Unless anyone's thinking of a mass purge surely it's up to each and every individual how they square their enthusiasm for a particular artist with whatever that particular artist did or failed to do in life and I don't think there's anything to be gained from criticising their decision.
I would not hire a plumper who had engaged in sexual misconduct either.
Why? What does sexual misconduct have to do with how well someone can fix a sink? Is this some kind of weird “thou shalt not touch or in any way engage with anything unclean, lest you also become unclean” purity thing?
I don't want a "plumber" (or electrician or realtor or painter) who committed sex crime in the past coming into my house where my spouse, children, grandchildren may be present ... nor would I feel comfortable having a (former) bank robber/embezzler handle the finances for my grandmother or a local charity organization ... It's not a question of "forgiveness," but rather of trust ...
Just so, e.g., I never supported William Jefferson "Slick Willie" Clinton for POTUS, and chose instead to vote "third party" in '92 and '96 ... His well known horrid behavior toward women, his use of power to abuse them, his relentless unfaithfulness to his spouse all indicated serious character flaws that would hamper his ability to serve effectively in office ... None of my well-founded misgivings about him had anything to do with "forgiveness" or prudishness or any such things ... but only about his ability to do the job -- or not ...
Ok, but my whole argument is that when someone’s job is to write/play music their sexual (mis)adventures have no bearing on their ability to do it. A good song is just a collection of notes in a pleasing order, and those notes are exactly the same whether the writer is Zeke Demonsborne or Alice Puresoul.
We all make choices as to who/what we support either directly or implicitly ... Sometimes the choice is made from a practical position -- the lowest price ... and sometimes simply by personal preference ... and at other times by an ethical/social decision ...
I think a distinction should be made between the maker and the thing being made. I live near an armory, and although I am radically opposed to violence and weapons in all their form, I couldn't deny a factory worker who makes guns and armaments friendship or kindness.
Similarly, Ezra Pound's anti-semitism is repugnant and stupid, but I find his poetry to be sublime. I would not have wanted to know the man, but I delight in knowing his poetry. I don't think encountering the made objects of bad people is going to infect me, or others, in any way.
The person is not part of plumbing in the way that the person is very much part of a career in entertainment. And it is not about being allowed or not, that is a strawman.
If I understand what you mean, you mean that the plumbing that a plumber does doesn't retain any of their character or attributes - plumbing done by a nice plumber looks the same as plumbing done by a nasty plumber.
Whereas an actor, singer, or other entertainer is the product.
If that's what you mean, then I think I agree, and also think that Mr. Haas is far more like the plumber than the singer or actor in relation to his work.
I would not hire a plumper who had engaged in sexual misconduct either. The thing is, one would be unlikely to know. With a performer, one often does.
I suppose to err is human to forgive is divine isn't your style
One, Haas didn’t realise his sins and ask for forgiveness, he was caught, denied his guilt and then uttered an apology for being caught naughty. But not all crimes are equal anyway and forgiveness doesn't mean one must incur personal risk.
Recently, one third of the Haas-Haugen-Joncas triumvirate of Vatican II liturgical music has confessed to sexual misconduct. Earlier this year, advocacy group IntoAccount wrote: “Haas has allegedly targeted multiple women using techniques that abuse prevention experts identify as grooming, to create conditions in which women felt obligated to perform sexual favors in exchange for professional opportunities. His generosity, we are told, often came with a sexual price tag.” After denying all allegations for a period of time, Haas has posted a broad but nonspecific apology for past harms on his web site.
History is replete with composers, playwrights, visual artists, musicians, writers, and other luminaries who were complete assholes, either contemporaneously with the creation of their seminal works or in subsequent life. Richard Wagner, the 19th century composer and conductor of operas, published his antisemetic screed long after achieving fame and fortune. Similarly, the allegations regarding Haas' bad behavior postdate the publication of his most influential works.
John Bull (1562-1628), a major composer of church music in his lifetime, was credibly accused of various sexual indiscretions and abuses of authority.
I understand that Haas' compositions are being scrubbed from Catholic hymnody. I am not certain whether any of John Bull's works yet remain.
The questions then, purgatorially speaking, are:
1) What to do with art from imperfect artists, recognizing that all artists are imperfect but some are more imperfect than others (with apologies to George Orwell)
2) Whether it makes a difference when the artists' indiscretions of record occurred contemporaneously with their important work vs. long before or after.
Tricky question ...
St. Paul described himself as "the least of the Apostles, unfit to be called as an Apostle, because I persecuted the Church ..." ... yet his writings are in the Canon ...
and of course, St. Peter ("the Rock"), the first Pope, denied three times that he even knew who The Lord Jesus of Nazareth was ...
Then, there was King David ... adulterer, murderer ... (but we still ALL of us use the Psalms attributed to him ....)
I would not hire a plumper who had engaged in sexual misconduct either. The thing is, one would be unlikely to know. With a performer, one often does.
I would quite explicitly hire a plumber who has been to jail, although I wouldn't hire a plumber who I knew to be a convicted rapist to work in my home when my family was home. I'd hire him at a commercial site, or a construction site, though.
The former, because I absolutely believe that re-integrating criminals into society on their release from incarceration is a necessary part of helping them not re-offend, and that includes employing ex-criminals.
The latter, for the same reason as I wouldn't hire someone with a conviction for embezzlement to do my accounts, or a reformed alcoholic to be a barman.
If criminals, even of detestable crimes, are not reintegrated there will be greater recidivism. But not every former criminal deserves an all-access pass.
From what I’ve read, I’d be uncomfortable saying whether Haas has or hasn’t admitted any sins. There have been some public statements, some of which veer away from any admission of sins and some of which veer more toward it. We don’t really know what he has done (if anything) apart from those public statements.
And I’d say it’s not for any of us here to forgive him or to withhold forgiveness. That’s for his victims and others affected by his misconduct, which I’m assuming doesn’t include any of us posting on this thread. And for God, of course.
The question for us—at least those of us in churches where his music is sung—is whether what we know makes it inappropriate to continue to sing his music. I don’t think that’s a question about forgiveness. Perhaps it’s more akin to witness—what does is say for us to sing, or decide not to sing, songs written by someone accused of the things he is accused of.
From what I’ve read, I’d be uncomfortable saying whether Haas has or hasn’t admitted any sins. There have been some public statements, some of which veer away from any admission of sins and some of which veer more toward it. We don’t really know what he has done (if anything) apart from those public statements.
And I’d say it’s not for any of us here to forgive him or to withhold forgiveness. That’s for his victims and others affected by his misconduct, which I’m assuming doesn’t include any of us posting on this thread. And for God, of course.
The question for us—at least those of us in churches where his music is sung—is whether what we know makes it inappropriate to continue to sing his music. I don’t think that’s a question about forgiveness. Perhaps it’s more akin to witness—what does is say for us to sing, or decide not to sing, songs written by someone accused of the things he is accused of.
Ramblings as I think this through.
I can never know for sure, but I would not be shocked devastated disillusioned to learn that some of the very ancient ancestors who created the gorgeous Altamira paintings were horrible people who were guilty of all manner of inhumane sins ...
