Gustav Podcast 05-06-24

This podcast episode discusses the story of Gustav Klimt and the Nazis. It explores how the Nazis confiscated thousands of artworks, including Klimt's famous painting "Woman in Gold," from Jewish families. The episode focuses on the Blockbauer family, who lost their art collection during the war. It also delves into Klimt's artistic journey, his shift to modernism, and the Nazis' complicated relationship with his work. The episode examines why Klimt's works were not labeled as degenerate art and the role politics played in their interpretation. It also discusses Klimt's ties to Jewish patrons and the portrait he painted of Adele Blockbauer. Hi, this is our podcast about Gustav Klimt and the Nazis, presented by Henry Johnstone, Viviana Barberi, Zach Borzio, Aria Levy. My aunt, Adele, my uncle commissioned Gustav Klimt to paint her. It's quite a painting. It's magnificent. She was taken off the walls of our home by the Nazis, and since then, she's been hanging in the Belvedere Gallery in Vienna. And now you'd like to be reunited. According to various estimates from 1933 to 1945, the Nazis confiscated approximately 650,000 artworks, representing 20% of Europe's art, a significant number of which were taken from Jewish families. Many of these families were subsequently imprisoned and perished in the Holocaust. Thousands of paintings, sculptures, books, and archival materials remained unaccounted for to this day, and countless works have yet to be returned to the descendants of their rightful owners. After the war, the long-lost painting, Woman in Gold, originally entitled Adele Blockbauer 1, surfaced on the walls of the Gallery Belvedere Museum in Austria. However, the rightful owner of the painting was not the museum, but the Blockbauer family. The painting was eventually returned to the family half a century later. In this podcast episode, our team will dive into the lawsuit Republic of Austria v. Altman, the case that enabled the return of the painting to its rightful owner, the Blockbauer family's descendants, Maria Altman. What is the relationship between Austria and the stolen paintings? Well, it has to do with the Anschluss. The annexation of Austria into Nazi Germany in 1938. The event resulted in Nazi appropriation of renowned artworks owned by Jewish people. We'll focus our story on the Blockbauer family, a Jewish family who were stripped of their art collection during the war. We will explore the story of the artist known for the iconic Woman in Gold, the art movement he famously propelled, and the Nazi reaction to this modernist masterpieces. What is this artist's name and what's his life story? Gustav Klimt. Klimt was born in 1862 in Baumgarten, a small village outside Vienna. His artistic journey began by studying architectural painting. His early work conveyed his studies in advanced academic style, which was realistic and elevated. After completing his studies, Gustav Klimt, his brother Ernst, and his colleague from school Franz Matsch, worked together on large mural commissions in public buildings. They seized the opportunity of hefty commissions by continuing their academic style, which appealed to the European elite. The Austrian emperor commissioned Klimt to paint the Berg Theater's ceiling. This is the national theater of Austria and one of the most important theaters in the world. In 1891, he had secured a position in the Austrian Artists' Society and received numerous awards. So what propelled Klimt's artistic style to change? In 1892, Gustav Klimt suffered many tragedies that would forever change his work. In July, his father passed away due to a stroke, and in December, his brother Ernst passed away from an unexpected heart attack. What characterized his new work and to what movement did he belong? In 1894, he accepted the commission for three paintings for the ceiling of the University of Vienna. For these works, Klimt shifted away from his academic style and experimented with expressive ideas intensified by his tragedy. The people in philosophy, medicine, and jurisprudence were portrayed in torturous and sexual poses contrasting the ideal historical figure so often seen in academic painting. Some critics stated the figures in them might perhaps be suitable for a museum of anatomy, but certainly not for public display in the university. The coarseness of conception and the lack of aesthetics being deeply offensive to the general public. So these paintings were never displayed at the university. Following this controversy, Klimt and 13 other artists from the Austrian Artists' Society left the group and created a new group called the Vienna Secession. Their headquarters, known as the Secession Building, was a unique architectural manifesto to the group, and they even had a magazine known as Versacrum. Their new art movement took the