Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks
She was perfectly suited to the task of glorifying ANYTHING. Look also at the Nuba or her underwater photography.This is not a common talent. Its misapplication does not mean she wasn't good at it, and to compare her with Hitler as a painter is frankly risible.

If she'd been on the right side politically, she'd be lionised beyond belief. Because she did a lot of Nazi propaganda, her genius is understandably attacked. Few decry National Socialism more than I but to issue blanket condemnations is to abdicate from rational thought or artistic regard.


This assumes she had no choices. Was there no work for photographers in Switzerland? England?

If she had been on the right side politically--well, first we should note she would have been on the right side morally--she could have still been an artist. She still could have found work. Too bad it would have meant leaving her country behind. However, if more excellent people had done this, perhaps the problem would have gone away.

Here is an alternate situation. C. Everett Koop, surgeon general under the Reagan adminstration, chose to have his portrait done by Mapplethorpe. This was clearly not a decision that would have pleased the administration.

Yes, it doesn't rise to the same level. But, I have a lot of respect for Koop.

Another way to look at it, if by doing the propoganda she made more people volunteer, made people work just that little bit harder, made the war last just one day longer. If by supporting the effort, just one more person died--does she have no responsibility?

So, my point (as asked in another post). Well, it is clearly stated, who is the better person. If you want another take, then it would be this.

Yes, the image is good. Yes, she had talent. Yes, she had a major impact.


Yes, I wish none of it existed. The world would be a better place without the image of Jesse Owens and a few more people surviving the war.