Jenn Post 3

Jenn Shea

A.

In terms of aesthetics, Riefenstahl’s work is visually pleasing. The use of angles is perhaps the most intriguing aspect of her film Triumph of the Will. Riefenstahl set cameras at very interesting and varying angles in order to capture the moving images from all different perspectives. Disregarding any motive she had for including specific angles in her film, they allow us for example to see an appalling differentiation between the mass of Hitler supporters and S.A. troops versus the power of Hitler singled out. These two very contrasting images, without reference to their goal or meaning to the film, are in general a very captivating technique for an audience.

The music Riefenstahl recorded over the images is also a very effective aspect of her art. Perhaps working toward the idea of art being about visual beauty and not about meaning as it is interpreted, the lack of audible conversation allows for the viewer to focus solely on the visible images Riefenstahl is capturing through the use of the aforementioned angles.

B.

I personally do not feel Riefenstahl ought to apologize for her art. Regardless of whether or not I believe she had prior motives or messages in making this film and in using the techniques described above, I feel that such messages can change and evolve in the creation of art. I do not believe that the message must be predetermined in order to create a piece of art, but rather the message or ideas within a work of art are processed and are subject to change and adjustment throughout the development of the painting, movie, song, etc. I also believe that the artist should never be blamed for a message that is solely perceived by a viewer. I believe that all art is subject through interpretation by the eye of the beholder, and that even when an artist does have some message in mind when creating the art, the viewer is still responsible for determining the significance or meaning of the work in the context of his or her own life and ideals.

Sontag clearly has a very critical and cynical view of Riefenstahl’s work and perhaps for good reason only if you rely on the intentions of the artist when determining the beauty of artwork. Sontag bases most of her claims concerning Riefenstahl’s work as propaganda on the fact that Riefenstahl had a close relationship with Hitler and thus created the film from a biased view. She states that because of this, the film cannot be seen as a representation of truth. I feel that although it is true that a biased eye will manipulate the way in which we see the truth, the individual is still accountable for using his or her own knowledge of the actual in order to determine the message, and that for this reason Riefenstahl’s film can still be appreciated for its artistic merits. Sontag also tries to discredit Riefenstahl when she states that, “Part of the impetus behind Riefenstahl’s recent promotion to the status of a cultural monument surely owes to the fact that she is a woman,” which implies that there is no other reason for which individuals would take interest in Riefenstahl’s films. This idea can also be seen in Devereaux’s “Beauty and Evil,” when she discusses how women only have influence in films and as filmmakers because men see them as erotic objects.

On pages 136-137 of “Beauty and Evil,” Devereaux discusses how we can no longer look at art in regard to “‘autonomous’ aesthetics” because we have developed political, gender, and racial contexts as we view art. She also mentions that women are not exempt from this political bias. Thus, Devereaux would also have held Riefenstahl accountable for the way in which she portrayed Nazi Germany. She states that “To question art’s autonomy and universality need not imply that artworks are without value-quite the contrary-but their value may differ from what we once supposed.” Clearly, Devereaux, although she does not make any direct references to any of Riefenstahl’s specific films or of her credibility as a filmmaker, does argue similarly to Sontag in that art today is analyzed on a deeper level than visual and surface appearance, and that a viewer is much more subject to being influenced by the motives of the artist.

Brynne post 3

Brynne Piotrowski

Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will is worthy of commendation for its aesthetic form. It is a masterful work of cinematography, replete with innovations in filmmaking at the time of its production. The aerial photography is remarkably well shot, especially considering the equipment available at the time (i.e. no computer manipulation of clouds, the city below, etc.). Also adding to the aesthetic beauty was Riefenstahl’s use of different camera angles—such as those found in the scenes of Hitler’s motorcade (behind Hitler, from the crowd, above)—and tracks for moving shots. These techniques prevented the monotony of the typical newsreel. I found myself impressed at the huge masses of actual soldiers in formation because now it is almost a given that large groups are usually computer generated reproductions. I would label Triumph of the Will as aesthetically beautiful, but would not grant it the title of artistically beautiful because to me the artistic part also encompasses the meaning and purpose, not just formal components.

Honestly, I think an apology from Riefenstahl is a moot point. She went to her grave vehemently denying any interest in the political or propagandistic nature of Triumph of the Will, but history, her interviews, and the facts seem to rebut her claims to a great extent. I believe it would have been to Riefenstahl’s benefit to apologize after controversy arose around this film; partly because I believe the artist is responsible for his/her work in both form and function, and partly because perhaps Riefenstahl could have “moved on” and gotten past this hang up that still causes pause in a discussion of her filmmaking credits.