form of Art Nouveau, a type of modernist art. This art movement was inspired by plant forms and nature as seen in the organic and sinuous forms of painting, architecture, jewelry, and interior design. Interestingly, Vienna nationalists began to tie Jewish culture to modernism. Therefore, due to the Nazis equating the two, they were vehemently against modernism. It is interesting to note that even though Klimt's work was modernist, some Nazis glorified his work and saw their ideology reflected in his brushstrokes. If the Nazis were a fan of his work, was Klimt spared from being in the degenerate art exhibition? Yes he was. In July of 1937, the Nazis organized a degenerate art exhibition close to Haus der Deutschen Kunst, House of German Art. One day before the degenerate art exhibition was shown off to the public, Adolf Hitler introduced the best commissioned art to show the contrast of what the Nazis accepted and rejected in the art world. Depictions of prostitutes, abstraction, and distorted figures within the degenerate art exhibition were juxtaposed with motherhood, natural landscapes, and ancient sculptures in the House of German Art. To put such an exhibition on, the Nazis confiscated over 16,000 works of art and selected from this for the exhibition in Munich. Moreover, the Nazis raised funds for the regime by selling or trading some of their confiscated works. However, most of the confiscated artwork was burned in the courtyard of the Berlin Fire Department. Why weren't Klimt's works if they represented anti-authoritarian modernism and were so closely tied to Jewish subjects labeled as degenerate, like so many of his colleagues, like his protégé Schiele, for example? This is a fascinating question, which cannot simply be answered by examining Klimt or his works. Instead, we must examine the political context in which Klimt's art was re-evaluated and the role that politics played in art historical interpretation. To understand the Nazis' fascination with Klimt demonstrated by their 1943 retrospective, we require a critical examination of the cultural politics and inner workings of Nazi leadership in Vienna. Vienna's governor, Baldur von Schirach, was personally appointed by Hitler and was the former head of the Hitler Youth. While Hitler despised Vienna's status as a cultural center, in part because of his rejection from its art academy in his youth, von Schirach sought to return the city to its former artistic glory. Celebrating its artistic heroes such as Klimt was therefore a political move by von Schirach, one which ultimately angered both propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels and Hitler himself and contributed to von Schirach's fall from favor. While Hitler despised Vienna's status as a cultural center, in part because of his rejection from its art academy in his youth, von Schirach sought to return the city to its former artistic glory. Celebrating its artistic heroes such as Klimt was therefore a political move by von Schirach, one which ultimately angered both propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels and Hitler himself and contributed to von Schirach's fall from favor. In this way, Klimt's Nazi retrospective can be seen as the result of individual actors within the regime and may not have been representative of a unified vision of what art was acceptable. It seems that some, but not all, Nazi leaders were willing to overlook qualities that may have rendered Klimt and his works degenerate to achieve political ends. His relationships with the wealthy Jewish community of Vienna, for example, were certainly overlooked. Did Klimt have ties to Jewish patrons and how were they incorporated into his work? Klimt was not Jewish, however, the Viennese Jewish community supported Klimt by becoming his patron and commissioning his work. The Nazis were able to possess much of Klimt's work because they were in his homes of Jewish families who were forced to give up their possessions. Klimt painted many portraits of two Jewish models, Margaret Stoneborough Wittgenstein and Adele Blockbauer. Yvonne Ristick, a curator of the Leopold Museum in Vienna wrote, Klimt had the support and commissions of the enlightened and cosmopolitan Jewish bourgeoisie. The Nazis were able to possess much of Klimt's work because they were in the homes of Jewish families who were forced to give up their possessions. Klimt painted many portraits of two Jewish models, Margaret Stoneborough Wittgenstein and Adele Blockbauer. Yvonne Ristick, a curator of the Leopold Museum in Vienna wrote, Klimt had the support and commissions of the enlightened and cosmopolitan Jewish bourgeoisie, especially as a portraitist. I'm so sorry. I get so nervous when I watch the camera. Don't laugh. Okay, it's all out. Go. So who was Adele Blockbauer and how did she come to have a portrait of herself? The portrait of Adele, titled Portrait of Adele Blockbauer I, was commissioned by her husband Ferdinand Blockbauer, a Viennese and Jewish banker and sugar producer. Ferdinand commissioned the work in mid-1903 as he wished to give it to Adele's parents as an anniversary present. Klimt created over 100 preparatory sketches in the years 1903 and 1904 before he began oil painting. What were some of his inspirations in creating the work? In 1903, Klimt traveled to Ravina, where he visited the Basilica of San Vitale. There, he was fascinated by the gold Byzantine mosaics of Justinian I and his wife, Empress Theodora. In his own words, Klimt said that the mosaics of unbelievable splendor were a revelation. The opulence of the Basilica and the ubiquity of the gold inspired Klimt to choose gold as a background, as well as frame Adele's face and body in gold. Can you describe the painting? The painting shows Adele sitting on a golden chair that almost resembles a throne. In the background, there is a celestial landscape entirely made of gold. Adele is portrayed wearing a jeweled choker, which can also be observed in Klimt's Judith Beheading Hall of Furnace. The choker was given to Adele by her husband, Ferdinand. In the painting, Adele is wearing a tight golden dress that is made up of small triangular shapes. Her golden dress bleeds into the background, and the viewer is unable to see where one begins and the other ends. According to Peter Virgo in his article for Grove Art, he considered portrait of Adele Blockbauer I the height of Klimt's gold-encrusted manner of painting. Beyond the ubiquity of the gold, how did Klimt paint Adele's likeness? Adele's face, chest, and hands are all realistically painted with oil paint, based on the numerous drawings that Klimt created. The illusion of having her face floating in a sea of gold gives her an impression of being almost godly, existing on a different plane. The gold, as well as the inspiration from the basilica, gives the work a sense of being a religious icon and not a secular portrait. What are the motifs within the work? We can observe many symbols within the gold dress, such as triangles, eggs, eyes, and almonds. There is an erotic undertone to these shapes, as they represent femininity and fertility. Her initials are also embedded into the work. The repetition of A and B can be observed throughout the painting. What was the relationship between Adele and Klimt? Adele and Klimt met in the late 1890s, and it was rumored that the two had an affair. Some have labeled her as his mistress, while others have been adamant that the relationship they shared was nothing more than a deep friendship. The rumors were perpetuated, in part because Klimt painted Adele more than once. He often only painted his models one time, and spent a long time completing each of the works that she modeled for. Despite the rumors, Klimt and the Bloch-Bowers remained close friends, and the family continued to buy works from him. Whatever their relationship was, it is clear how much Klimt cared about Adele, through his careful rendering of her. She was his muse for her two portraits, but also notably the model for Judith and the Head of Hall of Furnace, which is considered to be one of his most erotic works. Many art critics have observed how Klimt was able to draw out Adele's strong femme fatale personality. Now that we have understood Klimt's work of Adele, what happened to the work? And how did it come to be in the hands of the Nazis? After its completion, the painting was hung at Bloch-Bowers' Vienna residence after being exhibited at the Kunstschau, an arts and crafts exhibition, in 1908. Only two years before her death, Adele wrote in her will asking that her husband, after his death, leave the two portraits and the four landscapes by Gustav Klimt to the Austrian State Gallery in Vienna. Adele died before her husband, and so the works remained in his possession. He moved them into her room as a shrine to her. Was the work moved while Ferdinand was still alive? The work was lent extensively during this time. In 1928, the work was lent for an exhibition at the Vienna Succession to mark the tenth anniversary of Klimt's death. A few years later, in 1934, the work was loaned to be a part of an exhibition in London for the Austria and London Exhibition. And finally, in 1937, the work was displayed at the Paris Exposition. That same year, Gustav's daughter and Ferdinand's niece, Maria, married a man called Fritz Altmann. As a wedding present, Maria received Adele's famous choker, portrayed in several of Klimt's works. Where was Ferdinand at this time? In March 1938, Austria was annexed by the Nazis, and so he fled to his Czechoslovakian castle. Soon he realized that he would not be safe there, and he promptly fled to Paris, and subsequently Swit-learned... Soon