In the previous blog, I posted an introduction to this article, introducing these two reasons for art making and explaining that they are not separate. In this blog, I present the reasons and investigate case studies to prove them. Moreover, I would add that given what is happening in the world (The Woman-Life-Freedom movement in Iran, Protests in China, the ongoing Russia-Ukrainian War, and many other events), I believe it is the right time to investigate the role of art in the current circumstances.
Art as a political statement and resistance against oppressors
There have always been artists who risks their life to make art to raise social and political awareness against oppression system. They are like soldiers in a battlefield with different type of weapon. In fact, their art is their weapon. The article Art Resistance against Russia's "Non-Invasion" of Ukraine by Nazar Kuzak accounts for how art projects had agency in disrupting the "non-invasion" simulation that Russia attempted to present to people to distance itself from invasion. The three projects that Kuzak investigates in the article are simple, but thanks to the internet, their influence on social awareness about what Russia tried to hide was huge.
The first project he investigates is Death in the museum which happened in "Manifesta 10" in Russia. Kulikovs'ka covered herself in the Ukrainian flag and lay down at a museum in St. Petersburg. Although there were few people at the museum then, the Internet dissemination of photos and videos caused multiple debates, reportages, and interviews; by discussing Kulikovs'ka's performance, they drew attention to Russia's involvement in the Ukrainian events.
The second project that Kozak investigates is “One Artist Army”. In this project Zakharov' installed caricature images of Russian proxy rebels on the streets of occupied Donetsk, and his friend took pictures in the early morning. Then they posted photos on the internet. Several days after that, Zakharov was arrested by Russia. The author maintains that: “The placement of Zakharov's images was crucial for their disruptive effectiveness. The artist used the streets of Donetsk, which were a key location for staging the simulation of the "non-invasion." This way, he managed to insert an alien disruptive element into the Novorossiia's illusion, masquerading as its organic component.” (P: 87)
The third project is The Occupation "On Vacation." In fact, Russia participated in the 56th Venice Biennale with "The Green Pavilion," intended to simulate the simulation of "non-invasion" of Ukraine. But artists changed the message by wearing military camouflage jackets with the inscription "#onvacation" on their backs and walking through a Russian pavilion, taking a selfie and posting it on the media. They also established a website advertising a competition to win a free tour to Crimea. The unity of artists in this project disrupted Russia's message by adding another layer to this event.
These artists knew the dangerous of their project; however, they took risk and through their projects they prove the role of art in resistance against oppression and media war. Kozak states that:
“they not only made the war visible but also produced a "glitch in the matrix" effect, a contradiction within the simulation's visual regime that was inconsistent with its concealing function (p: 71)”. In all three projects, authorities tried to suppress artists, but they failed to cut the awareness stream caused by art. I believe these three projects perfectly show how art unites artists in critical moments and how art finds its own way to resist injustice.
Art making for facilitating challenging circumstances and assisting to survive
The other reason that encourages artists to make art in a hard time is their instinct to survive. It is proved that art can facilitate living in a hard time by bringing hope and raising a sense of community. One example of this art's role is the Jews' cultural activity in Terezin. Terezin was a ghetto-labor camp created by Nazis in the Holocaust time for the west and central Europe unwanted Jews. Given its cultural activities and legacies, it was a particular ghetto; however, living conditions, including malnutrition, overcrowding, rampant disease, as well as frequent transport eastbound to Auschwitz, could not have made it easy for artists to create art or do much of anything. Rebecca Rovit, in Theatrical Performance during the Holocaust, points out those times with horror at the thought that transports and theatrical performances took place on the same day.
“The ultimate paradox of the situation resounds in an anecdote about news received during the performance of Gogol’s The Matchmaker: another transport was to leave, and the actors and audience members did not know whether at transport would await them when they return to their quarters. The actors wanted to stop the play, but the audience would not allow it”. (P: 172)
She quotes from actress Ehrlich-Fantlova_who performed in six plays during her two and a half years in Terezin_ that: “In Terezin, the larger number of creative people, living clos together, provided a “seeding element”, in which “people fed hope and togetherness”. Rovit argues that: For her (Fantlova), the cultural program of Freizeitgastaltung was not merely fun and entertainment. Rather, it had a completely different mission. It rose so high that it cannot be compared to any entertainment in normal life.” (P:173).
Inmates did not know the destination of the train; they were told that they were being sent to a labor camp or to establish a new ghetto; in reality, most went to Auschwitz. Although the destination of the transport remined nebulous for most of Jews, the threat of the next transport east was dreadful and Terezin artists did not know what was going to happen the next day. In this situation, they held out hope for their predicament by making art. Rovit names and investigates some of these performances such as Leo Strauss’s cabaret sketches, the Czech satires on ghetto life, Peter Kien’s Empror of Atlantis libretto and Hans Krasa’s opera and maintains that they were serious attempt to provide an atmosphere of hope and enlightenment to audience.