But ... In our *modern* time in the sort of communities we have built, we KNOW more about each other than may be good for us ... But then, The Confessional is ultra-private while a trial is conducted in public, and God help you if a crew from "60 Minutes" or CNN shows up at your front door ...
Recently, one third of the Haas-Haugen-Joncas triumvirate of Vatican II liturgical music . . . .
FWIW, Marty Haguen isn’t Catholic. He’s a member of the United Church of Christ, and much of his writing has been in a Lutheran context.
I know Haugen's music well and have played and sung it for worship many times, indeed as part of both UCC and ELCA services.
His work is widely used in Catholic services as well, and has stylistic parallels with compositions from Haas and Joncas. I have thought that these three composers define a certain style of hymnody and liturgy, and I am not the only one who thinks that.
Recently, one third of the Haas-Haugen-Joncas triumvirate of Vatican II liturgical music . . . .
FWIW, Marty Haguen isn’t Catholic. He’s a member of the United Church of Christ, and much of his writing has been in a Lutheran context.
I know Haugen's music well and have played and sung it for worship many times, indeed as part of both UCC and ELCA services.
His work is widely used in Catholic services as well, and has stylistic parallels with compositions from Haas and Joncas. I have thought that these three composers define a certain style of hymnody and liturgy, and I am not the only one who thinks that.
Their work is solidly in the Post-Vatican II liturgical reforms ... which ... sadly are fading away ... American Roman Catholic diocese and parishes are being pushed increasingly back toward PRE-Vatican II days ... The ELCA meanwhile continues to drift away from the Catholic mainstream into the vagueness of "general Protestant-ism" ... *sigh* ...
From what I’ve read, I’d be uncomfortable saying whether Haas has or hasn’t admitted any sins. There have been some public statements, some of which veer away from any admission of sins and some of which veer more toward it. We don’t really know what he has done (if anything) apart from those public statements.
It's unclear exactly what he's done and it's unclear exactly what he's admitted. The allegations against Haas are serious, credible, but vague and are contained in a letter from the advocacy group Into Account:
Although not my intended focus for the thread, I think there are difficult questions about the nature of his alleged conduct and its context. We are told he made unwanted sexual advances towards adult women who were considerably younger than him but over 18. Haas has never been a member of the clergy and therefore could not have had a pastor-congregant with these individuals. Reports do not indicate that they were his students or employees who he supervised. It is the power disparity between a high-achieving man in his 50s and aspiring woman who are much younger, and the allegedly systematic and serial approach towards creating opportunities for these relationships to become sexual, that make this so disturbing.
Hard cases make bad precedent. Absent the context of fame, power, and repetition of the same mistakes, there isn't much of anything notable about a divorced, middle-aged choir director awkwardly and boorishly pursuing a romantic relationship with an adult but younger soprano that ends badly. I recall a certain arguably more famous composer born in 1685 whose second marriage was to a 20 year old soprano; he was 35 at the time. Shall we purge the historical record of his works?
From what I’ve read, I’d be uncomfortable saying whether Haas has or hasn’t admitted any sins. There have been some public statements, some of which veer away from any admission of sins and some of which veer more toward it. We don’t really know what he has done (if anything) apart from those public statements.
It's unclear exactly what he's done and it's unclear exactly what he's admitted. The allegations against Haas are serious, credible, but vague and are contained in a letter from the advocacy group Into Account:
Although not my intended focus for the thread, I think there are difficult questions about the nature of his alleged conduct and its context. We are told he made unwanted sexual advances towards adult women who were considerably younger than him but over 18. Haas has never been a member of the clergy and therefore could not have had a pastor-congregant with these individuals. Reports do not indicate that they were his students or employees who he supervised. It is the power disparity between a high-achieving man in his 50s and aspiring woman who are much younger, and the allegedly systematic and serial approach towards creating opportunities for these relationships to become sexual, that make this so disturbing.
Hard cases make bad precedent. Absent the context of fame, power, and repetition of the same mistakes, there isn't much of anything notable about a divorced, middle-aged choir director awkwardly and boorishly pursuing a romantic relationship with an adult but younger soprano that ends badly. I recall a certain arguably more famous composer born in 1685 whose second marriage was to a 20 year old soprano; he was 35 at the time. Shall we purge the historical record of his works?
Obviously, as so often, each and every case must be considered as its own case with respect to the facts of THAT case and applicable laws, rules and regulations ...
In the David Haas case, Minnesota Statute 148A may apply if he as a teacher in his capacity as a teacher took sexual advantage of students under his tutelage ... The same statute applies to many professionals -- medical practitioners, therapists and counselors, clergy, et al. ..
People have this notion of art being something intensely personal, coming from the artist's very soul.
This is generally nonsense. It's especially nonsense for any art form that involves multiple people, which is to say the vast majority of art these days.
Judging art on the basis of the artist seems even more nonsensical than judging an artist purely on the basis of their art.
From what I’ve read, I’d be uncomfortable saying whether Haas has or hasn’t admitted any sins. There have been some public statements, some of which veer away from any admission of sins and some of which veer more toward it. We don’t really know what he has done (if anything) apart from those public statements.
It's unclear exactly what he's done and it's unclear exactly what he's admitted. The allegations against Haas are serious, credible, but vague and are contained in a letter from the advocacy group Into Account:
Although not my intended focus for the thread, I think there are difficult questions about the nature of his alleged conduct and its context. We are told he made unwanted sexual advances towards adult women who were considerably younger than him but over 18. Haas has never been a member of the clergy and therefore could not have had a pastor-congregant with these individuals. Reports do not indicate that they were his students or employees who he supervised. It is the power disparity between a high-achieving man in his 50s and aspiring woman who are much younger, and the allegedly systematic and serial approach towards creating opportunities for these relationships to become sexual, that make this so disturbing.
Hard cases make bad precedent. Absent the context of fame, power, and repetition of the same mistakes, there isn't much of anything notable about a divorced, middle-aged choir director awkwardly and boorishly pursuing a romantic relationship with an adult but younger soprano that ends badly. I recall a certain arguably more famous composer born in 1685 whose second marriage was to a 20 year old soprano; he was 35 at the time. Shall we purge the historical record of his works?
Not how this works. Abusing authority makes these things worse, but that does not make harassment without authority therefore OK.
I would not hire a plumper who had engaged in sexual misconduct either. The thing is, one would be unlikely to know. With a performer, one often does.
I would quite explicitly hire a plumber who has been to jail, although I wouldn't hire a plumber who I knew to be a convicted rapist to work in my home when my family was home. I'd hire him at a commercial site, or a construction site, though.
The former, because I absolutely believe that re-integrating criminals into society on their release from incarceration is a necessary part of helping them not re-offend, and that includes employing ex-criminals.
The latter, for the same reason as I wouldn't hire someone with a conviction for embezzlement to do my accounts, or a reformed alcoholic to be a barman.
Yes ... The question is not "forgiveness" but "trust" ...
