Käthe Kollwitz: Memorialization as Anti-Militarist Weapon

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an important topic. Kollwitz’s work in the context of the international No More War movement of the early 1920s has not been explored enough in the scholarly literature and deserves more attention. The subject is also timely as we are in another era of political uncertainties.

The article makes excellent use of primary documents from 1918 to 1927, including hitherto untranslated documents. This alone makes it a valuable contribution to Anglophone scholarship.

The author foregrounds gendered assumptions in her abstract. Given this focus, I would have liked to see more engagement with recent scholarly revisionings of women’s shaping of Weimar visual culture, for example, the publications on women in the Bauhaus written and edited by Elizabeth Otto (incl. Bauhaus Bodies, and Haunted Bauhaus), and the recent special issue on ‘Weimar’s Others’ of the periodical Art History (Sept. 2019).

The claim that Kollwitz has long divided historians (line 46) and that evaluations of her work are sentimental (line 49) needs to be backed up with a few more sources. Kollwitz attained extraordinary professional success during her lifetime (before the accession of the National Socialists in 1933), was the first woman professor at the Berlin Academy and has today two museums dedicated to her work. It is difficult to maintain the claim that her work was not taken seriously, so this argument needs to be made in a more nuanced way. The statements of only two people (Rolland and McCausland) are not enough. It would also be good to engage with the more recent literature on Kollwitz here and list more of the ‘historians and critics’ (line 46) in the footnotes, bringing to the fore what it is that ‘divided’ them (line 46).

It is not clear how the historical background information in the paragraph lines 105-126 relates to Kollwitz and the No More War movement. The same goes for the discussion of Klinger lines 127-140. The discussion of the War cycle (lines 141ff) comes as a bit of a non sequitur.

The woodcut Zwei Tote is little heeded in Kollwitz scholarship, and I would welcome more elaboration of it here. What the author says about its relationship to the play is intriguing. It would be good to read more on how this scene is presented in the play, what challenges Kollwitz faced in translating a play script / performance into a visual image and how she addressed them, what echoes with other prints/ paintings / sculptures the woodcut sets up, and more visual analysis of this striking image, incl. visual echoes in Kollwitz’s own works (esp. to the Mother with Twins). The discussion veers too quickly away from the woodcut to more general historical background info (which can easily be found elsewhere and tells us nothing new) and to a discussion of the Liebknecht woodcut.

The Reclining Dead Soldier of 1915 is another work that is under-researched and deserves more attention. However, I was unclear as to how it related to the focus on the No More War movement in the 1920s.

The para ll 251-255 addresses the focus of the essay; more of this. I liked the point about Liebknecht’s death as tragic rather than as extollling his revolutionary credentials. Is this resonant of Kollwitz’s work in general? Is this resonant of other memorial works?

Lines 333-334 contain some confusing punctuation and truncated sentences: a cut-and-paste error? The comparison to Raped was persuasive but again, I would have liked more engagement with the visual peculiarities of each and with the contexts of each.

Given the stated focus of the essay, the para 379ff needs to come much earlier in the essay, ideally as the introduction. Here, finally, the essay engages directly with No More War. Also, some more engagement with the literature on Weimar pacifism, especially women’s pacifism, would flesh out the central argument.

l.405: typo; Abtreibung… not Abtriebung

l. 430: who are the ‘various commentators’? (Footnote helpful.)

l.440 ‘Germans would have understood’. I think it is more useful to say what actually happened, and what people actually understood (evidence from contemporary reviews?) than to speculate on what people would or might have done or understood. I would rewrite this, or adduce evidence that this is a Schwurhand (either from reviews or by visual comparisons to images of oath taking). It would also be useful to read at least a little about how this image was co-opted by the National Socialists, and what that says about the multivalence of the apparently unambiguous image.

The penultimate paragraph returns to the issue of sentimentality and cites one editor’s views. It would be good to hear what the author thinks and what the critical issues are at stake when devaluing or valuing sentimentality. To what extent do Kollwitz’s images engage and use the concept of ‘sentimentality’ to reinforce the emotional impact of her work? To what extent did Kollwitz’s image resist the discourse of sentimentality, and how were they nevertheless enmeshed within it? These are questions that arose for me.

In sum, the topic is important and some interesting points are made about litte-researched works. The essay lacks a coherent argument that is pursued throughout. I was not sure: is this about the No War Movement (as stated in the abstract)? Is this a critique of concepts of sentimentality as applied to Kollwitz (as mentioned at various points)? Is this an engagement with gendered assumptions (mentioned in the abstract but not taken up again in the rest of the essay in any detail)? Much of the essay reads like a gathering of information about Kollwitz’s woodcuts rather than a specific argument. The introduction veers away from the abstract slightly, so that I was left unclear as to what the actual argument was.

