Benjamin & Chaplin

“For without exception the cultural treasures he surveys have an origin which he cannot contemplate without horror. They owe their existence not only to the efforts of the great minds and talents who have created them, but also to the anonymous toil of their contemporaries. There is no document of civilization which is not at the same time a document of barbarism.”

I chose this quote because it reminded me a lot of a theme that I developed on in my last blog entry.  It is interesting because Junger and Benjamin come from completely different backgrounds and met completely different ends; Junger was a early Fascist supporter and glorifier of war while Benjamin was a Marxist in the Luxembourg-type. But here, I think they strike a similar chord in the duality of civilization and barbarity.  

In this quote, Benjamin opines in this contradictory push and pull of civilization and barbarism.  We look at the pyramids and wonder at the greatness of man; one could argue that the pyramids, created thousands of years ago, is the apex of human civilization.  But think about the lives that it took to build the massive object and it was of course built by slave labor.  In other words, in the sheen of civilization there lies a large dose of barbarism, of the worst instincts of human behavior.  

Regarding the Chaplin movie, I didn’t see a lot of similarities with Dada, which is interesting because Benjamin argues the ultimate goal of Dada was what turned out to be film.  I think the biggest difference is the fact that the Chaplin film has a purpose.  Dada artists said that that since life was inherently ugly and futile, the art that should reflect that as well.  Contemporary art did not reflect the realities of life, which was war, misery, and social failure; art was seen a way to tear down society, which was rotten to the core.  The Dada art had no “message”.  But the Chaplin film is quite preachy and certainly does have a message.  In the film’s final scene, Chaplin gives a speech about human respect, love, and freedom.  He drops the Hitler imitation to give a heartfelt speech that he doesn’t want to rule over everybody; what society needs now is human kindness. Such sentiment would certainly not be given by a Dada artist.    Not only this, the goal of Dada was to make ugly art, “anti-art”.  But in the Chaplin film, even an ameteur can see the incredibly hard work that Chaplin puts into his films.  Chaplin was not making a mockery of art; he was embracing it to create the best possible work possible.

Art

“One of the foremost tasks of art has always been the creation of a demand which could be fully satisfied only later. The history of every art form shows critical epochs in which a certain art form aspires to effects which could be fully obtained only with a changed technical standard, that is to say, in a new art form. The extravagances and crudities of art which thus appear, particularly in the so-called decadent epochs, actually arise from the nucleus of its richest historical energies. In recent years, such barbarisms were abundant in Dadaism. It is only now that its impulse becomes discernible: Dadaism attempted to create by pictorial – and literary – means the effects which the public today seeks in the film.”

This is a quote from one of the last sections of Benjamin’s essay.  Here, he contends that art is essentially ambitious.  It tries to reach for something that it can’t do.  All art is trying to reach for the stars but it can’t because of technological limitations.  He cites the example of Dada.  He is a great critic of Dada and says it unleashed many “barbarities”.  But what Dada was inherently trying to do was make art move and give it life, color, energy.  What accomplished this was not Dada - which Benjamin argues was a terrible form of art - but film.  Film accomplished what Dada was trying to achieve.  But Dada couldn’t because the technology was simply not there.  

I don’t know whether I agree with Benjamin here.  Most likely though, I don’t.  At this point, I think the current trend in art - if there is one - is to actually try to relive the past in a lot of ways.  For example in music, songs are perpetually recycled; the same choruses and hooks have been used in rap music from the disco era.  I remember we watched a music video of the band Franz Ferdinand, who were trying to re-create Dada imagery in their work.  So I think the opposite is true.  Art today is not trying to reach for something it can’t because of limitations,  but it is trying to re-create something that was lost from the past.  

