Prostituting your art?

[oggbashan]

If anyone has ever seen some of her pre-war films, she was a great artist in the wrong place, at the wrong time and working for the wrong people. But who else would have paid for her to work?

I have videos of "Triumph of the Will" and "Olympia". The first is really scary because even through the limitations of the medium it shows the effect of well produced propaganda.

The second is a wonderful evocation of the struggle of the athlete to achieve perfection and a great tribute to the human spirit BUT with overtones of the Nazi super-race.

Is it ever justified to produce art to support an evil cause?

Og


Wednesday September 10 2003 11:23 IST

Hitler's woman filmmaker Riefenstahl dies at 101

Reuters

POECKING, GERMANY: Adolf Hitler's filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl, the last of Germany's famous Nazi-era figures, has died just weeks after turning 101, her assistant said on Tuesday.

"She died on Monday night," Gisela Jahn told reporters outside Riefenstahl's house near the Starnberger lake south of Munich, at the foot of the Alps. "She fell asleep peacefully."

Through a first floor window of her home, a large photo of her as a young woman could be seen hanging on the wall.

Riefenstahl made powerful films for Hitler and spent the rest of her long and active life protesting she should not be condemned for work inspired by art, not politics.

Riefenstahl won awards at the Venice and Paris film festivals in the 1930s for her "Triumph of the Will," a documentary highlighting the meticulously choreographed, eerie grandeur of the Nazi Party's 1934 Nuremberg Rally.

She was then commissioned to make the official film of the 1936 Berlin Olympics.

"Olympia," which recorded the grandeur of an event that Hitler hijacked to showcase National Socialism, is still recognized by cinematographers as a groundbreaking film.

It pioneered techniques such as mounting the camera on electric cars on rails to follow races.

HAUNTED BY PAST

Since the war, those films have haunted her, and she remained a villain to many for declining to apologize for them.

The German government reacted to her death with criticism.

"Leni Riefenstahl symbolises a German artist's fate in the 20th century," Culture Minister Christina Weiss said in a statement.

"Leni Riefenstahl's artistic work was tainted by her closeness to National Socialism, especially because after the war, she never dealt with the problem of how easily her work served an inhuman Nazi propaganda, and how close she really was to the Hitler Regime."

Riefenstahl always denied political involvement with the Nazi party or any romantic link with Hitler, although she admitted admiring him and seeking him out for a meeting in 1932.

"Hitler saw me as an artist -- as an artist, not, as some have written, as a lover or something," she told Reuters in an interview in 2000.

Born in Berlin on August 22, 1902, Riefenstahl's first love was ballet and she became a professional dancer, but turned to film acting in the mid-1920s.

After the collapse of Nazi Germany in 1945, Riefenstahl was jailed by French occupation authorities for almost four years.

Blacklisted as a filmmaker, she turned to still photography even though West German magazines boycotted her work for years.

As time passed and many of her critics died off, she worked to redeem her reputation with photographic studies of Nuba tribesmen in southern Sudan. At the age of 72 she took up scuba diving, gaining renown for adventurous underwater studies.

Striking as a young woman, Riefenstahl remained proud of her looks into her old age, dying her hair blond and wearing heavy make-up. Still active into her late 90s, she returned in 1999 to Sudan to revisit the Nuba tribe she first photographed in 1956.

She narrowly escaped death on her return when her helicopter crashed in Sudan.

"She created images and films that nurtured the Nazi cult and helped it win supporters," said Elke Froehlich, a Munich historian.

"She refused to acknowledge this. So many people involved with the Nazis learned their lesson after the war, she never did. (Propaganda Minister Joseph) Goebbels wrote of her in his diary, 'She's the only one who understands us."'

"But her work is appreciated by cinema lovers, it won't die with her."

 

[Icingsugar]

Is it ever justified to produce art to support an evil cause?

Big question, short answer.

Define 'evil'.

It's not ok if you know that what you do causes things that you consider evil. But is that the case here?