he realized that he would not be safe there, and he promptly fled to Paris, and subsequently Switzerland, due to its neutrality in the war. How did the Nazis take advantage of the situation? Because Ferdinand was absent, the Nazis falsely accused him of evading taxes estimated at 1.4 million Reichsmark. In 1938, his assets were then frozen, and his property was seized under illegal and false premises. Where did the Nazis place the work of art? In December of 1941, Hitler transferred the painting, Portrait of Adele Blochbauer 1... In December of 1941, Hitler transferred the painting, Portrait of Adele Blochbauer 1 and Affelbaum 1 to the Galerie Belvedere. It should be noted that there was a note attached to the work claiming that they were acting per Adele's will. How did the Nazis justify taking a work that depicted Jewish women? To remove all references to the Jewish subject matter, the Nazis renamed the work in German translating to Dame in Gold or Lady in Gold, stripping the work of its association with the Jewish subject. Were the Nazis acting according to Adele's will in their placement of the work in the Belvedere Gallery? No, because Ferdinand wrote a final will which overrides Adele's will. Therefore, the Nazis were falsely choosing Adele's will to justify their actions. In August of 1945, Ferdinand wrote a final will that specifically revoked all previous wills. While it did not specifically talk about Klim's paintings, he carefully states that his entire estate should be left to his niece, Maria Altman. He did not name the paintings, as he was unsure where they were at this time. Altman died later that year in November. Since the art was rightfully Maria's, did the family take steps to retrieve it? Following the annulment act put forth by the Austrian government, which states that any transactions made by the Nazis motivated by discrimination were void, the Blockbauers hired a Viennese lawyer, Dr. Gustav Reinesch, to start the process of reclaiming works. While they were able to get back some of the works, no Klim paintings were returned at this time. Why was the Austrian government unwilling to give back the Klim paintings? The Gallery Belvedere referred to Adele's will, claiming that they were the intended and rightful owners of the works of art, and not Maria. Were Klim's paintings ever returned to Maria Altman? It wasn't until 1998, when the Austrian government introduced the Art Restitution Act, that things started to change for Maria Altman and her quest to return the paintings that were rightfully hers. What was the Art Restitution Act, and how did it help Maria? The Art Restitution Act looked at the question of art stolen by Nazis. The government formed a restitution committee to report on which works should be returned, and government archives were opened up to research the provenance of works held by the government. What did Maria do next? As she was living in the U.S. at the time, she hired E. Randall Schoenberg to represent her case. She filed a claim with the restitution committee for the return of six paintings, Adele Blockbauer 1, Adele Blockbauer 2, Asselbaum 1, Buchenwaldhauser in Unterachtersee, and Amelie Zuckerkandl. The committee turned down the request, as they again cited Adele's will. How did she surmount this next challenge? In 2000, Altman filed a civil claim against the Austrian government for the return of his paintings. But after she was informed that the cost of filing would be 1.75 million euros, she changed course of action, instead deciding to sue the Galerie Belvedere and the museum's owner, the Austrian government, in the U.S. courts. After four years of litigation, the case was brought to the Supreme Court, Republic of Austria v. Altman. What did the court rule? In June of 2004, the Supreme Court determined that the painting had been stolen, and that Austria was not immune from a claim from Altman. The court did not comment on the current ownership of the painting, so to avoid more years of lengthy and expensive litigation, Austria returned five of the six works. What was the response from the Austrian government? They ran advertisements that appeared at bus stops and on underground railway platforms. The posters said, Ciao Adele, advertising the last opportunity before the painting left the country, and long queues formed around the block. Many Austrians thought the government should buy the works back, but the government stated they could not justify the high price of the works. And what did Maria Altman do with the works? In her own words, Maria said, I would not want any private person to buy these paintings. It is very meaningful to me that they are seen by anybody who wants to see them, because that would have been the wish of my aunt. And so the work was sold to Lauder for $135 million for his public art museum, at the time a