Art, Messages, & Artists

Yesterday, Dean Esmay posted a lengthy post on Leni Riefenstahl in which he considers whether or not it is possible to separate the art from the artist. It's a very interesting question - one that has made me think ever since I first looked at the post yesterday - and one that I think brings on a side question: is it possible to separate the message from the art?

As Dean noted at the end of his post, there is no clear or simple answer. Reason being the answer is unique for each of us and may even be unique for each individual instance. This isn't a factual question, like mathematics; it isn't even a theoretical debate like economics. This is, at its root, a personal feeling that virtually cannot be influenced by others. Either we can separate them or we can't.

Let's take the Triumph of the Will, the one film that seems to be the most tightly woven into the perception that is Leni Riefenstahl. A documentary of the 1934 Party Congress, it carries an underlying, morally repugnant message of the grandeur and glory of the Third Reich. Outside of a few neo-Nazi skinheads, I don't think that anyone would be at all sympathetic to the message of the film.

First question I come to when looking at a movie like Triumph is can I separate the offensive message contained within to see the beauty and skill in the actual artistry of the film? Some people cannot - the message is simply too overpowering, too obvious. Personally, I can separate the message from the art. Does it make me a bad person to do so? Those who cannot separate the two may think so - and from their point of view, they would be justified. We all get outraged by people who see something worthwhile in something that we view as patently offensive. I felt the same way towards people who thought that the crucifix in urine was art - I simply could not understand how they could find anything redeeming in that image (I still can't, but that's beside the point). So there are times when I can separate and be offended by the message of the art, while still appreciating the artistry involved.

The other question - and the one which Dean posed - is can you separate the art from the artist?

Again, it is a deeply personal issue. Triumph I view more as a reflection of the time and society from which it was created than I do as a reflection on Leni Riefenstahl. I believe that each of her films is capable of standing on its own artistic merit. Her films are not great because Leni Riefenstahl was associated with them, instead she is held in high regard because she was associated with films of such artistic merit. Can everyone or should everyone be able to make this distinction? No. Again, personally, I vary from person to person. For instance, I can't stand anything from Quentin Tarantino. But, it's because I believe his movies are successful because they are his, not vice versa. And after watching less than half of Pulp Fiction, I decided I never wanted to waste any more of my life on his tripe again. But other people love his movies. Does this mean that I'm wrong not to separate Pulp Fiction from Quentin Tarantino? No. It is a personal decision; a personal choice and one that I have to live with the consequences of.

None of this is intended to be a foray into moral relativism. The unmistakable message of Triumph, and Olympiad to a slightly lesser extent, is revolting. Just because I am able to see past the message to the art and to the unique genius of the artist doesn't mean that I condone the message. If you can't see past the message, that's ok. There is no absolute answer available here. Different art speaks to different people in different ways.

The work of Leni Riefenstahl isn't the only art where I see these issues at play. I see it also in the Moscow Subway and the Coliseum in Rome. The Moscow Subway is generally considered to be one of the architectural gems of the world, yet it was designed so magnificently to promote to the world the grandeur and greatness of the Stalinist Soviet Union - not exactly a model of virtue by any reasonable standard. It, too, celebrated and propagandized for a regime that murdered tens of millions, yet it is rare to hear people deploring it, or it's architects and engineers, as the symbol of a barbaric regime. The Coliseum in Rome was a great, glorified, public death chamber. Thousands of men and animals might die there in a single day, all for the amusement of the mob. It is the lasting symbol of a violent expansionist imperial tyranny that conquered most of the known world through force of arms. It is the symbol of a regime that practiced decimation as a form of military discipline. Yet no one is complaining about the artistic merit of the Coliseum.

Separation of art from the message or the artist is a personal issue. Some people can do it in some cases; some people cannot in some cases. The ability or inability to do so in a particular instance does not reflect in general on a person's intelligence or morality, it only reflects on their personal feelings about a particular work of art.

There is no clear cut, right or wrong, answer. Opinion is simply opinion, everyone has one.