In Riefenstahl’s defense, she showed a lot of interest in making a “beautiful” film, as demonstrated by her five-month-long editing effort. Also, 1934 was somewhat early for the German public to realize Hitler’s eventual plans; at that point many Germans were looking to the National Socialist Party to remedy horrible economic conditions in their country. Nonetheless, Triumph of the Will is deplorable in its message and sentiments because of what the Nazi party (and through association this film) came to symbolize—hatred, anti-Semitism, death. Overall, I believe Riefenstahl had no reason to apologize at the time for her interest in making the film (artistically or aesthetically), but she should have later recognized what Triumph of the Will came to represent and offered an apology.

Devereaux would likely deem Riefenstahl as owing an apology for the film. The point in Deveraux’s writing is to argue that you cannot detach form and function in Triumph of the Will. She claims, “paying attention only to the formal aspects of the work (to the image and not to what it means)…fails in the case of Triumph of the Will because it requires us to ignore the essence of the film” (Devereaux 244). Devereaux endeavors to explain how it is possible to juxtapose beauty and evil in art, but impossible in this case to examine one of these aspects without acknowledging the other one. By this line of reasoning, Riefenstahl owes an apology because there is evil in the film that cannot be overpowered by its aesthetic appeal or cinematic accomplishments. I view Sontag’s writings as less authoritative due to the vendetta between her and Riefenstahl. The point of Sontag’s article (which is rather rambling) appears to be to disparage Riefenstahl as a person while still timidly promoting the ideas fascism and fascist art. It appears to me, rather surprisingly, that Sontag would likely not call for an apology and if she did it would only be on the grounds that Riefenstahl misrepresented Triumph of the Will and her other works in terms of authorship and the display of true fascism.

Tawny N post 3

Tawny Najjar

Before learning of Triumph of the Will, I had never considered the concept of displaying an evil as beautiful. Good art was mostly based on content, as well as technique and skill, and bad art was based on the negative content that it portrayed. Yet, despite the obvious evils portrayed in Triumph of the Will, the film was still both artistically and aesthetically beautiful, drawing on camera angles and scenes that instilled a feeling of social belonging and importance. In the opening of the film, the viewer is flying through the clouds, eventually overlooking the city of Nuremburg, soaring past towers and buildings, with the streets far below. The city looks peaceful, and the music used in the background is both elevating and calming. The scenes switched from one to the next with smooth transition, easily guiding the viewer from the beginning scene in the clouds to watching the shadow of a plane fly over the troops on the ground far below. Riefenstahl used several shots of flags and army formations, while keeping everything symmetrical and visually appealing. The music in the background also contributed to the film’s beauty. The music gave the sense of importance, and almost a feeling of happiness or goodness, giving the impression that the scenes to which it was playing were exuding a feeling of goodness and unity. As Devereaux commented on in her analysis of the film, Riefenstahl also used “several striking motifs: the swastika, the German eagle, flags, Albert Speer’s towering architecture, torches and burning pyres, moon and clouds, the roar of the clouds, and Hitler’s voice” (Devereaux 231). This use of motifs was to put emphasis on three main ideas from the National Socialist slogan, “One People. One Leader. One Empire.” The film emphasized the concept of unity, and almost made the viewer feel unified with the Nazi group as well. She also drew upon the concept of power, shooting scenes of tightly controlled army formations and parades.

The responsibility for this work of art, this film, lies with the creator. As Devereaux stated, “the reality it records is a reality that it helped to create” (Devereaux 239), implicating that this film assisted in the effort to win support for Hitler and his National Socialism. Riefenstahl should apologize for her work. Though she claims that the film was “purely historical…It is film verité. It reflects the truth that was then, in 1934, history. It is therefore a documentary. Not a propaganda film” (Devereaux 238). However, despite her denial of working to further the National Socialist movement, Riefenstahl was “a close friend and companion of Hitler’s well before 1932” (Sontag 3). She also made the film with “unlimited facilities and unstinting official cooperation (there was never any struggled between the filmmaker and the German minister of propaganda” (Sontag 3). After watching the film, it can be clearly seen as a work of propaganda, because of how it depicts Hitler and the National Socialist group. It makes National Socialism seem beautiful, which in turn makes the viewer think of it as good. The idea that Riefenstahl is guilty of placing messages of support of Nazism in her film is also supported by the fact the she never apologized or expressed regret for her film. She advocated that there were no underlying messages in her art, and that it was purely historical. This too calls into question her innocence and ignorance as an artist.