The author may wish to think about whether they aim for a synthesis of existing information (and the journal may wish to consider whether that is the sort of article they seek) or whether they aim for a specific argument, in which case it would be good to select one or two threads to pursue. Some of the historical background material and other descriptive material can be deleted to make way for a more analytical discussion that engages with recent critical scholarship.

Author Response

First of all, thank you for your thorough reading of my work.

Abstract: the essay developed somewhat differently, and the updated abstract was not resubmitted with the essay. Apologies.

Gendered assumptions: removed from abstract and essay (the essay does not focus on gender). The first two paragraphs have been developed somewhat more to explain issues within Kollwitz scholarship and explain the rationale of my essay clearly – to explore some of Kollwitz’s anti-war art of the years 1920-25 and showing how she worked to disseminate it – and highlights the lack of important material in translation.

Emotionality – it is fine to mention the emotionality of the art in the abstract/intro because the art does clearly trigger an emotional response in the viewer - it is an important function in Kollwitz’s art (and this does not have to be proven at this stage as it is very widely accepted and obvious). I’ve added more scholars in para. 2 who have noticed issues in Kollwitz scholarship (including but not just those relating to emotionality), along with mentioning absence of translations, so the focus is not (now at least) on emotionality. These scholars’ findings are important as they help support my discussion of Kollwitz’s anti-war activism as pragmatic, where emotionality was used strategically. They explain my position.

I found the comments on my discussion of the No More War movement somewhat strange – e.g. that the No More War movement was not dealt with directly until later in the essay.  Kollwitz’s poster No More War is only one instance of her work that was directed towards the No More War movement that had existed in Germany from 1914. I have added a footnote to explain the nature of the German No More War movement, which was part of the international movement against war, and not a single organisation but made up of various groups and individuals in Germany and abroad. This note clarifies the fact that all works discussed in the essay were within the context of the No More War movement, not just the poster created for the Leipzig rally.

Kollwitz and how she has divided historians - I’ve removed this (though she does evidently divide historians in that she is left out of several important studies of German art of the 1920s/studies of art of the twentieth century). Whitner’s catalogue (2017) is the first in the English language for 22 years.

Paragraph lines 105-126 – I’ve adjusted/truncated this. I need to keep some of this material as it is important to understanding the art’s relationship to the socio-political background (and can be mentioned at least briefly as the background is not always clear to the reader).

Zwei Tote - I have given much more attention to this now (I was initially resistant to dealing with the drawing, for various reasons). As a widely disseminated work via Rolland's play, it does make sense to develop discussion on it here. I appreciate the nudge towards developing this.

-Reclining Dead Soldier - It is not directly related to the anti-war movement and this is why I have mentioned it in the essay solely to show how Kollwitz may have repurposed previous compositions in creating the Liebknecht print. Yes, it does deserve more attention and could form part of a study on Kollwitz's very long road (around seventeen years) towards creating the Grieving Parents (Reclining Dead Soldier was part of her first attempt at the memorial, composed of three figures). The sculpture is lost and is only known through the photograph. It is generally presumed to be lifesize. I've added a reference for the photograph in the Landesarchiv, Berlin.

Lines 251-255 – Liebknecht print – it resonates with other anti-war works by her in that she does not heroise soldiers/leaders but this is clear from her ‘no more war’ stance. I am not sure what is meant by ‘other memorial works’.

Para 379 ff – It would be strange to start the essay with this as it is about Kollwitz’s participation in Friedrich’s exhibition, which happens after creating other works. Perhaps this advice goes back to the confusion re. No More War (now explained in a footnote, as explained above). Re. more engagement with literature on Weimar pacifism, I have referenced Friedrich/anti-war rallies/No More War movement/Schwarz-Rot-Gold – so the reader has very good insight to Weimar pacifism of the years in question – and the spur behind it. I have added an important English language source that will guide the reader towards insight to the anti-war movement in Germany though other references in the essay will also be helpful. Adding material on women’s pacifism would not be a good idea at this stage (as you'll likely agree, as I've now removed gender from the abstract).

405 – typo – thank you, well spotted. I’ve corrected it.

430 – removed as again it’ll result in too many refs. I’ve adjusted the text to help the reader.

