I believe That Leni Riefenstahl’s film Triumph of the Will is a very beautifully made piece of artwork. Its appeal to me came from the way it showed power and beauty in so many different ways. There is something powerful in thousands upon thousands of people walking in choreographed motion but there is also something powerful in seeing all those people gathered to listen to one man. I thought the way the movie was filmed definitely made Hiltler seem like some sort of Christ-like figure who had come to save his people. The clips of the film that I saw gave a very serious and ritualistic feel to the ceremony. The camera work also emphasized Hitler’s power by shooting him from below so he looks very large and powerful.
I do not believe that Riefenstahl should be obligated to apologize for her art, but I also don’t believe that she had no intention of promoting the ideas of the Nazi Party. With that being said, I think “good art” is art that portrays its message in a way that other people can understand and relate to, and Riefenstahl definitely did a good job of that. I would say that the job of the artist is to get their message across, whatever that message may be, and it is the viewer’s job to decide for themselves what their stance on the issue is.
I think that Sontag would disagree with my view because she believes that certain images promote Fascist ideals even without a caption telling you what is going on (“fascist aesthetics”). She thought that images of huge masses for instance, promoted Fascism in themselves. I would say that the ability to get your message across without words is a sign of a good visual artist.
Devereaux would also disagree that art should not apologize because she talked at length about the ways that
1 comment:
Upon review of the blog responses I realize that the point of view on whether or not art should apologize is more dependent on the viewer’s emotions. For example, if Riefenstahl’s work is looked at as purely art then those unfamiliar with the context of her work would say that based on a specific definition of art she should not need to apologize. However, those driven by emotion feel that she should apologize. The question remains as to whether or not a definition or standard of apology for art is one size fits all. Is the crime which Riefenstahl portrays so inhumane that it crosses the invisible line? It seems that in the case of Albrecht Speer the motives for his punishment were based on the emotional upheaval of the post-WWII sentiment that surrounded the Nuremberg trials. The crime on paper was use of slave labor but the punishment reflected his crime to be the support and promotion of Nazis.
Thus, despite the Nuremberg trials’ best efforts, Riefenstahl was still able to slip through the cracks of artistic liberty. However, had it been proven that she had utilized slave labor in the making of her film she would have gladly been forced to serve a criminal sentence. We now stand passing judgment from a distance, away from the heated fervor against Nazis just following WWII. Thus, we are able to have a more objective viewpoint of Triumph of the Will in assessing its criminality and artistic beauty. Perhaps in years to come when WWII seems as far removed as the Seven Year’s War, Riefenstahl’s work will not conjure as many negative feelings and there will be few demands for her apology.
Post a Comment