Conference back40::soapbox

>    -How much responsibility does an artist have if their works are used
>    to encourage abominable acts?

Artists aren't absolved of personal responsibility for their works/activities
any more than anyone else should be.

>    -To what degree should we punish people who collaborated with those we
>    now see as having been the minions of evil, although that may not have
>    been clear then?

You said it right here -

>    still condemn her as a Nazi sympathizer who has never apologized for
>    helping Hitler.

This is what she'll have to live with. But not for much longer.


She helped him. She doesn't deny it. she's getting what she deserves. That's
not to say that others haven't gotten away with similar, and wrongly so.

    Artists are responsible first and foremost to themselves. An artist who
    panders to popular tastes and political whims is no longer an artist
    but a common labourer. That political ideologists use art as a vehicle
    for their messages is a tribute to the importance of an artists work.
    By definition an artist does not try to change the world they try to
    understand it. By understanding the world it may be changed but an
    artist has no business at all trying to change the world. It is
    unfortunate that some artists have been used by evil ideologists to
    further their goals, but again, for the artist it is a tribute that
    important and powerful people see their work as important ant timely.
    If this woman/artist allowed Hitler to DIRECTLY influence and thereby
    change the direction of her work then yes she is responsible but if she
    followed her own mind, came to her own conclusions, represented a world
    the way she understood it then she is not responsible.
    
    To what degree should we punish people who collaborated with..? How
    many Western (axis powers) capitalists supplied the nazi war machine
    with their tools of destruction? How many high ranking political
    figures knew the extent of nazi activities? 
    
    You could say that the whole world collaborated with the nazis and all
    are responsible and even come up with a fairly convincing arguement to
    prove it. If we assume the whole world is responsible then it is a
    matter of determining the degree of involvement and then delivering
    punishment based on that.
    
    chris
    

    Is "Triumph of the Will" available on videotape ?
    						Jim

    The real question is, how responsible for the message was she,
    and how responsible for the presentation was she? If the
    message wasn't her own (i.e. producer/writer), and she was
    merely a technical/artistic contributor to the presentation
    (i.e., director) then she's not at all responsible. Same thing
    with painters and others who did what amounted to commissioned
    work for Hitler. All this hind-sight B.S. is good, but who
    could have known in 1936 how far it all would go? And from
    the work I've seen, her films were completely nationalistic.
    I don't recall her getting into the Jew-hating thing, just
    the "rah rah Germany" stuff. Which is pretty much the way
    most Germans were at the time... they might not have loved
    Jews, but I doubt anywhere near a majority _ever_ supported
    genocide. It was done in secret as much to keep the German
    populace from knowing as it was to keep foreign governments
    from knowing.

    It's a very modern phenomenon that the artist does exactly
    what the artist wants, and even that's pretty rare. Usually,
    it's the artist does what the artist gets paid to do. That's
    the way it's been through history. We don't get mad at
    Beethoven because of Napoleon. It's the reality of history -
    those with power/money control art as much as they control
    everything else.

    -b

I do hope I get to see this show on evyl PBS.

Poor Leni.  She happened to have a patron who turned
out to be the bastid of the century.  Well, maybe not
_the_ BOTC, but close.  Stalin comes to mind.

But, patrons are good for an artist's career.  She 
probably considered herself very lucky and just 
decided to ride the wave.  Kinda like Albert Speer,
Hitler's darling architect.

    
    Just a side note:
    
    As I heard the story, Leni was actually Hitler's second choice.
    
    His first choice was Fritz Lang, after being dreadfully impressed
    by `Metropolis'.  Fritz was no fool; he accepted Hitler's offer, 
    then fled the country very shortly afterwards.
    

    But Volkswagon apologized for their part in the war effort...correct?

	The documentary is quite interesting; the final moments quite
	telling, I thought.  As she views her own film and points out
	the use of camera angles, etc., her fascination with the medium
	and ability to separate that from the subject matter seems 
	genuine.  An uncompromising artist.  Also as Brian said, the film was,
	to her, pro-Germany, not anti-Semite.  She was not able to see,
	at that time, what horrors lay ahead.  

    > But Volkswagon apologized for their part in the war effort...correct?
    
    Yes Pookie, but Germany wasn't at war in 1936...
    
    -b

Wacko Jacko really likes her work.  Has anyone
else subjected themselves to his latest tribute
to himself?  The one where he marches with the 
troops?  And that statue?  Very reminiscent of
Leni's style.

Mike's already bowed to the objections to his 
questionable lyrics...he's changing the words...
but I digress...

    	I wonder how all those makers of American war propoganda films
    	during WWII would have been viewed today (and for that matter,
    	Ms. Riefenstahl) had Nazism won over democracy.

Propaganda.  Didn't they teach you how to spell it in Catechism class?

