“Entartete Kunst” – degenerated art – a derogatory term adopted by the German National Socialist (“Nazi”) Party to describe all modern art, i.e. “Kunst”, (as well as literature) which didn’t correspond with the prior to World War II Nazi ideology and assessment of culture. In 1936 the Nazis had passed a law that regulated that only German Art was allowed. Other types or forms of art were deemed to be“entartet” and therefore forbidden and persecuted. “Entartung” was of major significance as a political tool of the Nazis, used by them to justify the exclusion of a whole segment of the population, in particular the Jewish population, and also as a reason to chase or victimise political opponents.

Historically, the early twentieth century was a period of wrenching changes in art. In painting innovations such as Expressionism, Dada and Surrealism, followed closely bySymbolism, Cubism and Fauvism, were not universally appreciated. Germany had emerged as a leading centre of ‘avant-garde’ not only in the visual arts but in music and film as well. The zenith of this development took place during the Weimar period which was viewed with immersive scepticism and huge disgust by the Nazis; partly due to a conservative aesthetic taste and partly because of the Nazis’ determination to use culture as a propaganda tool.

Therefore the Nazis tried to undermine the movement in order to prevent the spreading of unwanted cultural developments, but their methods where not consistent.
The general aim was to clean culture of contra-national socialist’s influences. Art was therefore especially considered from the perspective of whether it was “Un-German”or “Jewish-Bolshevist”. The inconsistency is exemplarily revealed in the fact that some art was destroyed and other actually collected and even exhibited.

From 1933 the Nazis forced every artist to register at the, -for their category of art relevant-, cultural national association. Those artists then identified as degenerated were mainly sanctioned at a personal level including dismissals from teaching positions, forbidden to exhibit or sell their art, and, in some cases even prohibited from producing art entirely. Their work was confiscated and either painted over, burnt or destroyed.
The burning of paintings, and of other art pieces, was a symbolic act meant to influence the German population. They wanted to censor depicted ideas, emotions and thoughts of the artists to create a false belief that the only trustworthy moral standard and way of living was that of the Nazis, anything aside to be depicted as false and misleading. Hitler wanted art to calm the people and not to reflect modern everyday life. They were supposed to show traditional and old motives to symbolise a cessation. The idea behind this was to mask the nationalist politics, so that the people wouldn’t realise the brutal and destructive political culture or at least would be deflected from the actual reality. That is why he wanted art pieces not to deal with anything new or provocative. To influence the people according to their purposes, paintings were idealised. Soldiers, for example, were pictured as aggressive, heroic and tough, whereas women were shown as mothers with an obedient attitude towards men, mostly symbolised with a suppliant gaze downwards.
Other art pieces Hitler allowed all showed excellent daily work motives, such as a farmer with clean clothes and employees playing music and drinking wine as if they were glad to work. The idea of “great art” was to form and influence people that they would follow the “behaviour plans” of the Nazis and create a population that could easily be lead while suppressing rebellions.

On the other hand the Nazis collected, saved and even exhibited “degenerated artworks”. “Entartete Kunst” was the title of an exhibition that premiered on July 19th 1937 in Munich. Over the years the Nazis had confiscated an unknown number of art pieces. It is assumed that over 16,500 works were seized. 650 of these pieces, including paintings, sculptures, prints, and books from the collections of 32 different German museums were deliberately hung in a chaotic manor and accompanied with text labels and pictures of stunted people deriding the exposed art. Slogans of these labels for example were: “Insolent Mockery of the Devine under Centrist Rule”, “The Ideal- Certain and Whore”. Designed to inflame public opinion against modernism, the exhibition subsequently travelled to several other cities in Germany and Austria. Astonishingly, in respect to the attitude of “cleaning” German culture of Jewish influences, only six of the 112 artists included in the exhibition were in fact Jewish.