So have we found a place where we draw the line. How has JK Rowling’s attitude to trans people affected how she is viewed. Yes she has not committed a crime but many are kind of treating her as if she has. People are turning their back on her and her work. Is this an acceptable level of imperfection?
So have we found a place where we draw the line. How has JK Rowling’s attitude to trans people affected how she is viewed. Yes she has not committed a crime but many are kind of treating her as if she has. People are turning their back on her and her work. Is this an acceptable level of imperfection?
Acceptable to whom? People who turn their back on her have every right to do so, and I can't see that they need your or anybody else's acceptance.
So have we found a place where we draw the line. How has JK Rowling’s attitude to trans people affected how she is viewed. Yes she has not committed a crime but many are kind of treating her as if she has. People are turning their back on her and her work. Is this an acceptable level of imperfection?
Is it necessary for there to be a collectively decided 'line'? Obviously it's essential to share information but when it comes to a moral response (leaving aside criminal proceedings) it's down to the individual to decide where their lines are.
So have we found a place where we draw the line. How has JK Rowling’s attitude to trans people affected how she is viewed. Yes she has not committed a crime but many are kind of treating her as if she has. People are turning their back on her and her work. Is this an acceptable level of imperfection?
Is it necessary for there to be a collectively decided 'line'? Obviously it's essential to share information but when it comes to a moral response (leaving aside criminal proceedings) it's down to the individual to decide where their lines are.
Whilst I agree with you, most people would draw the line at Gary Glitter say. Is that individuals all deciding or is that a community decision? Subconsciously coming together.
Whilst I agree with you, most people would draw the line at Gary Glitter say. Is that individuals all deciding or is that a community decision? Subconsciously coming together.
In the case of Mr. Paul Gadd, the decision of individuals who run radio and TV stations not to play his work is the important one, surely? You, personally, can choose whether to smash your Gary Glitter '45s, but you're basically irrelevant.
There are a number of individuals that boycott the work of fugitive rapist Roman Polanski, but the people that actually matter enabled him to continue making films, and awarded him prizes for doing so.
Whilst I agree with you, most people would draw the line at Gary Glitter say. Is that individuals all deciding or is that a community decision? Subconsciously coming together.
In the case of Mr. Paul Gadd, the decision of individuals who run radio and TV stations not to play his work is the important one, surely? You, personally, can choose whether to smash your Gary Glitter '45s, but you're basically irrelevant.
There are a number of individuals that boycott the work of fugitive rapist Roman Polanski, but the people that actually matter enabled him to continue making films, and awarded him prizes for doing so.
And of course his films continued to draw an audience.
There are some other factors worth considering as Polanski v. Glitter/Gadd is an interesting comparison.
Polanski is not a performer (he acted once but I think only once) which gives him a degree of invisibility. He's also made some very good films dealing with serious matters which gives him a lot of artistic credit. I'm not saying that mitigates the rape, merely pointing out that there exists a balance. If we condemn Polanski and his works we lose out on a substantial body of creative work.
Glitter/Gadd, on the other hand was all about the performance. He could not have been more visible and with his ridiculous wigs and bacofoil suits he was preposterous. And while I will forever have the pounding beat of Rock'n'Roll parts 1 and 2, and d'yurr'wanna'be'n'my'gang in my head there not exactly the equal of Chinatown or The Pianist.
Like it or not, we are far more likely to condemn artists who aren't actually very good than we are to condemn great artists even when their offence is similar.
From what I’ve read, I’d be uncomfortable saying whether Haas has or hasn’t admitted any sins. There have been some public statements, some of which veer away from any admission of sins and some of which veer more toward it. We don’t really know what he has done (if anything) apart from those public statements.
It's unclear exactly what he's done and it's unclear exactly what he's admitted. The allegations against Haas are serious, credible, but vague and are contained in a letter from the advocacy group Into Account:
Although not my intended focus for the thread, I think there are difficult questions about the nature of his alleged conduct and its context. We are told he made unwanted sexual advances towards adult women who were considerably younger than him but over 18. Haas has never been a member of the clergy and therefore could not have had a pastor-congregant with these individuals. Reports do not indicate that they were his students or employees who he supervised. It is the power disparity between a high-achieving man in his 50s and aspiring woman who are much younger, and the allegedly systematic and serial approach towards creating opportunities for these relationships to become sexual, that make this so disturbing.
Hard cases make bad precedent. Absent the context of fame, power, and repetition of the same mistakes, there isn't much of anything notable about a divorced, middle-aged choir director awkwardly and boorishly pursuing a romantic relationship with an adult but younger soprano that ends badly. I recall a certain arguably more famous composer born in 1685 whose second marriage was to a 20 year old soprano; he was 35 at the time. Shall we purge the historical record of his works?
Forgive me, but I want to take up the age difference thing. If the younger person is an adult, I really don't see what business it is of the general public to interfere in his/her relationships, however squicked out they may be by the age difference. Relatives may have something to say, or close friends; but an age difference is not de facto a power imbalance OR abusive. I know whereof I speak--I was 22 when I married a 40-year-old man, and we're still happily married 32 years later. I made my choice knowing full well what I was doing, I took four years to consider it, and I'm happy with how it turned out. And I would be enraged with anybody* who treated my young adulthood as if it were childhood--as if I needed protecting from myself at an age when I was otherwise considered fit to join the army, marry an age-peer, buy a house and enter into contracts, and the like.
* this of course excludes people who have a semi-right to make pains of themselves at any age, even when I'm 90--to wit, relatives and close friends. Not that I'll listen to them, but I will at least attempt to shut them down with a modicum of grace and awareness that they want the best for me, however misguided they may be.
Whilst I agree with you, most people would draw the line at Gary Glitter say. Is that individuals all deciding or is that a community decision? Subconsciously coming together.
In the case of Mr. Paul Gadd, the decision of individuals who run radio and TV stations not to play his work is the important one, surely? You, personally, can choose whether to smash your Gary Glitter '45s, but you're basically irrelevant.
There are a number of individuals that boycott the work of fugitive rapist Roman Polanski, but the people that actually matter enabled him to continue making films, and awarded him prizes for doing so.
And of course his films continued to draw an audience.
There are some other factors worth considering as Polanski v. Glitter/Gadd is an interesting comparison.
Polanski is not a performer (he acted once but I think only once) which gives him a degree of invisibility. He's also made some very good films dealing with serious matters which gives him a lot of artistic credit. I'm not saying that mitigates the rape, merely pointing out that there exists a balance. If we condemn Polanski and his works we lose out on a substantial body of creative work.
Glitter/Gadd, on the other hand was all about the performance. He could not have been more visible and with his ridiculous wigs and bacofoil suits he was preposterous. And while I will forever have the pounding beat of Rock'n'Roll parts 1 and 2, and d'yurr'wanna'be'n'my'gang in my head there not exactly the equal of Chinatown or The Pianist.
Like it or not, we are far more likely to condemn artists who aren't actually very good than we are to condemn great artists even when their offence is similar.
Leni Riefenstahl's epic film, "The Triumph of the Will," was highly regarded as the art film that it was ...
Leni Riefenstahl's epic film, "The Triumph of the Will," was highly regarded as the art film that it was ...
