The SED, under the official rubric of
Kulturpolitik (cultural policy)
, established a framework of systematic control in order to exercise control over all literary and artistic production in the GDR. All publishers, as well as all public venues and exhibitions of art and culture, were subject to censorship that ensured the representation of the socialist point of view. The last instance of power laid within the Ministry of Culture, where the print approval was given. The branch responsible for giving the approval for print was called
head office for publishing companies and bookselling trade (Hauptverwaltung Verlage und Buchhandel, HV Verlage) which were directly tied to the
SED. Especially difficult texts sometimes were given to a special SED central committee for additional reviewing. The central censorship institutions in theatre involved the Ministry of Culture and the Culture Department of the SED's Central Committee, in cooperation with the culture representative on the
Politbüro. Furthermore, the
Stasi used a network of informers to track developments in theatre. Theatre censorship existed of both pre- and post-play censorship. Pre-play censorship had multiple incentives and forms. Firstly, unexpected public disorder was aimed to be prevented by only granting permission to productions given that they were restricted in size and composition. Secondly, censors not only tried to predict the influence of a play on the audience, but also how
SED party officials would react to it. Post-play censorship in the
GDR happened in an unusual manner due to its unofficial character. If censors deemed a play to be unwanted by the regime, a play could not be banned on grounds of being unconstitutional. Therefore, producers were forced to take responsibility for supposed mistakes and instead of being banned, revised and censored versions of a play were staged. An example of theatre censorship in the
GDR is the play
Egmont by
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe that was supposed to be staged in August 1949 in the
Erfurt theatre. Officials argued that: "
the political maturity and the progressive consciousness of the Thuringian population, the directors, and the actors [were] not yet sufficiently developed for them to place the context of the play in correct relation to the political situation of the present day.". In fact, the reason for the censorship of the play was that the portrayal of the Dutch revolt against Spanish occupiers in the play by
Goethe would reflect negatively on Soviet occupation in Eastern Germany.
Censorship in art Execution and consequences Disobeying the rules for acceptable releases carried varying penalties. At the very least, the offending party would be warned and the material in question would not be published or exhibited. Bans from publishing or performing were also levied in order to keep the material from being released. Punitive measures were also taken, including
arrest or
house arrest. Party members could be expelled from the SED, and
visa requests were frequently denied to offenders. In the most extreme of circumstances, an offender could be deported, most often to West Germany. Censorship and punishment, however, were not carried out uniformly. For example, if the creator was a party member of the SED, the work was offered more leniency. Furthermore, if the creator had been successful, their work was also more easily passed. If he or she had political relationships (either the "wrong" or "right" ones), the censorship process was affected as well. Finally, because many regulations were subjective or unclear, a censor who enjoyed a piece might afford it leniency where another would not. Very often, pieces banned in one area were allowed in others for this reason. Many artists and authors tried to avoid conflicts from the outset, working hard to create works that fit into the guidelines. This phenomenon was called the "shear in the head". Others took the omnipresence of censorship as a challenge. For them, it was stimulus to their creativity. These dissenters, known as "wrap artists", tried to avoid censorship with clever usage of artistic instruments like satire, irony, metaphor, or alienation to say the desired in a different and, for the censor, unrecognizable way, with mixed results. ==Censorship in film==