{"title":"Sieg Maandag和大屠杀艺术","authors":"Daniel P. Stone","doi":"10.1353/aim.2023.0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:According to Sarah Gendron, following Terrence Des Pres's notion of \"Holocaust etiquette\", there are two forms of art which government sponsored museums and memorials feel to be \"safe\" in representing the Holocaust: pure abstraction or direct, realist representation. The former is permissible since, with its \"perceived capacity to sidestep misrepresentation\", it \"does not seek to portray the event or those involved in a figural way\"; the latter is acceptable for precisely the opposite reason, because they \"present themselves as re-presentations, portraying moments 'as they were' without intervention, manipulation, or interpretation.\" The artist appears to bear witness to the event, \"providing proof of its 'having definitely been.'\" Art which does not fall into these two categories offers more of a challenge to the post-Holocaust world's ability to grapple with the meaning and representation of the genocide of the Jews. One thinks of the photorealism, or blurred \"photorealism\" of Gerhard Richter; the symbolic art of Józef Szajna where thumbprints, for example, stand in for human beings at roll call; or the anonymous mass of Menashe Kadishman's shalechet (fallen leaves), each representing a human face, all the same but all different. Sieg Maandag's paintings cannot be regarded as falling squarely into any one genre; some are abstract (increasingly so over time), some naïve or surreal figuralism or landscape. Maandag's paintings are reflections of moments of his life and by no means all obviously \"Holocaust art.\" In this paper I argue, however, using Susan Suleiman's notion of the \"1.5 generation\", that it was his experience as a boy in Bergen-Belsen that stamped Maandag's career as an artist. Through an analysis of several paintings, especially the unfinished and untitled work of a perpetrator who has a fork emerging from his eye pushing into the mouth of a child opposite; Het mooie hemd (the beautiful shirt, 1986); three faces; and the 1983 self portrait where Maandag's crumpled face and an empty speech bubble betray an inability to speak, I suggest that Maandag's concentration camp childhood and subsequent knowledge of the Holocaust are, as Raymond Federman says of his fiction, the \"gap\" in him that \"controls my work and gives it its urgency.\" Sieg Maandag, famous as the boy walking past the laid out corpses in George Rodger's photograph after the liberation of the camp, deserves greater recognition as a \"Holocaust artist\" not only because of the subtext of his works but because his oeuvre is in its own right a significant contribution to the field of art perse.","PeriodicalId":44377,"journal":{"name":"AMERICAN IMAGO","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sieg Maandag and Holocaust Art\",\"authors\":\"Daniel P. Stone\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/aim.2023.0001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:According to Sarah Gendron, following Terrence Des Pres's notion of \\\"Holocaust etiquette\\\", there are two forms of art which government sponsored museums and memorials feel to be \\\"safe\\\" in representing the Holocaust: pure abstraction or direct, realist representation. The former is permissible since, with its \\\"perceived capacity to sidestep misrepresentation\\\", it \\\"does not seek to portray the event or those involved in a figural way\\\"; the latter is acceptable for precisely the opposite reason, because they \\\"present themselves as re-presentations, portraying moments 'as they were' without intervention, manipulation, or interpretation.\\\" The artist appears to bear witness to the event, \\\"providing proof of its 'having definitely been.'\\\" Art which does not fall into these two categories offers more of a challenge to the post-Holocaust world's ability to grapple with the meaning and representation of the genocide of the Jews. One thinks of the photorealism, or blurred \\\"photorealism\\\" of Gerhard Richter; the symbolic art of Józef Szajna where thumbprints, for example, stand in for human beings at roll call; or the anonymous mass of Menashe Kadishman's shalechet (fallen leaves), each representing a human face, all the same but all different. Sieg Maandag's paintings cannot be regarded as falling squarely into any one genre; some are abstract (increasingly so over time), some naïve or surreal figuralism or landscape. Maandag's paintings are reflections of moments of his life and by no means all obviously \\\"Holocaust art.\\\" In this paper I argue, however, using Susan Suleiman's notion of the \\\"1.5 generation\\\", that it was his experience as a boy in Bergen-Belsen that stamped Maandag's career as an artist. Through an analysis of several paintings, especially the unfinished and untitled work of a perpetrator who has a fork emerging from his eye pushing into the mouth of a child opposite; Het mooie hemd (the beautiful shirt, 1986); three faces; and the 1983 self portrait where Maandag's crumpled face and an empty speech bubble betray an inability to speak, I suggest that Maandag's concentration camp childhood and subsequent knowledge of the Holocaust are, as Raymond Federman says of his fiction, the \\\"gap\\\" in him that \\\"controls my work and gives it its urgency.