The Tenet of this Book is that the construction of “1968” in Germany is effected primarily through the written word, in historico-political discourse, in literature, and in the media. However, the discussion of the representations of the German student movement in the pages of newspapers and magazines, on television, and on the Internet has shown that they feed on intermediality and intertextuality, creating an overall contextual framework where images and sounds serve as shorthand for complex arguments, memories, and emotions. In this chapter, I explore artistic representations of “1968” in a variety of art forms, including museum exhibitions, plays, paintings, popular music, photography, and film. Given that at least some of these are scripted, or conveyed and interpreted via the written word, I argue that they make a significant contribution to the collective idea of what constitutes the German “1968.”

It is widely accepted that “1968” caused a major reevaluation of the function of artistic production. The debate that Hans Magnus Enzensberger had initiated in the realm of literature was replicated in theaters, art galleries, cinemas, museums, concert halls, and broadcasting houses. The focus of all these discussions was not artistic expression in itself, but rather the question of in whose name and for what purpose artists, painters, musicians, designers, playwrights, and film directors created their works. Basing their analysis of “Kunst als Ware der Bewußtseinsindustrie” (art as commodity within the consciousness-industry) on a mélange of the writings of Karl Marx, Mao Zedong, and Theodor W. Adorno, members of the Berlin SDS had published a radical critique of the way art had become a tool for the economic and political elites to maintain their position:

According to the students, this “geistige Beherrschung” had become particularly oppressive in popular culture, where “products,” such as Heimatfilme (films set in a conflict-free world), Schlager (hit songs sung in German), and romantic novellas, created a false sense of harmony and told their audiences that all was well and that there was therefore no need for a challenge to the status quo.