RE: Riefenstahl

[lipkowitz <lipkowitz...>]

I do think that there is a difference between art and propaganda

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jordan newman [SMTP:jznewma (at) yahoo(dot)ca]
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 12:23 PM
> To:   World music from a Jewish slant
> Subject:      Riefenstahl 
> 
> --- lipkowitz (at) aa(dot)edu wrote:
> > Riefenstahl is a liar.  She knew exactly what Nazism
> > was about and what it
> > was up to.  
> 
> So if she's a liar, then it's not art?  Or is this
> only the case when applied to Nazism?  (if there
> really wasn't a little bird sent from God who dictated
> melodies to Pope Gregory on his shoulder, does that
> invalidate all of Gregorian Chant?)
> 
> > Music is different.
> > Music (free of words) does
> > not lend itself as easily to ideological
> > interpretation. 
> 
> (Lots of music does have words!) Untexted music is
> different, I agree, but I think it's because it lends
> itself even MORE to ideological interpretation, after
> all, there are no words stapling it down.  This is no
> banal thing; many have died based on someone else's
> interpretation of their music (see socialist realism
> and again, nazism).  
> 
> Think of how much of the classical music we celebrate
> today from the former Soviet Union (Shostakovich and
> others) has only survived because Stalin thought of it
> as ideal socialist music--upholding socialist ideals,
> appealing to the masses, etc.  Can't we call this
> music--to use your words--"high quality" communist
> "propaganda?"  And if so, then is it any less valuable
> as art?  (and isn't any kind of religious music
> propaganda to some degree?) 
> 
> Just questions!
> Jordan
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________ 
> Web-hosting solutions for home and business! http://website.yahoo.ca
> 

---------------------- jewish-music (at) shamash(dot)org ---------------------+