THE MORAL AND ARTISTIC INVOLVEMENT OF COCO CHANEL AND LENI RIEFENSTAHL WITH THE NAZI REGIME PART III

SECTION III: AESTHETIC VS MORAL WORTH OF TALENT

Riefenstahl was a remarkable woman in the light of her choreography, directing, producing and editing. Chanel was also incredibly talented in the fashion masterpieces she invented. Art is often exploitative to some extent through its production.

Yet, there is still something particular about Riefenstahl and Chanel that makes them despicable individuals, as I illustrate below. The following discussion of Riefenstahl and Chanel will examine three components to consider when investigating talent and immorality. These include interpersonal relationships, the production and external factors of the art and the art itself.

Image: Getty Images

HOW FAR CAN WE HOLD INDIVIDUAL'S INTO ACCOUNT AS A RESULT OF THEIR INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS?

Riefenstahl's interpersonal relationships illustrate her collaborations and support of the Nazi regime. After reading Hitler's Mein Kampf, Riefenstahl was remembered recommending an anti-Semitic book to Henrich Richard Sokal, a Jew.This act was highly insensitive; however, what is more unbelievable is Riefenstahl's use of anti-Semitic leaders to dispose of Jewish Béla Balázs.

After completing her first film for the Third Reich, Riefenstahl wrote a letter to Julius Streicher, the Gauleiter (district administrator) of Franconia who utilised the Nuremberg laws, disposing of Balázs’s credit and fee from TBL.

Riefenstahl unnervingly cited Balázs as one of her lifelong Jewish friends to prove her lack of anti-Semitism; never referring to this letter in any way when investigated by Americans is severely problematic. Riefenstahl only drew upon her interpersonal relationships with Jewish friends to prevent herself from persecution.

Hence, Riefenstahl's wilful naivety towards her Jewish friends illustrates moral blindness and self-indulgence. Instead of considering her Jewish friends in her associations, Riefenstahl's actions supported the Nazi regime over her moral duties to her friends.

As was the case with Chanel, this demonstrates the banality of evil as Riefenstahl also prioritises her career over her friendships. Even though Riefenstahl was not actively killing or harming individuals, she, like Eichmann, still used bureaucracy and networks for career progression without considering others. Neera Badhwar Kapur rightly argues that empathy and benevolence are the dispositions to be generous in good times, helpful in bad times and forgiving in the face of injury, which are the characteristics of friends.

Riefenstahl did not portray such empathy but endangered her friends with Nuremberg laws, prioritising support for the regime that suppressed and marginalised her 'friends'. Her association with these 'friends' was only recognised when she was being persecuted for her Nazi collaboration.

Similarly, Chanel's relationships also illustrated her support of the Nazi regime. Chanel’s dating a Nazi spy, von Dincklage, has considerable bearing when judging her collaborations due to his position as a secret agent in the Abwehr. Due to the fact that during WWII, von Dincklage managed Chanel's relations with Nazi officialdom in Paris, along with the arrangement for the German High Command in Paris to grant Chanel permission to live in rooms of the Hotel Ritz, where Chanel lived pre-war.

There remain questions of what we should infer from Chanel's affair with von Dincklage.Though we will almost certainly never know the extent of Chanel’s awareness of von Dincklage's activities, she had made all sorts of accommodations in having an affair with a German.

Previously, in 1908, Chanel’s lover, Arthur Capel, helped Chanel to launch her initial business, before she earned her millions. Chanel’s use of Capel was also itself morally dubious as she used his money to set up her business to achieve financial independence, but I maintain that it was in her affair with von Dincklage that she crossed a moral line. It is not a bad thing to be motivated by the desire for independence, and I do not claim we should set our moral standards so high as to only value art for the sake of itself.

However, there is a moral difference between being financially supported by your lover to become independent (as with Capel) and collaborating with the Nazis (as with von Dincklage). I argue that Chanel crossed a line by collaborating with the Nazis, even if she was driven by financial independence in both cases because the Nazis have a deserved place in our shared consciousness.

Chanel's actions themselves also remain calculated as she could not have possibly believed that such catastrophic events did not concern her. For instance, the Aryanization of Jewish property, the harassment of people on the streets of Paris and even her nephew being sent to a Nazi collection camp.

If, like Riefenstahl, Chanel turned a blind eye to Nazi activities, her collaboration would have been one of wilful ignorance. From a young age, Chanel vowed never to be dependent on a man, making it clear that one of her intentions throughout the war was survival. This would have been a reason for Chanel's wilful ignorance as her motivations were those that selfishly served her interests and maintained her pre-war lifestyle by collaborating with the Nazis.

