Review: De-/Re-/Kontaminierungen im Kunstfeld nach 1945

On November 3, 2025, the documenta Institut and the Leibniz Center for Contemporary History in Potsdam, in cooperation with Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden, Georg Kolbe Museum Berlin, and Kunstpalast Düsseldorf, held a conference on the topic of de-/re-/contamination in the art world after 1945. The conference focused on a contemporary history perspective on the art world, examining the handling of contamination after 1945 from an interdisciplinary point of view.

Maria Neumann (Kassel) began by outlining Derrida's concept of contamination. Based on this, she asked whether art under National Socialism—regardless of the direct proximity of a work or person to the regime—was contaminated by the political circumstances, with reference to art under National Socialism and its reception after 1945. Contamination does not describe a moral judgment or projection, but rather a relational relationship and its consequences.

This contrasts with the idea of decontamination—an ultimately illusory endeavor, since every present and future is permeated by its past. Nevertheless, decontamination must be considered, not as an experience, but as an expectation and a promise. After 1945 – and in many cases to this day – decontamination has been linked to relief, rehabilitation, and reconciliation. The focus is often on the present and the future, rather than the past. Speaking of decontamination thus refers to the desire for unrestricted freedom, which – in Derrida's words – can never be fully realized. Neumann used three examples to illustrate typical postwar decontamination strategies. These included, first, biographization, which aims to separate the author from the work; second, canonization, which refers to the deliberate inclusion or exclusion of certain artists and their works; and third, discursivization, which recontextualizes the past in new or different ways.

Jutta Braun (Potsdam) then addressed the intersections between art history and contemporary history, identifying provenance research as the most important area of contact. She argued that this acts as a catalyst for a socio-historical perspective on the art world, because the question of the origin of objects leads to a critical view of the structures of the art world. Against this background, a historicization of the state of research appears unavoidable: How can it be explained that a comprehensive reappraisal of Nazi continuities in the field of art (in contrast to other areas of society) was only undertaken so late? Why, for example, do we know a lot about the Gleichschaltung of sportclubs and choirs under the Nazis, but hardly anything about the adaptation of art associations in the “Third Reich” and their path to a democratic new beginning since 1945? What is special about the intersection of contemporary history and art history—in relation to Germany's politics of dealing with the past—is that aesthetic and social-historical perspectives, questions of artistic form, questions of social organization, and market forces are all relevant here.

The first panel on decontamination strategies in exhibitions was moderated by Heinz Bude (Berlin/Kassel). Isgard Kracht (Düsseldorf) explained the postwar significance of the works from the Nazi exhibition Entartete Kunst (Degenerate Art) and highlighted the efforts of exhibition organizers to establish clear and unambiguous narratives. The role of local authorities was particularly prominent in this regard, as they often used exhibitions of “degenerate art” to rehabilitate their own communities. Numerous museum foundations and reopenings in the early postwar period bore witness to this.

Anne-Kathrin Hinz (Bonn) then addressed the “meaning of freedom” and the historical superstructure of abstract art in the early postwar period. Using examples from exhibitions abroad, she showed how German actors used abstract art as an embodiment of freedom, thereby exonerating the art world.

Veronika Floch (Vienna) focused on Austria and emphasized the role of Allied art exhibitions, which served both to present themselves and to stabilize the Austrian victim myth by ignoring questions of guilt. The resulting freedom from responsibility helped to establish closeness to the population. At the same time, Floch referred to early counter-movements such as the “League Against Degenerate Art,” founded in 1967, which aimed to discredit abstract art once again.

In the discussion, art was highlighted by Kracht as an instrument of both cultural and power politics—both in National Socialism and in the period after 1945. Hinz illustrated this with the example of Wilhelm Wessel, who contributed to his own rehabilitation by organizing exhibitions abroad in the young Federal Republic of Germany. Against this backdrop, Bude asked whether current debates on artistic freedom needed to be reinterpreted, since art apparently cannot function without “an outside.” Hinz argued that the question should be framed differently: less in terms of what art is free from, and more in terms of what it claims freedom for.

The second panel, moderated by Doreen Mende (Dresden), focused on new beginnings and demarcation in museum operations after 1945. Mende advocated for a change in perspective and referred to non-aligned states to ask who looks at the three successor states of National Socialism and what interests guide them. Christoph Zuschlag (Bonn) argued that the years between the end of the war and the founding of the states in East and West were groundbreaking for art theory discourse and exhibition practices. National Socialism and the Holocaust had hardly played a role in this early stage. In the Federal Republic, civil society actors such as the Donnerstaggesellschaft,  in particular, contributed to accelerating what Willi Baumeister described as “the end of a bygone era.” Abstract art became a symbol of freedom and expectations associated with it.

Silke Wagler (Dresden) examined the art and exhibition scene in the Soviet Occupation Zone and early GDR, using Dresden as a case study, and questioned the existence of an actual “Stunde Null.” To reveal continuities and breaks, she emphasized the need to analyze not only exhibition spaces but also actors and institutional structures. Concrete exhibition practices and systematic reception research remain desiderata. The “Allgemeine Deutsche Kunstausstellung,” which opened in 1946, had canonical significance, but was not a success with the public.