Refenstahl worked for what she thought was a good cause at the time. Or she was simply as ignorant as any other 'ordinary' german what went on behind the curtains.

To stretch the 'evil' thesis even further. Hitler, and to an extent the rest of the Nazi elite, were not evil. They were just very very wrong about what was right and wrong. And thus they had to be stopped.


To turn this discussion into a Lit theme.

Assume that stories about actions of a questionable nature (blackmailing, rape, incest) were proved beyond all boubt to be causing such behaviour in real life among it's readers.

Should the stories be published?
Shouild existing stories be pulled?
Shold the authors be punished?

No, yes, and no IMO


bracing myself for the onslaught,
/Ica

 

[darkmaas]

Is it ever justified to produce art to support an evil cause?

If that's all you want to know, the question is puerile. Assuming a definition of what constitites evil exists, then the answer is that there is no justification.

However, I suspect that you are looking for a discussion of Leni Reifenstahl and the ethical landmines that surround her life. After the fact, it is black and white. She gave sustenance to great evil. The fact that when she made the films, Hitler's latent potential as a "force of evil" was perhaps not apparent, is a red herring. She was intellegent enough to know, after 1945, that the Nazi regime was evil and that she had contributed to their effort.

She was a woman of great ego and refused to ever acknowledge this. That (and not "Triumph of the Will") is her "sin" for which she justifiably paid a price. (Whether the price was right, I'll leave to the ethical accountants.)

A more interesting question though, is the issue of her ego and her intense focus, which I suspect was what made her art possible.

So let me repose the question. "Are character traits that lead to great evil as well as great art, inherently evil?"

Let the flames begin.

darkmaas.

 

[Guest]

Darkmass, I like your use of puerility but am stunned at your plain judgment.

Thank you, Ogg; I don't read the news lately and would have missed this passing.

No other comments, too fiery for me.

Perdita

 

[MathGirl]

Originally posted by perdita Darkmass, I like your use of puerility but am stunned at your plain judgment.

Dear Perdita,
"Peurile" is a lovely word. It's too bad, though, that DM's judgement in the use of the word is so faulty.
MG

 

[oggbashan]

The only comment I want to add is that her work is worth seeing.

Og

 

[darkmaas]

The only comment I want to add is that her work is worth seeing.

I cannot agree more. I am in awe of her art. It was her ethics I was commenting on.

darkmaas

 

[ffreak]

So, let a Jew wade into the morass with this:

Was Richard Strauss evil because he accepted commissions from Hitler and Hirohito? Should his works be reviled because some of them were used by promoters of evil?

Or, going back further in time, should Michelangelo's works have been destroyed because he studied the sweating male and female workers in a quarry to perfect his technique in drawing how the body looks, thinly veiled by the clothing of the common man? Was it evil for him to paint figures based on reality? (This was an argument of his time - and some of his works were destroyed for this reason.)

Should the art of the Soviet Union be destroyed because we do not agree with the politics of the artist's patron?

Should Stephen King's novels, or Andrew Vachss' novels be removed from the libraries of America because some people have misused them as inspiration to commit horrible crimes?

In my mind everyone should be able to exercise the freedom to express oneself in any medium. And that expression is not always a political statement, even when the medium is political.

And even when the artist does have politics that we don't agree with, it does not make a masterpiece any less masterful. There are many great authors whose work I admire, who came out in support of Hitler and Mussolini and were openly anti-Semitic. Do such politics make their works less artistic?


Art transcends politics and morals and can do no more than try to express good or evil. It is not evil in itself.

 

[Angeline]

Is it ever justified to produce art to support an evil cause?

Hi all. Hope you don't mind my two cents (interesting and feisty-ish board this is ). I read this news today with great interest. Certainly, Reifenstahl's work with the Third Reich does raise questions for me about the value of art produced within it. You could raise similar questions about Speer's architecture or Wagner's music.