That's in the different category of things that espouse something vile but are in themselves well-done. I'm not sure too much opprobrium can be heaped on Riefenstahl herself, not least because the horrors of Nazi rule had barely got going in 1935.
Admittedly it's a small category as off-hand the only other contender I can think of is the tailoring of SS uniforms.
Leni Riefenstahl's epic film, "The Triumph of the Will," was highly regarded as the art film that it was ...
That's in the different category of things that espouse something vile but are in themselves well-done. I'm not sure too much opprobrium can be heaped on Riefenstahl herself, not least because the horrors of Nazi rule had barely got going in 1935.
Admittedly it's a small category as off-hand the only other contender I can think of is the tailoring of SS uniforms.
Then, there are the self-serving (apparently autobiographical) movies of Woody Allen, which are hardly morally uplifting, in particular now that we KNOW that his creepy interest in young young women was quite sincere on his part ...
Leni Riefenstahl's epic film, "The Triumph of the Will," was highly regarded as the art film that it was ...
That's in the different category of things that espouse something vile but are in themselves well-done. I'm not sure too much opprobrium can be heaped on Riefenstahl herself, not least because the horrors of Nazi rule had barely got going in 1935.
Admittedly it's a small category as off-hand the only other contender I can think of is the tailoring of SS uniforms.
Then, there are the self-serving (apparently autobiographical) movies of Woody Allen, which are hardly morally uplifting, in particular now that we KNOW that his creepy interest in young young women was quite sincere on his part ...
I don't require art to be morally uplifting. But Allen is in the category of someone who may (probably did in the case of Mariel Hemingway) have used his position to force his attentions on young women. In his case I probably could separate the art from the man, though I was never a fan of his work.
Leni Riefenstahl's epic film, "The Triumph of the Will," was highly regarded as the art film that it was ...
That's in the different category of things that espouse something vile but are in themselves well-done. I'm not sure too much opprobrium can be heaped on Riefenstahl herself, not least because the horrors of Nazi rule had barely got going in 1935.
In 1933, the regime established the first concentration camps, imprisoning its political opponents, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others classified as “dangerous.” Extensive propaganda was used to spread the Nazi Party’s racist goals and ideals.
Leni Riefenstahl's epic film, "The Triumph of the Will," was highly regarded as the art film that it was ...
That's in the different category of things that espouse something vile but are in themselves well-done. I'm not sure too much opprobrium can be heaped on Riefenstahl herself, not least because the horrors of Nazi rule had barely got going in 1935.
Admittedly it's a small category as off-hand the only other contender I can think of is the tailoring of SS uniforms.
Then, there are the self-serving (apparently autobiographical) movies of Woody Allen, which are hardly morally uplifting, in particular now that we KNOW that his creepy interest in young young women was quite sincere on his part ...
I don't require art to be morally uplifting. But Allen is in the category of someone who may (probably did in the case of Mariel Hemingway) have used his position to force his attentions on young women. In his case I probably could separate the art from the man, though I was never a fan of his work.
Part of the charming fun of Woody Allen's movies (used to be)(was) the self-deprecating self-referential often darkly humorous Existential angst, all the while presented as somehow playful ... But ... he turned out to be a Classic Dirty Old Man who actually enacted his irresponsible fantasies ... (sort of a non-political William Jefferson "Slick Willie" Clinton combined with Roman Polanski ... eeeuuuwww ... ) ...
Leni Riefenstahl's epic film, "The Triumph of the Will," was highly regarded as the art film that it was ...
That's in the different category of things that espouse something vile but are in themselves well-done. I'm not sure too much opprobrium can be heaped on Riefenstahl herself, not least because the horrors of Nazi rule had barely got going in 1935.
In 1933, the regime established the first concentration camps, imprisoning its political opponents, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others classified as “dangerous.” Extensive propaganda was used to spread the Nazi Party’s racist goals and ideals.
Yeah, barely got going.
Fucking hell
None of the awful things you cite were significantly worse than awful things practised at various times by many countries prior to 1933. What happened in the Holocaust was significantly worse than anything that had happened before in human history. That's what I meant by barely got going.
Should Riefenstahl have opposed what was happening in 1935 Germany? By our standards yes. But not when we judge her in context because her attitudes were shared by many other Germans at the time and it is difficult to condemn so many all at once.
Leni Riefenstahl's epic film, "The Triumph of the Will," was highly regarded as the art film that it was ...
That's in the different category of things that espouse something vile but are in themselves well-done. I'm not sure too much opprobrium can be heaped on Riefenstahl herself, not least because the horrors of Nazi rule had barely got going in 1935.
In 1933, the regime established the first concentration camps, imprisoning its political opponents, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others classified as “dangerous.” Extensive propaganda was used to spread the Nazi Party’s racist goals and ideals.
Yeah, barely got going.
Fucking hell
None of the awful things you cite were significantly worse than awful things practised at various times by many countries prior to 1933. What happened in the Holocaust was significantly worse than anything that had happened before in human history. That's what I meant by barely got going.
Should Riefenstahl have opposed what was happening in 1935 Germany? By our standards yes. But not when we judge her in context because her attitudes were shared by many other Germans at the time and it is difficult to condemn so many all at once.
Leni Riefenstahl's epic film, "The Triumph of the Will," was highly regarded as the art film that it was ...
That's in the different category of things that espouse something vile but are in themselves well-done. I'm not sure too much opprobrium can be heaped on Riefenstahl herself, not least because the horrors of Nazi rule had barely got going in 1935.
In 1933, the regime established the first concentration camps, imprisoning its political opponents, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others classified as “dangerous.” Extensive propaganda was used to spread the Nazi Party’s racist goals and ideals.
Yeah, barely got going.
Fucking hell
None of the awful things you cite were significantly worse than awful things practised at various times by many countries prior to 1933. What happened in the Holocaust was significantly worse than anything that had happened before in human history. That's what I meant by barely got going.
Should Riefenstahl have opposed what was happening in 1935 Germany? By our standards yes. But not when we judge her in context because her attitudes were shared by many other Germans at the time and it is difficult to condemn so many all at once.
I don't share your enthusiasm for judgement.
Everyone makes mistakes ... ??? ... The Holocaust -- *shrug* ... ??? ...
Leni Riefenstahl's epic film, "The Triumph of the Will," was highly regarded as the art film that it was ...
That's in the different category of things that espouse something vile but are in themselves well-done. I'm not sure too much opprobrium can be heaped on Riefenstahl herself, not least because the horrors of Nazi rule had barely got going in 1935.
In 1933, the regime established the first concentration camps, imprisoning its political opponents, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others classified as “dangerous.” Extensive propaganda was used to spread the Nazi Party’s racist goals and ideals.
Yeah, barely got going.
Fucking hell
None of the awful things you cite were significantly worse than awful things practised at various times by many countries prior to 1933. What happened in the Holocaust was significantly worse than anything that had happened before in human history. That's what I meant by barely got going.
Should Riefenstahl have opposed what was happening in 1935 Germany? By our standards yes. But not when we judge her in context because her attitudes were shared by many other Germans at the time and it is difficult to condemn so many all at once.
