For this assignment, you will research how ‘Weimar at 100’ has and is being commemorated, and you will write a comparative critical review of three (3) specific projects that have been created for the centenary. One of these will be the ‘Virtual Bauhaus’ exhibition. The three commemorative projects can all focus on a specific theme (eg. Bauhaus/ Weimar art and architecture/ the artistic avant-garde), or on a variety of subjects related to the Weimar era. The critical review will be 2,000-2,250 words in length. Please include footnotes (Chicago Style), and a bibliography. Your bibliography will include online sources and at least 5 academic sources, including at least TWO (2) academic journal articles and at least ONE (1) historical monograph/book or edited collection. What to include in your review: 1. An introduction with a thesis. Your thesis is the answer to the research question that you are posing. To develop your research question, think about what the commemorative projects you’ve analyzed reveal not only about German history, but also the importance/relevance of the history of the Weimar Republic in 2018/2019. Are there specific topics or themes that seem to be more common in these projects than others? Why do you think this is the case? Is anything missing or overlooked in these commemorative projects? 2. A description of each of the three projects you have selected (What? When? Where? Who has organized, designed, or commissioned it?). You are welcome to include images, but be sure to include captions and references. 3. What is the purpose of each of the projects? What are we supposed to learn from them? Who are their intended audiences? 4. Do these projects achieve their stated goals? Why or why not? 5. How have these projects been received by the public and by experts (look for reviews)? Is there a general consensus, or are there different opinions? 6. Do the projects engage with the most current research, or do they perpetuate certain arguments, ideas or myths that have been criticised, challenged or debunked by historians? Do the projects invite further debate or future historical research? 7. Compare and contrast the 3 projects. What are their strengths/weaknesses? Do you think one is superior to the others, and why? 8. A conclusion.