With due respect to Oggbashan (whose posts I've read with interest and admiration), I think the question can certainly be called puerile--the question can be, not the questioner. It is simplistic, childish. It's also far from the first time I've heard it. Nor do I think dm is showing unsophisticated judgment. I think he is saying that this particular question does not go far enough--it doesn't get at the truely thorny issues underlying Reifenstahl's participation and her subsequent failure to aknowledge such.

Do we know how Reifenstahl defined "evil." Not based on opinions about her art, but on her statements? No. Therefore I don't see how we can assume that she a) had a definition of evil with which we'd all agree, and b) participated in spite of believing that she had joined forces with evil.

Common sense for me (not to mention compassion) would suggest that few if any artists would want to contribute to massive human suffering and destruction. However this was not a time or culture of common sense or compassion. Had it been, many of my ancestors would have lived past 1945.

For me though--even with a very personal connection to that time--art is still created for "art's sake." I can't listen to Wagner, it hurts too much, but I know that his music can be brilliant art. I adore Neruda's poetry, but he's reviled by many for his politics. Separate the value of the question from the questioner and the value of the art from the patron.

Ange (another Jew who waded into the thread.

 

[oggbashan]

Second Childhood

OK. I agree that the question is puerile although I am a long way from being a boy. I wanted to start a discussion about Leni Riefenstahl's work.

"Triumph of the Will" is still frighteningly persuasive even given what we now know about what Hitler's Germany did. The raw emotions aroused by that film at the time were deliberate and the techniques used made the contemporary advertising films in the rest of the world look like nursery scribbles.

The World War 2 documentaries produced by the Allies are crude by comparison with Leni Riefenstahl's work.

"Olympia" is less controversial. The version I have even shows Hitler's disgust at Jessie Owen's victories. There were several versions - in German, in French, and in English. They are different films and the editing is varied to give a distinct impression.

I understand that both films are banned in Germany.

I think "Triumph of the Will" should be required viewing for the free democracies of the world. It helps to show how a nation was persuaded into changes that led to a dictatorship.

Og

 

[gauchecritic]

If the question is peurile then I think you're mis-reading it.

The main words of the question (to me) are produce, support and evil.

Motives cannot be called into question, artistic merit is not the nub.

With Naziism, I don't think evil is inherent, just it's application. Is communism evil? Is consumerism evil? They are just? political concepts. Politics ~ power. Power corrupts etc. The reason power corrupts is that it can't maintain itself without corruption. That's quite beside the point.

The justifiablity of producing something, anything, which supports evil misses out a very important defining word. Intent.

A great many inventions, art works, methodologies are/have been employed in various ways and produce the deaths of millions.

That must be evil. So were Smith and Wesson justified? Was Arthur C. Clarke justified? Was Einstein justified?

So two new words then and we have a different question with similar answers.

Is it ever justified to produce art intendedto be employed as support for an evil cause?

Fortunately this can be answered quite simply. Yes and no.

Gauche

Edited to add. Depends on who is evil and what the cause is.

 

[darkmaas]

Thank you Og

You are a gentleman. I am in complete agreement with your last point.

I think "Triumph of the Will" should be required viewing for the free democracies of the world.

 

[Angeline]

With Naziism, I don't think evil is inherent, just it's application. Is communism evil? Is consumerism evil? They are just? political concepts. Politics ~ power. Power corrupts etc. The reason power corrupts is that it can't maintain itself without corruption. That's quite beside the point.

Puerile is simply a word--playing semantics could make any number of words apply.

And I agree--ideas are hypothetical. Actions are not. Evil is too subjective a concept to be generalized, but the actions of Hitler's Reich are unquestionably evil. That for me is a totally separate issue from what constitutes art.

Also, the scope of the Holocaust for all its victims is such that to equate, by virtue of comparison, Nazism with consumerism, or even with Einstein whose research--however applied--did not involve claiming that specific groups of people should be destroyed, is at best naive.

Your examples are technically correct, but surely there are more appropriate ones.