Leni Riefenstahl's epic film, "The Triumph of the Will," was highly regarded as the art film that it was ...
That's in the different category of things that espouse something vile but are in themselves well-done. I'm not sure too much opprobrium can be heaped on Riefenstahl herself, not least because the horrors of Nazi rule had barely got going in 1935.
In 1933, the regime established the first concentration camps, imprisoning its political opponents, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others classified as “dangerous.” Extensive propaganda was used to spread the Nazi Party’s racist goals and ideals.
Yeah, barely got going.
Fucking hell
None of the awful things you cite were significantly worse than awful things practised at various times by many countries prior to 1933. What happened in the Holocaust was significantly worse than anything that had happened before in human history. That's what I meant by barely got going.
Should Riefenstahl have opposed what was happening in 1935 Germany? By our standards yes. But not when we judge her in context because her attitudes were shared by many other Germans at the time and it is difficult to condemn so many all at once.
I don't share your enthusiasm for judgement.
Everyone makes mistakes ... ??? ... The Holocaust -- *shrug* ... ??? ...
A complete distortion of what I said. In 1935 I doubt Riefenstahl had any awareness at all of what the next ten years would bring and she was very far from alone in admiring Hitler. Much of Britain and the US admired Hitler in 1935. And do I really need to say the Holocaust was utterly awful, the worst atrocity in human history in intent if not in numbers killed?
Leni Riefenstahl's epic film, "The Triumph of the Will," was highly regarded as the art film that it was ...
That's in the different category of things that espouse something vile but are in themselves well-done. I'm not sure too much opprobrium can be heaped on Riefenstahl herself, not least because the horrors of Nazi rule had barely got going in 1935.
In 1933, the regime established the first concentration camps, imprisoning its political opponents, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others classified as “dangerous.” Extensive propaganda was used to spread the Nazi Party’s racist goals and ideals.
Yeah, barely got going.
Fucking hell
None of the awful things you cite were significantly worse than awful things practised at various times by many countries prior to 1933. What happened in the Holocaust was significantly worse than anything that had happened before in human history. That's what I meant by barely got going.
Should Riefenstahl have opposed what was happening in 1935 Germany? By our standards yes. But not when we judge her in context because her attitudes were shared by many other Germans at the time and it is difficult to condemn so many all at once.
Leni Riefenstahl's epic film, "The Triumph of the Will," was highly regarded as the art film that it was ...
That's in the different category of things that espouse something vile but are in themselves well-done. I'm not sure too much opprobrium can be heaped on Riefenstahl herself, not least because the horrors of Nazi rule had barely got going in 1935.
In 1933, the regime established the first concentration camps, imprisoning its political opponents, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others classified as “dangerous.” Extensive propaganda was used to spread the Nazi Party’s racist goals and ideals.
Yeah, barely got going.
Fucking hell
None of the awful things you cite were significantly worse than awful things practised at various times by many countries prior to 1933. What happened in the Holocaust was significantly worse than anything that had happened before in human history. That's what I meant by barely got going.
Should Riefenstahl have opposed what was happening in 1935 Germany? By our standards yes. But not when we judge her in context because her attitudes were shared by many other Germans at the time and it is difficult to condemn so many all at once.
I don't share your enthusiasm for judgement.
Everyone makes mistakes ... ??? ... The Holocaust -- *shrug* ... ??? ...
A complete distortion of what I said. In 1935 I doubt Riefenstahl had any awareness at all of what the next ten years would bring and she was very far from alone in admiring Hitler. Much of Britain and the US admired Hitler in 1935. And do I really need to say the Holocaust was utterly awful, the worst atrocity in human history in intent if not in numbers killed?
People who had been paying attention KNEW -- or had reason to know -- who and what they were getting with Hitler and the Nazis in 1933 ... A member of my own family came of age in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA in the 30s in a city which was then a hotbed of anti-semitic propaganda ... Even as late as the 90s, when there was a news account of The Israelis striking back against yet another terror attack, she shook her head and said, "Those Jews ... causing trouble again ..."
Leni Riefenstahl's epic film, "The Triumph of the Will," was highly regarded as the art film that it was ...
That's in the different category of things that espouse something vile but are in themselves well-done. I'm not sure too much opprobrium can be heaped on Riefenstahl herself, not least because the horrors of Nazi rule had barely got going in 1935.
In 1933, the regime established the first concentration camps, imprisoning its political opponents, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others classified as “dangerous.” Extensive propaganda was used to spread the Nazi Party’s racist goals and ideals.
Yeah, barely got going.
Fucking hell
None of the awful things you cite were significantly worse than awful things practised at various times by many countries prior to 1933. What happened in the Holocaust was significantly worse than anything that had happened before in human history. That's what I meant by barely got going.
Should Riefenstahl have opposed what was happening in 1935 Germany? By our standards yes. But not when we judge her in context because her attitudes were shared by many other Germans at the time and it is difficult to condemn so many all at once.
I don't share your enthusiasm for judgement.
"Everyone was doing it" is never an excuse. THe anti-Semitism of the time was abhorrent even thought it was common. Probably more so because it was common.
She said this:
I had an almost apocalyptic vision that I was never able to forget. It seemed as if the Earth's surface were spreading out in front of me, like a hemisphere that suddenly splits apart in the middle, spewing out an enormous jet of water, so powerful that it touched the sky and shook the earth
after one of his hate sewing speeches. She gets no slack for helping create one of the world's greatest monsters.
And do I really need to say the Holocaust was utterly awful, the worst atrocity in human history in intent if not in numbers killed?
Yes. Yes, you do. Because some people don't believe that. And it's good to be clear which side one comes down on.
Yes it was one of the worst atrocities in human history but it was not the first or last genocide, nor the most deadly atrocity.
Why make the point ? Because I feel that this seems to blind public discourse to other things - they can’t possibly be happening now because we said “never again”, this other terrible thing can not be truly terrible because it’s not the Holocaust.
There have, for example, been genocides in my life time and concentration camps in Europe, that have been treated as someone how less of a problem. Or it’s somehow rude to point out statues of slavers are a bad idea, because slavery was somehow not really a massive, extensive crime against humanity.
And do I really need to say the Holocaust was utterly awful, the worst atrocity in human history in intent if not in numbers killed?
Yes. Yes, you do. Because some people don't believe that. And it's good to be clear which side one comes down on.
Yes it was one of the worst atrocities in human history but it was not the first or last genocide, nor the most deadly atrocity.
Why make the point ? Because I feel that this seems to blind public discourse to other things - they can’t possibly be happening now because we said “never again”, this other terrible thing can not be truly terrible because it’s not the Holocaust.
There have, for example, been genocides in my life time and concentration camps in Europe, that have been treated as someone how less of a problem. Or it’s somehow rude to point out statues of slavers are a bad idea, because slavery was somehow not really a massive, extensive crime against humanity.
True. One could argue that the Holocaust should have provided humanity with the means to recognise atrocities and how they arise but instead has become the high-water mark of evil against which all other atrocities are not as bad.