Junger

“Since the War’s end, the denial of pain as a necessary as a necessary facet of life has experienced a late revival.  These years display a strange mix of barbarity and humanity; they resemble an archipelago where an isle of vegetarians exists right next to an island of cannibals.  An extreme pacifism side by side with an enormous intensification of war preparations, luxurious prisons next to squalid quarters for the unemployed, the abolition of capital punishment by day whilst the Whites and the Reds cut each other’s throats by night - all this is thoroughly fairytale-like and reflects a sordid world in which the semblance of security is preserved in a string of hotel foyers.”   - 10

I chose this passage because I think it’s very relevant to our time.  Right before this passage, Junger talks about this cult of reason, that reason is leading us to a better world.  I liken it to this mentality that people have of “look, how far we’ve come!  Look how great everything is!” We point to our smartphones or our social media and claim that we’ve reached the highest point of humanity.  But at heart, the world is as barbaric as ever.  The idea of civilization is just a glossy sheen on an old product, perhaps one that is as worse as ever.  

And here is where the Junger passage is so important.  He says that since the end of World War I, the denial of pain - the truth - has become a necessary ingredient of living.  There is so much pain and so much brutality around us that the only way man doesn’t go crazy is by desensitizing himself to it.  He lists a variety of social malaises that we tend to ignore - squalid quarters for the unemployed.  It reminded me of when we see homeless people on the street in New York City.  These days, we barely even flinch, let alone give money to beggars because they’re everywhere.  I remember a friend visiting me from Sweden and she was so shocked at how many poor people we have here and her instinct was to give something; I barely noticed the beggars.  She, clearly, was not dehumanized as Junger would put it.  Her ability to fathom pain was not as well-attuned as mine at the moment.  

The world that Junger is describing is very relevant to our own.  Going back to my point, we have here in the US such amazing achievements:  technologies, skyscrapers, everything we could imagine.  We look at these things and think about how much we have achieved, that we’re the greatest country in the world.  But do these things truly matter?  Who are we as a society?  Beneath this so-called progress is much inequality, division, ignorance.  But we’ve been able to ignore these because I think the ability to stomach pain is highly prevalent in American society.  

It is difficult almost to write about the two films because they provide such a different subtext to the Nazi horrors.  Let us begin with Triumph of the Will.  Watching this film, I began to see why the Nazi regime could have been so appealing.  Today, Hitler and his government is synonymous with evil and we think to ourselves why would anybody be a true believer to such a vile regime?  But watching the film I could see how somebody from that time in Germany could have found the Nazi program so fantastic.  I was struck at the first scenes of healthy, young, in-shape men working out and playing with each other.  This, I thought, is the Germany that people want to live under - healthy and vibrant.  I compared it to the weak and depraved men of the other movies that we saw.  Like the young men in the Blue Angel, doing nothing with their lives; here is the opposite of what Germany could do.  I could see people watching this and thinking to themselves that this is the image that they have of Germany.  A strong, beautiful, and energetic nation, in contrast to the materialistic and frivolous one that they’ve experienced the past few years.  A nation that can re-capture the past glories; it’s certainly in there - they have the people but they only need the leadership.

Speaking of the leadership, I was also struck at how great Hitler is portrayed here.  I read in the lecture of the “Ubermensch” that became popular by Weber.  Here, it’s clear that the director Riefenstahl is trying to portray as such a man.  I was struck at how she build up the suspense.  We really don’t see Hitler until about the 30th minutes.  We know there is a man on the plane circling Germany trying to get to the parade.  It reminded me of “M” in that we don’t see the criminal until later on.  Obviously, here Riefenstanl is trying to do the opposite on a way since the criminal is the ultimate villain and Hitler is the hero.  But the idea of building up the suspense is effective. But you can see when Hitler speaks how people became so carried away by his charisma and energy. His agenda we known now is evil but in 1934 people did not know this yet or were wilfully ignorant.  To people like Riefenstahl, he was the ultimate Uebermensch.  

The contrast - the yin to the yang - is Night and Fog.  I watched immediately this film after Triumph of the Will and couldn’t help but see the similarities between Riefenstahl’s film and the first few minutes of Night and Fog.  It’s showing a vibrant country - and then shows the horrors of the people marched off to their death.  I believe the director was trying to mock the ideals and images of the Nazi films like Triumph of the Will.  He is implying that this empire was built on the backs of slave labor and cost people millions of lives.  I also admired the director for including the image of the French collaborator.  I can only imagine how controversial this was at the time.  This film was only made 10 years after the war; the idea that French people helped the Nazis was probably unheard-of.  It would kill the entire image that people made of themselves.  