        
    1)
    > Artists are responsible first and foremost to themselves. An artist who
    > panders to popular tastes and political whims is no longer an artist
    > but a common labourer.
    
    This is why the concept of a "starving artist" is so common.  You 
    distinction between an artist and a common labourer I find rather high
    handed. It seems, by your definition, that we are all common labourers if 
    we do things that others like.  But the fact is all artist, until recent
    history, were "common labourers".  They produced works for their patrons.
    If their patrons liked what they did, they got to eat this month.  If
    not, they got to spend this month looking for a new patron.  This, in my
    rarely humble opinion, is the way things ought to be.  We each have a
    choice to make, we make things that only we like, and starve.  Or we
    produce works that others like as well, and we enjoy that monetary
    fruits of our labor.  In my opinion, the NEA is a travesty against
    nature.  It is an abomination that should be destroyed at the first
    opportunity.
    
    2)
    > ... but an artist has no business at all trying to change the world.
    
    You should tell this to some of the PC crowd.
    
    3)
    > If this woman/artist allowed Hitler to DIRECTLY influence and thereby
    > change the direction of her work then yes she is responsible but if she
    > followed her own mind, came to her own conclusions, represented a world
    > the way she understood it then she is not responsible.
    
    How can this woman be anymore guilty than say, the guy who drove the
    truck that happened to be carrying the poison gas to the concentration
    camps?
    
    
    4) Minor Nit:
    
    > How many Western (axis powers) capitalists supplied the Nazi ...
    
    We were the Allies.  They were the Axis.
    
    
    > You could say that the whole world collaborated ...
    
    This is my point in #3
    
    re: .7

    > But Volkswagon apologized for their part in the war effort...correct?

    Why did they do that?  They were just trying to win a war.  What is
    wrong with that?  Besides if they really ment it, why did they keep
    making the VW Bug after the war.  If that isn't an act of war, what is?

    :-)
    Dan

    
    Dan,
    
    What he meant by "western (axis powers) capitalists who supplied
    the Nazis" were businessmen from Germany, Vichy France, Italy, etc.
    Those countries are still Western.
    
    
    
    
    Rob
    

    > What he meant by "western (axis powers) capitalists who supplied
    > the Nazis" were businessmen from Germany, Vichy France, Italy, etc.
    > Those countries are still Western.
    
    Care to explain these statements ?
    
    Dan

    Sine when were western nations known as axis powers?

>> ... but an artist has no business at all trying to change the world.
    
>    You should tell this to some of the PC crowd.

What does this mean?

    
      The Nazis were actually nearly self-sufficient.  They designed and
     built their own weapons.  Raw materials were at first a problem, but
     once they learned to synthesize oil from their copious coal, they
     were pretty impervious to economic actions.  Even tremendous bombing
     and an absolute embargo could not bring them down.  Invasion was
     necessary.
    
      bb

    
    re 484.16,17
    
    Chris was referring to the Western nations that were Axis powers.
    Germany, Italy, and Vichy France were all Western nations, at least
    the last time I checked.  Western does not equal Allies.  What would
    you call them, Eastern nations?
    
    If you're going to try to convince me that the Allied landing at 
    Anzio was on the Eastern Front, you've got a tough sell ahead of
    you.  ;-)
    
    
    
    
    Rob
    

    The use of western just tends to confuse the issue.

I like mine with green peppers, onions, and lots of ketchup.

    > >> ... but an artist has no business at all trying to change the world.
    > >    You should tell this to some of the PC crowd.
    > What does this mean?
    
    It seems to me that the vast majority of PC artists are trying to
    change the world to fit their opinion of how things should be, for
    example Seanad O'Connor (sp), and Barbara Strisand (sp).
    
    Dan

>    It seems to me that the vast majority of PC artists are trying to
>    change the world to fit their opinion of how things should be, for
>    example Seanad O'Connor (sp), and Barbara Strisand (sp).

But what is a PC artist?  Or do you mean artists with questionable
liberal, pinko leanings?  Like the ones who voted for that Commie
Bill Clinton?

I just don't understand what PC means anymore, I guess.  It seems
that the people who call other people PC fancy themselves to be
un-PC which is PC in their eyes.

Didn't Sinead do a terribly unpolitically correct thing when she
ripped up the picture of the Poope?  Or was it politically correct?
Oh, I don't know.

    > But what is a PC artist?  Or do you mean artists with questionable
    > liberal, pinko leanings?  Like the ones who voted for that Commie
    > Bill Clinton?
    
    Exactly. Especially the voting for BC part... :-)
    
    -b

    
    I want to proactively discourage any speculation about whether 
    Leni Riefenstahl might have voted for Bill Clinton.  She may be 
    guilty of some crimes, but nothing THAT heinous. ;-)
    

politically incorrect

>  She may be 
    guilty of some crimes, but nothing THAT heinous. ;-)

Ah, then we can safely say that she was politically incorrect.