440 – Material on the Schwurhand is now fleshed out. I do not wish to discuss the Nazi salute because it is completely different and has a separate (disputed) history (arm held diagonally, all fingers stretched out).

Re penultimate paragraph – I’ve adjusted the paragraph to summarise the main thrust of the essay.

With the addition of new material, and some seemingly distracting material removed, the essay is more streamlined and I appreciate your assistance in helping me improve it. Thanks again.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a generally well-written, persuasive article. It makes the important point that Kollwitz's (hereafter KK) anti-war prints were not only the emotional outpourings of a mother who had lost a son in WWI (though they were that), but that she conceived and placed them with strategic intent (see Intro section and lines 251-55). This is a vital and timely message today in light of the current revival of interest in the anti-war art of the Americans Martha Rosler and Nancy Spero (also sometimes slighted because made by women) and, more recently, the large-scale anti-war installations of the Chinese dissident artist Ai Wei Wei. One proof of KK's strategic motivation: her envy (line 264) of Ernst Barlach proves how much she thought of herself as a politically engaged artist whose goal was to create effective art--moving imagery that would transcend her personal emotional response. Only light copyediting is needed (e.g., line 170 figure credit to KK Museum, line 334, line 398 dash not comma, line 421 reconcile title here and in the picture caption, line 444 w.c. subjugation?, line 450 Honoré).

Two points the author might stress: 1) line 138 Emphasize the long GERMAN tradition of the woodcut, and how in the 20c. woodcut was a signifier of Germanness, as in also the work of Kirchner and other Brücke artists. Woodcut is rough and essentializing (which the author acknowledges), Medieval, forceful, popular, a medium of unofficial and ad hoc production and mass communication.

2) The concluding section seems abrupt. This would be the place to reinforce the thesis of the article about KK's strategies and her concerns to make blunt and effective artistic statements. A paragraph, inserted at line 495, that rises above the details of the preceding paragraphs, and summarizes the argument, with particular stress on KK's persistence culminating in the extreme and memorable distillation of Nie wieder Krieg, might be appropriate. Perhaps, also, the author would like to extrapolate from KK to artists like Rosler and Spero to offer a broader context for the serious and principled intent of female artists who take a stand against war.

I see no reason not to transmit these comments directly to the author also, so I am copying and pasting them into the other box.

Author Response

First of all, thank you for your thorough reading of my work.

I am very grateful for your detection of multiple typos, especially the wrong title for the poster (a lesson for more careful copy and paste on my part). 

It is very interesting for me to read that you and another reviewer have noted the relevance to recent anti-war art. Thank you for this.

Due to length constraints, I have had to cut some material and focus the essay on Kollwitz's pragmatic approach in her anti-war art because I don't have the room to deal with all the ideas sufficiently (e.g. gender/feminism). However, I have kept references to the issue of emotionality (noted by you and other scholars who are listed here) which is important to enforce (and because there is a propensity in some scholarship to view women's art as 'emotional' and overlook the pragmatism in its creation).

My underlying aim here is to dispel the pigeon-holing of art by women without directly stating it, which I hope comes across. I'm grateful for your insight in this respect.

I've also managed to keep the reference to Barlach, and if possible at the final stage, will aim to add ref to printmaking tradition peculiar to Germany. 

Again, thank you for your input, it is appreciated.

Reviewer 3 Report

This essay situates the artist Käthe Kollwitz and her graphic work following WWI within the context of the anti-war movement in Europe, specifically in Germany. It discusses her rejection of her pre-war belief that "Germany was in the right" to a strong and intentional commitment to pacifist ideals. Arguing that her art was not simply emotionally-charged and sentimental, the author uses examples of her woodcuts and lithographs created between 1920 and 1925 to show the artist's difficult struggle to find a new technique (woodcut), new subject matter that reflected a civilian experience of war, and a dramatic simplification of composition and form. Kollwitz's association with individuals and organizations involved in the anti-war movement, and her important anti-war posters (such as the iconic Nie wieder Krieg!) are also discussed.

The essay contributes to current research around Kollwitz and WWI, particularly as it describes her first woodcuts, Zwei Tote (1920) and Memorial for Karl Liebknecht (1920) and situates the artist and her work within the context of influential anti-war organizations.

However, the author would benefit from consulting recent publications that have dealt with the topic of Kollwitz and war and which will provide further data that could impact the development of the author’s argument.