It seems paradox that “degenerated art” was collected and destroyed. The reason for this equivocal paradox might be found in Hitler himself. Hitler was devoted to art. And as a dictator, he gave his personal taste in art force of law to a degree never seen before. He, however, wasn’t immune to the beauty of “Un-German” or “Jewish Bolshevist” art works himself. It is assumed that he collected Max Liebermann (an orthodox Jew) for his personal taste. Pursuant to private conversations with other highly positioned Nazis, who also collected “unwanted Art” of,  for example Ernst Barlach, Max Beckmann, Marc Chagall, Wassily Kandinsky, Emil Nolde, and Pablo Picasso, Hitler believed that only the commonality had to be prevented. Hitler and his personal confidants, such as Goebbels, had the intellect to see the beauty of art and concurrently sensed the desuetude for their purposes.
To avoid such massive abuse and discrimination in reference to art the German legislature tried to establish a basic right in the German constitution in 1949. Under this aspect an accurate definition of “Kunst” is important, especially in terms of application of law.
According to the German Federal Constitutional Court, art is not definable. Various appendages exist, but no overall definition is found due to the fact that the meaning “art” shall never again be disposable to the legislator.

Emmy-winning actor Alec Baldwin proved Wednesday night that he’s just as good making audiences think as he is making them laugh. In a conversation with Forum on Law, Culture & Society Director Thane Rosenbaum, Baldwin discussed a broad range of topics, including family law, nuclear power, animal rights, and of course, his upcoming job co-hosting the Academy Awards with Steve Martin.

“It’s a very metrosexualized kind of show,” Baldwin joked about the Oscars, after explaining that he and Martin will go through a number of wardrobe changes during the broadcast. Sensing opportunity, Rosenbaum presented Baldwin with a Fordham Law tie and encouraged him to wear it during the Awards show.

In his storied career on screen, Baldwin has played lawyer roles in various projects, including Ghosts of Mississippi, Nuremberg: Infamy on Trial, and The Confession. Clips of these movies were shown at the event, with Baldwin offering his commentary on the filmmaking business. He explained that characters like his Bobby DeLaughter, the real-life lawyer who prosecuted the man convicted of murdering civil rights leader Medgar Evers, are very desirable in the acting profession.

“All actors crave…the opportunity to do a social drama—something that is socially relevant in some way,” said Baldwin. “With this film [Ghosts of Mississippi], I was so inflamed with passion about doing this movie. … It was a great experience.”

Baldwin spoke at length about various political issues. Chief among them were his views on the risks and dangers associated with nuclear power. He advocated a commitment to renewable energy sources.

“Where is the Apollo project that will bring renewable energy to the fore in this country?” Baldwin asked. “I love my country, and I don’t want to see it go down. And we are going to go down if we don’t get on the renewable energy bandwagon in the next few years.”

Baldwin also addressed the need for reform in family law, the current state government in California, and the importance of term limits. Rosenbaum read from some of Baldwin’s articles that have appeared in the Huffington Post, as well as an excerpt from his book entitled A Promise to Ourselves (St. Martin’s Press).

Baldwin has appeared in over 40 films and currently stars with Tina Fey on NBC’s 30 Rock, winner of the 2007, 2008, and 2009 Emmy for Outstanding Comedy Series. He has received four SAG awards, three Golden Globes, the Television Critics Award, and two Emmy awards for his performance on the show. In describing his success on 30 Rock, Baldwin said, “The show, like any comedy, is only as funny as the people who write it. And we do have the best writers, I think, in television comedy.”

Before becoming an actor, Baldwin considered attending law school. Rosenbaum broached this topic during the conversation, asking, “If you had decided to go to law school, would the Baldwin brothers have followed you there?”

“No, good God, no,” Baldwin answered swiftly. “I would be representing them.”
—
Media coverage of the event included the following:

The Associated Press

The Daily News

The Huffington Post

MLive.com

People magazine

Over 2 weeks have passed since I’ve seen the movie, however, the vast
messages still linger.  It’s not enough to simply applaud the
inconceivable special effects in Avatar and the unoriginal plot line
that we all love so much.  Avatar goes further and deeper and
discusses the themes that have been central to most discussions in
Thane Rosenbaum’s course – Human Rights, Holocaust & the Law.

