Benjamin Walter Aestheticization of Politics Interpretation

Benjamin Walter Aestheticization of Politics Interpretation

Explain Walter Benjamin’s statement about the “aestheticization of politics” under German fascism. What did he refer to and why have critics since then both repeated the statement and called it cryptic at the same time? What, if any, is the relevance of this statement for our own culture today, particular with regard to our use of media technology?

National Socialism in Germany was attributed to fascism and aesthetics, whereby life was transformed into a form of art or propaganda (Koepnick, 1999). Subsequently, German fascism involved a form of ruling that promoted dire nationalism, violence, and death, to rid the country of Jews and for external expansion through military action and economically through importations and exportations. Fascist aesthetics involves glorifying a leader and authoritarian governance, such as Adolf Hitler’s ruling, as illustrated in the film ‘Triumph of the Will” of 1935. In the film, Adolf Hitler is referred to as Führer, representing fascist aesthetics. According to Jay 1992, Benjamin Walter argued that “Fascism, he charged, meant the aestheticization of politics, the deadly consummation of l’art pour l’art’s credo “Fiat arspereat mundus.” Therefore, Benjamin’s statement on the aestheticization of politics under German fascism gained support from critics who continued sharing his perspective.

Subsequently, Walter Benjamin’s statement on the aestheticization of politics implies fascist aesthetics. Thus, this statement is interpreted as the control of life by the government to present it as a form of art, including military action, violence, and death. Accordingly, German fascism is attributed to the German economic recovery, which began in the 1930s, when employment opportunities arose due to rearmament and the World War of 1939 since labor was required. Accordingly, economic challenges arose when foreign exchange wasn’t enough to import raw materials required for rearmament, and therefore, there was a need to boost importation and exportation. Subsequently, the government controlled the economy through quotas established by the government on importations, illustrating fascism.

Additionally, German industry switched to synthetics with inadequate foreign exchange to boost raw materials as they prepared for war. Consequently, the growth of the synthetic industry led to the improvement of the economy, which led to the growth of large businesses while small businesses were overlooked. Therefore, to create propaganda and art, the leadership controlled the economy, working-class individuals, businesses, and agriculture, created anti-Jewish policies, and the emigration of the Jews. Thus, all these factors contributed to the fascist aesthetics of Germany.

Critics support Benjamin Walter’s statement due to the exposure of the Nazi culture to manipulating everyday life and politics. The statement is defined as cryptic because its meaning might be missed due to its complexity. Initially, Benjamin Walter used the statement in relation to war before it was broadened to include politics. Accordingly, critics support Benjamin Walter’s statement because the statement exposes the application of fascist aesthetics in the dramatization of everyday life and politics (Koepnick, 1999). From the film “Triumph of the Will, 1935,” the dramatization of politics is illustrated from the arrival of Adolf Hitler and the masses assembled to witness his arrival. Also, the art is created through the focus on the military, and the glorification of Hitler as the individuals in the film continuously chant “my Führer.” Furthermore, the large crowds, army, and the glorification of Hitler dramatize politics by illustrating his support and his importance to all Germans at the time. Hitler’s command over the military and the military’s speech represent the fascist aesthetics of art creation and the glorification of his regime.

Moreover, propaganda is created in everyday life through the control of various aspects of life. These aspects of life include; the economy, working-class individuals, businesses, agriculture, created anti-Jewish policies, and the emigration of the Jews (Spielvogel & Redles, 2020). The German economy was the most controlled aspect of everyday life by the government. This control is attributed to the country’s damaged economy; additionally, the control contributed to the economy’s growth and increased employment opportunities. However, this economic growth favored large organizations that created monopolies, while small businesses and the working class were overlooked. Also, anti-Jewish policies led to the boycotting of Jewish establishments, the limitation of civil services offered to people with Jewish relations, the creation of anti-Jewish laws, and the emigration of Jews from Germany. Subsequently, the Jews were oppressed and met with brutality that involved the destruction of their establishments and their deportation from Germany, and the violence against Jews and their killings (Spielvogel & Redles, 2020). Subsequently, all these actions contributed to the propaganda form of leadership that Hitler and the Nazis promoted, thereby interfering with the everyday life of all Germans. Other aspects of everyday life, such as agriculture, were already influenced by Nazi culture, and the practitioners supported Hitler.

Benjamin Walter’s statement is relevant in our own culture today because it helps shed light on the dramatization of politics. In the current society, the chances of creating art and propaganda are high with technological developments. Media technology can be used to manipulate and dramatize politics and everyday life to promote popularity or otherwise. Art can be fabricated to represent everyday life and politics with technological advancements. Accordingly, Benjamin Walter’s statement influences people’s views on material posted on media sites with regard to politics and everyday life by spreading awareness of the possibilities of propaganda.

In conclusion, Benjamin Walter’s statement on the aestheticization of politics under German fascism exposed Hitler’s rule as characterized by propaganda and art. Accordingly, Hitler’s regime was associated with the manipulation of everyday life and politics to promote their agenda. Therefore, critics support Benjamin Walter’s statement because it exposes Hitler’s leadership as one that consisted mainly of art and propaganda. Thus, Hitler’s leadership controlled all aspects of everyday life to ensure the dramatization of the efficiency of his leadership.

References

Jay, M. (1992). “The Aesthetic Ideology” as Ideology; Or, What Does It Mean to Aestheticize Politics? Cultural Critique, (21), 41. https://doi.org/10.2307/1354116

Koepnick, L. (1999). Walter Benjamin and the aesthetics of power. The University of Nebraska.

Triumph of the Will by Leni Riefenstahl (1935). https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6uajey

Spielvogel, J., & Redles, D. (2020). Hitler and Nazi Germany: A History (8th ed.). Routledge

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

---

Aestheticization of Politics Interpretation

Explain Walter Benjamin’s statement about the “aestheticization of politics” under German fascism. What did he refer to and why have critics since then both repeated the statement and called it cryptic at the same time?

What, if any, is the relevance of this statement for our own culture today, particular with regard to our use of media technology?