Lisa Peschel in Laughter in the Ghetto: Cabarets from a Concentration Camp points out Jew’s fear of transportation in Terezin and analyzes a scene, from a cabaret written and performed in Terezin in the summer of 1944. The scene is set a decades after the war, and the main character, Horpatzky, is a survivor of Terezin. Using humor, he describes the transportation in ghetto for a curious young man:
F. Porges. What is that for a means of transportation?
P. Horpatzky. Transport, that was a magic word. Children there weren’t afraid of the bogey-man or witches, there they simply said, “a transport is going,” and you should have seen it, how that shook each of them, how all were immediately well-behaved and obedient; it’s not surprising, since only selected people were allowed to leave on such a transport.
Peschel argues how they minimize the threat of the transports, not only by representing them as something used to frighten children, but by portraying them as a reward to be earned through good behavior, rather than a catastrophe to be avoided at all costs. Ultimately Peschel argues that: “perhaps instinctively, the Terezin prisoners chose the very types of humor that have a demonstrated association with psychological health: types of humor that may have helped them preserve their psychological equilibrium in a potentially traumatizing environment.” (P:272)
Max and Willy's Last Laugh
Besides making art to hold hope, raising a sense of community, and using humor in performances as a coping mechanism, there are situations in which artists try to survive their community by engaging them in art. Max and Willy's Last Laugh is a very recent dark musical comedy written by Jake Broder & Conor Duffy. It is based on the true story of Max Erhlich and Willy Rosen, famous Jewish artists in Westerbork transit camp, where inmates were eventually sent to Auschwitz. The camp's commandant asked Max to create a group of performers and perform a cabaret each Monday, and if the cabaret was funny and could satisfy the commandant, they could continue; if not, they were sent to Auschwitz the next day. In the play, Max tries to protect Jews from transport by engaging them in the performance.
MAX
Hey! I’ve been packing this show with everyone I can. This fucking show has got people off the train. Every week, for months and months.
MECHANICUS
And who takes their place? You stupid sonofobitch. You’re not saving anyone! The numbers are the same. You just pick winners and losers.
Although he was not successful to save all inmates, his intention of performing cabaret was saving people and making them laugh.
MAX
This sounds corny- if someone said this onstage, I’d punch ’em, but I like making people
laugh. It’s one of the few things I can think of that’s purely good for the soul. There’s no
downside. And ladies. (She chuckles) You asked. (beat) I think I’m done. I’m not gonna
do it anymore. When you’re up to your neck in shit - it’s hard to chirp
When he gets disappointed in saving a life, he uses the stage to show his protest and resistance against Nazis, so in his last cabaret, on the stage, he talks directly to Gemmecer and makes fun of him:
Max
(to Gemmeker) You're worried about us replacing you? Believe me, we don't wanna. Not in a million years. Because, we're not the only material in this camp. We might be transport material but you are comic material. The best comic material. My kids, my grandkids are going to be making fun of you. You will employ generations of funny Jews, whose sole job it is to find ways to make fun of you. There will be Jews mocking Hitler from New York to...New Zealand! Replace you? You're irreplaceable! Don't get mad at me, I'm just an entertainer, I'm entertaining! Maestro!
As we can see in this musical, based on the circumstances and his instinct, Max performs on the stage to make people laugh, which is good for the soul and for surviving people from transport. Then he serves on the stage, mocking and resisting against Nazis.
Conclusion
The main question of this article was: while making art in dark and challenging situations like war and genocide can be very dangerous, why do artists/amateurs take the risk and make it? Art making as a political act and resistance against the oppression system was considered one of the main reasons for creating art in wartime and as evidence for proving this reason, referring to Nazar Kuzak’s article, three art projects that were staged during the first, most violent year of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict was investigated. Then, facilitating dark and complex circumstances and assisting in survival was considered the other main reason for art making. As pieces of evidence, some of the cabaret skits performed in Terezin during the Holocaust were pointed out. Then Max and willy’s last laugh, a play based on a true story, was analyzed to show how these two main reasons can come along with each other and encourage artists to create art under duress.
Resources
Rovit, Rebecca, and Alvin Goldfarb, eds. Theatrical Performance during the Holocaust: Texts, Documents, Memoirs. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999.
Kozak, Nazar. “Art Resistance against Russia’s ‘Non-Invasion’ of Ukraine.” East/West: Journal of Ukrainian Studies, vol. 9, no. 1, 2022, pp. 67–104., https://doi.org/10.21226/ewjus585
Lisa Peschel, Ed. Performing Captivity, Performing Escape: Cabarets and Plays from the Terezin/Theresienstadt Ghetto. New York and Calcutta: Seagull Books, 2014, pp. 399_402.
Broder, Jake. & Duffy, Conor. Max and Willy's Last Laugh. Published by…… 2019?
Peschel, Lisa. “Laughter in the Ghetto: Cabarets from a Concentration Camp.” European Judaism, vol. 53, no. 2, 2020, pp. 49–61.
Comments