For those who have yet to see the movie, here is an abridged synopsis:
The movie takes place in the year 2154 and the protagonist – Jake
Sully, has been assigned to the planet Pandora following the death of
his twin brother.  Apart from the lush rainforests, floating mountains
and incredibly mesmorizing life forms, Pandora is home to a affluent
deposit of a rare mineral called unobtainium.  Jake Sully is
instructed to befriend the Na’vi tribe, whose homeland rests on the
sought after mineral-enriched land and figure out how to get them to
relocate.

However, what I found the most fascinating about this movie was the
tree of souls.  Here, the natives are able to make a connection to
their most sacred leader, Eywa, but also listen and feel the preserved
memories and experiences of ancestors.  To remember is moral and
Avatar on several occasions draws heightened attention to that point.

Revealing themes of imperialism and colonialism, war and militarism,
anti-patriotism, state versus citizens, religion, spirituality and
racism – all of which are quite present in our lives, it’s no wonder
people has responded with a predilection to this movie.

As children our parents let us watch movies that shape our morals and
help guide us in order to distinguish the differences between right
and wrong.  James Cameron does precisely this – he didn’t simply make
a movie about high tech visual effects, he takes us back to our youth
and made a movie with a message – a current day Aesop’s fable.

- Anna Korzhenevich

Moral lessons—good and bad—can often be found when you are least
expecting it.  I recently re-watched the classic 1980’s movie
Ghostbusters II.  In the movie, the Ghostbusters learn that there is
Psychomagnotheric Slime flowing under New York City, which is being
created by New Yorkers’ hate, anger, and negativity.  When the
Ghostbusters tell the New York City’s mayor about this problem, the
mayor readily rejects the suggestion that he try to convince New
Yorkers to be nice to one another.  The mayor responds, “Being
miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker’s
God-given right.”

This scene really struck me as true.  New Yorkers frequently treat
strangers like dirt.  On the subway, a rider often sees people
fighting, shoving, aggressively challenging, and ignoring the human
existence of other New Yorkers.  Not only should we expect more of
ourselves, but we should expect even more of our political
representatives.  Politicians embody the law.  They are as our legal
representatives, who are charged with making and enforcing the law.
However in Ghostbusters II, not only does the mayor reject the morally
right choice to be nice to fellow human beings, but he endorses being
miserable and treating other people like dirt.  The law should not sit
idly by as people casually exercise this morally wrong “God-given
right.”

A burqa is an enveloping outer garment worn by women in some Islamic traditions for the
purpose of cloaking the entire body. It is worn over the usual daily clothing
(often a long dress) and removed when the woman returns to the sanctuary of the
household.

Islam is the second largest religion in the world (1.57 billion believers).
In France with more than 3,550,000 believers, Islam represents 6% of its
population.

Question: How many women actually wear the Burqa in France?                  
Answer: Very few; only 357 according to the police services.

French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, shouted out his highly criticized
message last November: “France is a
country where the Burqa is not welcomed” and asked the Congress to enact a
law precluding women from wearing it within public spaces such as schools,
hospitals, town halls…

France has been a non-religious Republic since its 1789 French revolution.
Its secular concept is strict and the judiciary enforces it with strength.
The Conseil d’Etat,supported by the European Court of Human Rights has held that
the wearing of a turban by a Sikh is forbidding while driving a motorcycle
(see ECHR Mann Singh v. France, November 13th 2008) or on a passport
(in ECHR Phull v. France, January 11th 2005) and that the veil of Muslim women is
not permitted at school (ECHR Kervanci v. France, December 4th 2008).
Any other visible religious signs, such as the Cross and the Scull-cap, are
forbidden in public spaces.

Sarkozy – a center right wing President – launched this brand new public debate
(very common in France) justified, according to him, by the need to secularize our
Republic but attracted to gain new extreme right voters (as cited in § 3 of the New
York Times, February 9th, 2010). You just have to read the inflamed and sharp adjectives
used by President Sarkozy addressed to the latter: A Burqa is a “human coffin” or a
“shelter for religious’ slaves”… The French newspaper Le Monde (February 2nd, 2010)
concluded, “this crisis of national identity has been created by the French conservative
government. All this agitation is only an electioneering business”.