Tilly

It is interesting because one can see numerous parallels between Tilly and Weber.  Both stress that states are essentially all-growing and all-consuming entities.  This is a course of all states.  Also, both thinkers argue the importance of violence.  Tilly notes that war creates states; Weber insists that at heart, all politics is violence.  Unfortunately, this is a sad by-product of politics and even the most moral politicians will have to swallow this reality.  However, where the two differ is that Tiller stresses violence and Weber talks about bureaucracy.  According to Weber, the lifeline of the state is bureaucracy.  Eventually he insists that the state just will act as a way to provide patronage and its entire existence will be to hold up the job-seekers and corruption of political parties.  The “blood” of the state is the bureaucracy.  Though Tilly also highlights the importance of bureaucracy, the main lifeline for states for him is war.  

Weber & Edward Snowden

“To take a stand, to be passionate--ira et studium--is the politician's element, and above all the element ofthe political leader. His conduct is subject to quite a different, indeed, exactly the opposite, principle of responsibility from that of the civil servant. The honor of the civil servant is vested in his ability to execute conscientiously the order of the superior authorities, exactly as if the order agreed with his own conviction.

This holds even if the order appears wrong to him and if, despite the civil servant's remonstrances, the

authority insists on the order. Without this moral discipline and self-denial, in the highest sense, the whole apparatus would fall to pieces. The honor of the political leader, of the leading statesman, however, lies precisely in an exclusive personal responsibility for what he does, a responsibility he cannot and must not reject or transfer.”  - Weber, “Politics as a Vocation”

This quote from Weber from his essay is fairly interesting and struck me because of current events.  One of the main themes in Weber’s work is the division between political leaders and civil servants.  The two comprise what is called “the state”.  But they are completely different in their function and philosophy.  According to Weber, the main characteristic of the politician is that he has to be passionate about his role; he has to have his own political views that he strives for.  This is his central element - it’s what drives him.  But the civil servant has to embrace his role as a veritable cog in the wheel.  He has to essentially let go of any personal views and even if its morally disgusts him, to carry out the views and policies of his leaders in power.  If these two are switched, then the state edifice crumbles.  The politicians can’t be a mindless drone; otherwise, nothing politically will happen - a leader needs to have a vision.  A civil servant can’t be a passionate ideologue, otherwise he will make a terrible civil servant.

This quote struck me because of recent events in politics, namely the controversy surrounding Edward Snowden.  However one feels about him - hero or traitor - Snowden is the epitome of what Weber is talking about should NOT happen when it comes to civil servants.  Snowden was a passionate believer in anti-spying in a small government staying with its constitutional bounds.  But because of this, he’s also a terrible civil servant because he could not stomach what his leaders were commanding him to do.  It is the civil servant’s job to swallow what he has to do; otherwise you have leaks and scandals like the one happening now.  It is clear the government has to do a better job of picking people who will embrace their role as cogs in the wheel.  

Article 74:  “Reichsrat has the right to object to laws passed by the Reichstag.”

This right makes a lot of sense if you understand the political system of Germany.  Germany was formed in 1870 but before this, it was comprised of a lot of different, separate states.  When the country was formed, it was clear that some type of state-based system had to be put in place to make sure no state dominates another.  The Reichsrat was the institution that was created to have the voice of the different states be carried out.  So here, one can see how this right is important to humanity.  The Reichstag was the house that would carry out laws, kind of like the United States Congress.  But the states in the Reichsrat had a right to object to them.  So let us assume that Bavaria, one of the richer states of Germany, would start imposing some of their values on the rest of Germany.  This would create a kind of tyranny of one state, or region, over another.  So this is an important check and balance on the power of powerful and populated regions to ensure that the character of smaller ones remains in place.  Though with all honestly, I do not know how much of this is respected today, I know that in the United States, it is carried out quite well.  Most likely it is in Germany as well.  

Article 109:  “Noble titles form part of the name only; noble titles may not be granted anymore.”

