Interview with Andreas Koop to the corporate identity of National Socialism
The designer Andreas Koop deals in NSCI With the visual appearance of the National Socialists from the early days of the Hitler party to the end of the Third Reich. The expensively illustrated book on the corporate identity (CI) of the "Move" Tracks developments from the language and architecture via the logo design and the uniforms to typography and color.
Mr. Koop – If you are the 1935 completed Leni-Riefenstahl movie triumph of will looks at and the only three years completed Olympia-Films, then you have the impression that worlds are in between: in a film relatively hateful, processed faces, picturesque half-timbered homes and people who speak very dialect-bound – in the other extremely artificial-natural Arno-Breker body and nothing folksmanship more … Andreas Koop: That’s right. As for the visual appearance, the differences between the early years of the "Move" and the time after the "Seizure" highest striking. Say that improvised (sometimes even illegal), with small means (which is why the armband is one, if one wants, to be ingenious idea – as it were "Minimal uniformization" Nevertheless, high detection / assignment / attractment) and without too rough means and the later occur, as a fatal way then the party became the state. War-related then you will see more and more rucks in the media from 1943 (especially the magazines) whatsoever that many are even set. What was the germ cell of the corporate identity? Andreas Koop: You will probably see in the flag – Hitler wanted a (indent, recognizable) symbol, a sign for his party, for the "National Socialist Movement". For this he annotated the swastikrez aligned; However, basically never as a sign for itself, but always implemented in an application already. His first draft was therefore the flag – the party and later of the nation. So the red floor area with a female circle by placing the swastika in black (he has this in "My fight" described in detail). From this, there is a lot of reading: On the one hand, Hitler was well aware of the effect and color, which is why he had a short drawer that actually communist red; On the other hand, the first application of the appearance was a flag – so for mass circlips, pickup etc., which, so to speak, reflects the programmatic media choice and situation of time. And also a stucco far the gross madman, when he has certainly been presented in the 1920s, how this flag will blow over the entire empire. Which areas extended the uniform appearance? Andreas Koop: So consistently, the visual appearance – at least in detail – was not. But there are some constants, even if their presentation often existed in numerous variants. The color was consistently used red, the Reichsadler and the swastika – but both in numerous variations and shapes – are also attracted by basically all important applications (partially parallel, often removing themselves). What was eradicated? Why could, for example, "Nordic expressionism" unstable? Or he went in design? Andreas Koop: I suppose you mean the forming art. Initially, there was a discussion, whether the expressionism as official state art is just the dynamics of "Move" and the "New time" It could – but what about the conservative fuers, all advance Rosenberg and Hitler himself was not aware. The constructivistic was, in product and graphic design an option, but stood to the Bauhaus, Russia … too close (where there are individual applications that are exactly this design language). You can not directly from the graphic design "Erase" speak, but modern itself was natural after 1933 by state side "no longer in demand". To what extent carried legislation as the law on the protection of national symbols to create a corporate identity? Andreas Koop: For the emergence or improvement of the visual appearance, these laws contributed nothing. It was more likely that the state symbols are no longer used by anyone (especially institutions and companies). This was once mainly against the "Wild growth" to party symbols, the "selling" On packaging and displays etc. have been used – from now on a permit had to be obtained. And once it was about the Reichsadler. But just this scheme was even more variant of variants, as in this way it could escape the specifications in turn. What difficulties were there until one "Dual switching of the symbols" has been achieved – for example at the "overcast" The Reichswehr? Andreas Koop: On the one hand, you have to see that in a dictatorship much "easier" is. And design is not very at the edge, anyway nothing, what democratically derive and improve love. Surely there was also in the "Third Reich" Many personnel facilities, battles and profiling tendencies (Hitler sometimes called for this purelyes as he created similar institutions in parallel with non-precisely defined competences). The same switching of the symbols took place graphically but rather so that "the old" SIGNETS OF THE INSTITUTIONS etc. Coarse part simply dropped away and a new sign was also designed for each new Nazi version. To what extent the "Vernational socialization" (for example, with the German Red Cross) voluntarily or with resistance was not known to me. The Wehrmacht, as "The traditional facility" Once again, Graphically has reached with velvet gloves – no wonder that their eagle has not changed in essence; except for the direction of view, he should now (heraldic) look to the right "To the connectedness to the party" to visualize. Which companies worked with? Andreas Koop: I was rather formulated: who was commissioned with the implementations? The answer is basically: all! Especially from 1933, there was less and less "Normal, civilian" Client. So the publishers, printers etc. had (economically and moral blinding) no coarse alternatives. Who cited the National Socialists in their symbols, their design? Andreas Koop: Everything imaginable! On the one hand, the Romische Empire, then aspects of Mussolini (Duce, Fuhrer, the grub etc.), as well as what you for "Germanic" held, like the runes (here often the sign language of the "Volkical movement" survived), in the posters one finds partly a style that reminds of the tourism advertising of this time (and in high quality), the magazines were partly strongly based on international role models or. were, as with the "Fuel" directly from "Simpicissimus" took over – and so on! Why the extensive jerk handle on the Romische Empire, which was the historical enemy of the Teutonic? Andreas Koop: That may have more causes, perhaps first having to emphasize the same time that the National Socialists never accurately participated in the story, nor their instrumentation / benefit! Safe was "Rome" As in the many centuries before to a kind "reflex" who apparently could obviously noble withdraw: eternity, power, solitary position, … on Mussolini was, at least in the early years, also given a direct reference (and later bonded), who had a short time also a certain role model. Did you actually have legal difficulties to bring out the book? Andreas Koop: No, there were no legal problems and also no inquiry from catching protection! For scientific purposes and in such publications, this prohibited characters are displayed yes. The gross difficulty was more likely to find a publisher for this topic – which represents a niche in the niche, so to speak. The historians see design and design (at least so far) as a side aspect, designers often lack the historical interest. But that’s exactly the profit of this work: Historians see that "shape" already "contents" can see designers in turn see how fast their work "politics" can be. The incident is also a central aspect of my research work "Scripture and power", I have been operating at the Zourne University of Arts for two years and completed this year.