Is this law justified? Is this public debate useful? Is the non-religious principle of our
Republic at risk for only 357 citizens out of 65 million French?

According to a strict republican definition, the goal of this law is justified by our
Universalist values: These 357 French individuals are forced to wear the Burqa. These 357
French citizens are enslaved by their husbands or Imams. These 357 French human beings have
not consented to live in darkness. These 357 National women are not equally treated as men. The
Republican defenders could reject the Burqa by mentioning Emmanuel Levinas’ (Lithuanian-born French
philosopher and Talmudic commentator, 1906-1995) conception of the face: “Your face is your meaning,
your own visible sign” (in Humanism of the Other, 1972). In this sense, is not the Burqa a
refusal to establish contact with others?

However, have we taken into account these 357 women’s point of view? Relativism… By choice, by
individual resistance or by ancestral and cultural traditions, these persons want to be invisible!
According to Levinas, “if you want to establish contact with others, then you are obliged to accept
someone else’s freedom and difference” (in Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence, 1974).
Then, the French government’s reaction represents a risk of restraining Individual rights and Freedom.

In French, the word “laïcité” (secularism) comes from the Greek “laos” (the people) meaning a
cohesive people, united under common and equal values in a society where each person is not in conflict
with the other but in concert with the other.

However, the Republican’s only response bans the Burqa. It would exclude its own minorities
from French society and shows that France, one more time, has not learned from its past failures.

The 2010 Winter Olympics began last week in Vancouver, Canada. I’m
generally obsessed with the Olympics, because I’m a klutz with no real
athletic skill, and therefore can’t help but be impressed with every
athlete involved. But these Olympic Games have been tainted miserably,
and I can’t get excited about the Games in the way I have in the past.

Even before the Opening Ceremonies, a tragic accident occurred at
Whistler Track, where all luge events take place.  A Georgian luger,
Nodar Kumaritashvili, died on Friday, February 12th after he flew off
the luge track and crashed into a metal pole along its side.

In less than one day came a statement from Olympic officials that the
crash was the result of “human error”.  There were comments about the
G-forces involved in luging and about how Mr. Kumaritashvili came late
into a turn and was overcompensating, causing him to lose control and
leave the track.

I have to admit that I know little about the luge and therefore these
statements may all be very true. However, I am fairly confident that
flying down a track of ice at 90mph is not inherently safe, and that
people frequently lose control and come off that track. I would also
have to guess it’s pretty foreseeable that if there is a large metal
pole at some point along the track, there is a chance someone may hit
that pole.

These logical thoughts are what have led me to be sickened by the
comments of Olympic officials. Within 24 hours, during the height of
grief, officials made the “human error” statement, essentially blaming
the victim for his own death. It seems clear to me that even the
officials did not entirely believe this statement. They immediately
moved the starting point up to decrease track speeds, increased the
height of the wall near where Mr. Kumaritashvili exited the track, and
added padding to the metal poles along the track.

It would seem to me that Olympic officials realized just how dangerous
this track was, but, of course, they could never admit it. Instead, it
was necessary to quickly move into legal mode and deny any wrongdoing
or negligence. To apologize or admit that perhaps they should have
taken greater safety precautions would make any lawsuit that may be
brought much stronger. The statements that the track was safe and
blaming the athlete were the statements of an organization which was
completely aware that a lawsuit is a very real possibility.

Everyone I have spoken to regarding this has expressed his or her
disgust with the statement blaming the luger in this situation. It
seems very obvious that the moral thing to do in this situation would
be to admit that it was a mistake to not take greater precautions. The
safety of the track had been questioned for months and even small
changes (perhaps by just having some padding on the pole in order to
reduce the extent of injuries) may have prevented this tragedy.  At
the very least, Olympic officials could have had a shred of compassion
and refrained from pointing fingers when Mr. Kumaritashvili’s loved
ones had barely even begun the grieving process.