 

[Quasimodem]

. . . art is still created for "art's sake." I can't listen to Wagner, it hurts too much, but I know that his music can be brilliant art . . .

Angeline,

You may take heart in the fact that Richard Wagner lived from 1813 to 1883, and thus, truly had no say in whether or not Hitler appropriated his music for the soundtrack to National Socialism.

While some have called him a “proto-fascist” it is because he was a decidedly pro-German artist in an age that fostered Nationalism.

Do we punish Frederic Chopin for being a proto-Pole, Jean Sibelius for being a proto-Fin, or Edvard Grieg for being a proto-Norwegian?

It is, however, an unfortunate fact that Wagner is known to have been a rabid anti-Semite.

Quasi,

 

[Angeline]

Hi Quasi,

I used Wagner as an example because of his anti-Semitism and whatever role that played in furthering acts against Eastern European Jewry. I don't know a great deal about him--well biographically--but I really did know he's 19th c., lol. I guess I see him in the same light as some of the figures associated with WW2 because, of course, violence against Jews in Europe (and elsewhere) has a much longer history than the past 70 years.

After I posted, I thought I should clarify that. I didn't.

Red-faced, but mostly unrepentant,
Ange

 

[Guest]

It is, however, an unfortunate fact that Wagner is known to have been a rabid anti-Semite.

Clarification: RW was not a rabid anti-Semite. He had Jewish colleagues and collaborators but felt overshadowed at one time (musically and popularly) by Meyerbeer. He also strongly suspected he had Jewish blood. But given his life and output it would be difficult for anyone to show he was rabid in his anti-semitism. Yes, he was truly a monster of a human being but for so much more than his academic dislike of the Jewish people.

Some of Wagner's descendants were pro-Nazi and offered Bayreuth and his works for Hitler's use and pleasure. I however find nothing, not one note, that can be labeled anti-semitic in his work. However, I am of course empathetic to what the Hitler association means to many people.

Perdita

Edited to add this url from Tel Aviv U., a brief account of the matter, still going on. I believe Barenboim tries each year to introduce Wagner to the Israel philharmonic's repertoire.

http://www.tau.ac.il/taunews/98fall/wagner.html

 

[gauchecritic]

Also, the scope of the Holocaust for all its victims is such that to equate, by virtue of comparison, Nazism with consumerism, or even with Einstein whose research--however applied--did not involve claiming that specific groups of people should be destroyed, is at best naive.

Your examples are technically correct, but surely there are more appropriate ones.

I was merely pointing out that many of the arguements previously asked what does the question mean?

The meat of my statement as you concur was that ideologies are just that. I then attempted to explain what I meant by application.

No where did I compare Einstein with Naziism, nor for that matter Smith and Wesson with communism.

Naivety is that which you contain if you believe that consumerism does not cause death and destruction in much the same way as Naziism did but on a more prominent stage rather than in sweatshops in third world countries and elsewhere.

The Einstein reference was an attempt to clarify my position on "application".

I'll paraphrase myself, If that isn't what you understood from the post then you didn't read it properly.

Gauche

 

[MathGirl]

It is, however, an unfortunate fact that Wagner is known to have been a rabid anti-Semite.

Dear Quaz,
Big deal. I read somewhere that Walt Disney was, too.
MG
Ps. I like Wagner's music. I really don't care if he was the Antichrist, he can't do anything to me, and I like the sound of his stuff.

 

[ffreak]

So, after lobbing those grenades, let me stick my head out of the trench and see if it gets blown off.

Originally posted by oggbashan:
"Triumph of the Will" is still frighteningly persuasive even given what we now know about what Hitler's Germany did. The raw emotions aroused by that film at the time were deliberate and the techniques used made the contemporary advertising films in the rest of the world look like nursery scribbles.

Every other type of evaluation aside, Ogg makes an excellent point here. There are entire disciplines of psychology devoted to the study of how language and imagery affect people. The carefully constructed variations of her films can teach the use of language and art to sway the viewing/reading audience. It may be of worth to note that she was fluent, in the very real sense of that word, in multiple languages. If you do not understand German, a literal translation of her script into English is not all that powerful. But within the cultural language she is compelling.

