GER 150 Podcast - Frauism - Ep 5 - Art as a Story

During this episode of Frauism, the focus was on art during the Weimar Republic and World War I, specifically the differences between male and female portrayals of war. Three artists were discussed: Käthe Kollwitz, Otto Dix, and Emmy Roeder. Kollwitz's art emphasized the working class and women's identity, while Dix's art depicted the horrors and hopelessness of war. Roeder's sculptures explored female sexuality and motherhood. The discussion also touched on the societal divisions between public and private spheres and the importance of perspective in interpreting art. Hello and welcome to Episode 5 of Frauism, Art as a Story. Today we will be talking about art during the Weimar Republic and World War I and how it differs between the female and male portrayal of both things at the time. So our first artist is Käthe Kollwitz. She was a German Expressionist artist that used experience to create art. Her main subjects centered on the working class and women and most of the pieces were created during the Weimar period but she continued to work through the Nazi regime. Kollwitz emphasized the problems of the working class and women's identity or maternal feminism. She also used her female's perspective to show oppression during the Industrial Revolution. So our second is Otto Dix. So Dix was a former soldier who went on to protest against war with his art. His art is grim and horrifying conveying what it means to be hopeless in the face of war. Dix's subjects included mangled corpses, soldiers marching to their deaths, rotting towns, rotting people and many more dark things like that. It really represented how awful war is and is talked about a lot when it comes to German Expressionism. And then our third artist is going to be Emmy Roeder. She was a German Sculpturist as well as an active participant in the German Expressionist and New Objectivity Movement. Her artwork often captures the notions of Expressionist sculptures and are focusing on peasant women which are her main size as well as mobilize within her artwork. Her art explored female sexuality, pregnancy and motherhood. And her art often also served as a form of political, as a form of political, or the focus of political tension or in order to make a political statement. Her art was in fact deemed as degenerate art by the Nazi regime. Later her artwork moved into a different style of Neuralism also called New Objectivity. Alright, so those are the three artists that we covered today. Each were different in their own way but also similar. So how is the art different in portrayal of war between the men and women activists? Yeah, so I think that we saw with like female pieces they were often focused around like female roles within the war. Specifically with some of Nikolaevich's work is she portrayed mothers and widows and pain from like the society point of view. It wasn't directly like Dix's work that was focused on in the field, in the trenches, death and things like that. I agree with that. I think that she showed that everyone is affected by war, even the nation or everyday people like the women also go through the pain. Yeah, there is like losing their husband or their son. They also experience the pain of seeing people die beside them on the battlefield. Yeah, and you know for Dix, his art was really abstract. I would look up The War. His collection is called The War and it's very like abstract but it really does paint a picture of that pain that Kollwitz paints as well, just in a more, what's it called? Like a dark way or? Not dark, like in the field kind of way. Like in the real, like he has the first hand experience because he was a soldier. Yeah, that. That's what I was trying to get at. And ironically, Kollwitz's wartime art was also called The War and had I think seven different, it was called plates, which included like the widow one, the widow two, the family, the people, etc. And her art style also was not as abstract but definitely dark and similar in tone. Yeah. And the same way I think as Dix's artwork was. And also I think, what am I trying to get at? The surrealness of it. I think that they're both, they both have perspectives. Yeah, and I think that with like going off perspective, there is a large like division between the public and private sphere that's being portrayed in this artwork as well. So with like Kollwitz's work, she is portraying like what it's like for the women in the household at home, trying to continue on as this war continues, as they're having to give their husbands or their children to go fight for this cause. Whereas Dix's work is very portraying of what people are seeing every day. And like, it's obvious like whose work was more valued during this time. But Dix's, one of Dix's points in his art was to devalue the value that was being brought to war. It was to show that, you know, war was just so overpowering that it was pretty much hopeless for the people sent there, I think. I agree. I agree with that as well. I don't think anything else. During that time period, it's like people, not that war was hyped up, but it was like shown as like, it's the right thing to do. Yeah, it's your duty. It's like your duty as a man to go to war. And they're also perceived that, oh, we're winning the war or things like that. They're told that they're winning. But realistically, with his experience, he showed that it is not fun or lively. Yeah, I think that this time period also like kind of reproduces that masculine war, women, women, peace nexus, simply because like, war propaganda is obviously centered towards men joining the war, especially during World War II. So like, I think that that's very prevalent in their works as well. If we want to transition to talk about Roeder's art, she made more sculptural pieces. Yeah. Like wood or terracotta clay, etc. It was noted that her art wasn't very detailed or I guess abstract in a way. Yeah. It was very simplistic. Does Adam have opinions on that? Calm me out. Well, when I look at it, I'm not like undershadowing its importance. I do think the art is important for the time, but it doesn't really like stand out to me because of how simple it is, how simple it looks. Like if I were to go to an art museum, I wouldn't look at it and think too deeply about it. So I'm not sure that her work would be as important as someone as Kollwitz's work was, but that's just my opinion. Because Kollwitz's work I did look at and it did draw my attention. I think the emotion in Kollwitz's work more than I think you can with Roeder's work. But at the same time, I won't say that it doesn't invoke emotion. Yeah. There are sculptural pieces that could invoke emotion, but her work is just not as, I think. Yeah. I think that what her artwork represents is really why it draws the attention to it that it does and why it is. It doesn't matter if it's simplistic in body. It's so, I guess, complex in nature. This was artwork that was far ahead of her time, her legacy. Yeah. It's like abortion rights and talking about pregnancy and maternal... Feminism. Yeah. Her pregnant woman statue was created during the times when the abortion law was coming into play. Women couldn't get an abortion during this time period. So that was an issue for her. Yeah. And I think that her artwork was something that was also feared by the Nazi regime just because of the power that it did hold. We talked about solidarity a few days ago and the idea that all women, even though that's not exactly true, all women hold these paternal instincts, I guess, is what I'm trying to say. Do you have any other opinions on the art? Do you like a particular person more than the other? Do you think one has more value over the other? I don't think that one has more value than another does. It's all about perspective. With Dix, he was a soldier in the war and that was his perspective and that's why that's in his art. But for Kollwitz, she wasn't in the war, but she did have a child. Yeah, it was her. Her son did pass away in service or whatever and that kind of informed some of her art. So I think it's about perspective. I don't think one has more value than another, I guess, during the time period. In their time period, Dix's artwork was very held up and was like, this is influential. Right, but that's because it was a male's art, which I think is the problem. I think what's crazy in that time, his was more influential than Kollwitz's was. I think in today's world, I would view Kollwitz's art as more influential to me personally than I would Dix's art or Roeder's art. I think hers really shows that anyone can suffer and not just the soldier. It's the whole family, it's the whole nation, it's the whole group of people versus just a select few. Yeah, and I think that if we are bringing in modern day art, the influences, art still holds a heavy influence. That's all art, not just paintings or drawings or sculptures. It encompasses dance or film or many other things. I think that's still something we prevalently see in society, especially with movements like BLM or the women's rights movement and reproductive health movements. That's definitely something that is very prevalent in our modern society. Any other opinions, comments? Nope. Alright, well that was episode 5 of Friarlysm, art as a story. Cheers!