record price for a painting. She placed the work in the Neue Galerie, the New York-based gallery he co-founded. What is the legacy of Portrait of Adele Blochbauer I? Portrait of Adele Blochbauer I is one of the most famous cases of Nazi-looted work that was successfully repatriated due to its high publicity trial, due to its highly publicized trial, as well as the high price it fetched, the painting has remained in the public eye and has inspired a series of movies and books, movies such as Stealing Klimt, The Rape of Europa and Adele's Wish, and the book Lady in Gold, the Extraordinary Tale of Gustav Klimt's masterpiece Portrait of Adele Blochbauer. What are other examples of the Nazis taking an interest in Klimt's work? Klimt's University of Vienna ceiling paintings, colloquially known as his faculty paintings, were rumored to have been destroyed in a fire by the Nazis after being stolen. The Nazis resorted to destroying them so that no one else could have access to them once they knew they were going to lose the war. What were these paintings of? As you can expect, they were a series of paintings made by Gustav Klimt for the ceiling of the University of Vienna's Great Hall. They were created between 1900 and 1907. Klimt was commissioned to paint the work in 1894. The paintings were titled Philosophy, Medicine and Jurisprudence. The paintings would not go on to be displayed as they were labeled as perverted and pornographic. And what did each painting look like? The first of the three paintings was Philosophy and it was presented to the Austrian government at the 7th Vienna Succession Exhibition in March 1900. Klimt describes the painting as follows. On the left is a group of figures, the beginning of life, fruition and decay. On the right, the globe is a mystery. Emerging below is a figure of light, knowledge. Critics were particularly appalled by the men and women who were drifting aimlessly, almost in a trance-like state. Klimt had initially proposed a theme of light victoriously conquering darkness, but his paintings were more nuanced and less overtly positive. The next painting was Medicine and it was presented in March of 1901 at the 10th Succession Exhibition. On the right, there was a column made of semi-nude figures meant to represent a river of life. In the upper left corner, a floating nude woman touches a newborn infant at her feet, symbolizing the creation of life. Many elements within the work tell a story. A skeleton represents death and a snake twists around the arm of Hygieia with a cup of Leahy in her hand, all while turning her back, demonstrating her giving up on humanity. In the work, Klimt creates an uncomfortable unity between life and death. Nothing in the work is celebratory of medicine or the power of healing. Again, critics were very displeased with the work and were angry particularly with his portrayal of the medical field, ignoring two important aspects, prevention and cure, which were not part of the painting. The final painting in the series is Jurisprudence. The work is created in a similar vein to the previous two. There is a condemned man surrounded by three female theories and a sea monster. In the background, three goddesses, Truth, Justice, and Law, are looking on. The goddesses are punishing the condemned man in an embrace, with an octopus tentacle strangling his body. Many have read references in the work as psychosexual. What were the critics upset about? All three works were heavily critiqued by critics, as they broke down cultural taboos and Klimt did not only paint the good aspects of each of the disciplines. Additionally, Klimt's work was considered obscene due to its unjustified nudity that was used throughout the work. Eighty-seven faculty members protested against the murals, and for the first time, the issues went all the way to the Parliament of Austria. Nothing came of this, though. Klimt was adamantly against state censorship, arguing, I've had enough of censorship. I reject all state support. I don't want any of it. What happened to the paintings? The painting was requested for the Louisiana Purchase Exhibition in 1904 in St. Louis, Missouri, but the Ministry was nervous about people's reactions, so they declined. After examining the panels, the Ministry of Education wanted to exhibit them in the Osterreicher Gallery instead of the Great Hall. Klimt rejected this proposal. He wanted to take the paintings back, but the Ministry insisted that they had already belonged to the state. Klimt threatened to remove the works, and this prompted the Ministry to hand them over after the threats. He had to repay the Ministry 30,000 crowns for the work, in part paid by his patron, Ledger, who took the painting philosophy home as compensation. What happened to the other two works of art? Medicine and Jurisprudence were bought by a friend