This one Michael, I do not at all understand.
Originally Posted by blansky
Lenny was American born, grew up in suburban Boston and had an affair with his mentor, also American born, Aaron Copland. We all know that.
He came into prominence in 1943 when he conducted the New York Philharmonic as a fill-in for a ill Walter Bruno.
He later went on to compose a number of both "classical" and "semi-classical" works including "On the Town"; "Candide"; "West Side Story" etc.
Is your point that he was gay?
Here are some links:
Google "hit" on Leonard Bernstein for full research:
Wikapedia (and I now the pros and cons of this citing this site) but this one is quite accurate and more "honest" about his sexual preferences - since that may concern you:
And the "official" bio from Sony records:
Now, would you answer three questions?
1) Why would you bring Lenny Bernstein into this thread to begin with?
2) Having done so, what was the reasoning why you felt a need to cast aspersion on his character?
3) Do you think that Lenny B. some how used his artistic talent to glorify a murderous leader and regime bent on exterminating people (Jews such as himself) so that you would equate him with Leni R.?
Kind of like a "Say wha'?" situation here, Michael.
Originally Posted by copake_ham
And you have revealed yourself for what you really are too...
Yep, a straight, lapsed Catholic liberal from Noo Yawk!
Originally Posted by Kino
Oh, BTW, I think you should have at least granted me the decency of referring to me as a person. I am not a "what"; I am a "who".
Politics aside I have always liked Leni Riefenstahl work.
She was a good photographer, and a brilliant movie maker.
I rememeber seing her movies about the 1936 Olympiad in my early 20s and was extremely impressed. I can even see today's SuperBowl or WorldCup final and think of her.
IIRC she was commisioned to portrait the athletes for the olympiad as close to "modern day" greek images as she could, thus making them pose with little clothing and creating sport photography by itself.
The portrait of Jessee Owens is just brilliant, all the determination in those eyes is awesome!
More Olympia photos here:
Originally Posted by John Bragg
Mama took my APX away.....
Originally Posted by MattCarey
We have a fundamental difference of perception here: art cannot be tainted. Either it's art, or it isn't. The artist is another matter.
As for the gay analogy, I have nothing against gay people either. Or against many communists. And I've met enough ex-Nazis to understand how people can be sucked into something without really knowing what they are doing or supporting (note that I am not saying that Leni Riefenstahl was, or was not, in the last category).
What I meant was simply this: there are plenty of anti-communists and homophobes who will make exactly the same argument about 'tainted' art because its originators were communist or gay. Their views are no more defensible than yours.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
As anyone who has ever tried to read it will know, a major reason for this is that it is almost completely unreadable. It makes the Thoughts of Chairman Mao look like a fast-moving, lightweight novel.
Originally Posted by Lukas Werth
A far better historian than I assures me that quite a lot of it was lifted from Henry Ford. I have no reason to doubt his assertion -- several barons of industry were impressively anti-Semitic, including George Eastman and Edison -- but I have not verified this.
Am I alone in finding this slightly sinister? Who have revealed themselves as what? If I have misinterpreted this, I apologize, but it does smack of "We know where you live..."
Originally Posted by copake_ham
Roger, maybe it's a case of people revealing themselves of having either their own or differing opinions to what several of the posters have determined is the only opinion. As in the thread titled "Really dumb Question" there seems to be a couple of posters making comments which are no more than thinly disguised personal attacks.
Not the first time.
So many drummers, so little time.
This may not be relevant to this discussion but it's put me in mind of the dilemmas that can arise over whether ethical issues can be separated from something which may have a fundamental usefulness - the decision of the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra quoted earlier is interesting.
Again, I may be wrong in detail here but I think after the war the Norwegian Navy was interested in data the Nazis had accumulated on how to improve safety conditions aboard ship. The data, horrifyingly, included experiments on prisoners in concentration camps to see how long people take to drown.
It was thought to be highly useful information, which would possibly help to save many lives, but the decision was made not to use it. I suppose you could argue both ways - on the one hand, make something positive out of the terrible experiences of those people. On the other hand (my feeling is this was probably right in this particular case)- the information is too awful to handle.
But...I may be digressing, and it may not connect directly with Riefenstal's work, (and I don't think anyway you can lump all her work together) though there may be parallels...
Last edited by catem; 09-09-2006 at 10:12 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Interesting. I never heard that, but it seems worth to track. I have no idea how widely read Henry Ford was in inter-war Germany, and whether he was translated. Hitler certainly did not know enough English to read the original. I would have constructed other lines of heritage, primarily from the violently anti-semitic background of Vienna in the first decades of the 20th century.
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks