Introduction
War presents a series of dynamics to the art world ranging from the creation of anti-war artistic pieces to the loss of certain works, to destruction or deliberate confiscation of artistic products. Since art, in general, describes a nation’s cultural heritage, then any damage done to its artists’ pieces often erodes parts of its culture. The paper will specifically focus on art theft and illegal appropriation postulating that the latter two are a form of cultural imperialism enacted by militarily strong nations in times of war.
Art Theft and Illegal Appropriation During War
A number of dictionaries describe cultural imperialism as the promotion and injection of one culture into another. More often than not, the nation with the upper hand is usually one that has great military might and a stronger economy than the dominated nation. In certain circumstances, nations may enact formal policy to carry this out or they may simply possess a general attitude about their superiority. From time immemorial, nations have been battling with the concept of cultural imperialism. When members of another society embrace a different culture, they often do so at the expense of their local one. For example, when England sought to spread Christianity in the sixteenth century, it required adherents to master the English language as Christian literature was only available in English. In the end, local cultures began losing their identity. Similarly, Greece attempted to impose its language and way of life in conquered territories such as Judea; this usually led to revolts from recipient nations. The reason behind such resistance lies in the fact that most nations longed to preserve their cultural identity; a notion rooted in the need to maintain cultural diversity throughout the world. Proponents of this school of thought believe that if the world is diverse, then it will be better equipped to handle various problems as each culture has its own unique way of thinking. (White, 21)
It should be noted that there may be instances when cultural imperialism is accepted as a natural process of change. This usually occurs when the concerned party perceives its own culture as being deficient hence necessitating the need to bring in values and products from another society. Such communities never accept cultural imperialism consciously as most of them are usually concerned with the benefits they can derive from a certain commodity or service. During times of war, cultural imperialism takes on an opposite form to the latter mentioned ones. Invading countries focus on forcefully imposing their cultural values and hence eradicating native ones. This can only be successfully carried out through violence and it has led to some horrendous acts throughout history. (Victoria, 31)
Nazism was a platform for one of the greatest levels of cultural imperialism through the legalized looting of European cultural artifacts. It was a well-known fact that Hitler’s regime despised Jews. They sought all means possible to eradicate members of this group and other ‘inferior races’ from the face of the earth. Through the employment of political ideologies that later culminated into unjust laws, the Nazis embarked on a mission to rid their country of Jewish cultural artifacts. It first commenced with the now infamous art campaign of 1937. At that time, Hitler disallowed any art form that was deemed as political in nature or art that opposed Nazi ideology. Confiscation of these artifacts initially began in Germany but as the latter country entered into war with other nations, it also began plundering their objects so that it could further the Nazi agenda. Historians have noted that removal of art objects often occurred illegally since laws would be passed after the products had already been taken. The legalization of loots was not just a reserve for the third Reich; it spans across different geographical locations going through war.
Large-scale theft of Jewish artistic objects occurred when Nazis attacked Austria. Various properties were stolen most of which included artistic works with great value. Matters became worse when all Austrians were required to register their material possessions such that the Nazis could decide which materials were most valuable to them. A law such as the ‘ordinance for Jewish property employment’ was passed in 1938 such that art dealerships and other kinds of property could be Aryanized by the Nazis. Two years later, Hitler instructed his propaganda minister Goebbels to embark on a mission for discovering all art pieces confiscated from the Germans from as far back as four decades ago. This mission later turned into a looting exercise as not all artifacts acquired necessarily belonged to the Germans. One can therefore assert that this was the beginning of cultural imperialism by the latter group.
