Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story

Lunch Date

Hitsville: The Making of Motown

Portrait of Dr. Heinrich Stadelmann (1922)

Collapse does not always announce itself with spectacle. It often arrives quietly, through silence and gesture, through the normalization of what was once unthinkable. The structures that once upheld shared values begin to soften, and the language of power starts to bend. The effect is not always immediate. Instead, it settles in slowly, as outrage fades and confusion becomes ordinary. This atmosphere, familiar to those living through political uncertainty today, is captured with haunting precision in Otto Dix’s Portrait of Dr. Heinrich Stadelmann (1922), which I encountered recently at a gallery in Toronto.

The experience of viewing this portrait in person was deeply unsettling. Dix’s work confronts the viewer with an image that is not grotesque in the conventional sense, but rather psychologically disoriented. Stadelmann appears physically intact yet spiritually vacant. His skin tone is yellowed, the color of illness or decay. His eyes are wide and glassy, refusing to engage with the viewer. His black suit is meticulously tailored, and the backdrop—a red curtain and patterned wallpaper—suggests wealth or status. However, there is no comfort in the composition. The man appears hollowed out by something internal, not wounded by trauma but consumed by the invisible.

Dr. Heinrich Stadelmann was a psychiatrist and a professor, a man trained to understand the mind. Yet in Dix’s rendering, he appears unable to process the world around him. The portrait does not offer clarity about what he fears or what he anticipates. It presents him as one suspended in uncertainty. He exists in a liminal space—a threshold between past and future, between the recognizable and the unknowable. Dix’s 1922 Weimar Germany was itself such a space. The empire was gone. The republic was young, destabilized by hyperinflation, political violence, and cultural fragmentation. The Nazi Party had not yet taken power, but the foundations of liberal society were already eroding.

This context is essential to understanding the portrait. It is not only a representation of an individual but also a cultural document. Dix’s art often resists sentimentality. His portraiture, particularly during the early 1920s, is diagnostic. He does not flatter. He reveals. In this image, he offers the viewer a model of the professional class in decline—not due to external attack, but due to internal exhaustion. Stadelmann does not appear complicit in the failures of his time, but he does appear paralyzed. He is aware that something is shifting, yet powerless to respond. This awareness without action, knowledge without agency, defines the moral ambiguity at the center of the image.

This moral ambiguity also resonates with the political condition of the contemporary United States. The period following the 2016 presidential election and the rise of MAGA-aligned politics bears many of the same features that defined Weimar Germany’s liminal state. Institutions appear outwardly intact but inwardly compromised. Public discourse has grown increasingly polarized and performative. Like Weimar, the present moment often feels like a space in-between, where the old narratives of democracy no longer persuade, and the new order remains undefined. It is not the chaos of revolution that is most disorienting. It is the slow, visible unraveling of norms, accompanied by a population uncertain of how to respond.

The portrait’s relevance, therefore, extends far beyond its original historical moment. Dix invites viewers to examine the psychology of inaction. Stadelmann’s hollow expression, his meticulous dress, and his rigid posture serve as symbols of outward control masking inward collapse. He appears to maintain social performance, but the vitality of belief—whether in science, governance, or progress—seems to have fled. His hands hang limply at his sides, neither clenched nor expressive. His presence is defined by absence. He is, as the anthropologist Victor Turner might suggest, a figure suspended in liminality, no longer belonging to what came before, and not yet capable of becoming what follows.

Dix, who fought in World War I and saw firsthand the physical and psychological devastation of conflict, brings to this portrait a particular sense of tension. Unlike his more graphic war etchings, this work expresses anxiety not through violence, but through stillness. It is a portrait of a man living before the disaster, rather than after it. In that way, it may be even more terrifying. The viewer, too, becomes implicated. We recognize the signs. We feel the warning. And yet, like Stadelmann, we remain unsure of what to do.

Standing in front of this painting, I found myself unable to turn away. Not because of its size or dramatic color, but because it reflected something uncomfortably close to my own condition. It was not only the portrait of a man from 1922. It was the portrait of a society on the edge of transformation. And in that sense, it was also a portrait of the present.

Dix offers no resolution. He does not provide guidance or redemption. Instead, he allows the viewer to dwell in the unresolved. In doing so, he reminds us that it is often in these in-between spaces that the most important moral questions must be asked. Not after collapse. Not during catastrophe. But before, when there is still time to respond.

Jurassic World Rebirth