Instead, they did what was legally correct – denied liability and
began setting up a legal defense. While this may help them in any
future litigation, I can’t imagine that many people throughout the
world believed a word of what was said and I’m sure it didn’t allay
the fears of lugers who had to travel down the same track the next
day.  Even more importantly, to make these statements within 24 hours
of Mr. Kumaritashvili’s death must have only added to the pain felt by
his family and fellow athletes.

I think we would each like to believe that the legal and the moral are
one and the same, or at least that they intersect more frequently than
not. Ultimately, Olympic officials showed last week that this simply
is not the case and unfortunately the legal and the moral are in two
different realms, even when the entire world is watching.

From the first day of class I was struck by the profound words of
Primo Levi that were narrated to us by Prof. Rosenbaum.
At first, the image conjured was that of an efficient and
instantaneous destruction. It was only later that I begun to think
about
how demolitions actually function and the work necessary to accomplish
the ultimate destruction, in essence, what mechanism
precedes the eventual fall.

Demolitions are carefully planned, contained, widespread, systematic,
and remove not only the physical external structure
but the very foundation the building once stood upon. In bringing
down a structure, explosives are placed strategically so that
the building collapses unto itself. Explosives are often embedded in
the support columns and foundation of the structure. By
blasting the core of a structure, by stripping it of everything it
relies on for support, the structure ultimately gives in to itself.
In the
end, both body (structure) and soul (foundation) have been irreparably
eviscerated.

Over the holidays I watched Sherlock Holmes, starring Robert Downey, Jr., a fine way to blow off steam after a stressful period of finals. Between the awesome fight scenes and Victorian Era pyrotechnics, I could not avoid thinking about the themes covered in the past semester of Law and Literature. Sherlock Holmes: disabled by his addiction, working outside the law. Scotland Yard: the rigid and sterile British police, begrudgingly patronizing Holmes’s genius. For Holmes, who exists outside the law, stories unfold and mysteries are solved by his obsessive attention to detail. On the other hand, Scotland Yard’s adherence to procedure always misses fundamental clues and lags behind Holmes’s quick eye and mind.

I think Sherlock Holmes is Mexican. According to recent studies about 90 percent of Mexican immigrants in the U.S. that entered the country in the past ten years are undocumented. Most Mexicans in New York are forced to live outside the law. There are complex historical and economic realities behind the issue of undocumented migration from Mexico to the U.S. and the law has never been able to address those realities. Outside the law Mexicans in New York will solve the mystery of what globalization and neo-liberalism did to the land of Moctezuma while our legal system will continue to miss the point. Working in sweatshops Mexicans turn fear and suffering into poverty wages that are split between New York and Puebla. The journey north begins in a distant village, abandoned by the Mexican government, where most men have already gone north. A relative already in the United States saves about $7,000 to pay a coyote for the crossing. After a brush with death in the dessert you are transported in a filthy truck as far away from the border as possible. Then you take domestic flight from L.A. or San Diego to Newark, La Guardia, or Kennedy and a week after the journey began you find work in a construction site, a restaurant, or a garment shop. Once in New York City to be able to afford high rents Mexican immigrants live in communes of extended family and friends and take over entire buildings with more than 10 people leaving in each floor or apartment. Most undocumented immigrants I have worked with organize “tandas” or lending circles that help workers save money to bring other relatives to the U.S. or invest the money back home. Housing advocates call these “overcrowded apartments” and our housing laws will have these building condemned but these are really complex communities with social controls established by immigrants themselves, schedules for cooking and cleaning, and a rotating leadership for collecting and accounting rent payments on a weekly basis. Undocumented immigrants will continue to live outside the law and will continue to conduct their lives and grow profound rots in the U.S. regardless of our definitions.