Publications include:

Whitner, Claire C. ed. Käthe Kollwitz and the Women of War: Femininity, Identity, and Art in Germany during World Wars I and II, (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2015)

Seeler, Annette, Käthe Kollwitz – Die Plastik: Werkverzeichnis (Munich: Hermer Verlag, 2016)

Carey, Francis, Portrait of the Artist: Käthe Kollwitz (Birmingham: Ikon Gallery; London: British Museum, 2017)

Rix, Brenda, Käthe Kollwitz: According to the Truth (Toronto: Art Gallery of Ontario, 2018)

Organization of the essay:
The essay was well organized overall and the argument was developed logically. The text would benefit from some tightening and elimination of repeated or extraneous information. Some paragraphs are very long and attempt to cover too many ideas – they would benefit from summarizing or breaking into two or three paragraphs (for example, the third paragraph l.66-97). There is an awkward transition between paragraphs at line 126-127. The conclusion of the essay could more convincingly draw all the threads of the argument together and should be revised for increased impact.

Factual information:
Footnote #1 – refers to “Bohnke-Kollwitz’s edition of her aunt’s diaries”. Käthe Kollwitz was Jutta Bohnke-Kollwitz’s grandmother (not her aunt)

Style and grammar: The essay would benefit from a close editing as there are several grammatical and stylistic errors.

A number of words read awkwardly in English.

l.38 – “affective” should probably be “effective”
l.49 – “spurred” could be “led to” or “encouraged”
l.87-88 – “tore” which appears twice – better translated “forced”
l.143 – “trials” to “trial prints” or “proofs”
l.176 – omit “quite”
l.179 – “war-spurred” to “war-generated”
l.189 – omit “quite”
l.198 – “linearly emphasized” to “linear”
l.199 – “trialled” – “began to print”
l.216 – “clipped” to “minimized”
l.254 – “construed of synthesis between” to “that synthesized”
l.328 – “lain” to “lying”
l.334 – word missing following the period
l.379 – “war maimed” to “those maimed in war”
l.423 – omit “-length”

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing my work and especially for the remarks regarding language.

I need to note that the abstract was not updated when I uploaded the essay, meaning there were references to gender in the abstract that should have been removed. Apologies for this as it was misleading.

Re. recent publications: Whitner, Claire C. ed. Käthe Kollwitz and the Women of War – I’ve referenced this now as the first catalogue in over twenty years on Kollwitz. However, I have not been able to make good use of it here as my focus is not on gender specifically.

Seeler, Annette, Käthe Kollwitz – Die Plastik: Werkverzeichnis (Munich: Hermer Verlag, 2016) – This is a very useful book but as the essay focuses on the graphic work and this book is a catalogue raisonné of the sculpture, I have not been able to make use of it here.

Carey, Francis, Portrait of the Artist/Rix, Brenda, Käthe Kollwitz: According to the Truth – these are both interesting works but I have had to restrict references to those that directly support the essay.

I have however added references to recent publications, which is important. Thanks.

Regarding length of paragraphs/unnecessary info – yes, some work needed to be done here and I’ve removed anything that in hindsight was superfluous.

Re. Jutta – thanks for copping this – weird error on my part as I had written in brackets that she was of course Kollwitz’s granddaughter.

Affective – this is intentional as it expresses how the art moved or encouraged thought/feeling in the viewer. It sounds a little awkward perhaps but it needs to stay.

Spurred – removed in editing process.

Tore – I am hesitant to change this to ‘forced’ because the verbs hinreißen (past = hinrissen) and sich hinreißen do not translate too well as ‘forced’/’be forced’. Kollwitz repeats the verb in German (mich hinriß/hinrissen) and while it looks repetitive, I’d rather stay close to the German.

Trials – thanks, I’ve amended this to match other instances.

Instances of ‘quite’ – one changed to ‘much’ – it was much weightier with the Liebknecht print considering the circumstances, so ‘quite’ probably isn’t strong enough. Other instance of ‘quite’ removed.

War-spurred – removed in editing process

Linearly emphasised – yes, it’s a bit awkward. Changed to ‘strong, emphatic line’.

‘Trialled’ – not the same as ‘began to print’. I went to art school and trialling means testing various stages or versions.

‘Construed…between’ - changed. Thanks.

‘Clipped’ – changed to ‘reduced’

‘lain’ – used rather than ‘lying’ as the passive voice leaves the meaning a little more open (that she may or may not be lying on the ground of her own will).

334 – missing word – fixed, thanks. 379 – War-maimed – unintentional typo, thanks. Changed to ‘men maimed by warfare’. 423 – ‘length’ removed, changed to ‘large front-page illustration’.

Again, thank you for your close reading of my essay and helping me improve it.