If Riefenstahl and Chanel both utilised wilful ignorance during and after their collaborations, they are still morally culpable for those actions as it was a conscious decision. Indeed, they worked with the Nazi regime, and thereby supported it, no matter how significant their collaborations were.

If the women actively killed, the evil of the actions would have been greater. Nevertheless, taking advantage of the Nazi laws for their own career advancements illustrates a lack of concern for the Nazi regime’s moral standing. Ultimately, every human is an autonomous being who can make their own choices. Chanel’s choice to collaborate with the Nazis to save her nephew, potentially, was a necessary evil that may absolve, to some extent, her actions in the modern world, explaining why her business remains internationally accredited.

On the other hand, Riefenstahl's Nazi filmmaking was not a necessary component of her career’s survival and involved a more conscious decision when glorifying Hitler in film. Though Riefenstahl and Chanel were not themselves responsible for the actions of the Nazis, their personal, collaborative actions supported the evil regime.

Image: Horizontal Collaborators (those women who worked with the Nazis) being punished by having their heads shaved and the swastika carved onto their foreheads.

TO WHAT DO EXTENT EXTERNAL FACTORS AFFECT THE MORALITY OF THE ART?

This dissertation supports a distinction between the aesthetic value of art, and a moral consideration of the work of art in the context of WWII and Nazi collaboration, where art can be affected by external factors which were immoral. Riefenstahl's use of Sinti Gypsies in Tiefland and the shipment of these individuals to Auschwitz, after they were finished filming, is morally disgusting.

In such instances, the character of the individual is tainted, rather than the aesthetic value of the art, due to the exploitation of individuals during its production. Nonetheless, though these individuals are cruel and lead us to have serious doubts about them, they still produce work that we deeply admire as it is instinctive to be attracted to beauty and value, which draws out the complexity of the issue.

Hence, by separating the creator from their art, we can admire their work while recognising them as morally suspect. The aesthetic value of Tiefland can be separate from the morality and characteristics of Riefenstahl. Indeed, Riefenstahl work is judged more harshly for her actions more so than Chanel because we are morally repulsed by her actions taken during the art’s production.

Likewise, Chanel's brand image was devalued after she collaborated with the Nazis that prioritised her desires over the needs of others; this is how we should morally judge Chanel. Chanel took advantage of her status as an Aryan French citizen and the Nuremberg laws to reclaim her Chanel No.5 perfume business, which she believed the Jewish Wertheimer brothers had stolen from her.

This is significantly apparent after Chanel sold her business to the family in 1924 with a ten-per-cent stake that did not satisfy her desires. Chanel was connected with a German official, Prince Ernst Ratibor-Corvey, also a friend of von Dincklage, who appointed Chanel with Dr Kurt Blanke, an operator of the Gestapo offices and administer of the Nazi laws.

Chanel exploited this connection in an attempt to confiscate the Jewish properties and Aryanise La Societe des Parfums Chanel in her favour. The exploitation of the Nuremberg laws from Chanel illustrates her total indifference to the fate of her Jewish neighbours and a deliberate intention to harm the Wertheimer brothers.

Hence, there are questions as to whether Chanel was anti-Semitic or merely business-minded. Chanel was unsuccessful as she had underestimated the foresight and shrewdness of the Wertheimer brothers, as they had transferred control of the company to a Christian Frenchman, Félix Amiot. Amiot would return the business to them after the war.

The ineffective attempt to reclaim her business was, however, due to moral luck. In this circumstance, as the moral agent, Chanel remains morally blameworthy for attempting to reclaim Chanel No.5, but it was beyond her control whether the consequences of her actions would uphold. The fact that the Wertheimer brothers were not harmed is circumstantial moral luck.

If they had stayed in Paris, Chanel's plan would have likely been successful. Hence, even though Chanel's plan did not succeed, her behaviour still tainted her image. There should be no excuse for exploiting individuals, whether it is successful or not, for the sake of your desires. Chanel's attempt to Aryanise Chanel No.5, through the exploitation of Nazi Nuremberg laws, taints the production of the product by supporting the oppressive actions of the Nazi regime and illustrating immoral behaviour.

One might point out that horrible people can produce great art. First, as Oscar Wilde suggests, art is distinct from its creator and valued separately on its own for its beauty. Though some may reject this claim, the overall aim of art is to be distinct from its creators and judged by its aesthetic value alone because, conceptually, beauty and morality are different issues.