Barbara Kristina Murovec (Saarbrücken) placed German perspectives in a European context. She described Germany and Austria as “border areas” to Southeast Europe and, using the example of the Graphic Arts Biennial in Ljubljana, showed how (artistic) collaboration in formerly occupied countries was normalized after 1945. National Socialism was largely excluded in order to avoid confronting one's own involvement. Germany benefited in part from the silence in many countries during the process of reintegration; Nazi legacies hardly disadvantaged German actors internationally. Zuschlag took up this thesis and dated the dehistoricization of the concept of art to the 1950s, arguing that it should moreover be understood as a global dynamic.

The first roundtable, chaired by Frank Bösch (Potsdam), was devoted to art associations under the title “Aufbruch und Tradition” (New Beginnings and Tradition). Theresa Angenlahr (Berlin) analyzed personal networks within Rhineland art associations and identified the “Kölner Kunstverein” as an exception, as more persecuted individuals than perpetrators or followers were represented there. Valeska Koal (Hannover) presented her research on the Kunstverein Hannover after 1945 and emphasized its efforts to be reestablished as a non-political association immediately after the end of the war—a claim that was also reflected in its exhibition program. Leonie Koldehoff (Munich) addressed the numerous gaps in the history of the Kunstverein München, whose archives contain significant gaps between 1930 and 1970. Photographs are often the only sources and provide insights into gender-specific structures and the role of women in the art world after 1945.

The third panel, chaired by Annette Vowinckel (Berlin/Potsdam), focused on the habitus and profession of artists after 1945 and thus on the question of separating artist and work. Vowinckel opened by asking whether the artistic profession itself had been contaminated. Sigrid Ruby (Giessen) and Annabel Ruckdeschel (Giessen/Zurich) examined the artistic “middle ground” during National Socialism and the postwar period, pointing to numerous continuities in personnel. At the same time, they described the challenges of working with sources, as mediocre artists have to date hardly been the subject of art-historical research.

Anne Kersten (Kassel) analyzed local artist support programs in North Rhine-Westphalia and West Berlin. She showed that although these programs were structural measures, they served different functions: in Berlin, they acted as instruments of economic policy and job creation, while in the Rhineland they primarily pursued cultural policy goals, such as building a collection.

Norma Ladewig (Berlin) concluded by discussing the issuance of professional ID cards in occupied Berlin, which were granted not only on the basis of aesthetic criteria but above all according to political positioning. One of the aims was to prevent kitsch. Like Ruby and Ruckdeschel, Ladewig referred to the relationship between art and bureaucracy. All three contributions called into question the notion of a liberal postwar society that enabled a fundamental rethinking. According to Ruckdeschel, this places researchers under the task of reconnecting artists and their works more closely.

In the fourth panel, Linda Conze (Düsseldorf) discussed interpretations of Nazi art since the 1970s with her guests. Mathilde Arnoux (Paris) and Maria Bremer (Bochum) examined the exhibition Westkunst and highlighted continuities as well as the promise of of a new art-historical interpretation that went hand in hand with a repoliticization of modernism. Darja Jesse (Nuremberg) described the ambivalent treatment of the German War Art Collection, caught between appropriation, decontextualization, and attempts to externalize perpetratorhood. Friederike Sigler (Vienna) concluded by analyzing exhibitions of Nazi art in the Federal Republic of Germany in the 1970s and 1980s. She emphasized that the lack of engagement with this art form perpetuated its fascination and thereby fascilitated its return to museum contexts.

The second roundtable, moderated by Christian Fuhrmeister (Munich), focused on artists and the politics of the past. Elke Allgaier (Stuttgart) examined Oskar Schlemmer and the issue of reparations, with particular attention to the influence of family members—especially wives and widows—on his postwar reception. Robert Kehl (Berlin) shed light on the international debate surrounding Anselm Kiefer's work, noting that Kiefer deliberately assumed the role of the contaminated and addressed continuities without problematizing them. Elisa Tamaschke (Berlin) spoke about Georg Kolbe in museums and used early postwar exhibitions to demonstrate how artists and their works were deliberately stylized as geniuses, depoliticized, and thus exonerated.

In the concluding discussion, Thomas Gruber (Lindau), Winfried Süß (Potsdam), and Felix Vogel (Kassel), moderated by Jutta Braun (Potsdam), summarized the day’s conference. The discussion focused on the relationship between art and contemporary history, as well as the advantages and limitations of the term “contamination” as an analytical concept not borrowed from the source language. There was a shared impression that the GDR had been underrepresented in the program. Vogel emphasized that this imbalance reflected the submitted contributions; East German institutions had also explained their cautious reactions by citing contemporary political developments and the rise of right-wing parties.

Three central questions emerged during the conference:
Firstly, how the histories of various actors and institutions in the art world after 1945 can be compared and systematized. Secondly, to what extent developments in the three successor states of National Socialism differed and where similarities exist. Thirdly,  how these processes were perceived, evaluated, and classified internationally—in other words, whether the issue of guilt and exoneration after National Socialism is a specifically German-Austrian phenomenon or a challenge also addressed in other countries. Related to this is the question of whether exemplary conflicts in the art world after 1945 can serve as models for understanding similar dynamics in other post-fascist societies or young democracies.