This was a crucial difference between the old order and the Weimar Republic.  The old older was heavily based on titles; nobles had a very high place in society.  This was a system that was fundamentally unfair, as it was based on birth and not on meritocracy; essentially these were values from centuries ago.  The Weimar Republic proclaimed equality for everybody - men, women, rich, poor, noble, not noble.  One can see that the Weimar Republic did not totally abolish nobles - they still could be part of names.  This was probably a concession to the older order, who did not just want to get rid of everything they held so dear.  So noble names were able to stay in place.  The problem though is that the titles had no power; the noble names were just letters in a name, meaningless.  At this point, it’s clear that nobility is a staple from centuries ago.  I highly doubt any country respects nobility anymore, especially in the West.  Most likely, if a person would claim to be a noble, they would get made fun of.  

Rosa Luxembourg

This quote is very notable for Luxembourg’s essay.  By the time Luxembourg was writing this, it had become conventional wisdom in Communist circles that the only way to induce a revolution was to have a vanguard party like Lenin did.  The notion that a mass of people would lead the revolution had become outdated; the fact that many left-wing parties like the SPD supported the First World War I only proved this.  If you give people the choice, they will inevitably be cowardly and go back to the status quo.  But Luxembourg saw that this was not a real revolution.  The entire socialization of the masses has to change for a true revolution to occur.  She stresses this idea - socialization - in her writings.  It will take more than just politics to create a true revolution; the human spirit itself has to change first as well.  It’s not enough to just change the government.  This will certainly make things more equal but it will not last because it’s not a genuine revolution.  

I feel that Luxembourg’s message has a large connection to nihilism. In her essay, she says that humanity has a choice:  either continue down the road of capitalism or have a socialist revolution.  But the capitalists have “forfeited” their right to rule by marching millions to their slaughter.  In other words, a continuation of capitalist power would lead to the destruction of humanity.  All of society has to start over, not reform itself.  This is a very nihilist message because she is saying the entire order has to be imploded for everyone’s benefit - in fact, necessity since the present order is literally causing the destruction of humanity.  

Authoritarian Essay

Films can tell a lot about society.  In fact, one can argue that films can serve as some of the most telling primary sources from certain eras.  Watching a film, a viewer could see many of the anxieties and concerns of the era; the implicit messages of these films can show the subconscious desires and fears of a society.  This is especially true regarding films made in the 20s and 30s in Germany.  During this time, directors like Fritz Lang made films that show one thing:  that Germany is craving an authoritarian leader.  Thus, Kracauer is correct.  

Let us for example look at the film M.  The film is brilliant in itself but also shows the horrible state of society of Germany during that time.  When the murders begin to occur, we see how society functions.  One of the most common complaints by the police force (which is trying hard to solve the murder) is that the public is not doing anything about it.  One of the officers, for example, is distraught that when the police goes to the public for help, all they get are paranoid phone calls of garbage men, but when they want truthful information, all of a sudden nobody remembers anything.  Parents, meanwhile, are not concerned about the safety of their children and turn a blind eye towards the kids playing even though there is a murdered on the loose.  In another scene, the police go to a bar to take down identification.  The people in the bar insult the police, who are trying to do a good job; they call the main officer fat and generally remain uncooperative.  

The people are presented as A.  not invested in their society and B.  distrustful of institutions.  The problem though is that in a democratic society, these two are imperative.  The point of a democratic society like Weimar’s is that there is freedom, but with freedom, there is also great responsibility.  People have to ensure the success of their own society by being vigilant of their communities.  Furthermore, they have to help the institutions that are trying to do their jobs.  But the people do neither, except only freak out.  One can contrast this with the action taken by the head of the underworld, who is the stereotype of a Nazi.  He calmly rationalizes the situation and finds a solution.  This is presented as the way of the future, a way that works.  

One can also look at films like “The Blue Angel”.  Again, there are scenes of “freedom” but all of this is basically just cabarets.  People’s sexual lusts are given free reign but we can see that the result is not positive.  The teacher Rath ends up dying, consumed by his lust; had society not given free reign to these urges, then the example of Rath wouldn’t have occurred.  The cabarets, meanwhile, are shown to be a place where people are not really happy; the dancers themselves look bored and out of shape, while the men are just satisfying their urges, completely being played by the women.  The implication is that it’s time to return to a traditional, more authoritarian society.  