That said, is there something to be learned here about applying compelling images and dialog to erotica?

 

[Angeline]

I'll paraphrase myself, If that isn't what you understood from the post then you didn't read it properly.

I'm sorry if you think I misunderstood your post. And to clarify mine, I did not intend to suggest that you *were* equating Naziism with any of these things--certainly not on purpose. I only meant that such a grouping could invite comparisons. I do apologize if you thought I meant anything more significant than that.

Nor do I think the Holocaust is the only great--or worst-- tragedy in human history. Its concentration over a shorter time may make it more immediately shocking than less focused events like cumulative deaths over more time from poor working conditions or even smoking for that matter. And this was my point: that none of your examples were appropriate in the sense that they did not have destruction of a people as an underlying philosophy.

Consumerism, for example, is born of greed; I don't know any companies whose mission statement says "...and get the Baptists, the short women, and the guys who wear argyle socks." After all, even most racist businesses were willing to sell their goods to freed slaves--under deplorable conditions, yes, but greed was number one.

I could say you didn't read my post properly, but communication is often complicated I know, and I'm stating an opinion, not looking for an argument.

Ange

 

[Guest]

That said, is there something to be learned here about applying compelling images and dialog to erotica?

Absolutely, Eff. It's what's been turning the wheels of commercial advertising for some time (e.g., T&A and beer), not to mention the Hollywood machine.

Just to note: there should not be one filmaker worth a ticket of admission who hasn't studied Riefenstahl (within the whole oeuvre of film history).

I've said this before: film is an artform with its own language; I love it but also study it to help me write better (whether prose or poetry).

Perdita

 

[Svenskaflicka]

There once was a stand-up-comedian, who lived and worked in Germany during the years before Hitler came to power. He was firmly against the nazis, and he made fun of them every night that he was on stage. The Nazis hated him, but had no way to get at him.
Then, one frightful day, the Nazis came to power, and the very same night, the stadium where the comedian was performing was packed with Nazis. They had come there to mock him, to throw their power in his face, to say "Well? Make fun of us NOW - if you dare!"

The comedian walked out on the stage, walked up to the edge of it, stopped, looked at the big audience, and slowly raised his arm into the salute.

The Nazis looked at each other in triumph, saying to each other: "Well, what did we say? He doesn't dare to mock us now. We've broken him down!"
And they all got up, and did the heil-movement with their arms.

But the comedian didn't lower his arm. He stood there, without saying a word, with his arm raised.

The Nazis sat down again, feeling confused and uncomfortable. What was he playing at? What was he doing? Why didn't he say anything?

The comedian stood there for a long time, without moving, without speaking. Then, finally, he said:

"My dog jumped this high, this morning."



He was executed.

But maybe it was worth it.

Maybe it's worth dying to be able to live your life standing up.

 

[Angeline]

He was executed.

But maybe it was worth it.

Maybe it's worth dying to be able to live your life standing up.

 

[Parklife]

My short answer to the question...

The production of art is always justified. Humankind's expression of creativity is, in my mind, never a bad thing. But, that in no way implies that the evil cause is, itself, justified.

Perhaps a different approach...

Is it ever justified to support the art produced by evil?

I may have a different answer to that question... (I know several people that will never view a Polanski movie on account of his 'evil' actions. They will never 'support', directly or indirectly his art.)

Perhaps because these types of questions have no hard answers... only shades of grey.

 

[Seattle Zack]

As an example, George Lucas even copied the scene from Triumph of the Will for the awards presentation in the original Star Wars film. Of course, nothing in Star Wars is original anyway, but the parallels (almost shot for shot) are rather eerie. No doubt, Lucas studied Riefenstahl's work in film school, but I think it's a testament to her art that the imagery of Riefenstahl's films transcends the political overtones.

--Zack