Leni Riefenstahl's Aesthetics

In Benjamin’s piece, I was reminded of many of the lectures we have had throughout the lecture. The apparatus mentioned throughout the piece, in both cultural and camera lense forms, reminds me of Leni Riefenstahl. Professor Beebout spoke about how her innovative techniques changed cinema, but her association with the Nazi party casts a large shadow over her contributions. She added to the machine of fascism by creating this larger than life image of Hitler and the “superior race” rather than using the apparatus to help the people understand the world around them. Films such as the one on Terezin manipulate reality to create a false sense of safety and assurance. What was put onto film to be consumed by the masses was most definitely not the truth. These techniques feed into the process of aesthetics being used to normalize and glamourize fascism by making it look normal and desirable. Riefenstahl’s work is still shown and analyzed today because she innovated a medium that creates an impact on large …show more content…
The images on display were in direct opposition to the reality of Germany. The paintings of German farmers and their families and Greek style sculptures idolizing warriors misrepresented the reality of the industrialized Germany who in order to full the ideal of farm life presented to them had to support the conquering and destruction of other people. The artwork on display in the exhibit can only be consumed by a few people, as Benjamin explains on page 36. Galleries and museums cannot regulate people’s reactions like film can. The Great German Art Exhibition displayed aesthetically pleasing, physically present art, but it cannot, according to Benjamin, compete with film when it comes to using them as propaganda. The use of technology greatly freed people in technique, but was also used to alter their perception of