I.

I chose to discuss the scene - I suppose one can call this several scenes - from the 17:00 - approximately 21:00 mark.  This is the scene when Dr. Rath first goes to the cabaret to see exactly what his students have been talking about.  I chose this scene for several reasons.

The first is that it reminded me a lot of the carnival scene in “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.”  This is was because of the contrast between light and dark/foreboding and happy.  When Dr. Rath is walking to the cabaret, he is walking through darkness, a dark corridor, downstairs.  The impression the viewer gets is that he is walking to a dark place, almost descending into hell.  But the “hell” is actually a light and gay place, the chaotic cabaret.  Perhaps the director is implying that Rath is walking towards his doom, despite the superficial gaiety there. This reminded me of the scene in Caligari when the director contrasts the murders with the lightness of the carnival.  The chaos and escapism of the carnival also reminded me of the cabaret.  It must have quite a sight to see for a man of the tradition like Dr. Rath to see his beloved order and structure so turned upside down.  

I also thought it interesting the way that the scene shows the dynamics between men and women during this time.  Before WWI, Germany was a traditional, hierarchal place, with men overpowering women.  But in the cabaret, we can see this turned upside down.  The men are at the feet of the women; there are three schoolboys holding a cigarette for Lola, which she takes whenever she wants.  One of the boys literally acts as her cigarette holder while the others are just glad to be around her.  It is not surprising that Lola, while Rath walks in, sings a song in which she mocks “just a man”.  This is implying that Rath, once so respected, is merely a man like any other to Lola, to be played and thrown away.  Ironically though, the scene doesn’t inspire happiness; I came away from the scene not thinking “The cabaret is a place that I want to go to.”  Everyone looked so unhappy; the women, besides Lola, all looking bored, chubby, and drinking beer.  Lola herself needs to drink before dancing and the young men are doting on the women, doing nothing with their lives but ogling at Lola as she uses them for her whims.

I also noticed the generational angle to the scene.  Professor Murdaco pointed out in “All Quiet on the Western Front,” that there is a scene in which the old schoolteacher encourages young men to sign up to war.  The theme of the old betraying the young was apparently very popular during the 1920s Germany era.  But here, we can see the role reversal.  The old isnt’ leading the young; the young is leading the old.  The old generation, represented by Rath, is following the young, represented by his students.  In this world, the cabaret, the old is portrayed as an out-of-touch fool.  

II.  Lyrics

“Chuck Out the Men”

“They're ruining the country while we mop up the floor

They're flushing this whole nation down the drain”

I was surprised by the very anti-male message of this song.  I think it was interesting because in the beginning, the sing is very pro-female but then slides into anti-male as its main message.  I found it interesting that here, the song also veers into the political angle.  This is also mentioned in the chorus, which urges women to throw out men out of the Reichstag.  The idea here is the men are not just dominating society, but also ruining the country, “flushing this whole nation down the drain”.  I can only imagine how disenchanted people were from society after World War I.  It is a very nihilistic message - the old ways were a disaster.  Rather than reform it, let’s tear it down and start a new society, with women on top rather than men.  

“The Lavender Song”:

“We're not afraid to be queer and different

if that means hell -- well, hell we'll take the chance”

Again, we can see a nihilistic message here.  Previously, religion was a very powerful too in society.  But we can see a deep disenchantment with religion and the traditional views of society.  The Church urged that homosexuality was a mortal sin, but this song blatantly says that “we” don’t care because “we’ll take that chance” - in other words, that religion is probably a myth.  It’s as much of a pro-gay anthem as it is an anti-society one.  The lyrics tell people to be proud of being gay and different, but also imply a deep hatred of traditional society.  

Dr. Caligari & Frankfurt School

I. The scene I chose in the film comes at around the 10 minute mark, when the first murder is revealed, that of the town-clerk  The part I am referring to is actually three scenes - the first time the carnival is shown and Caligari introduces Cesare.  Right after showing the scene of the carnival, in which is everything seems light and airy, the camera cuts to a very dark and expressionistic scene of three men who find the body of the town-clerk.  The music immediately changes to a funeral dirge and rather than the gay scene, it is dark and introspective.  The angles are sharp and the scene sinister.  But right after, the scene cuts again to the carnival, of young people dancing and and eagerly going to the carnival to the Cesare, who is about to wake up after a years-long slumber.  What struck me about the scene is the contrast between the two - of the really gay carnival and the dark scene of the post-murder.  