The Second World War was the epitome of cultural imperialism through the looting of artifacts. Hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of art objects were confiscated from museums and other collection points throughout Europe. Greater emphasis was placed on Eastern European countries and Russia. (Lynn, 45) The Nazi Army had organized itself into sophisticated groupings that were in charge of taking these objects from their reserves. However, it was not just the Nazis that carried out such looting. Members of the Soviet Union later invaded Germany and also looted numerous artworks as compensation for the artifacts that they had lost. Most of the time, looters took advantage of the deteriorating levels of security prevalent in war to plunder artistic spoils. Usually, a lot of chaos is prevalent in such times that greater emphasis is on the preservation of life. Material possessions take second place and may only take precedence after the invaded nation has already gone through the war.
It is essential to understand the reason behind looting in order to make sense of seemingly chaotic and confusing acts. More often than not, concerned parties have a political agenda or ideology that they are keen on pursuing. For instance, Adolf Hitler was highly interested in Art and he had a vision of creating an art museum in Austria that would reflect Nazi ideologies. At first, they justified their illegal acts by asserting that the Napoleonic wars left Germany devoid of its cultural heritage. They also felt that the First World War placed them at a disadvantage in terms of the loss of their material objects. However, upon deeper analysis, one can see why the latter ‘justifications’ were invalid. First of all, the process of looting was not just done haphazardly i.e. the Nazi Army did not confiscate every art item it came across. Instead, a systematic selection of particular art pieces was done. (Petropolis, 207) This meant that there was a standard used to assess the value of art pieces as were plundered. Hitler classified all art into two groups: degenerate art and German art. The former category comprised all modern pieces while the latter category had French, Dutch and Germanic art. In other words, the Nazis felt that their expression and understanding of art was superior to any other and that in order to dominate other groups, they had to eradicate all forms of artistic expression. This was why in Austria, Jews were required to surrender all their art pieces. Interestingly enough, the Nazis behaved very differently during the war in Eastern Europe. At that time, they asserted that members of the Soviet Union were inferior and they did not deserve considerable treatment. All art pieces were either destroyed or looted and taken. Approximately four hundred and twenty-seven museums were attacked and looted. Also, about half a million items were lost from these areas. Even the same patterns were replicated in Paris during the Second World War. So many French art pieces were taken like the amber room of the Pushkin palace. Since there was a lot of impressionist art or modern art, Nazis attempted to exchange them or sell them in order to get Flemish art. In fact, Swiss dealers became the beneficiaries of these unfair exchanges since they were willing and able to purchase all the excess work available among the Nazis. All these patterns depicted exactly how ideology in wartime can govern looting patterns. Invading nations often feel that they have the right to impose their artistic preferences upon concerned parties thus propagating some of these horrendous acts. (Yeide, 49)
Another extraordinary aspect about the looting of art in the Second World War was seen after Germany began losing its upper hand in the war. At that time, it became necessary for the latter group to salvage its pieces and place them in salt mines, caves, or other hidden areas. However, Germany was attacked by several nations; fires or bombs were planted in some of the areas chosen for its artistic pieces. In the end, a lot of cultural artifacts were lost and this eroded important cultural elements from various nations. It can therefore be said that theft of art during the Second World War as a platform for spreading Nazi propaganda as this soon came to an end after Germany lost the war.
Conclusion
The plunder of artistic objects in war demonstrates an attempt at cultural domination owing to specific patterns of looting. Usually, concerned parties place great emphasis on taking what they believe furthers their respective cultures at the expense of eradication of other seemingly inferior ones. Carrying out such kinds of acts causes immense losses in the heritage of both invading and invaded countries as one party will attempt to get back its artistic pieces by retaliating against the other.
Works cited
Lynn, Nicholas. The rape of Europa. London: McMillan, 1999. Print
Petropolis, Jonathan. Art world in Nazi Germany. London: Penguin press, 2003. Print
Victoria, Alexander. The cultural Diamond. NY: Wiley and sons press, 2003. Print
White, Livingstone. “Reconsidering cultural imperialism.” Transnational broadcasting journal 6.3 (2001): 21
Yeide, Nancy. Beyond dreams of avarice. London: Laurel Publishing, 2009. Print