of Klimt, Koloman Moser, in 1911. From there, Medicine was bought by a Jewish family, but the work was subsequently seized by the Nazi regime in 1938. The works were moved in 1943 after a final exhibition to a castle in Lower Austria for protection. How were the works eventually destroyed? In 1945, it is believed that the paintings were destroyed when the retreating SS German Army set fire to the castle to prevent the works from falling into enemy hands. It is not confirmed whether the paintings were destroyed as the castle was gutted. Today, only black and white photographs remain. Art historians are now using color analysis to determine the original color of the works to preparatory sketches, as well as the remaining photographs. Why did the Nazis see fit to display these works in the 1943 retrospective? And what made these works acceptable to the Nazis for public view? The Klimt retrospective required an extensive effort of erasure on behalf of the show's curators and art historians to obfuscate the histories of the works. Nearly a third of the paintings on display had been stolen from Jewish families, including all five of the paintings stolen from the Bloch-Bauers in 1939. Their provenances were erased insofar as their previous Jewish owners and the fact that they were stolen was never mentioned. Further, changing the names of several of the paintings' Jewish subjects to generic names, such as Woman in Gold, sought to hide Jewish subjects such as Adel Bloch-Bauer from being represented at all. To viewers of the exhibition, these works were generic, universal depictions of wealth that had magically fallen into Viennese or German collections. But what about the works themselves, or the artist for that matter? Did Klimt or his works fit the Nazi's expectations? Did Klimt or his works fit the Nazi ideology or aesthetic? Klimt's works were unmistakably modern, anti-authoritarian, and controversial in their exploration of sexuality, history, and humanity. Klimt fancied himself a truth seeker and a rebel. These ideas are completely incompatible with Nazi aesthetic doctrine, which discouraged anything but illusionistic representation and classical conservative styles. Hitler, ultimately in control of this doctrine, preferred German, Flemish, and Nordic old masters. Prominent Nazi art publications reflected his tastes. Klimt himself was associated with the wealthy Jewish community of Vienna, which Hitler personally despised, and whose modernist tastes he indirectly blamed for his own rejection from art school. Klimt was deeply connected to wealthy Jewish industrial families of Vienna, who, like Adel Bloch-Bauer, served as the subjects of his most famous portraits and enabled his avant-gardism and anti-establishment secessionism through their patronage of his works. The depiction of Jewish subjects was not in line with the Nazi's aim of complete erasure of Jewish people. So what did the Nazis see in these works? Were there themes in Klimt's works which could have lent themselves to Nazi ideology? Art historian Laura Morowitz notes that artists are not to blame for the way their art is interpreted and misinterpreted by later generations. She argues that while it would be foolish to view Klimt and his work as in line with Nazi ideology, quote, it is equally foolish to pretend that there are not elements in Klimt's art, accessed by those predisposed to find it there, that accord with certain mythic or ideological presuppositions prominent in 1943. At times, Klimt drew from the same well as the Nazis, a well poisoned irrevocably by them and therefore difficult to see as pure, end quote. As Morowitz details, Klimt's works contain aesthetic or ideological themes which resonated with the Nazis, despite no evidence at all that the artist himself would have supported the Nazi ideology. In certain instances, however, they both drew from similar philosophical traditions. Give me some examples. In each of the faculty paintings, Klimt portrays an overarching vision of humankind, even depicting a literal and metaphorical river of humanity in medicine and philosophy. This idea drew from the writings of German philosophers Schopenhauer and Friedrich Nietzsche, both of whom were later admired and referenced by the Nazis. Klimt's Beethoven Frieze of 1902, dedicated to and visually representing Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, a song played more often at official Nazi rallies than any other piece. In this work, a rescuing knight was interpreted as a proto Führer figure and featured prominently on the exhibition catalog's cover. Klimt, exemplified by his 1898 Palace Athena, was fascinated by what Morowitz calls a chilly, archaic and pagan Greece, in contrast to the voluptuous Venuses and neoclassical legends embraced by other classically inspired artists. The coldness of Klimt's Palace