In the lecture, Professor Murdaco wrote that one interpretation of the movie was that it predicted Hitler.  The implication is that Germans have to choose between the chaos of the carnival and the stable leadership of a Dr. Caligari, i.e. Hitler.  But I interpreted these scenes a little differently.  I actually think that that the film is criticizing the escapism and vapid life of 1920s Berlin.  Germans were flocking to materialistic and escapist pursuits of Weimar Germany; this is the metaphor of the “carnival”.  Their interests are being taken up by silly tricks like the sleepwalker Cesare.  For people like Francis, they are living in their delusions; the rest are merely living in escapist fantasies and carnivals.  But underneath all this superficial fun lies a deep, scary underbelly of society; this is the dark scene of the post-murder.  I understood the contrast to be a parody of Weimar Germany.  

In this sense,  I found these scenes to be quite nihilistic.  The filmmakers are saying that society is rotten, lost in superficial pursuits and escapism.  But underneath is a dark corner of society that nobody wants to talk about until it blows up in people’s faces.  Society has to be destroyed and built anew, to get rid of all of this.  

II.

“The creative writer is the intellectual per se, for whom objective source materials are merely an arbitrary arsenal of reference of which he makes use, if at all, according to his specifically aesthetic aims. He thus represents the prototype of intellectual behavior and the lively discussion among sociologists about the role of the intelligentsia could perhaps be extended to a more concrete level if it were supported by a historically documented analysis of both the socially relevant self-portrait and the specific functions of one of the oldest groups among the intellectual professions.” - Leo Lowenthal, “The Position of Writer in Society”

Leo Lowenthal was a German sociologist and considered one of the last thinkers of the Frankfurt School.  He was born to a wealthy Jewish family in Frankfurt and became a leading sociologist on researching mass culture, literature, and Marxist ideas.  In 1933, he and his colleagues all left Germany after the rise of Adolf Hitler.  He settled in New York and worked for Columbia University and even later the Voice of America.  His primary field of study was the role of literature in popular culture.  

One of the Lowenthal’s main ideas is that Marxists and left-wingers have taken a “haughty” approach towards the culture of the masses.  They have traditionally viewed popular culture as a manifestation of the ruling class and thought that popular culture is just a way for the bourgeois to feed the working-class myths.  But Lowenthal was one of the few who noticed the great power that popular culture has and did not try to denigrate it; he tried to understand it.  He said that a great opening has been made in this field of study about how to best understand popular culture.  

To me, the quote above means that a writer is not just mirroring reality because there are no real objective truths.  These “objective source materials” are just the launchpad for ideas, but these can be interpreted in any way.  The writer is therefore an interpreter of reality, not a journalist.  He has to take the material that he sees and use them to further an argument that he feels is correct.  He should not be limited by objective truths, because such things do not exist.

Siddhartha

1.  “I have found a thought, Govinda, which you'll again regard as a joke or foolishness, but which is my best thought. It says: The opposite of every truth is just as true! That's like this: any truth can only be expressed and put into words when it is one-sided. Everything is one-sided which can be thought with thoughts and said with words, it's all one-sided, all just one half, all lacks completeness, roundness, oneness.”  

2.  This passage comes from the experience when Siddhartha met Buddha and came to a series of interesting revelations.   In this passage, Siddhartha is remarking that a profound truth in life cannot really be expressed in words because language does not lack the power to explain something that needs to be learned through experience.  To truly understand life and meaning, one has to transcend conventional notions of language and experience the world in itself - the good, the bad, the sinful, etc.  The completeness of the world is what has to be felt, but it cannot just be taught through words.  This is where Siddhartha splits with Govinda; whereas Govinda follows the path of Buddha, which is certainly a worthy path, Siddhartha argues everybody has to find their own unique path to wisdom.  Though Buddha found his own path, and it is one that gave him solace, Siddhartha has to find his own - he can’t follow a trodden path.  