Unless an atrocity is kept in the public eye we forget. The Armenians were persecuted in Turkey. The pictures of young women naked on crosses was awful. How many of us remember that without being nudged? We need to keep things like that and the holocaust in the public eye or it will essentially disappear.
I find the rejection of art because of the creator's bad behaviour a little (ahem) unnuanced. Gesualdo brutally murdered his wife and her lover whom he found in flagrante delicto, yet produced music (sacred and secular) shocking in its beauty and stylistic individualism. Do we throw out his work, or Schnittke's opera about him? (BTW, Gesualdo wrote a very good setting of Psalm 51, referred to supra.) Should Caravaggio - demi-mondiste, brawler, murderer, possible sodomite - be consigned to the flames? Does Orwell's homophobia mean no more essays, Animal Farm, Homage to Catalonia for us? That's all patently ridiculous.
BTW, when Wagner published his anti-semitic writings, anti-semitism was hardly an exceptional or socially unacceptable position in most of society. Despicable though I find the position (especially given genealogical rumours in my family), my seeing The Ring Cycle in a week was , and will remain, one of the aesthetic peaks of my life. Further, enamoured though the Nazis were of Wagner, they couldn't have been paying very close attention, because lying, cheating, stealing, murdering, and incest end badly for everyone. They should have taken note.
[NB: This was to have been posted 18hours ago. In the interest of archival fidelity, I haven't futzed around with it.]
I find the rejection of art because of the creator's bad behaviour a little (ahem) unnuanced. Gesualdo brutally murdered his wife and her lover whom he found in flagrante delicto, yet produced music (sacred and secular) shocking in its beauty and stylistic individualism. Do we throw out his work, or Schnittke's opera about him? (BTW, Gesualdo wrote a very good setting of Psalm 51, referred to supra.) Should Caravaggio - demi-mondiste, brawler, murderer, possible sodomite - be consigned to the flames? Does Orwell's homophobia mean no more essays, Animal Farm, Homage to Catalonia for us? That's all patently ridiculous.
BTW, when Wagner published his anti-semitic writings, anti-semitism was hardly an exceptional or socially unacceptable position in most of society. Despicable though I find the position (especially given genealogical rumours in my family), my seeing The Ring Cycle in a week was , and will remain, one of the aesthetic peaks of my life. Further, enamoured though the Nazis were of Wagner, they couldn't have been paying very close attention, because lying, cheating, stealing, murdering, and incest end badly for everyone. They should have taken note.
[NB: This was to have been posted 18hours ago. In the interest of archival fidelity, I haven't futzed around with it.]
I once heard a bemusing remark that, "Wagner's music is actually better than it sounds ... " ...
I think there is a difference depending on whether your choice is actually putting money in the artist’s pocket or not.
How much you mind doing that may well depend on a comboination of factors such as: are they evading justice on an ongoing basis, Do they appear to think what they did was fine, are they continuing to try to offend ?
How much you mind doing that may well depend on a comboination of factors such as: are they evading justice on an ongoing basis, Do they appear to think what they did was fine, are they continuing to try to offend ?
So what if they do/are? I’m not donating money to their cause, I’m purchasing goods they have produced.
How much you mind doing that may well depend on a comboination of factors such as: are they evading justice on an ongoing basis, Do they appear to think what they did was fine, are they continuing to try to offend ?
So what if they do/are? I’m not donating money to their cause, I’m purchasing goods they have produced.
What is the functional difference in outcome, would you buy mugs made by Daesh ?
Doublethink.... would you buy mugs made by Daesh ?
ISTM that's not the question. Isn't it rather: Should one recognise the superior quality of an artefact coming from a corrupt source? Or: Is it possible for a corrupt source to produce great art?
How much you mind doing that may well depend on a comboination of factors such as: are they evading justice on an ongoing basis, Do they appear to think what they did was fine, are they continuing to try to offend ?
So what if they do/are? I’m not donating money to their cause, I’m purchasing goods they have produced.
LOL ... Many of my fellow Americans rush to a store like WalMart to purchase cheap stuff made in China, and then express anger that too many of our manufacturing jobs have been exported to "China" ... (!!!) ... and they feel uneasy at the rapid rise of China as an economic/military power to rival the USA (which rise to power WE are financing through our shopping habits) ... What was that prescient remark about, "The Capitalists will sell us the rope we will use to hang them ..." ... ??? ... My/your/our use of $$$ is ALWAYS an ethical/moral decision ...
How much you mind doing that may well depend on a comboination of factors such as: are they evading justice on an ongoing basis, Do they appear to think what they did was fine, are they continuing to try to offend ?
So what if they do/are? I’m not donating money to their cause, I’m purchasing goods they have produced.
LOL ... Many of my fellow Americans rush to a store like WalMart to purchase cheap stuff made in China, and then express anger that too many of our manufacturing jobs have been exported to "China" ... (!!!) ... and they feel uneasy at the rapid rise of China as an economic/military power to rival the USA (which rise to power WE are financing through our shopping habits) ... What was that prescient remark about, "The Capitalists will sell us the rope we will use to hang them ..." ... ??? ... My/your/our use of $$$ is ALWAYS an ethical/moral decision ...
It is the sellers of these goods that drive the moving goods offshore. It is their competition with each other and stockholders desires for increasing profits that are the main drivers of sending manufacturing offshore.
Many poorer customers have no choice but to buy products made in China.
How much you mind doing that may well depend on a comboination of factors such as: are they evading justice on an ongoing basis, Do they appear to think what they did was fine, are they continuing to try to offend ?
So what if they do/are? I’m not donating money to their cause, I’m purchasing goods they have produced.
LOL ... Many of my fellow Americans rush to a store like WalMart to purchase cheap stuff made in China, and then express anger that too many of our manufacturing jobs have been exported to "China" ... (!!!) ... and they feel uneasy at the rapid rise of China as an economic/military power to rival the USA (which rise to power WE are financing through our shopping habits) ... What was that prescient remark about, "The Capitalists will sell us the rope we will use to hang them ..." ... ??? ... My/your/our use of $$$ is ALWAYS an ethical/moral decision ...
It is the sellers of these goods that drive the moving goods offshore. It is their competition with each other and stockholders desires for increasing profits that are the main drivers of sending manufacturing offshore.
Many poorer customers have no choice but to buy products made in China.
Yes and No ... Within my lifetime it USED to be possible to make a living, support a family, with a relatively low-skill manufacturing job in America ...
There were many more workers organized in labor unions back then ...
But the Feudal Overlords somehow convinced the workers that lower prices were better for them than higher wages, so the spiral downward began in earnest ... and here we are today ...
How much you mind doing that may well depend on a comboination of factors such as: are they evading justice on an ongoing basis, Do they appear to think what they did was fine, are they continuing to try to offend ?
So what if they do/are? I’m not donating money to their cause, I’m purchasing goods they have produced.