Amy I

Amy Iarrobino

Post 3

a) Riefenstahl’s work is artistically and aesthetically beautiful. She was a pioneer in German film-making, using moving cameras to follow the subjects and create novel angles unprecedented in the typical German documentaries. She also utilized varying camera angles with camera lifts in the flag poles, angles shot from the ground looking upwards and even aerial views from a plane. Of striking beauty was the opening flight through the clouds then showing of Nuremburg with the shadow of the plane on the street. Several scenes appeal to the eye due to their symmetry and formation. The parades are always balanced with formations on each side and the flags centered. I also noted that she closely followed the rule of photography called golden-thirds in which if one drew four lines dividing the frame into thirds both horizontally and vertically, the main image or focus should appear where two lines cross. This mathematical theory forms a visual appeal. She combines these techniques with symbolic images to create meaningful art.

b) I feel that Riefenstahl ought to apologize. She frequently contradicts herself which causes me to doubt her sincerity when she claims ignorance to her actions. For example, in her interview she vehemently claims she had nothing to do with the planning or staging of the parades and did not play a role in the “faked reality.” However, earlier in the interview she had complained that she wanted the parade organized with five flags but that higher officials said it would be too gaudy. However, if she had no involvement in the planning of such events and was simply a witness to events that would have occurred otherwise, than why would she have a say in the proceedings beforehand? She also attempts to absolve her guilt by saying that she could not foresee the dangers and atrocities to come during World War II. At first I sympathized with this statement, but as I think about it she made no later attempts to apologize for such actions and address the atrocities. I feel that if she had taken such actions I would look upon Triumph of the Will more objectively. Ignorance is not a valid defense. She continues to contradict the diaries of Goebbels as she claims that she was not on good terms with him and other high party officials. Goebbels’ diaries prove otherwise. Thus, I doubt her sincerity in all matters and feel that she indeed knew the message she was sending and needs to apologize as the context of the film has changed in the post-WWII era. Devereaux and Sontag also feel that Reifenstahl’s work has political intentions and thus should be apologized for. For example, Devereaux states that “Reifenstahl works with the themes of both unity and power, manipulating artistic form not only to create enthusiasm for Hitler and the National Socialists but to evoke fear” (Devereaux, 235). Devereaux also agrees with Kracauer’s charge of “faked reality” created by Triumph of the Will. Sontag is a nemesis of Reifenstahl for her harsh criticism of Riefenstahl. Sontag agrees with Triumph of the Will’s political motive by presenting evidence that Riefenstahl was indeed “a close friend and companion of Hitler’s well before 1932” (Sontag, 3). Sontag indicates that all four of Riefenstahl’s Nazi films are driven by the “worship of an irresistible leader” (Sontag, 5).

