Leni Riefenstahl

            Late on the Friday morning of October 21st I rode to my Aesthetics professor’s office in the Jackman Humanities Building at St George and Bloor to show him what I had so far towards a mid-term essay on the subject of “What is art?” I was surprised that there was no line-up to see him with the essay deadline just six days away. When I expressed my surprise he told me that he was a little surprised as well, but added that students might just choose to attend their TA’s office hour later that day and on Monday. My TA has her office hour next Monday and I will definitely take my revised essay to show her on that day after class. Making a connection with one’s TA tends to up one’s marks, sometimes just because of the connection itself and produces in the TA a sense that their advice has been taken, even when it hasn’t.

            Devlin liked my introductory paragraph, in which I talked about the way that people are referred to as artists when they do something innovative, even when what they do is harmful or wrong, as in the case of “bullshit artists” and “Con artists”. I also talked about how during Wayne Gretzky’s career, commentators often referred to him as an artist. He reminded me though that this is only a 1200 word paper, and so the introduction is probably too long. He said I would have to condense it to use it but I could definitely use my Wayne Gretzky example as an example of what art is not.

            I went to class early as usual, but this time, like last time, there was a group of students occupying the room. Devlin arrived and I told him there were people using the room. He expressed surprise because there is usually no class in there before ours. I offered that it was probably a one-shot event because the students had just applauded the lecturer. I added that we don’t applaud each of his lectures but that we are saving our applause for the very end. He joked that it would probably a rapturous display of approval. I said that if a TA does a guest lecture there is usually applause and then noted that he’s never had his TAs do that. He said that when he was a graduate student and a TA he would usually only be asked to guest lecture if the professor was not going to be there. I told him that in both cases that my Children’s Literature professor had her TAs lecture, she was in the audience. I suggested that the ones that had given the class though had been her TAs for a long time, and so were well versed in the material.

            I inquired as to whether Devlin is officially a professor. He answered with what seemed like either relief or satisfaction that he is now. He said that the format for our course in Aesthetics is one that he created, but that his field is Ethics. He told me that among other Ethics courses that he touches, he’s doing on Vegetarianism and animal rights. I asked if he was a vegetarian. He told me that he wasn’t but that he was teaching the course to find out if he should be. I told him that he could talk about Hitler. “Was Hitler a vegetarian?” he asked. I confirmed to his surprise that he was, and added that Hitler put major laws against animal cruelty into Nazi Germany. I suggested that if Hitler were alive today he’d be a poster child for PETA.

            Just before class started, Tim, whom I’d been chatting with on Wednesday, was engaged in a philosophical argument with the attractive young woman who sits three seats to my left. She thought that there should be laws in place to prevent hate speech and he seemed to be saying that things are changing by themselves. She said we can’t ignore the social manifestations of words, and asked him what if his employer was saying extremely racist things to him. He answered that his boss could be as racist as he wanted to be. Tim had to go to his seat, but she continued the discussion with me. I told her that I don’t think that people should be legally compelled to not say racist things. At around that point though, Devlin was about to start the class. I expressed regret that we couldn’t continue the discussion.

            Professor Russell’s lecture continued with the previous talk on art and ethics and the question as to whether ethical flaws are also aesthetic flaws.

            Devlin showed us a few minutes from the second half of Triumph of the Will. It began with three men in uniform marching silently side-by-side down a long aisle to a memorial where they saluted and then turned and marched back.

            Then there was a speech by Adolph Hitler in which he said, “Those who believe there is a crack in our movement are mistaken!” As far as I can tell he was referring to a rift between the SA Brownshirts and Hitler’s more disciplined SS. A lot of the more radical members of the SA were arrested a few months before the rally.

            The film is technically proficient with beautiful cinematography.

            So to review the theories on ethics and art:

            Autonomism says that ethical flaws are not artistic flaws, so an ethically flawed work could be a great work of art.

            Contextualism says that ethical flaws are sometimes artistic merits or demerits, depending on the case. The argument against this that Hitler was deified perhaps by the aesthetic merits of Triumph of the Will so this view leads to moral reprehensibility. In appreciating the artistic merits of the film we are automatically appreciating the ethical flaws.

            Moralism says that ethical flaws are always artistic flaws. 

            Devlin took a poll and found that most people in the room are contextualists. Autonomism came second.

            Taste is cultivated sensitivity. This faculty is sensitive to just aesthetic properties, so we are not in an ethical mode when we exercise taste because aestheticism is just about aesthetic delight.  But cultivating aesthetic sensitivity can filter ethical flaws.

            Pro Tanto values versus All Things Considered values helps us to be Moralists.

            A non-artistic example: A doctor needs to reset a broken bone in a way that causes pain. Pro tano, this is bad, but resetting the bone, all things considered, is good. Good outweighs bad.

            Ethical flaws are bad, but only pro tanto bad. All things considered, Triumph of the Will is artistically good.