Secondly, we intuitively respond to the beauty of art positively when we do not know how it is produced. For instance, without the historical context of Riefenstahl's and Chanel's Nazi collaborations, their work stands on its own. Hence, this must mean that aesthetics and morality, again, are separate. Indeed, I do not deny that horrible people can have great talent and produce fabulous art. Rather, I assert that the overall assessment of the value of Riefenstahl’s and Chanel’s art should include both aesthetic and moral considerations.

Images: Rotten Tomatoes- (Left) Leni Reifenstahl dancing in the Tiefland (Middle) Tiefland Sinti extras (Right) Leni Reifenstahl as lead actress with Sinti extra.

It is understandable that many people, and companies, thoughtlessly supported the Nazis as a form of business survival, but there were also people who produced beautiful art without immorally exploiting Nazi laws.

Marlene Dietrich, a German actress at the time of WWII, refused to work in Nazi Germany, despite being offered highly paid contacts and through this refusal, her films were banned in Germany. Instead, she raised money to help Jews escape from Germany by working on films in America. Dietrich’s refusal to associate with the Nazis portrays a morally correct action.

Like Riefenstahl, Dietrich was placed in the same position of moral luck through the circumstances they both lived through, the power the Nazis held over German cinema and both produced aesthetically valuable work. However, unlike Riefenstahl, Dietrich did not want to use Nazi power to advance her film career. Instead, Dietrich used her position to help those suppressed by the Nazi regime.

Through this was extremely dangerous, and could have resulted in her own capture and death, those actions were action’s that people should have (and many did) choose during the fight against the Nazi dictatorship. Dietrich would have probably been more successful if she had accepted to work with the Nazis. However, she would have regretted it after the war, which she foreshadowed through her own rational deliberation.

This highlights the complexity of Riefenstahl’s and Chanel’s collaborations: they did produce aesthetically valuable work through morally corrupt actions. It is likely Riefenstahl would have acted differently if she knew she would become less successful after the collapse of the Nazi regime, due to the outcome of her wartime activities. This is distinct from Chanel, who remained a global brand and so likely did not regret her past actions. This also questions whether the aesthetic value is tainted by its moral value.

I contend that there is a moral value to art itself, separate from the aesthetic value and separate from the moral worth of the artist. We acknowledged earlier that our intuitive responses to a beautiful work about which we know nothing, is evidence of its aesthetic worth.

In the same way, we can also acknowledge that our moral disgust is a response to the moral worth of the art itself, as the example of Hugo Boss's SS uniforms illustrated in Section I. We intuitively respond by recoiling when we learn of the horrid things that enabled the production of the art.

Image: Pinterest

Even when we can appreciate the beauty of the art, this is our moral intuition responding to the art itself, not just to the artist. I do not believe that the complex question of whether art's value is of lesser worth due to its immoral production, but can be resolved by simply distinguishing between the aesthetic value of the art and the moral character of its creator.

Rather, I have proposed that some resolution may be found in distinguishing between the aesthetic and moral aspects of the overall value of the work itself. Through making such a distinction, we gain explanatory power over why we emotionally recoil from the work directly after we know the facts of its production. This is one reason why we are so highly conflicted with Riefenstahl’s and Chanel’s art with their Nazi collaboration.

Beauty appeals to our emotions, making us appreciate the talent of the art; however, we are morally discomforted by how the art was produced, and our experience of that work subsequently changes. When seeing Tifeland for the first time, we can immediately recognise and appreciate its beauty as a film.

However, once we know about the exploitation of the Sinti Gypsies during and after filming, the film remains beautiful, but our moral sense of the film changes. Riefenstahl and Chanel, like Boss, exploited Nazi laws to advance their art during WWII. This highlights how their respective actions degraded the moral worth of their art as they supported the corrupt regime. Hence, in the specific situation of Nazi collaborations during WWII, I argue that we need to expand our conception of the value of art and fashion, to include aesthetic and moral actions when considering the art that was produced.

DOES THE MORAL VALUE TAINT THE AESTHETIC VALUE OF THE ART?

Although we may not condone the artist's immoral behaviour, there are features of the art that are still worthy of aesthetic appreciation and separate from moral truth, as we can recognise beauty even if the product was made in horrible conditions. The beauty of the art itself should not be discredited as art itself speaks of a truth that we, as humans, recognise in our relationships. This is because the questions-Is it beautiful? and Is it good?- are separate questions that should be dealt with separately.

