Adolf Ziegler and The Four Elements

A brief review on the significance of female portrayal in art as propaganda within the Third Reich and its debate today

I believe that within our ultra-digital age, it is becoming increasingly difficult for conversations to exercise critical thought. We are constantly being hindered by echo chambers of our own symbiotic communities and natural confirmation bias, which can impair our chances to develop, learn, and tolerate the uncomfortable. Why I mention this will soon be clear. 

Last year, I watched an episode of Museums-Check, based at the Pinakothek der Moderne in Munich (linked here), in which was presented an artwork, ‘Die Vier Elemente’ or ‘The Four Elements’ (1937) by Adolf Ziegler. The act of displaying this work was subject to much discussion and controversy, and many want it taken down. This is because The Four Elements is a product of National Socialism, and furthermore one of Hitler’s favourite artworks. Referring back to my introductory paragraph; is it correct for it to be removed, or on the contrary would its (and alike works) removal be more detrimental to the investigation of socio-political art history?

'The Four Elements' (1937) by Adolf Ziegler

Who was Adolf Ziegler? 

Born in 1892, Ziegler was a prominent artist in the hierarchy of the National Socialist party since joining in 1920. He soon became a friend of Hitler and thus was able to secure significant positions within the art establishment, such as becoming a professor at Munich’s Academy of Fine Arts, and later securing the presidency of the Reich Chamber of Fine Arts, a subdivision of the Reich Chamber of Culture (headed by Goebbels for the purposes of Gleichschaltung). He is often noted for his involvement in the Degenerate Art Exhibition in 1937, a show that displayed many examples of modern German art thought to be of ‘Jewish or Bolshevik value’, what fell under this label was simply anything that strayed from the personal tastes of the Führer. It was art that showed new experimentation and emotion through distorted and unusual colours, features, and ideas. Many of my favourite artists were subject to mockery and condemnation through this. It was a brutal and unfeeling humiliation, mostly of the New Objectivity movement. Ziegler opposed these ideas, and instead advocated for realism and the depiction of German and ‘Aryan’ culture as a lofty and superior ideal, i.e. what could be called blatant propaganda. 

Adolf Ziegler 

The Four Elements (1937) and Woman’s Role

This is a triptych featuring four nude women as representations of the classical elements (left to right) fire, water, earth, and wind. The idea of the classical elements were common within Ancient Greek philosophy, and the aestheticism of Ancient Greece and Rome was popularised within Nazi culture as many scientists had made claims on the Nordicism of these places and their people in order to propose the German Aryan ancestry as one of vast heritage culture. This is one of the reasons we see a return to Classicism within much art in the Third Reich. 

How these women are portrayed within the painting is incredibly significant, and more shocking than the average audience would notice. Attitudes towards women in Nazi Germany are much overlooked, and many people are not aware of the propaganda and policies imposed on female members of society during the period. In order to further the German race, there was an aggressive and incessant culture of sexual reproduction, where women were viewed almost solely as child bearers and mothers. In 1935, an ordinance named Lebensborn demanded that every SS member should father a minimum of four children, either in or out of wedlock. The women who were to bear these children were screened for eugenic purposes to ensure their offspring would be racially pure and physically, mentally able. The policy of Lebensborn intended to attract single vulnerable women through benefits like anonymity and state care and homes for the children. However, there was weak medical examination and care, causing hundreds and thousands of women to undergo the danger of illegally obtained abortion. This policy even stretched out to other countries, such as occupied Norway. The children born of these relationships here were abused and neglected, and has remained taboo and unmentioned only until recently. 

Image from Lebensborn brochure on the program homes. "In the most beautiful areas of Reichsgau are the homes of the Lebensborn, which meet all your requirements..."

As you may guess, due to Gleichschaltung (coordination of different areas of life in accordance to Nazi ideals), the ideas behind Lebensborn and breeding had to become socially intrinsic just like any other policy in the Third Reich. The women in The Four Seasons are natural and nude, confident and well proportioned. They are clean, unmarked, and open to the audience. What you may not know is that the depiction of naked women in art during this period served the higher purpose of sexual arousal and lust in male viewers, so that they would be more encouraged to go and reproduce either with their wives or an eligible single woman. It has been commonly noted that women were often not present within regular propaganda posters, especially as opposed to places like the Soviet Union, so it is interesting that women were actually used, but in subconscious forms of propaganda solely for the purposes of stimulation. This is why historical knowledge and artistic analysis is vital for our perception of the past. You most likely would not assume the context behind the painting just by its appearance alone.

Should the painting be removed from permanent display?

The Four Seasons is present in the exhibition ‘Mix & Match’ in the Pinakothek der Moderne (Munich), which aims to display contemporary art from many different aspects of life within 20th and 21st century history. The museum stated, “We want to confront their [National Socialists] normative aesthetics with modern positions and stimulate a discussion about Nazi art in museums.”. However, many people are ardently against its position in the exhibition, such as the artist Georg Baselitz. Baselitz stresses that it is insulting and dirty for an artwork created by Ziegler, who destroyed many artists lives, to be surrounded by works of his own and National Socialism’s victims. Others further state that you cannot make displaying the work acceptable. 

But what is the real problem here? I believe that art created in this way and by such people in such a context needs to be displayed. People need to learn and see how this regime presented itself in different sectors of life. Although on the surface Germany appears to have made progress in coming to terms with its past, racism and bigotry is still significantly present in daily life. If we simply brush away the products of Nazism, it will only harm social improvement. However, it could also be seen as casually whitewashing the context of The Four Seasons by including it in the ‘Mix & Max’ exhibition rather than an exhibition focused on its history. This is more likely to be the problem with its display. On the other hand, I could also play devil’s advocate and suggest that by including it with unrelated works, it stresses what humanity is capable of. As after all, Nazis weren’t mythical beings, they weren’t cartoon supervillains, they were real people, and this is what our species can do.

Discussions like these could go on forever, and it is not my place to decide on the most righteous or correct answer. If you have any thoughts yourselves on the matter, feel free to leave a comment.

20th January 2024