to tell...one side started something, another responded, and it was back and forth until someone won. But wars that have more clear "good guy/bad guy" sides are, ironically, harder to memorialize, I think, because no matter what, for the rest of history you are remembering one side as bad. So I find it interesting that Germany has chosen pretty abstract art forms to commemorate the Holocaust. It's not true for all the museums/monuments there, but for many. What reponsibility do artists have to remember the past through their work when the past is pretty clear cut on who the "bad guy" was. Is it responsible to use abstract art forms to memorialize something that maybe shouldn't be left open to interpretation? Is there a danger that the viewer won't the the right message? or won't get a powerful enough message to accurately reflect the Holocaust? Is using art that is highly inteprative [as opposed to strictly factual pictures/stories...etc] a way of avoiding a more blunt picture of the past...a picture that is still really really hard for Germany to face? Is that why the Holocaust is more frequently depicted in modern art in Germany as opposed to other cities/countires that have Holocaust museums? Or will this art give a greater and more intense response?
I think in many ways that this abstract art is more for the current German people than it is for the past or to remember those who were victims. You can't force someone to feel a certain way about an event, especially if they weren't even alive during that time. But you can create ways of helping them to think about it and arive at some personal emotional response through the process. Do we run the risk though of never arriving at an emotional response if the art is "too abstract?" Why is it important for later generations to have a resopnse? I'm not totally sure, but I'm pretty sure it's important. War changes everything.
a snipit from my Great Depression Lit seminar:
"This friend of mine, Karl, is a writer. He is always hungry. You cannot stuff yourself on a dollar a week. It is not his fault he is always hungry. It is that nobody buys the stuff he writes. He writes of starving babies, and men who tramp the streets in search of work. People do not like such things. For in Karl's stories you can hear the starved cries of babies. You can see the hungry look in men's eyes. Karl will always be hungry. He will always describe things so that you can see them when you read...Werner is an artist. He paints pictures of people he sees in the park. People will not buy them though. I think it is because of the hungry look. I think if Werner would take the hungry look out of the eyes of the people in his pictures, he could buy more hamburgers and take the hungry look out of his own eyes. Karl and Werner say this would be sacrilege to art."
-Waiting for Nothing, Thomas Kromer
Berlin is a city full of the histories of different wars. Wars though, I believe, are never fully history- they live on into the lives of future generations, the way cities are constructed, the demgraphics of cities and countries, and the art that is produced decades and centuries later. War changes people, places, and things. War changed me when I was called "nazi girl" in 6th grade, and this week, when I was reminded of my Oma's time spent in a Russian concentration camp. Where there is war, there is art. I've become pretty sure of that. War brings battle songs, propaganda drawings, victorious murals and scuptures of battle heros, carefully designed memorials, new clothing styles, and new literary genres. It transcends all types of art and no theme is left untouched, from religion to fashion to sports.
It was not until recently that Berlin [and Germany in general] began to think more intently about how to remember the Holocaust in art and education. The Berlin Holocaust memorial was constructed only this year, and the Jewish museum remembering WWII is also new to the last decade. In addition to two other main sights, the Topographies of Terror and Checkpoint Charlie, these are the main Holocuast sites of rememberance. Both of them are considered modern art and the artists intentionally left their message open to interpretation. It would take too long to describe the memorial and museum in this post [maybe the next], but the theme of using modern art that is intentionally open to interpretation to remember/memorialize the Holocaust is pretty provocative, I think.
I don't know tons about the theory and and philosophy of modern art. Wikipedia says: Modern art refers to the new approach to art which placed emphasis on representing emotions, themes, and various abstractions. Artists experimented with new ways of seeing, with fresh ideas about the nature of materials and functions of art, often moving further toward abstraction. More generally, I've always though of modern art, particularly in the late 20th and 21st centuries, to be focused on the the viewers interpretation and experience. WWII is different than other wars in that it's hard to argue about who the "bad guys" were. In some wars its hard to tell...one side started something, another responded, and it was back and forth until someone won. But wars that have more clear "good guy/bad guy" sides are, ironically, harder to memorialize, I think, because no matter what, for the rest of history you are remembering one side as bad. So I find it interesting that Germany has chosen pretty abstract art forms to commemorate the Holocaust. It's not true for all the museums/monuments there, but for many. What reponsibility do artists have to remember the past through their work when the past is pretty clear cut on who the "bad guy" was. Is it responsible to use abstract art forms to memorialize something that maybe shouldn't be left open to interpretation? Is there a danger that the viewer won't the the right message? or won't get a powerful enough message to accurately reflect the Holocaust? Is using art that is highly inteprative [as opposed to strictly factual pictures/stories...etc] a way of avoiding a more blunt picture of the past...a picture that is still really really hard for Germany to face? Is that why the Holocaust is more frequently depicted in modern art in Germany as opposed to other cities/countires that have Holocaust museums? Or will this art give a greater and more intense response?
I think in many ways that this abstract art is more for the current German people than it is for the past or to remember those who were victims. You can't force someone to feel a certain way about an event, especially if they weren't even alive during that time. But you can create ways of helping them to think about it and arive at some personal emotional response through the process. Do we run the risk though of never arriving at an emotional response if the art is "too abstract?" Why is it important for later generations to have a resopnse? I'm not totally sure, but I'm pretty sure it's important. War changes everything.
a snipit from my Great Depression Lit seminar:
"This friend of mine, Karl, is a writer. He is always hungry. You cannot stuff yourself on a dollar a week. It is not his fault he is always hungry. It is that nobody buys the stuff he writes. He writes of starving babies, and men who tramp the streets in search of work. People do not like such things. For in Karl's stories you can hear the starved cries of babies. You can see the hungry look in men's eyes. Karl will always be hungry. He will always describe things so that you can see them when you read...Werner is an artist. He paints pictures of people he sees in the park. People will not buy them though. I think it is because of the hungry look. I think if Werner would take the hungry look out of the eyes of the people in his pictures, he could buy more hamburgers and take the hungry look out of his own eyes. Karl and Werner say this would be sacrilege to art."
-Waiting for Nothing, Thomas Kromer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)