Roger Hicks said:She was perfectly suited to the task of glorifying ANYTHING. Look also at the Nuba or her underwater photography.This is not a common talent. Its misapplication does not mean she wasn't good at it, and to compare her with Hitler as a painter is frankly risible.
If she'd been on the right side politically, she'd be lionised beyond belief. Because she did a lot of Nazi propaganda, her genius is understandably attacked. Few decry National Socialism more than I but to issue blanket condemnations is to abdicate from rational thought or artistic regard.
Cheers,
R.
blansky said:Since probably very few of us have lived in totalitarian regimes we probably have knee jerk reactions to certain things.
Her initial glorification of the National Socialism ideal, which was a political party that eventually took over the country, was originally pretty early on in the history of the regime. Whether she ever really knew the scope of the later madness of the regime, who knows.
Lindberg was a Nazi lover as were a number of prominent Americans, but does that mean he was a terrible pilot.
The people in Iraq that joined the Baath Party to get work, and I believe if you wanted govt work, you had to join, are they as bad as Saddam. There were many artists there worked at glorifying Saddam, are they criminals now.
I think we should be able to look at artistic works and determine if they are good, bad or indifferent by what they are, not by political or moral references to the artist or the time in which they operated.
Nobody here is saying that Hitler, National Socialism, or any of his policies were anything but abhorent, but does that mean that an artist that worked within that system should be negated because of it.
Michael
copake_ham said:Finally, going back "on topic" to the OP original posit. Is this one of the best sports portraits ever made?
Frankly, I don't think it is - even if I didn't know who the photog was. It's no more "great" than many pre-race closeups of runners in the blocks that you see on television! And, in fact, I think it was included on the web site page as a means of distracting viewers from the true nature of her work assignment at the 1936 Berlin Olympics. It certainly seems to have done so for you and a number of others here.
Will S said:I really didn't want to get into this, but here are just a couple of quick (hopefully) accurate factoids:
All Germans had to be evaluated after the war so that they could be "de-Nazified" and they were categorized from 1 (Nazi) to 5 (totally innocent). Reifenstahl was found to be a 4. I can't remember where I read that, but wikipedia says it as well.
The Great Depression was already over by 1939, though job levels didn't return to 1929 levels until 1941 (before Pearl Harbor). (I just confirmed this on wikipedia too.)
Will
blansky said:Using Wikopedia as a reference on anything is like using Osama bin Laden as a reference on religion.
Michael
Roger Hicks said:Dear Frank,
I'd certainly agree that she did a lot of better pictures. But equally, I think your point about 'distraction' is a red herring. As I said, I have seen a lot of her work, and my view is that she was a very great photographer, even if that isn't one of her best pictures (and as I've said, I don't think it was).
My real objection is to the idea that she was a Nazi and therefore can't have been a great photographer. This is exactly the same as saying that Alexandr Rodchenko can't have been a great photographer because he was a communist or that Mapplethorpe can't have been a great photographer because he was gay.
Cheers,
Roger
Hardly. Personally, I think this one is better.copake_ham said:Is the particular photo one of the best sports portraits ever made?
copake_ham said:Is the particular photo one of the best sports portraits ever made?
billschwab said:
copake_ham said:Roger,
My name is George.
Lukas Werth said:there were two great catastrophes in the middle of the 20th century alone, instigated by Hitler and Stalin.
Unfortunately I am not sure. The site credited it to Corbis.c6h6o3 said:Who did it?
Roger Hicks said:Dear Ben,
It's disputable how committed a nazi she was. Also, it is disputable how far she was a friend of Hitler, and how far they used each other for their own ends.
There are those who will hear only ill of her, and those who refuse to believe any ill of her. Having read a good deal about her, including two major biographies, I suspect that the truth lies somewhere between.
And regardless of which camp you fall in, she was a brilliant photographer. There's no law saying that great artists have to be nice people.
Cheers,
Roger
Helen B said:Im not suggesting that someones talent should be ignored because of the way they used it. On the contrary, I think that it is important to recognise and never forget that talent may be associated with repugnant ideals, and that repugnant ideals may be promoted by people with talent. I just find it impossible to dissociate talent from the way that it is used or to ignore context. To me, it is no coincidence of time and place that Riefenstahl produced perfect Nazi propaganda. Her pictures show an idealised, pure surface that does not invite you to look beneath. I asked those of you who think that we should ignore her involvement with the Nazis whether or not you had seen Triumph of the Will, and Im still interested in the answer. She sold Hitler very well I suspect that few would argue with that. Did she do it because she had no principles other than to advance her career, or did she do it because she believed in it?
Helen
Helen B said:... All I can say is that seeing Triumph of the Will gave me the strong impression that she believed in what she was doing. At the very least she must have understood Hitler's beliefs very well to have made it the way it was made...
Helen B said:I asked those of you who think that we should ignore her involvement with the Nazis whether or not you had seen Triumph of the Will, and Im still interested in the answer. She sold Hitler very well I suspect that few would argue with that. Did she do it because she had no principles other than to advance her career, or did she do it because she believed in it?
While researching a movie I heard many Nazi songs that I would not have heard otherwise. They were powerfully evocative, stirring masterpieces that obscured the underlying toxicity with the fog of personal valour and heroism. Forget the murder of eight million people and look at how well the talented creatives sold the stench? No. Lets remember them both together.
Best,
Helen
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?