District 9 is the feature film debut from South African director Neil Blomkamp. Blomkamp grew up in South Africa under apartheid, which was, simply put, the legally enforced racial segregation system that subjugated the black majority of the population beneath the white minority. Of particular note in South African apartheid history was the ordeal of District Six. District Six was an area of Cape Town largely made up of a Muslim populace. The government decided that the populace needed to be moved, forcibly, for a variety of reasons. The government stated that the close proximity of the races developed tension, that District Six, which had once been rather well cultured, was a slum, that it was full of vices, such as prostitution, and that it bred criminal behavior. Over the course of about a decade the majority of the District Six population was moved to Cape Flats and their homes were bulldozed and the property seized by the government.

District 9 takes place in present day Johannesburg, South Africa and deals with the arrival of alien visitors to the planet Earth. (I should note at this point that if you have not seen the movie, which I would heartily recommend, there are many spoilers from here on out.) Upon arrival the aliens ship stops over the city and simply holds there. When the South Africans enter the ship they find that the aliens inside are sickly and on the verge of death. For a number of years, the ship had arrived in 1982, the aliens are allowed some form of freedom and are allowed to move around without restriction. Gradually, however, social pressure and racism lead the government to first segregate the aliens to District 9 then losing the right to leave the area at all. Blomkamp shows interviewed citizens blaming the aliens from everything from economic failures to their wife leaving them (because, of course, the aliens abducted her).

The citizens go further even, derogatorily deeming the aliens ‘prawns’ after their vague resemblance to Parktown prawns, an insect that had plagued South Africa. Blomkamp shoots all of this in documentary style, integrating faux-news footage with expert interviews and archive footage, to give the film a steeped in reality appearance. Almost organically, Blomkamp shifts the focus of the movie to Wikus van de Merwe who will be our protagonist. Van de Merwe is something of a nebbish pencil pusher, with a racist streak to him, working for Multinational United, the alien task force. He is completely blind to the plight of the aliens and sees them as inferior to himself. He is assigned with leading the relocation of the aliens in District 9 to a new camp called District 10. This is a character who, clearly, has minimal field experience and is uncomfortable even speaking to military types.

In the course of clearing District 9, van de Merwe ignores even the most rudimentary laws in place to protect the aliens. The MNU operatives are required to get signatures from the aliens acknowledging the need to move, or at least inform them they will be forcibly moved in 24 hours if they will not sign off. One alien knocks the clipboard from van de Merwe and he remarks that smashing the clipboard will suffice as a signature. He pressures another alien to acquiesce into moving by threatening to have his child taken away and killed. He also performs a series of in-the-field abortions, burning an alien breeding house where their eggs develop. Van de Merwe’s actions are a symbol here for the politics of the situation trumping the legal protections and those legal protections trumping any sort of moral protection for the aliens. Clearly, based on the fact that they have an intergalactic means of transportation, advanced weaponry and mechanized suits, the aliens are intelligent and culturally developed. But the political situation has not allowed the aliens a voice, they are subjugated because they are different and make an easy scapegoat for any societal ills because they have no voice.

It is not until van de Merwe is exposed to a chemical that begins to turn him into one of the aliens that his views change. He is captured by the government, to be experimented on and dissected and escapes. The government uses propaganda to turn him into a pariah. After his escape, van de Merwe retreats to District 9 seeing it as his only hope to find somewhere the government will not hunt him down. Back in District 9, van de Merwe forms an uneasy, self-interested, alliance with one of the aliens and many action scenes ensue. It is not until near the end of the movie when van de Merwe realizes he has formed a bond with his alien ally. He sees the alien attempt to explain to his son that they must move to District 10, and van de Merwe admits that the new location is “like a concentration camp.” By the film’s climax, van de Merwe has had his impediment, his blindness to the aliens’ plight and the aliens’ culture, has been corrected.

It is interesting, if tragic, that the end of the film sees massive celebration by South Africans about the departure of the alien mothership. Wikus van de Merwe, part and parcel of the problem, is the only one who begins to see the plight of the aliens – and that is only because he began to become one. There is no growth in society after van de Merwe’s ordeal, no change. Blomkamp’s recognition of notions that the political trumps the legal world and the legal trumps the moral is left fully intact and reflected in South African society.