3.  I chose this passage because it reminded me of the Dada Manifesto we read in class last week.  The author of the manifesto says that poets and writers are using words but none of these words actually get at the truth - they do everything but.  They obfuscate, distort, and circle around the truth.  The concept of language and words struck me when I read this passage.  I also like the idea that each person’s path to wisdom cannot be explained through words.  Words are things that everybody uses; everyone uses the same words.  But spiritual wisdom is a path that everyone must take and cannot be explained using these words.

Dadaism - 6/5

Otto Dix, New Objectivity:

Otto Dix was born in 1891 in Germany.  When he was young, he enrolled in art school but World War I changed him deeply.  When it broke out, he signed up for the war like many Germans, thinking it was going to be a quick and glorious war.  Dix served with distinctions, earning the Iron Cross.  When he came back from the war, Dix was appalled at the sights he saw of the new Germany - maimed veterans, poverty, sexual deviancy.  He tried to portray this new Germany in all of its ugliness.  During the Nazi era, his work was considered degenerate art and he was only allowed to paint under the agreement that he would make non-threatening landscapes.  He almost died in World War II but was captured by the French.  After the war, he went back to painting and died in 1969.

"Invalids of War Playing Cards", 1920:  

This is one of Dix’s most famous paintings, in which he shows the horrors of war.  After the first world war, there was a sentiment in Germany to glorify the war but Dix wanted to show the ugly side:  the consequences of the war on the people who fought it.  Here, he shows what could be a normal scene - three men playing cards.  But the men look utterly deformed.  The man on the left is playing with his foot because his hand is deformed and he can only speak through some type of contraption connecting to his ear.  The man in the middle has half of his head missing, showing his brain.  The man on the right has some type of jaw disfigurement, a mockery of his Iron Cross.  This is a good example of New Objectivity because it has the style of Dada, i.e. making art as ugly as possible to show the ugly side of reality, but it also has some type of purpose to it; it is not anti-art.  

Uneven Couple, Date Unknown:

This is a good example of the art of the time.  For centuries, nudes have been a staple of art. But Dix plays with this model and instead has two lovers, but the scene is grotesque.  It is not beautiful in the least.  The woman in the scene is most likely a hooker and her body cannot be described as appealing; the man in the picture is a broken, old man.  It looks like the man is drowning his sorrows in cheap sex.  Prostitution was a big thing during the Weimar era in Berlin.  Though this was glorified as the beginning of a new, sexually adventurous time, Dix shows that it is not at all.

Portrait of the Journalist Sylvia von Harden, 1926:

This is another good example of the New Objectivity.  During the time, it was thought that women were coming out and asserting new roles.  Many stories of the “New Woman” appeared. The journalist in the picture is a good example of this new woman but she is hardly glorified.  Instead, she is shown smoking and drinking, i.e. killing herself through liquor and nicotine.  She is anything but beautiful, her face and body disjointed.  Her face looks disfigured, with one eye covering half her face.  Dix is making a satire of this “New Woman”.  

Dada essay:

“Dada psychology, dada Germany cum indigestion and fog paroxysm, dada literature, dada bourgeoisie, and yourselves, honoured poets, who are always writing with words but never writing the word itself, who are always writing around the actual point.” - Hugo Ball

I think there are two important aspects in this quote.  The first is Ball’s tendency to simply write “dada,” connecting the word with names and nonsensical things.  Later, he says dada is the world’s best “lily-white milk”.  He is making fun of the way that trends seem to occur, that one day, a movement is simply a collection of artists and the next, everyone around the world is copying the basic styles.  As he writes earlier, soon all of Geneva will talking about dada as it if is the next “cool” thing in art.  Critics will then wonder what is this new movement that people are so obsessed about.  There will be a dada psychology, a dada literature, a dada bourgeoisie.  It reminds me of the early 1990s, when the music style “grunge” came out.  Nobody really know what this was but soon, it spawned a whole series of trends connected to “grunge” like “grunge fashion”; it was common to see models wearing flannel.  Ball is making fun of this herd mentality when it comes to new artistic movements.  