Hence, I am not stating that because Riefenstahl’s are Chanel's art is not morally pure; the art is not beautiful. These two questions of the distinction of value – moral and aesthetic value- are not usually considered together in so many things before we learn their historical context. How we know the difference between these questions are the intuitive reactions that embrace the beauty of something, which is different from whether it is moral.

There is no denying that Riefenstahl's films required her exceptional talent, since her films were not only propaganda documentaries. For instance, Riefenstahl's choreography in Tiefland was a beautiful production with exquisite choreography, inducing incredible emotional reactions from the audience.

Producing such powerful and emotive work takes considerable talent, skills, and practice to express the storyline's dynamic passion, which Riefenstahl presented. This aesthetic understanding springs from the collective kinaesthetic imagination and the present-moment life to the artistic expression inherent in dance.

Chanel also was a revolutionary figure in women's fashion by introducing simple silhouettes and her timeless sense of style, such as her little black dress or classic Chanel suit. There was nothing morally wrong with Chanel's designs themselves, and so, they hold their aesthetic value. Despite producing valuable works of art, it is the emotional experience of the pieces of art that we reflect on the actions taken to produce them, which make the collaborations of Riefenstahl and Chanel become morally ambiguous.

WHY IS CHANEL STILL A GLOBAL MODERN BRAND WHILST RIEFENSTAGL REMAINS WIDELY UNKNOWN?

Riefenstahl's art was compromised after the end of the Nazi regime due to the moral and emotional implications her films upheld. The post-war Gypsy trials in 1949, at the Munich district court, suggested that Riefenstahl personally selected the Gypsy extras.

A photo of the Końskie massacre was also provided, showing Riefenstahl watching and witnessing the crimes. This all suggested to the world that Riefenstahl knew of, and accepted, the atrocities of the Nazis.

Therefore, the immorality of her Nazi collaboration tainted her name, and thus what she produced during the war became tainted by-proxy in association with Nazi crimes. Yet, her art still upheld its distinct aesthetic worth. Even though she was successful before the war, Riefenstahl only won globally recognised awards for her Nazi films, Olympia and TOTW, making her successful directly through making Nazi ‘propaganda' films.

However, Chanel's success already preceded the war, and thus, not dependent on the Nazis to promote her brand before or after the war. This is why Riefenstahl's career suffered far more extensively than Chanel's post-war.

Chanel's business and art did not suffer as much as Riefenstahl's because her collaboration was less well known. Chanel's influence in the world of fashion declined due to the emergence of Christian Dior's 'New Look', which re-established Paris as the world's epicentre of fashion after WWII.

However, Chanel was previously an innovator and had become a classic with her pieces recognised as 'Chanel'. Her garments made women feel enabled and exhilarated about taking part in this new world, while at the same time looking sleek, seductive and elegant in an entirely new way.

Furthermore, many of the elements she introduced and made fashionable have become indispensable to a modern female wardrobe. Chanel's wartime collaborations did not taint her art to the same extent as Riefenstahl, as the documents detailing her wartime treachery were only discovered in 1985, long after her death in 1971.

By that time, Karl Lagerfeld replaced Chanel in her company, and his designs were a significant factor in Chanel's growing profile as a global brand and its steady progress as he moved with the times, which Chanel failed to achieve. Again, moral luck plays a role here as the ‘Chanel’ brand is not affected by Nazi collaboration as Lagerfeld was not involved with the regime. Hence, after Lagerfeld’s take-over, there was no more Chanel to punish for her Nazi actions.

For more information:

Abaigh McKee. “Marlene Dietrich.” Music and The Holocaust.

Al Cimino. Nazi Sex Spies. London: Arcturus Publishing Limited, 2020.

Archer. &. Matheson. “When Artists Fall: Honouring and Admiring the Immoral.”

Bernard Williams. Moral Luck. United States: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

James O. Grunebaum. “Friendship, Morality, and Special Obligation.” American Philosophical Quarterly. Vol. 30, No. 1. (1999): pp51-61.

Leni Riefenstahl. Leni Riefenstahl: A Memoir. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992.

Lisa Chaney. Chanel: An Intimate Life. United Kingdom: Penguin Books, 2012. p123.

Oscar Wilde. The Decay of Lying: A Dialogue. United Kingdom: The Victorian Archive, 1889.

Steven Bach. Leni: The Life and Works of Leni Riefenstahl. Great Britain: Abacus, 2008.

Vaughan. Sleeping with the Enemy.