\\\" Sieg Maandag, famous as the boy walking past the laid out corpses in George Rodger's photograph after the liberation of the camp, deserves greater recognition as a \\\"Holocaust artist\\\" not only because of the subtext of his works but because his oeuvre is in its own right a significant contribution to the field of art perse.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44377,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AMERICAN IMAGO\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AMERICAN IMAGO\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/aim.2023.0001\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AMERICAN IMAGO","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/aim.2023.0001","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
摘要:根据Sarah Gendron的说法,遵循Terrence Des Pres的“大屠杀礼仪”概念,政府赞助的博物馆和纪念馆认为有两种艺术形式在表现大屠杀时是“安全的”:纯粹的抽象或直接的现实主义表现。前者是允许的,因为它“被认为有能力回避虚假陈述”,“不试图以形象的方式描述事件或涉及的人”;后者是可以接受的,原因恰恰相反,因为它们“以重新呈现的形式呈现自己,在没有干预、操纵或解释的情况下‘原样’描绘时刻。”艺术家似乎见证了这一事件,“提供了‘确实存在’的证据。”不属于这两类的艺术对大屠杀后世界处理犹太人种族灭绝的意义和表现的能力提出了更大的挑战。人们会想到格哈德·里希特的照片现实主义,或者模糊的“照片现实主义”;Józef Szajna的象征艺术,例如,在点名时,拇指代表人类;或者是梅纳什·卡迪什曼(Menashe Kadishman)的落叶,每一片落叶都代表着一张人脸,都一样,但都不同。Sieg Maandag的绘画不能被视为完全属于任何一种类型;有些是抽象的(随着时间的推移越来越抽象),有些是天真或超现实的象征主义或风景。马恩达格的画作反映了他生命中的一些时刻,绝不是明显的“大屠杀艺术”。然而,在这篇论文中,我用苏珊·苏莱曼的“1.5代”概念认为,正是他小时候在卑尔根-贝尔森的经历奠定了马恩达的艺术家生涯。通过对几幅画的分析,特别是一个犯罪者的未完成和无标题的作品,他用叉子从眼睛里伸出来,伸进对面一个孩子的嘴里;Het mooie下摆(漂亮的衬衫,1986年);三个面;1983年的自画像中,马恩达格皱巴巴的脸和空洞的演讲气泡暴露出他无法说话,我认为,正如雷蒙德·费德曼在谈到他的小说时所说,马恩达格在集中营的童年和随后对大屠杀的了解是他身上的“缺口”,“控制了我的工作,并赋予了它紧迫性。”,乔治·罗杰(George Rodger)在集中营解放后拍摄的照片中,一个男孩从摆放好的尸体旁走过,他作为“大屠杀艺术家”值得更多的认可,这不仅是因为他的作品的潜台词,还因为他的作品本身就是对艺术领域的重大贡献。
Abstract:According to Sarah Gendron, following Terrence Des Pres's notion of "Holocaust etiquette", there are two forms of art which government sponsored museums and memorials feel to be "safe" in representing the Holocaust: pure abstraction or direct, realist representation. The former is permissible since, with its "perceived capacity to sidestep misrepresentation", it "does not seek to portray the event or those involved in a figural way"; the latter is acceptable for precisely the opposite reason, because they "present themselves as re-presentations, portraying moments 'as they were' without intervention, manipulation, or interpretation." The artist appears to bear witness to the event, "providing proof of its 'having definitely been.'" Art which does not fall into these two categories offers more of a challenge to the post-Holocaust world's ability to grapple with the meaning and representation of the genocide of the Jews. One thinks of the photorealism, or blurred "photorealism" of Gerhard Richter; the symbolic art of Józef Szajna where thumbprints, for example, stand in for human beings at roll call; or the anonymous mass of Menashe Kadishman's shalechet (fallen leaves), each representing a human face, all the same but all different. Sieg Maandag's paintings cannot be regarded as falling squarely into any one genre; some are abstract (increasingly so over time), some naïve or surreal figuralism or landscape. Maandag's paintings are reflections of moments of his life and by no means all obviously "Holocaust art." In this paper I argue, however, using Susan Suleiman's notion of the "1.5 generation", that it was his experience as a boy in Bergen-Belsen that stamped Maandag's career as an artist. Through an analysis of several paintings, especially the unfinished and untitled work of a perpetrator who has a fork emerging from his eye pushing into the mouth of a child opposite; Het mooie hemd (the beautiful shirt, 1986); three faces; and the 1983 self portrait where Maandag's crumpled face and an empty speech bubble betray an inability to speak, I suggest that Maandag's concentration camp childhood and subsequent knowledge of the Holocaust are, as Raymond Federman says of his fiction, the "gap" in him that "controls my work and gives it its urgency." Sieg Maandag, famous as the boy walking past the laid out corpses in George Rodger's photograph after the liberation of the camp, deserves greater recognition as a "Holocaust artist" not only because of the subtext of his works but because his oeuvre is in its own right a significant contribution to the field of art perse.
期刊介绍:
Founded in 1939 by Sigmund Freud and Hanns Sachs, AMERICAN IMAGO is the preeminent scholarly journal of psychoanalysis. Appearing quarterly, AMERICAN IMAGO publishes innovative articles on the history and theory of psychoanalysis as well as on the reciprocal relations between psychoanalysis and the broad range of disciplines that constitute the human sciences. Since 2001, the journal has been edited by Peter L. Rudnytsky, who has made each issue a "special issue" and introduced a topical book review section, with a guest editor for every Fall issue.