Studienarbeit aus dem Jahr 2010 im Fachbereich Kunst - Allgemeines; Kunsttheorie; Note: 1;0; Katholische Universitauml;t Eichstauml;tt-Ingolstadt; Sprache: Deutsch; Abstract: Adolf Hitler hat sich schon fruuml;h fuuml;r Kunst interessiert und sich intensiv mit ihr beschauml;ftigt; d.h. Gemauml;ldegalerien besucht und kunsthistorische Buuml;cher gelesen; v.a. die sehr nationalistischen Schriften von Friedrich Pecht1 ndash; er wollte sogar selbst als Kuuml;nstler tauml;tig sein. bdquo;Jeder weiszlig;; dass er als junger Mann Maler werden wollte. Weniger bekannt ist; dass er eine hochrangige Gemauml;ldesammlung besaszlig; und seinen Lebensabend als Kunstfreund inmitten einer Gemauml;ldegalerie verbringen wollte.ldquo;2 Sein Weg zum Kuuml;nstler sollte scheitern: Hitler wurde zweimal von der Akademie in Wien abgelehnt; doch verstand er sich selbst bdquo;nicht als gescheitert; sondern als bdquo;verkanntldquo;. Einem Topos der zeitgenouml;ssischen Kuuml;nstlerliteratur gemauml;szlig; war Verkanntsein und insbesondere eine Ablehnung durch die Akademie aber ein wesentliches Kriterium fuuml;r Genialitauml;t.ldquo;3 Und gerade diese Ansicht; die Hitler uuml;bernahm; war verheerend ndash; Er sah sich als Genie. Seinen Aufstieg fand das bdquo;Genieldquo; dann dennoch nicht in der Kunst; sondern in der Politik. Doch nahm Hitler die Kunst mit in seine Herrschaft. Innerhalb des Nationalsozialismus avancierte sie zu einem auml;uszlig;erst wichtigen Bereich ndash; nicht nur in der Politik. Hitler hatte ab 1933 die Macht; seine private Kunstanschauung zu einer ouml;ffentlichen zu machen; indem er einfach alles ungewollte ins Abseits drauml;ngte und verbot. Auszlig;erdem konnte er sein Kuuml;nstlerdasein doch noch ausleben; indem er Bauprojekte plante und mitausfuuml;hrte. In den Rauml;ngen der NS-Spitze wurde Kunst gesammelt und untereinander verschenkt. Die vorliegende Arbeit will aufzeigen; was die nationalsozialistische Kunstpolitik bewirkte; was von Seiten der Nationalsozialisten an Kunst gesammelt und was ausgegrenzt wurde.
#1537249 in eBooks 2007-02-17 2012-04-09File Name: B007HXKXPU
Review
3 of 4 people found the following review helpful. Case-studies of artists and music industry professionalsBy Anthony Kyle ZwarichIf you can sustain your interest through the first few chapters. the book succeeds at presenting equal arguments for and against the title "authenticity" in music. The authors avoid "name-dropping" in favor of "situation-dropping." explaining in length the pretexts that surround some of the biggest artists in music. I felt that they managed to present the paradoxical subject with a good personal distance; there were only small portions that were editorialized.This isnt a guidebook on how to "be real." nor a Rolling Stone-esque exposeacute; on (Your Favorite Artist). but serves more like a history of American music with an industry-related context. It explains personal and professional strategies that swayed particular musicians and bands into fakery or reality. and explores those notions carefully.11 of 15 people found the following review helpful. Depends How You Define AuthenticityBy M. FeldmanThe book is very insightful. some chapters more so than others. As a participant in the folk revolution in the first half of the 1960s. the chapter on "Mississippi" John Hurt particularly resonated with me. However. I can readily see how other chapters would affect readers who came of age in other musical periods.My only problem is definitional; the authors were too Manichean about authenticity versus the lack thereof. As I see it. while a second edition of Moby Dick may lack the authenticity of the first. it is nevertheless a desirable artifact. In other words. such other factors as age and popularity (i.e.. staying power) may compensate for missing authenticity. Accordingly. while the authors would classify as "inauthentic folk music" such songs as Early Morning Rain and City of New Orleans. I would be a less restrictive; they are destined to join such equally inauthentic folk songs as Camptown Races and This Land Is Your Land in the great American folk canon.Similarly. the authors define as "authentic" a song by Kurt Cobain and an album by Neil Young that were each recorded in one take and display all kind of [authentic] imperfections and angst. However. I question whether that makes them more authentic than a perfect opus by Pink Floyd or Miles Davis. or for that matter. Sinatras perfect cover of Ive Got You Under My Skin. which reportedly took over 30 takes to complete. And. if it is angst that confers authenticity. then that goofy pop tune. It Never Rains In California. takes the cake ("Out of work. out of bread. out of self-respect. Im out of my head. Im under-loved and underfed. I want to go hoooome").Buy the book; just pretend that its title is Random Thoughts On Post-60s Music; youll enjoy it and it will make you think.1 of 3 people found the following review helpful. Theyre Critics. OK?By ElizabethThis was written by two rock critics. one British. one American. Like a lot of critics. theyre self-conscious about not making artistic contributions of their own. and justify their existence by denigrating those whove become successful - the more successful. the more theyre put down. Another technique is to present facts and contradictions to the public story (like - were the real insiders!). There were quite a few inaccuracies in the book. and. in some places. they give reasons for their negativity and later use opposite arguments for further criticism.(!) I think a lot of celebrity bios might actually give more perspective.