LOL ... Many of my fellow Americans rush to a store like WalMart to purchase cheap stuff made in China, and then express anger that too many of our manufacturing jobs have been exported to "China" ... (!!!) ... and they feel uneasy at the rapid rise of China as an economic/military power to rival the USA (which rise to power WE are financing through our shopping habits) ... What was that prescient remark about, "The Capitalists will sell us the rope we will use to hang them ..." ... ??? ... My/your/our use of $$$ is ALWAYS an ethical/moral decision ...
It is the sellers of these goods that drive the moving goods offshore. It is their competition with each other and stockholders desires for increasing profits that are the main drivers of sending manufacturing offshore.
Many poorer customers have no choice but to buy products made in China.
Yes and No ... Within my lifetime it USED to be possible to make a living, support a family, with a relatively low-skill manufacturing job in America ...
There were many more workers organized in labor unions back then ...
But the Feudal Overlords somehow convinced the workers that lower prices were better for them than higher wages, so the spiral downward began in earnest ... and here we are today ...
You appear to be saying the same thing lilBuddha did, just in different words.
How much you mind doing that may well depend on a comboination of factors such as: are they evading justice on an ongoing basis, Do they appear to think what they did was fine, are they continuing to try to offend ?
So what if they do/are? I’m not donating money to their cause, I’m purchasing goods they have produced.
LOL ... Many of my fellow Americans rush to a store like WalMart to purchase cheap stuff made in China, and then express anger that too many of our manufacturing jobs have been exported to "China" ... (!!!) ... and they feel uneasy at the rapid rise of China as an economic/military power to rival the USA (which rise to power WE are financing through our shopping habits) ... What was that prescient remark about, "The Capitalists will sell us the rope we will use to hang them ..." ... ??? ... My/your/our use of $$$ is ALWAYS an ethical/moral decision ...
It is the sellers of these goods that drive the moving goods offshore. It is their competition with each other and stockholders desires for increasing profits that are the main drivers of sending manufacturing offshore.
Many poorer customers have no choice but to buy products made in China.
Yes and No ... Within my lifetime it USED to be possible to make a living, support a family, with a relatively low-skill manufacturing job in America ...
There were many more workers organized in labor unions back then ...
But the Feudal Overlords somehow convinced the workers that lower prices were better for them than higher wages, so the spiral downward began in earnest ... and here we are today ...
You appear to be saying the same thing lilBuddha did, just in different words.
No ... (S)he blames the workers for making poor but necessary economic choices that keep them in poverty ... I see it as a relentless class war of attrition being slowly won by the Overlords ...
Comments
We all make choices as to who/what we support either directly or implicitly ... Sometimes the choice is made from a practical position -- the lowest price ... and sometimes simply by personal preference ... and at other times by an ethical/social decision ...
Similarly, Ezra Pound's anti-semitism is repugnant and stupid, but I find his poetry to be sublime. I would not have wanted to know the man, but I delight in knowing his poetry. I don't think encountering the made objects of bad people is going to infect me, or others, in any way.
This.
And I’d say it’s not for any of us here to forgive him or to withhold forgiveness. That’s for his victims and others affected by his misconduct, which I’m assuming doesn’t include any of us posting on this thread. And for God, of course.
The question for us—at least those of us in churches where his music is sung—is whether what we know makes it inappropriate to continue to sing his music. I don’t think that’s a question about forgiveness. Perhaps it’s more akin to witness—what does is say for us to sing, or decide not to sing, songs written by someone accused of the things he is accused of.
Ramblings as I think this through.
I can never know for sure, but I would not be shocked devastated disillusioned to learn that some of the very ancient ancestors who created the gorgeous Altamira paintings were horrible people who were guilty of all manner of inhumane sins ...
But ... In our *modern* time in the sort of communities we have built, we KNOW more about each other than may be good for us ... But then, The Confessional is ultra-private while a trial is conducted in public, and God help you if a crew from "60 Minutes" or CNN shows up at your front door ...
I know Haugen's music well and have played and sung it for worship many times, indeed as part of both UCC and ELCA services.
His work is widely used in Catholic services as well, and has stylistic parallels with compositions from Haas and Joncas. I have thought that these three composers define a certain style of hymnody and liturgy, and I am not the only one who thinks that.
Their work is solidly in the Post-Vatican II liturgical reforms ... which ... sadly are fading away ... American Roman Catholic diocese and parishes are being pushed increasingly back toward PRE-Vatican II days ... The ELCA meanwhile continues to drift away from the Catholic mainstream into the vagueness of "general Protestant-ism" ... *sigh* ...
It's unclear exactly what he's done and it's unclear exactly what he's admitted. The allegations against Haas are serious, credible, but vague and are contained in a letter from the advocacy group Into Account:
https://tinyurl.com/haasletter
Although not my intended focus for the thread, I think there are difficult questions about the nature of his alleged conduct and its context. We are told he made unwanted sexual advances towards adult women who were considerably younger than him but over 18. Haas has never been a member of the clergy and therefore could not have had a pastor-congregant with these individuals. Reports do not indicate that they were his students or employees who he supervised. It is the power disparity between a high-achieving man in his 50s and aspiring woman who are much younger, and the allegedly systematic and serial approach towards creating opportunities for these relationships to become sexual, that make this so disturbing.
Hard cases make bad precedent. Absent the context of fame, power, and repetition of the same mistakes, there isn't much of anything notable about a divorced, middle-aged choir director awkwardly and boorishly pursuing a romantic relationship with an adult but younger soprano that ends badly. I recall a certain arguably more famous composer born in 1685 whose second marriage was to a 20 year old soprano; he was 35 at the time. Shall we purge the historical record of his works?
Obviously, as so often, each and every case must be considered as its own case with respect to the facts of THAT case and applicable laws, rules and regulations ...
In the David Haas case, Minnesota Statute 148A may apply if he as a teacher in his capacity as a teacher took sexual advantage of students under his tutelage ... The same statute applies to many professionals -- medical practitioners, therapists and counselors, clergy, et al. ..
This is generally nonsense. It's especially nonsense for any art form that involves multiple people, which is to say the vast majority of art these days.
Judging art on the basis of the artist seems even more nonsensical than judging an artist purely on the basis of their art.
Yes ... The question is not "forgiveness" but "trust" ...
Acceptable to whom? People who turn their back on her have every right to do so, and I can't see that they need your or anybody else's acceptance.
Is it necessary for there to be a collectively decided 'line'? Obviously it's essential to share information but when it comes to a moral response (leaving aside criminal proceedings) it's down to the individual to decide where their lines are.
Whilst I agree with you, most people would draw the line at Gary Glitter say. Is that individuals all deciding or is that a community decision? Subconsciously coming together.
In the case of Mr. Paul Gadd, the decision of individuals who run radio and TV stations not to play his work is the important one, surely? You, personally, can choose whether to smash your Gary Glitter '45s, but you're basically irrelevant.
There are a number of individuals that boycott the work of fugitive rapist Roman Polanski, but the people that actually matter enabled him to continue making films, and awarded him prizes for doing so.
And of course his films continued to draw an audience.
There are some other factors worth considering as Polanski v. Glitter/Gadd is an interesting comparison.
