The work produced by Riefenstahl is aesthetically beautiful. In order for people today to see this, we must try see the art without looking through our biased lens. Though our bias is on the side that we deem positive—placing our view of the images on the negative side since they represent Nazism and the obvious connection to the Holocaust—it is still a bias nonetheless. If we see the work only for its formal appeal, we see an artist capturing the grandeur of the public Nazi procession and gathering. Like pictures of the Nuba, the Nazi videos seem to capture reality rather than a staged experience. The camera is as if only following around reality, and it is portrayed as if whatever is happening would continue to happen whether the camera was there or not. With Nuba pictures, Riefenstahl captures the physical traits of the people: the muscles, the body decorations, even the energy as the people are caught in the act of moving around. In the Nazi films, actions and physical features are further displayed since it is video footage. Just as the Nuba pictures capture the beauty of the bodies of the people, the Nazi film captures the beauty of the people in masses. The actions they perform together are shown in overwhelming aesthetic appeal through the view of the entire crown at once. From distant angles, Reifenstahl can truly display the splendor of such a large-scale mass, like footage scanning over an entire herd of animals on the savanna.
I do not think Riefenstahl ought to apologize for this art. Art is an expression that can be interpreted in many ways. For the creator, the interpretation is personal, much like a religion or political views of a person. Whether or not we agree with these views does not give us the right to suppress them in any way. In our country praising liberty, especially of the mind, we respect even the most questionable of groups (the KKK, for example.) As long as no physical harm is inflicted, we recognize a person’s right to think and express freely. Even if Riefenstahl’s work is intended as propaganda, it is still the viewer’s choice to believe in its purpose. As the receiving party of images, we must use dialectic methods of forming opinions, rather than straight consumption. Thus the work, however intended, is Riefenstahl’s own work, and she cannot force anyone to think a certain way simply through its exhibition.
Mary Devereaux does recognize Triumph of the Will as propaganda. But she seems to place the responsibility of the image on the viewer rather than on the art or the artist. “The more critical spectator is the one less likely to be victimized by the text.” Thus gaining background knowledge on the image can strengthen the lens through which a person views the image, making him or her less likely to be influenced naively by the opinions expressed in the propaganda.
Susan Sontag, however, points out the negative affect propaganda can have on people, and consequently the responsibility of the artist in demonstrating his or her views. Sontag claims that some works “prepare the way for a curiously absentminded acceptance of propaganda for all sorts of destructive feelings.” With her views on all the ways propaganda can be detrimentally influential to a person’s opinion, she would be on the side supporting an apology from Riefenstahl for her work. I do not think, however, that she would settle with only the apology.
3 comments:
I agree that in order to appreciate the artistic merit of a piece of art you must be unbiased, which of course, is nearly impossible. What you might look at is, if a person who had never heard of the Nazis saw this, what would they think? I also believe that you can try to conceal a piece's beauty by focusing on the intentions or possible meaning behind it.I like that you referred to the Nuba because these photos look beautiful right away, but then, as Sontag does, the beauty can be overlooked based on unbiased factors.
In regards to your view on the apology, I half way agree. Art IS a representation of the person who made it and thus should not be censored. "Triumph of the Will" however has to answer as more than just a work of art. It also has to answer as a documentary because that is what Leni and most of its original viewers saw it as. Manipulating the truth is very different from representing ones own ideas.
After reading numerous statements, I stumbled upon Morgan's post and it suddenly sparked a new way of viewing Riefenstahl's work for me. Morgan mentions the rights that artists have in the United States. She mentions freedom of expression in the form of freedom of speech. This right given to all United States citizens, however, does not protect them from criticism for their portrayed thoughts, feelings, or emotions. If we applied America's standards to Riefenstahl's art, we would notice that she has a right to film whatever event she desires in whatever form she desires it to be filmed, as long as it doesn't qualify as "obscene." Still, that right doesn't protect her art from criticism. As Sontag has clearly stated, she believes that Riefenstahl's "propaganda" caused support of Hitler and acted as a catalyst for the Holocaust. Although this may be true, people could argue up and down that skits from Saturday Night Live, Jay Leno, and shows like Crossfire cause an ever-increasing rift between democrats and republicans in the United States. This art, obviously, causes controversy and influences people to think a certain way. Although it might not be on the same scale as the Holocaust or support of Hitler, I think one of the things we must accept is that art has a never-ending affect on how people view their government, culture, and society. It's arts' responsibility to move people. I don't believe that an artist should apologize for what direction their viewer is moved to. If we forced that upon artists, popular culture would lose the majority of its power, influence, and meaning.
I don’t agree that Triumph of the Will appears to capture reality well. It only roughly is a documentary, and is far too artistic and grandiose to be an accurate account of the Nuremburg rally. Even though the film is a good example of mimesis, of recording actual events, the presentation of the film makes it too grand to be a literal documentary. To me, it looks more like a fictional account, like some sort of story playing out, than something real because of Riefenstahl’s presentation of the rally. She added music in order to change the tone of the film, and this makes it far too storylike because there is no commentator like in a documentary.
Also the extensive editing and staging done make this not a documentary at all. Riefenstahl and Speer planned the rally out for ideal filming, and only a small fraction of the film shot actually made it to the final version, and these fragments were done out of order to make a more cohesive development of Hitler and the rally than actually occurred.
Post a Comment