Amanda D. Post #3

Amanda Dhillon

Part A:

In my opinion, Riefenstahl’s works are aesthetically beautiful. I try not to evaluate the morality of the message when creating an opinion on a piece of art, basing my judgment on the formal characteristics of the work. To me, the description of art as “beautiful” or “good” does not come from the content of the message, but of the effectiveness and beauty of the way in which that message is conveyed in addition to the visually pleasing aspects of the piece. Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will exemplifies this aesthetic beauty that characterizes her artwork. It is masterful in the way that she begins the film with scenes that create a growing feeling of anticipation in the viewer. The first things that the audience sees are clouds, spanning across the screen to a background of music that is exciting and hopeful and grand. Then, rooftops emerge as the music continues to build up a sense of optimism in the viewer. These give way to shots of Hitler’s plane and the constant stream of organized, marching soldiers below it, then crowds of enthusiastic supporters waiting for the arrival of their leader. The anticipation and excitement grows even more. Finally, after shifting between film of the crowd and the landing plane, the jet turns around, the door opens, and the faces of the spectators brighten with excitement as Hitler steps out. Not only does Riefenstahl begin the film with a building up of excited emotion and anticipation, but the way in which she does so, with the subtle artistry of camera angles and timing of shots, she creates a mood of togetherness and power without being too obvious. Her well- timed and edited glimpses of Hitler juxtaposed with the masses of followers lends a feeling of unity for her German contemporaries under this charismatic man; they are part of something spectacular and grand, which are themes to which Riefenstahl adheres for the duration of the film. In addition to the technical beauty of the grand-scale camera shots and well-flowing scenes, Riefenstahl also delivers her message beautifully, with the views of synchronized, marching soldiers between speeches that are meant to “captivate” and gain the support of the viewing public. The rows of soldiers show power, discipline, and order for the new regime, which would have given hope for a country rebuilt in greatness to any German of the time. The overall elements of the piece including scene composition, the positioning of the camera for certain shots, and the thoughtful editing blend together to make the film an example of “beautiful” art that could inspire an entire nation.

As well as her films, Leni Riefenstahl’s photographs of the Nuba people also represent aesthetic beauty. They are captivating and engaging images that show Riefenstahl’s skill for creating artistically beautiful pieces of art. The vibrancy of the colors painted on the villagers against their dark skin and the visually appealing placement of the subjects within the frame (for example, they are not always in the center of the photo and thus create good movement) make the photographs very interesting to look at, regardless of what message they may or may not connote, and the moments of the people in motion that she captures lend a great deal of movement and fascination to the photos, making them beautiful and intriguing to look at. Because of the great artistry, skillful composition, and visual attraction of her artwork in both the media of film and photography, Leni Riefenstahl’s art is undoubtedly beautiful no matter how moral or immoral one may believe its existence or message to be.

Part B:

I do not think art has to apologize for anything; to do so would be contrary to its purpose. In many cases, it is not the artist’s fault if the people who view his or her pieces assign them individual connotative meanings that deviate from the artist’s intentions. The “meaning” of a piece is overall relative to the filter of the viewer, and so responsibility for what the artwork is taken to mean does not necessarily fall with the artist. In general, I feel that art should not be judged for the content of its message, but rather for a combination of its aesthetic beauty/appeal and how well or beautifully the message is relayed to the viewer. However, there is artwork that is created entirely to convey a message and does not interest itself in conventional aesthetic beauty. In cases like these, I still maintain that the morality of the message does not have a bearing on how “good” or “bad” the art is, but instead, how well the message is sent should determine the beauty of the art. Even in this case, then, art does not need to apologize for whatever it may be saying. It was created to make a point, and that exchange of ideas should be recognized as the judging factor for the piece, not what the idea/point is. In the case of Leni Riefenstahl’s work, I do not think there is any reason for an apology. Her work is aesthetically/artistically beautiful and delivers whatever message it may (or may not) have effectively for the viewing audience. Thus, it fulfills the function of such art and, since I do not feel that issues of morality should be considered in the judgment of art, there is no need for apology regarding her works. The authors Mary Devereaux and Susan Sontag would seem to think differently on this issue. Devereaux, while appearing to also find Riefenstahl’s work beautiful, finds it nearly impossible to separate the message in her art from the visual aspects, which makes her works worthy of apology. Such an example would be Triumph of the Will, which she considers “a troubling film” for this same reason (Devereaux 236). Because of this “conjunction of beauty and evil” (Devereaux 251), I feel that this author would hold Riefenstahl responsible for the messages that her art (films in particular) convey to the people because they will undoubtedly be influenced by them. However, she would not deny that her pieces were very skillfully and artistically well done. Sontag, on the other hand, appears to feel even more strongly against Riefenstahl’s work. While she does admit that Riefenstahl is “interesting, talented, and effective” (Sontag), the author holds the artist responsible for the content of the messages in her art and of the subject matter that she has chosen to document and, in some places, create. Therefore, Sontag would want Riefenstahl to apologize for her work because she recognizes it as reflections of and promotions for Riefenstahl’s own preoccupation with fascism and the fascist system.