(a) in the artistic value of the productions, especially with regard to Jewish subjects, and
(b) in the degree of influence of the artistic activity on the Jewish people.
With regard to the first point, the progress made can be easily gauged by comparing, for instance, Bendemann and Emil Levy with Gottlieb, or Oppenheim with Lilien, and so on. Jewish life at the period of Assimilation, like the literature of that period was presented essentially in apologetic terms and addressed itself always, consciously or unconsciously, to Gentiles, as if to say: “Think of us, we are really not as detestable as you believe us to be, we are rather attractive”; but, on the other hand, national artists say: “We are what we are,” and more than that, seeing that to deal with Jewish subjects from a national standpoint is self-centred, and therefore more of a psychological question. We are what we are, neither better nor worse than others: we endeavour to know ourselves, and we want to see our images reflected in our own art. Oppenheim’s Jews are so idealistically exaggerated that one would not recognize them if one were to meet them in their shops on the “Zeil” in Frankfurt, while Gottlieb’s Jews are so orientally peculiar, that meeting them in the market-place dealing with tapestry one would have the impression that these dealers are descendants of oriental princes, although the artist had no intention of producing this impression.
The second point is still more important. The art of the period of Assimilation, like the active character of Assimilation, is essentially individualistic and aristocratic, while the art of the period is decidedly of a collective and democratic character. Logically and psychologically, there can be no movement of Assimilation in masses, because Assimilation must be opposed to cohesion or a movement for the cohesion of Jews, except for ritual purposes. A Jew becomes a doctor, a lawyer or a painter—the more he succeeds in his career among Gentiles, the less he is brought in contact with the Jewish masses: nobility of character or generosity may make him a philanthropist to the masses whom he may endeavour to patronize; on the other hand, the absence of these qualities will make him wholly indifferent, but anyhow the chain of natural and simple intercourse is broken. This was necessarily the course of Assimilation in every direction, and also showed us the relationship of Jewish artists to the Jewish masses. All those Huszars, Ronas, Schlesingers and Pollacks had no inclination and no possibility whatever of acquiring the artistic education of the people from whom they sprang. In this respect the situation has considerably improved owing to the national movement, Chovevé Zion and Zionism. Now, many Jewish artists live among the people, and are influenced by them. Not only in Russia, where there is now a strong movement for propaganda [♦]and mutual help among Jewish artists (under the tutorship of Ilja Ginzburg)—a movement which was unthinkable in the time of the Assimilation tendencies—but even in Paris a tendency has made itself felt in this direction in the Jewish colony of artists in recent times. Among the masses in the East of London, too, there is an Organization called Ben Uri, for the propaganda of art. Lectures are arranged, instruction is given, and popular articles are published on various subjects of art. That popularity is due to the activity of the publishing firms Phœnix, Libanon, the monthly Ost und West, and other publications.
[♦] “amd” replaced with “and”
Summing up the effects of relationship between Jewish art and Zionism, we see that Zionism has played its part in the revival of Jewish art. On the other hand, Jewish art has contributed much to the propaganda of Zionism. It cannot be too often repeated that the creative and active forces of Zionism have always been literature, education and art: they have stimulated the people’s hearts and minds, they have opened the people’s eyes and enlisted their generosity. One of the greatest agencies of Zionist propaganda has been the Bezalel, the work of the enthusiastical Jewish artist Boris Schatz, who is in his own art a disciple of Antokolski, but who stands himself, unrivalled, as a pioneer in the propaganda of Jewish artistic activity in Palestine.
It is not hazarding too much to assert, that with an important development of colonization and education in Palestine we are going to see a really original Jewish art. But even in the Diaspora, the awakening of Jewish consciousness will ennoble, popularize and strengthen Jewish art. Jewish artists should not pursue any particular tendency in addition to their own art; they should be only artists, and true to themselves. Art must be free, and being free it will—as a necessary and natural consequence—eventually offer ample scope for the national genius.
LXXXI.
Progress of Zionism in the West since 1897