But he is also mocking artists and poets themselves.  In the lecture, Professor Murdaco pointed out that dada artists were influenced by the Marxist viewpoint that art was a reflection, a by-product, of the “base” - the economic realm.  But in reality, the culture at the time had nothing to do with real life.  The art was so beautiful, so pretty and sensical, at a time when life was anything but.  The world was violent and ugly and dada was a reaction against this willful inability of artists and poets to actually reflect real life.  Ball is mocking the poets that they always seem to be writing with words, but their words are empty and meaningless; instead of getting at the truth, they do everything to circle around it.  Here is Ball’s only part of the speech in which he is direct and mean, rather than using irony or sarcasm.  It seems that he really wants to make a point here about the uselessness of previous artists.  

Nietzsche Quote Analysis and Germany Facts

"No shepherd and one herd! Everybody wants the same, everybody is the same: whoever feels different goes voluntarily into a madhouse.

    'Formerly, all the world was mad,' say the most refined, and they blink...

    One has one's little pleasure for the day and one's little pleasure for the night: but one has a regard for health.

    'We have invented happiness,' say the last men, and they blink." - Nietzsche

In this quote, from the “Ubermensch” category from the website, Nietzsche talks about the sad state of humanity.  In the lecture, Professor Murdaco mentioned that Nietzsche believed that man was living under a “spiritual sickness”.  One can see here exactly what this means.  Man is a leaderless mob; it has no “shepherd” to lead this one, colorless herd.  Conformity is rampant in this society, as no person has the courage to think differently.  The individual needs to be set free.  Everyone lives the same way:  they go to work for their full-time job, has a little pleasure during the day, then a little at night, but one must remember to always live healthy and morally.  This type of life is a manufactured, plastic happiness, one invented by men themselves to make everyone believe that it will bring fulfillment.  
Reading this quote, I could not help but think of modern times.  Nietzsche was writing in the late nineteenth century and considered life during that time to be a conformist blur; every man was a drone with no individuality.  But today it’s clear that the life that Nietzsche hated, the life of full-time drudgery, with a little pleasure thrown in, has become the accepted norm.  This is true not just in Europe and the US, but also around the world.  There are no radical ideologies anymore to really compete with this vision.  What would Nietzsche think about this?  Most likely, he would not be content with it, being completely disenchanted with mankind.
But I also couldn’t help but think that maybe certain people crave this type of lifestyle.  Nietzsche argues that this type of life is an “invention of happiness” but is this really true?  Many people true find happiness in this type of life and the failure of ideologies like Communism and Fascism shows that maybe the previous types of living, in which man was supposed to be set free, were wrong.  Also, Nietzsche arguably underestimates the influence of conformity under such a society.  Under such a society, there are numerous examples of brilliant thinkers, innovators, leaders, etc.  The previous examples of “Ubermensch” only led their people to disasters, like Hitler - as Professor Murdaco wrote, Nietzsche’s ideas influenced the Nazi thinkers later on.  

Germany essay:

In the following, I will be discussing the government of Germany.  Germany is officially called the “Federal Republic of Germany” though most people just called it “Germany”.  In earlier years, it was called the “German Empire” or the “German Reich”.  As a government type, it is considered a federal republic, meaning that the central government has some powers which is shares with different states.  
Though we think of Germany as just one country of the similar people, in reality Germany has sixteen states.  The country was formed in 1871 from a number of states and many of these states have kept their unique ways.  One can see how this state mentality is important in the government of Germany.  Germany has a legislative branch of two houses, one of which is the Bundesrat.  This is a collection of state governments, who have to vote as a bloc.  The other house is the Bundestag, which is just a collection of politicians of parties who have gained over 5% of representation.  So the German system is somewhat similar to the US’, in that they have two houses.  However, Germany has more of a state-focused system.  

The chancellor of Germany is Angela Merkel, who is in the Christian Democratic party.  The CDU is the leading party in the Bundestag, with 33% of the votes.  The second one is the Social Democrats with 23%.  The head of state is Joachim Gauck, who became this in 2012. In the government, business associations and employers’ organizations, as well as trade unions, religious, immigrant, expellee and veterans groups are the most important.