| |
|
Just a musing based on something that came up as a result of a music thread. Rammstein landed in hot water for using some Leni Riefenstahl film from the '36 Olympics in a filmclip of theirs a couple of years ago. The band claimed that they liked the aesthetics of the film, while the press claimed it was Nazi sympathy in action. (NME, Sonicnet) quote:In a statement they declared: "We are not Nazis, Neo-Nazis or any other kind of Nazi. We are against racism, bigotry or any other type of discrimination." They added that they had used the film simply as an example of a visionary work of art, rather than to endorse Nazism or facism.
A spokeswoman for the Anti-Nazi League applauded the band's strenuous denial of any Nazi links, but added: "I still think they are misguided on the Leni Riefenstahl front. They really should've been a bit more upfront about what they are trying to say. You have to be very clear in your message when you use those kind of images."(Related: can't remember if U2 got the same sort of press when using some of the same sort of film in some of their ZOO-TV shows. I think it was Triumph of the Will but can't be sure.)
What I'm wondering is this: can the pieces of art produced by people working under regimes, dictatorships and the like ever be viewed purely in terms of the object themselves? Can one admire the lines of Speer's designs, for example, while being vehemently anti-Nazi? Or would one be decried as a sympathiser, rather than just as someone who's appreciating a well-made, or elegant sculpture, or a piece of pleasing architecture? Obviously, there is art produced that will remain unacceptable, and rightly so - blatantly racist propaganda is unacceptable at any level, really. Personally, I'd not choose to look at it for my own enjoyment, so I'm not including it in the locus of this discussion, really - I'm talking more about less overtly narrative creations. I guess I'm focussing on sculpture and architecture, basic graphic art at a stretch, rather than graphic/pictorial art. I'm not contesting that there is bad propaganda, on any side in any conflict - but can some art that escapes the typical (dis)information poster type, produced in these times, be looked at without the prejudice of the theories of its originators? Maybe not the art as a whole, but on an individual, piece-by-piece level?
(Tangent: is all art propaganda? The magnitude is different, and it's an over-simplification of the matter, but is there validity to the assertion? Or is propagandist art naught but government advertising bumph?)
Cathedrals, for example, are often cited as being of amazing artistic value - though many (most?) were constructed by an oppressive religious organisation, with bad labour practices. Yet they're considered beautiful, despite this. Can we ever disassociate the creation's comissioning body and admire the pieces of art just as pieces of art, not as loaded statements of authority and philosophy? I'm thinking about things like those gigantic Socialist statues that've been dismantled now, in Russia; the giant Lenins, or the Mother Russia-type constructions. Will they ever be able to be critiqued just as sculpture, not as reminders of the government that churned them out?
Political associations seem to stick. I wonder if Ezra Pound would've had so much shit had he not been as pro-fascism as he was? It seems that even now, his work (OK: text, not fine art, but I think it's valid) seems to be prefaced with a passing mention to his fascist leanings. Did Shostakovich rewrite history by saying, after Stalin's death, that he had coded dissent into his works? His works are prized, on one level, because he was anti-Stalinist and said that his compositions parleyed this. But the works were nonetheless produced under the remit of the state, and had to meet the approval of same; how come he's allowed some measure of recognition, whereas other artists, known or unknown, who may have been objectors on a personal level, maybe hidden, aren't? Is it simply because he's said he was bucking the system? Are those who, like Riefenstahl, say they were unaware of what was really going on, because they were existing in a rareified atmosphere, able to be viewed as creating their art in what amounted, essentially, to a vacuum?
Will the art of the Nazis and their ilk ever be given some sort of aesthetic appreciation in years to come, as the viewer becomes more remote from the circumstances surrounding its generation? Or will their acts deny them that appreciation? Is there some way that someone who appreciates the art made under the remit of highly-controlling government/cabal will ever be able to do so without being thought of as a supporter of that organisation? It just strikes me that it's one area where criticism on an artistic level isn't encouraged. Rightly so, in most cases - but should it apply as a blanket-application? There are things about tension and simplicity of design that can be learned from in some of the art produced here, in some of the films made here - but is this negated because of the circumstances of its production? What happens when one comes across a piece of art that one liked immensely, and only discovered it was Nazi after the fact? Would that discovery force a change of mind, or would one's view stay the same? Or, rather, should it?
NB: I'm not making a statement either way about whether they should be perceived as good or bad, aesthetically - I'm asking whether they should be or can be given the chance to be evaluated as such.
Aside: there was, about three months ago, an exhibition in London of fascist statuary, I think - I remember seeing it discussed on a panel program with Germaine Greer, amongst others, on it. Anyone know anything about it? I can't find any links, though it did capture my interest at the time - the debate tended much towards questions in the preceding text.
(Not-quite-related bit: in politically-charged art, is the viewer's experience sometimes where the application of kitsch is applied - I'm thinking in terms of some of the objects produced to celebrate Mao's China, for example - to defuse the original intent of the piece? Is this a subliminal disassociative act to remove the propaganda from its purpose?)
Fuck, this is probably more head-shop, but I've started here, so... here it stays. Disorganised post, apologies, but - it interests me, and I wanted to get it up before I head home for the night. I'd like to maybe turn this into an article for the Zine, but want to get some discussion done beforehand. This is a surprisingly hard topic to write on.
[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: Rothkoid ] |
|
|