Ted Henderson Post 3

The question of whether or not an artist must take responsibility for their own work's moral effect on the public has been in debate for as long as art has existed in any significant form. A notable instance in which this question was, and still today is, up for debate was following the creation and public release of Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will. Triumph of the Will is the product of Riefenstahl's carefully planned out filming and editing of the 1934 Nazi Party Rally in Nuremberg, Germany. Riefenstahl claims that the film was made simply with with purpose of documenting a historical event in an aesthetically capturing and pleasing fashion. She maintained that, when making the film, she had no intentions of aiding Hitler and his party with propaganda, but was instead making the most technically high in quality work of art that she could.
Thus, before going any further into the debate of whether or not Riefenstahl should be held responsible for her film's appearing as Nazi propaganda and the effects such a film might have had on Germany at the time, the question must first be raised as to whether or not the film was artistically ingenious, and if so, what techniques were used to make it so? Well, certainly from a film critic's standpoint, the film would appear, most especially at the time it was made, to be a noteworthy piece of cinema, advanced in the techniques used to film it, and overall aesthetically well-organized and well-shot. First of all, the manner in which, through countless hours of editing through miles of film, Riefenstahl seamlessly switches from shot to shot displays a great deal of technical skill as a director and an editor. When the camera swiftly moves from shots of the smiling faces of fair-skinned, blond children to Hitler himself as he smiles upon and graciously waves to his supporters to the columns upon columns of infantry that, in unison, salute their leader as he passes by upon arrival in Nuremberg, one must certainly, after viewing this opening sequence, tip their hat to Leni for her effective use of smooth camera and angle change. Let us not overlook the shots taken from a plane of Nuremberg just before those of Hitler's arrival, in which a clear areal view of the city is able to be seen, certainly an innovative technique at the time, and quite useful in suggesting Hitler's having encompassed this city, and many others in Germany, in their entirety as his own, his people, his land, his rule, his. Then, of course, there is the real meat of the film, the images of the Nazi Rally. These images display mostly overhead views of the massive Nazi Army and its ritualistic, and impeccably formed march. Unlike the opening scene in which some of the faces of the civilian crowd which greets Hitler are closed in upon, there doesn't seem to be a single closeup of any one member of Hitler's army during the rally. The only face, in fact, that is filmed up close is, you guessed, the leader of this mass of people, Hitler himself. He is the individual, the voice in the group. The rest of the nearly eighty thousand at the rally were simply that, the group. A group shot from such high-up angles as to make them appear as ants marching in perfect symmetry, saluting the highly exalted leader in unison as nothing more than a singular army, as if they were microscopic, nearly insignificant pieces of one supreme puzzle, utterly expendable, and meaningless without the group. As Riefenstahl's cameras slowly but intently move along their tracks, the realization of just how massive and completely entranced by this singular leader the group of soldiers at the rally truly is becomes clear as a well-polished lens.
After the fact is established that Riefenstahl did, in The Triumph of the Will, create an effective piece of aesthetic work, and when it is also quite clear that the vast majority of the images that appear in the film can be seen as, and most likely are by nature propaganda, one must ask if the creator of this piece of cinema is at all responsible for the effect that the work might have on a nation such as Germany at the time. In my opinion, Riefenstahl had much more knowledge of Hitler's intent in having the rally filmed, especially his intent in using a director such as herself, whom he knew had a knack for bringing about certain "messages" and "effects" through her innovative techniques. Riefenstahl had every opportunity to refuse filming the rally, and in doing so, to send the message to Hitler and other Nazi leader that she would not be used as a tool for furthering the image of Hitler's domination of Germany in the eyes of its civilians. It is likely that the event still would have been filmed, even without the assistance of Riefenstahl, but it is also likely that, without the very artistic vision and skill she continuously argued as a defense for why she took part in the filming, The Triumph of the Will would not been nearly as well-known and viewed publicly because it would not have been as intriguing, and therefore, would not have been as effective a piece of propaganda for a party of maniacal tyrants. Leni Riefenstahl simply had to know, to some extent, what she was creating in her filming of this rally. It is so clear, when one sees the film, that the massive army at the rally is meant to be seen as a singular unit under one individual's power, and this unit is only shown at a good distance from above so as to emphasize its being on the "ground level" of power in German society at the time. In contrast to this, Hitler is given many flattering close ups, and is often viewed when signaling his troops with a salute from the angle of a camera looking up from underneath him. This a classic technique used when trying to portray an image of power and strength, and for God's sake, a professional director such as Riefenstahl knew these from day one of filming The Triumph of the Will. She did not have to take part in the filming of the 1934 Nazi Party Rally, she did not have to spend over a year carefully editing the film, she did not have to demand specific camera placement (mostly those from areal views such as her cameras which moved vertically on the very poles that upheld giant Swastika flags), she did not have to do any of this, but she did. She did all of this, she took credit for all of this when accepting awards for the film just two years after making it, and only now, when the truth of Hitler's intentions and wickedness as a leader is blatantly clear to all the world, only now does she jump through leaps and bounds to separate herself from the intended meaning of the film, and from any close affiliation with Hitler, Goebble, and other Nazi leaders with she was known to be on extremely friendly terms at the time of Triumph's filming. Smells like self-defending ScheiBe to me!

DIRECTIONS, Post 3

Blog Critical Reflection #3

Some who consider art an extra-moral area argue we should judge it solely by artistic and aesthetic (formal, technical) criteria, and not evaluate it in terms of moral goodness or badness. This idea is summed up in the claim that “art does not apologize;” it holds that the artist is responsible foremost to making high quality art, not for how that art is then used in the world (its consequences/impact). Drawing on examples of Riefenstahl’s work, consider:
(a) is it artistically/aesthetically beautiful or ugly, and what techniques make it this way? (specify as many formal components as you can).
(b) Do you think the art, or Riefenstahl, ought to apologize? Why or why not--? Consider the different arguments made by Devereaux and Sontag in their articles: what would each say to this question, and what point is each making about Riefenstahl’s work?

