Ruth D. Post 3

Ruth E. Day

I believe that the argument that art is an extra-moral area is false. Haven’t we always been taught that quality art has a message behind it? I have and for this reason I have always judged art not only by its aesthetic value but by the quality of the message behind it as well. There are two levels of beauty: the superficial and the internal. It is my belief that the internal beauty is much more important in judging a piece of art than is the superficial beauty. Something can be outwardly ugly but still be beautiful because the message it is trying to relay is beautiful. Many works of surrealist artists illustrate this point. It is a commonly held belief that superficial beauty reflects the internal beauty. “Even those of us who are not Platonists are heirs to a Platonic tradition that identifies beauty and goodness, a tradition that conceives of the beautiful as consisting not only in giving pleasure to the senses but also in engaging and satisfying the mind and spirit.” (Devereaux, pg 250) Early followers of the Judeo-Christian religion believed that bodily deformities and diseases such as leprosy were punishments from God for sin. Even modern day culture holds to his belief. In most Disney movies, the villains are portrayed as ugly minions while the heroes and heroines are portrayed as beautiful. These sort of misconceptions give what is superficially beautiful a very dangerous power. For this reason the artist has a responsibility not to portray those things which are internally ugly and evil as beautiful and good.

Riefenstahl is the only artist that I have ever heard claim that they had created something for “purely aesthetic” purposes. “The line taken by Riefenstahl’s defenders, who now include the most influential voices in avant-garde film establishment, is that she was always concerned with beauty. This, of course, has been Riefenstahl’s own contention for some years.” (Sontag) In my experience all poets, painters, novelists, composers, and even filmmakers are proud of the internal message within their works. Indeed, it is my belief that if someone told any other artist that one of their works only had superficial appeal, that all the colors complimented each other perfectly, that the notes flowed in perfect harmony, that all of the words came together naturally, that the scenes flowed together perfectly, but it has no internal message, then the artist would be deeply offended. An artist has to have a purpose beyond the superficial for creating something beautiful. If they don’t, then why put in the effort?

It is for these reasons that I believe, though Triumph of the Will appears beautiful, that it is far from. It is obvious that the purpose of this film is to promote Nazi ideals. Though Riefenstahl may not have known what all of those ideals were, she must have believed in many of them to want to portray them as beautiful. Triumph of the Will portrays Hitler as some sort of deity. “The idea of a great historical figure or great man who has the will and power to actualize the true will of the German people was frequently dramatized in Nazi cinema. But Triumph of the Will is the only Nazi film that directly identifies this mystical leader with Hitler himself.” (Devereaux, 232) This idea of one messianic leader for the people of Germany is called “Ein Führer” (one leader) as is one of the three key ideas of National Socialists (Devereaux). There are shots of Hitler from a very low vantage point. This makes him seem all-powerful and superior to any other human. There is a long opening scene consisting of him coming down from the heavens in a plane and being almost worshipped by all the people around him. This idea of one all-powerful, all-knowing leader is itself evil. It is anti-Ameican. It is Anti-Democracy. It is ant-Christian. It can be said that this idea of a messianic leader coming from the heavens was derived from Christianity but in actuality it is a sick mutation of it, just as Al Qaeda is a sick mutation of the Islam religion. Triumph of the Will uses Christian symbolism to make Hitler seem like a second Christ. Since the main purpose behind Triumph of the Will is to glorify the idea that Hitler is the “Ein Führer”, the work and the art is evil and not good.

As I have discussed, the art that is Triumph of the Will is internally ugly. Superficially, however, it is beautiful. Riefenstahl makes it so by using ingenious camera angles and piecing together the different shots in an aesthetically pleasing manner. The music used enhances the visual beauty but it also does more to glorify the film’s evil purpose. This beautification of a very ugly idea, makes the art all that more evil and internally ugly. For these reasons, I believe that Riefenstahl and her art should apologize. In making Triumph of the Will she knowingly glorified Hitler, Nazis, and all they stood for. Although she may not have known all that they stood for at the time of the making of the film, she does know now and should have recognized the idea of “Ein Führer” as evil long before the film was even made. In fact, she mad four films that “celebrate the rebirth of the body and of community, mediated through the worship of an irresistible leader.” (Sontag) All four of these films were commissioned by the Nazi party. Devereax would agree that and art can not be judged only on aesthetic merit because she believed, especially in the case of Triumph of the Will, that the art and the message behind it were inseparable, “understanding a work of art consists in grasping and appreciating the relationship between its form and content, that is, the connection between the message and the means used to convey it.” (Devereaux, 244) Sontag held similar sentiments. She even found evidence of Nazi evil in some of Riefenstahl’s works that came long after the party was destroyed, “Riefenstahl is right on target with her choice as a photographic subject of a people who ‘look upon death as simply a matter of fate – which they do no resist or struggle against,’ of a society whose most enthusiastic and lavish ceremonial is a funeral.” (Sontag) Riefenstahl’s art is not good and is not beautiful. The fact that it is superficially beautiful makes it all the more ugly and evil because portraying evil as beautiful and lead people to believe that it is good and therefore foster the spread of evil.