Pragmatopian Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6561177.stm This kind of thing really annoys me. There is a huge difference between commenting on Nazi iconography and endorsing what the Nazis did or stood for. If anything, the power of its iconography is an aspect of the Nazi party's rise that it is important to understand, lest history repeat itself. Bryan Ferry's comments do not make me want to become a Nazi, but overreactions to said comments by Jewish religious leaders just make them seem out-of-touch and me less enamored of religion. Other examples of overreactions by a cross-section of religious groups: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6560371.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4361260.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4161109.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3231365.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4086855.stm Thank Allah/Buddha/David Icke/God/Vishnu that I live in a country where it's OK to be a member of any faith, but it's also OK to be critical of any faith or the views that it and its protagonists hold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 Calling it beautiful is what strikes me as wrong. The iconography was incredible powerful - will to power, strength and all that. Remember what Germany had been like just a few years earlier in the centre of the depression. To build the Nazi myth in such a strong way in such a short time does show how the Nazis used image and iconography to forge a new identity. But it was also ruthless and cruel with a clear indifference to suffering from day one. The powerful would reap their rewards from the weak. Death Heads and sacrifice - no Mr Ferry is wrong the jackboot isn't beautiful - but the order of the massed ranks does have a power that Hitler knew how to use to his advantage. Looking at the films of Riefenstahl or the buildings of Speer you can still see that power even today, but it takes the soul from humanity - an inhuman art for an inhuman regime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted April 16, 2007 Author Share Posted April 16, 2007 An interesting analysis, but I don't think that it's necessarily wrong to describe the iconography as beautiful: people find beauty in all kinds of guises, and symbols of power are attractive to many. I can wholeheartedly agree that it would be somewhat warped to find the regime itself beautiful, but I don't think that's what he was saying. I'd like to see a translated version of the full article to put everything into context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 Calling it beautiful is what strikes me as wrong. The iconography was incredible powerful - will to power, strength and all that. Remember what Germany had been like just a few years earlier in the centre of the depression. To build the Nazi myth in such a strong way in such a short time does show how the Nazis used image and iconography to forge a new identity. But it was also ruthless and cruel with a clear indifference to suffering from day one. The powerful would reap their rewards from the weak. Death Heads and sacrifice - no Mr Ferry is wrong the jackboot isn't beautiful - but the order of the massed ranks does have a power that Hitler knew how to use to his advantage. Looking at the films of Riefenstahl or the buildings of Speer you can still see that power even today, but it takes the soul from humanity - an inhuman art for an inhuman regime. From a graphic designers view I find some of the Third Reich's iconography, including it's symbology and propoganda posters strikingly powerful. So in my opinion it can be seen as beautiful, something that is aesthetically pleasing. The history and connection is its undoing. All a matter of opinion eh? Right I'm just off to shave my head.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 I kind of agree with Bryan Ferry, the art created by the regime does have a beauty. But this is only visual; the beauty, truly, is skin deep as if you dig down to what the iconography stood for it was plainly ugly and inhumane. But the visual spectacle of the rallies, the parades, the architecture and the filmwork was spectacular. Perhaps that is a better word. Much like the communist iconography of Russia; it was what it set out to be, iconography of a heroic standard. The morals and ethics behind it didn't really stand up to too much scrutiny. But taking it at its face value (ie the visual alone), there is a beauty. Perhaps an analogy may be when watching some events on the TV, sometimes just to turn the volume down and watch the spectacle unfolding, without the emotion of background music or the human voice can produce a different, perhaps single, dimension in what you are viewing. Having said that, there are other visual records of the events of the Nazi regime that no amount of detachment can ever give a 'beauty'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matty Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 I will agree that some of the Nazi iconography is very striking, however their 'graphic' artists were certainly guilty of a little plagiarism, I've included a couple of pics taken at the Temple of the 10,000 Buddhas, near Shatin train station, Hong Kong. - One of the most tranquil places I have ever had the pleasure to visit. I don't think Bryan Ferry was being insensitive talking about the iconography, - it was hardly as if he was condoning what the Nazi's did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 "...the Nazi Party undertook to activate and manipulate the religious impulse in the German people, to address itself to the question of meaning in a religious sense. Nazi Germany offered a cosmology as well a philosophy and an ideology. It appealed to the heart, to the nervous system, to the unconscious, as well as to the intellect. In order to do so, it employed many of religion's most ancient techniques - elaborate ceremonial, chanting, rhythmic repetition, incantatory oratory, colour and light." Quote from The Messianic Legacy by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh & Henry Lincoln. In simple terms, Nazism was a political movement with a quasi-religious foundation. Who dares to say that religions don't cause wars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.