Athena relates to the cold, archaic neoclassicism of the Nazis, as shown through the sculpture of Arno Brecker, the architecture of Albert Speer or the many festivals and rallies which featured Greek or Roman costumes. Were these latent themes enough to make Klimt and his works palatable to the Nazis for public view? Not quite. Klimt and his work still required a reinterpretation by art historians affiliated with National Socialism and drawing from trends popular in Nazi art journals to recontextualize both the artist and his works in a Germanic tradition aligned with the Nazis. Art historians identified a profoundly spiritual element which placed Klimt within a tradition of German metaphysical painting, as well as an eternal union with nature, a common theme in Nazi art criticism that established Klimt as definitively German. Art historians focused on what they saw as Germanic philosophical themes and an essential Viennese folk identity, diminishing Klimt's cosmopolitanism. Klimt was seen instead to have tied the Viennese folk essence to living antiquity in line with Nazi aesthetics. They also downplayed themes of sexuality present in works such as Hope One, which depicts Klimt's pregnant mistress. Referring to the work as fertility, these art historians asserted that Klimt's intentions were pure and naive and that the work celebrates motherhood as sacred and essential in the same manner as the Nazis, who implored young women to contribute babies for the right. So what was the point of this appropriation of Klimt and his works? Why go to the trouble of rewriting history in this way? Morowitz argues that this Klimt exhibition was more than simply a move by von Schirach to reestablish Vienna as a cultural center and more than simple propaganda. Instead, she argues that this exhibition was part of a project to reshape collective memory. What is collective memory? This concept, first theorized by Maurice Halbach, himself killed in the Holocaust, represents the socially shared representations of the past, which are effects of the present identities that they feed in part in return. Theorist Eva Kutenberg summarizes Halbach's argument well. She writes that, according to Halbach, quote, human memory can only function within a collective context. It is always selective, socially constructed and shaped by the present. Rather than retrieving a deeply buried past, collective memory configures the past through the lens of the present, end quote. And how did the Nazis use Klimt's work to manipulate collective memory? Klimt's life and work were still recent at the time of the retrospective, and many of his subjects were still alive. By reinterpreting his works and rewriting history, this exhibition sought to manipulate Vienna's collective memory of Klimt. As such, the Viennese public could appreciate Klimt's work without what Laura Morowitz calls the cognitive dissonance arising from the knowledge that his art and his Weltanschauung, or worldview, conflicted with the remade Vienna in which they now lived. By reconstructing representations of the past, the Nazis were altering collective memory to construct a present national identity devoid of contradictions relating to conflicting worldviews. In appropriating Klimt's art to promote the National Socialist ideology, the Nazis were reconfiguring the past. Morowitz further argues that by disconnecting the works and the artists from the Jewish community, the Nazis were erasing Jews from the city's collective memory. She writes, a Viennese cultural history without Jews was in some ways foreshadowing the essence of a Nazi fantasy, a future without Jews. In this manner, they projected onto the past what they hoped to be their future. What does the story tell us about art and art history in the context of fascism? In his 1935 essay, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, German-Jewish cultural critic Walter Benjamin writes that the logical result of fascism is the introduction of aesthetics into political life. Interpreting Benjamin, contemporary theorist Desmond Maxwell argues that national identities are not natural, but constructed through sensory representations such as images, which become tools for establishing a collective national identity. Fascism, according to Maxwell, uses emotive aesthetics such as parades, propaganda and art to harness collective experience as a powerful social force. In this sense, art under fascism necessarily serves politics and constructions of national identity. Aesthetics may be used as tools to repress underlying social tensions in society, such as the erasure of Jewish people from cultural history. Maxwell refers to this process of fusing art and politics under fascism as the construction of a political theology, which draws from mythology and notions of timelessness to construct aesthetic representations that shield from political scrutiny or context. In other words, fascism uses art and aesthetics to repress history and make its politics feel eternal, universal and mythological rather than the products of specific events and subjective experiences. How does art resist these forms of political appropriation? Walter Benjamin writes that while fascism aestheticizes politics, communism politicizes art. Maxwell argues that this involves returning the image to the temporal and spatial specificities of its origin with a vengeance. Thus is made possible an art that can hold politics to account rather than simply exult in it. The mythologizing, eternalizing and historical erasure we have witnessed with the work of Klimt under the Nazis would be undone by a return to singularity, context and subjective experience. Are these struggles over representation and the appropriation of art continuing today? Arguably, yes. Although Austria is no longer fascist, the Nazi occupation and Austrian complicity has left lasting impacts on collective memory. A sense of taboo around the subject of complicity in particular has led to a prevailing sense of victimhood on the part of the Austrian nation, which was among the first countries invaded by Nazi Germany. Eva Kutenberg highlights several artists who she argues challenge the comfortable Austrian self-image as Nazi victim based on selective recall and break up solidified memory structures by particularizing victimhood. What are some of these works? Austrian sculptor Alfred Hertlicka on the 50th anniversary of the Anschluss unveiled his memorial against war and fascism in 1988. The memorial in a public square commemorates the victims of concentration camps and the war. Controversially, the memorial features a sculpture entitled Streetwashing Jew, which forces Austrians to recall the humiliation of Jews forced to scrub the streets after the Anschluss. After debuting in 1988, also debuting in 1988 with Austrian playwright Thomas Bernhard stage drama Hildenplatz, the play sparked controversy by openly criticizing persistent anti-Semitism in modern Austria. Finally, Kutenberg highlights Rachel White Red's Judenplatz Holocaust memorial completed in 2000 over the excavated remnants of the city's medieval synagogue. The memorial to the Austrian victims of the Holocaust is simple and solemn and acknowledges the loss of memory resulting from the Holocaust, according to Kutenberg. These works all challenge the taboo of Austria's complicity in fascism and the Holocaust by confronting Austrians with their nation's past and engaging them in dealing with it. How does the return of stolen art, such as Klimt's portrait of Adel Blockbauer one, relate to this project of breaking up selective memory structures? I would argue that because this work and others by Klimt, for that matter, were held by the Austrian government after their theft by the Nazis as cultural heritage, the struggles to return them to their rightful heirs represent struggles to disrupt the legacy of the Nazis' cultural project and to reshape cultural memory structures in ways which acknowledge Jewish and cultural. That's a typo. It's a long ass sentence, too. I'll just start at the beginning of this whole paragraph. Last paragraph. I would argue that because this work and others by Klimt, for that matter, were held by the Austrian government after their theft by the Nazis as cultural heritage, the struggles to return them to their rightful heirs represent struggles to disrupt the legacy of the Nazis' cultural project and to reshape cultural memory structures in ways which acknowledge Jewish cultural histories erased by the Nazis. Such works include the Beethoven frieze, whose owners, the Laterers, were forced to sell the work at cut-rate prices after the war due to an Austrian export ban that prevented them from taking it out of the country. Despite Austria's later establishment of restitution laws, the advisory board on art restitution recommended against the returning of the frieze to the Laterer heirs in 2015, keeping the artwork in Austria. Klimt's 1917 to 1918 portrait of Amelie Zuckerkandl was the focal point of controversy at the National Gallery's exhibition, Facing the Modern, the portrait in Vienna in 1900. The painting, which is central to the exhibit and on loan from Vienna's Belvedere Gallery, is claimed to be a Nazi plunder by restitution expert E. Randall Schoenberg. Amelie Zuckerkandl, the Jewish woman depicted in the portrait, was murdered in the Holocaust. The return of five Klimt paintings to Maria Altman was remarkable, marking a significant milestone in the ongoing efforts to restore art looted during World War II. However, it's important to acknowledge that the battle for restitution continues, as does the struggle to undo the legacies of cultural memory left by the Nazis.