Christopher McCauley
To be completely frank, I absolutely, whole-heartedly, agree 100% with the statement, “art does not apologize.” In fact, I think I would say “art should not apologize for itself.” Yes, I do believe that art can be offensive at times for certain people, but it is also meant not to insult other people. Or perhaps, the artist’s intent was to offend. Why should we or artists apologize for being bluntly deliberate?
When examining the work of Leni Riefenstahl, it is hard to ignore the obvious Nazi themes and mores, because that is obviously why much of her work was created (namely, The Triumph of the Will). Leni seemed to pay a lot of attention to detail, and making her films look artistic. I think she absolutely succeeded. Without looking at the horrible theme of Nazi regime in the film, it is incredibly visually pleasing. Camera angles made the moving images captivating, and the symmetry of the crowds as they were filmed, at least for me, are very appeasing. The addition of music on top of many of the scenes was also very effective, and gave a patriotic flare to the entire film.
I personally believe that neither the art, nor Riefenstahl ought to apologize. As aforementioned, art is meant to offend at least someone, and it should not be sorry for that. There is not one artistic creation in the world that is not going to rub someone the wrong way, and that’s okay because art is meant to be a way of spreading ones thoughts, opinions, ideas, reactions, beliefs, and any other type of feeling. Even art that spreads such infamous ideas, such as The Triumph of the Will is important to hold onto because it shows where the world once was, and where we have advanced from. If we let this art apologize for itself, then we are in a way erasing history by deleting the ideas of people who once lived.
In the passage written by Sontag, much is focused on Riefenstahl’s relationship with Hitler. It is obvious that they had a very close relationship, and that is part of the reason why her work is so famous. Sontag views Leni’s work as propaganda. I would agree with Sontag on this note, however I think that the propaganda almost hides behind the art in Leni’s case. Devereaux has a similar view about Leni’s work, looking at it as propaganda also. She even says that in Triumph of the Will, Hitler is portrayed as “a god-like mystical figure who descends—literally—from the clouds...” and states that he is “the bearer of peoples’ will.” (232).
3 comments:
In my own blog, I took the same position that art and artists should not apologize, but for a slightly different reason. While I agree with you on that, I don't really agree with your reasoning that art should not apologize because the artist's intention is to offend someone. Even though this may be true, I I believe instead that in terms of art, an artist should not be punished for what he or she captures, because despite any bias the artist might have toward his or her subject of creation, most of what the art represents depends on the viewer. In terms of the law, on the other hand, as shown in the article about Riefenstahl's arrest, she was viewed as punishable for conspiring with Nazism.
In addition, looking at the article about making a public art fund in Orlando and specifically at the part that talks about the mayor demanding that artwork be taken out of City Hall, I do not think the idea that the artist was trying to be offensive with his images is really valid. I instead feel that overall, an artist is trying to evoke some type of response from a viewer, whether it be outrage, pride, or something in between, and that is just what Riefenstahl did. I do not agree with her involvement in Nazism to any degree, but in defense of her art, I do not believe that just because she is punishable by law means that her artwork should be punished as well.
I agree that Riefenstahl shouldn't apologize for her work, but for a different reason. I don't think the fact that she did not mean to offend anybody is not grounds enough to throw an apology out of the ring. What I do believe is grounds enough to throw an apology out of the ring is simply looking at the time period. Germany was suffering from a series of economic depressions and a series of unstable governments. Then, along came Hitler who appeared to be the hope of the people. Most Germans looked to Hitler to unify them and fix many of their problems. Although if you look hard enough you could see signs of the tragedies to come, many of the citizens were so enthralled with Hitler and the vision of Germany he spoke of, that they followed him with little doubt. Although Riefenstahl claims that she merely found Hitler to be interesting, her personal relationship with Hitler suggests that this would not be the case. Riefenstahl, like the other people of Germany, was probably very into the idea of a better Germany and thus overlooked the racial tones of what Hitler was planning to do. If this is the case, Riefenstahl need not apologize for her work of propaganda. She was unaware of what the consequence may be. However, I do believe that she should at least express some regret and guilt for helping the german army to gain more support through her film.
I think Christopher brought up a very important point when he mentioned how Triumph of Will shows where the world once was, and how it has since advanced. In reading more background information about Triumph of Will, I learned that the film is still banned in Germany, with the exception of its use in scholarly studies. I believe the world has its good parts and bad parts, and that simply ignoring the bad parts won't make them go away. In fact, it is essential that the world remembers the bad parts so that people work hard to prevent catastrophes such as the Holocaust from happening again. Pieces of artwork such as Triumph of the Will need to be available for average people to view so that this disaster will never disappear. Pretending the such an event never occurred is not only ignorant, but also insulting. Millions of people lost their lives. Simply removing evidence of the existence of the Nazis does not make this fact any less unbearable.
Post a Comment