Shea post 2

Shealyn Fuller

Post 2

Plato

COMPOSED UPON WESTMINSTER BRIDGE, SEPT. 3, 1802

Earth has not anything to show more fair:

Dull would he be of soul who could pass by

A sight so touching in its majesty:

This City now doth, like a garment, wear

The beauty of the morning; silent, bare,

Ships, towers, domes, theatres, and temples lie

Open unto the fields, and to the sky;

All bright and glittering in the smokeless air.

Never did the sun more beautifully steep

In his first splendour, valley, rock, or hill;

Ne’er saw I, never felt, a calm so deep!

The river glideth at his own sweet will:

Dear God! The very houses seem asleep;

And all that mighty heart is lying still!

-William Wordsworth

I would argue that this poem by William Wordsworth excels not only as a romantic poem in its ability to provoke “emotion recollected in tranquility”, but as a work of art whose content constructively impacts the state. Its strict adherence to iambic pentameter and general rhyme scheme reflect the structure and order of the city which is so admired throughout the poem. There is an extended sentiment that organized society surpasses nature in its embodiment of goodness that is supported by the first line “Earth has not anything to show more fair” and the 5^th line “The city not doth, like a garment, wear the beauty of the morning”. By capitalizing “The City” and granting it control over sunlight and atmosphere, such that it may “wear” them as it pleases, Wordsworth implies that a structured state becomes, of itself, more powerful than basic nature that is has conquered. These suggestions, along with the elevated language that brings them to life, inspire the idealistic image of a tall, proud, and gleaming achievement of mankind within the reader. It is my opinion that these emotions – pride and accomplishment - are most important to the provocation of forward motion in this state because they are widely pedaled as primary American values.

Plato might allow this poem to slide by his state’s many artistic restrictions for some of the reasons mentioned above, as well as some others. True, Wordsworth certainly fits Plato’s (or Socrates’s) label for artists as “A creator of appearances” (Chapter X, 2). The first section of the poem could be passed off as nothing but a city’s physical description as it appeared to Wordsworth. This does not offer truth, according to Plato, only an imitation. So why is it valuable?

I believe that Plato would agree that my impression of “The City” as a force beyond that of nature is one with a positive influence on the state. If included as members of the state, or of society, the people will come to feel that power by mere association. However, as it is presented in the poem, there is no way to maintain that power if one is apart from the state. This concept of unity towards a common goal is in accordance with the dialogue of Chapters 2 and 3 of Plato’s Republic, throughout which there is frequent mention of what must be done for “the public good”. This unity of purpose is also emphasized by the author’s choice of morning as the time. The city, the state, is at its greatest “majesty” when all its members are together in the common act of sleeping.

This is a photograph taken during the early 1900’s in America, a period referred to as the “Progressive” period. Following the industrial revolution, progressivism focused on social and economic reform for the benefit of the working man and the protection of democracy from political corruption. This photograph was likely taken by a “Muckraker”, one who strives to expose societal flaws for the purpose of having them investigated and repaired. I am conflicted about whether or not this image supports forward movement by the state. It had been my opinion that thorough examination of social problems, and action towards the elimination of those problems, was the best policy a government could follow. Now though, I think that this image’s position as either stirring or restrictive depends on one’s own interpretation of “movement forward” in relation to a state. Dwelling on the imperfect present hardly seems actively productive. Simultaneously though, how is progress possible without reflection on the issues that must be addressed? And how can these issues be adequately addressed if empathy for those who suffer is prohibited? Ultimately I find it impossible to agree that this image really does work to bring the nation forward, at least not directly.

Plato, however, would not have such a quarrel in reaching his decision to ban this image from the eyes of his state. It is made quite clear that Plato’s republic will be one of logic and rationality rather than emotion and empathy. “That we should order our affairs in the way which reason deems them best; not like children who have had a fall, keeping hold of the part struck and wasting time setting up a howl” (Chapter X, 10) is the desired sentiment of Plato’s ideal state. Movement forward would be inhibited by those things, like this picture, that “delight in giving way to sympathy” (Chapter X, 11). His society, which would be well aware of the necessity of controlled passions and virtue (Chapter , 12), would have no need for emotional reminders like this picture and would instead be able to better themselves with logic and reason alone.