Polanski is not a performer (he acted once but I think only once) which gives him a degree of invisibility. He's also made some very good films dealing with serious matters which gives him a lot of artistic credit. I'm not saying that mitigates the rape, merely pointing out that there exists a balance. If we condemn Polanski and his works we lose out on a substantial body of creative work.
Glitter/Gadd, on the other hand was all about the performance. He could not have been more visible and with his ridiculous wigs and bacofoil suits he was preposterous. And while I will forever have the pounding beat of Rock'n'Roll parts 1 and 2, and d'yurr'wanna'be'n'my'gang in my head there not exactly the equal of Chinatown or The Pianist.
Like it or not, we are far more likely to condemn artists who aren't actually very good than we are to condemn great artists even when their offence is similar.
Forgive me, but I want to take up the age difference thing. If the younger person is an adult, I really don't see what business it is of the general public to interfere in his/her relationships, however squicked out they may be by the age difference. Relatives may have something to say, or close friends; but an age difference is not de facto a power imbalance OR abusive. I know whereof I speak--I was 22 when I married a 40-year-old man, and we're still happily married 32 years later. I made my choice knowing full well what I was doing, I took four years to consider it, and I'm happy with how it turned out. And I would be enraged with anybody* who treated my young adulthood as if it were childhood--as if I needed protecting from myself at an age when I was otherwise considered fit to join the army, marry an age-peer, buy a house and enter into contracts, and the like.
* this of course excludes people who have a semi-right to make pains of themselves at any age, even when I'm 90--to wit, relatives and close friends. Not that I'll listen to them, but I will at least attempt to shut them down with a modicum of grace and awareness that they want the best for me, however misguided they may be.
Leni Riefenstahl's epic film, "The Triumph of the Will," was highly regarded as the art film that it was ...
That's in the different category of things that espouse something vile but are in themselves well-done. I'm not sure too much opprobrium can be heaped on Riefenstahl herself, not least because the horrors of Nazi rule had barely got going in 1935.
Admittedly it's a small category as off-hand the only other contender I can think of is the tailoring of SS uniforms.
Then, there are the self-serving (apparently autobiographical) movies of Woody Allen, which are hardly morally uplifting, in particular now that we KNOW that his creepy interest in young young women was quite sincere on his part ...
I don't require art to be morally uplifting. But Allen is in the category of someone who may (probably did in the case of Mariel Hemingway) have used his position to force his attentions on young women. In his case I probably could separate the art from the man, though I was never a fan of his work.
Fucking hell
Part of the charming fun of Woody Allen's movies (used to be)(was) the self-deprecating self-referential often darkly humorous Existential angst, all the while presented as somehow playful ... But ... he turned out to be a Classic Dirty Old Man who actually enacted his irresponsible fantasies ... (sort of a non-political William Jefferson "Slick Willie" Clinton combined with Roman Polanski ... eeeuuuwww ... ) ...
None of the awful things you cite were significantly worse than awful things practised at various times by many countries prior to 1933. What happened in the Holocaust was significantly worse than anything that had happened before in human history. That's what I meant by barely got going.
Should Riefenstahl have opposed what was happening in 1935 Germany? By our standards yes. But not when we judge her in context because her attitudes were shared by many other Germans at the time and it is difficult to condemn so many all at once.
I don't share your enthusiasm for judgement.
Everyone makes mistakes ... ??? ... The Holocaust -- *shrug* ... ??? ...
A complete distortion of what I said. In 1935 I doubt Riefenstahl had any awareness at all of what the next ten years would bring and she was very far from alone in admiring Hitler. Much of Britain and the US admired Hitler in 1935. And do I really need to say the Holocaust was utterly awful, the worst atrocity in human history in intent if not in numbers killed?
People who had been paying attention KNEW -- or had reason to know -- who and what they were getting with Hitler and the Nazis in 1933 ... A member of my own family came of age in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA in the 30s in a city which was then a hotbed of anti-semitic propaganda ... Even as late as the 90s, when there was a news account of The Israelis striking back against yet another terror attack, she shook her head and said, "Those Jews ... causing trouble again ..."
Yes. Yes, you do. Because some people don't believe that. And it's good to be clear which side one comes down on.
She said this: after one of his hate sewing speeches. She gets no slack for helping create one of the world's greatest monsters.
Yes it was one of the worst atrocities in human history but it was not the first or last genocide, nor the most deadly atrocity.
Why make the point ? Because I feel that this seems to blind public discourse to other things - they can’t possibly be happening now because we said “never again”, this other terrible thing can not be truly terrible because it’s not the Holocaust.
There have, for example, been genocides in my life time and concentration camps in Europe, that have been treated as someone how less of a problem. Or it’s somehow rude to point out statues of slavers are a bad idea, because slavery was somehow not really a massive, extensive crime against humanity.
True. One could argue that the Holocaust should have provided humanity with the means to recognise atrocities and how they arise but instead has become the high-water mark of evil against which all other atrocities are not as bad.
BTW, when Wagner published his anti-semitic writings, anti-semitism was hardly an exceptional or socially unacceptable position in most of society. Despicable though I find the position (especially given genealogical rumours in my family), my seeing The Ring Cycle in a week was , and will remain, one of the aesthetic peaks of my life. Further, enamoured though the Nazis were of Wagner, they couldn't have been paying very close attention, because lying, cheating, stealing, murdering, and incest end badly for everyone. They should have taken note.
[NB: This was to have been posted 18hours ago. In the interest of archival fidelity, I haven't futzed around with it.]
I once heard a bemusing remark that, "Wagner's music is actually better than it sounds ... " ...
How much you mind doing that may well depend on a comboination of factors such as: are they evading justice on an ongoing basis, Do they appear to think what they did was fine, are they continuing to try to offend ?
So what if they do/are? I’m not donating money to their cause, I’m purchasing goods they have produced.
What is the functional difference in outcome, would you buy mugs made by Daesh ?
ISTM that's not the question. Isn't it rather: Should one recognise the superior quality of an artefact coming from a corrupt source? Or: Is it possible for a corrupt source to produce great art?
LOL ... Many of my fellow Americans rush to a store like WalMart to purchase cheap stuff made in China, and then express anger that too many of our manufacturing jobs have been exported to "China" ... (!!!) ... and they feel uneasy at the rapid rise of China as an economic/military power to rival the USA (which rise to power WE are financing through our shopping habits) ... What was that prescient remark about, "The Capitalists will sell us the rope we will use to hang them ..." ... ??? ... My/your/our use of $$$ is ALWAYS an ethical/moral decision ...
Many poorer customers have no choice but to buy products made in China.
Yes and No ... Within my lifetime it USED to be possible to make a living, support a family, with a relatively low-skill manufacturing job in America ...
There were many more workers organized in labor unions back then ...
But the Feudal Overlords somehow convinced the workers that lower prices were better for them than higher wages, so the spiral downward began in earnest ... and here we are today ...
You appear to be saying the same thing lilBuddha did, just in different words.
No ... (S)he blames the workers for making poor but necessary economic choices that keep them in poverty ... I see it as a relentless class war of attrition being slowly won by the Overlords ...