"I do not think it was mere coincidence that the 1930s first saw the creation of "Life is a cabaret" decadence immediately prior to the decline of the moral fabric of German society. Decadent art opened the way to decadent society."

Nothing could be further from the historical truth. The Nazi Party was present before the end of WWII, but only rose to power because they offered a "solution" to the problems created in Germany by the Treaty of Versailles. The Germans felt that the Treaty of Versailles was unfair and humiliating, and they wanted revenge on who they irrationally felt was responsible: the Jews. It has nothing to do with the degeneration of an "immoral" society. Prior to the rise of the Nazis, the "underground" flourished more and there were even gay nightclubs in a time when this was unthinkable to the rest of the Western world. However, it was those sick demons of the Nazi Party shut all these down, and sent homosexuals to concentration camps alongside Jews. For crying out loud, they even banned jazz music because it was "detrimental to the Aryan soul." I understand what point you're trying to get across but please don't resort to such dishonesty to do it.

WIthout straying to other fields of art than just that of movie making, a few names come to mind: Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, Mel Gibson. Personally, I have not been able to wrap my head around the latter because his movie itself stirred up or revived antisemitism but I am totally able to appreciate movies by both Polanski and Allen despite despising them as individuals for their actions of child rape and incest. I deeply hope von Trier does not win (may have already taken place since I don't follow the Cannes Film festival) but I still think we in the name of democracy must allow the work to stand so long as it does not itself promote antisemitism or Hitler propaganda. Each person should make their own informed decision. I, for one, will not be seeing the movie now. We want a free society where we each choose right from wrong, not get told what to do. Sometimes that is painful but I don't think we would ultimately want it any other way.

The Nazis also condemned "degenerate art". And Stalin's Socialist Realism wasn't much of a solution. It's not the art that is the problem, it's the anti-semitism of the artist.

For some artists, Art mirrors life at a specific time. Kurt Weil, the composer, made his statement in Three Penny Opera and as mentioned, Cabaret. The painter George Groz was compelled to produce Ecce Homo, examples of cruelty and depravity, much the same idiom as Weil. Times and society was seen by these two artists as ethically unacceptable. Their art demonstrated their rejection of the status quo. They were punished for it in Germany and so they fled to the United States. Other artists were not bound by the need to reflect ideas and created art as abstract forms that had nothing to do with social content. They were mainly concerned with color shape and line and sounds There is no rule that places the artist in a strait jacket. There is no reason to believe that art should take a form which obliges the composer to teach or uplift people. By the same token, there is no reason to say that all art is to be respected. Art should be allowed to be seen, heard read and performed. Art may be presented, but we may reject it. Civilized people do not burn books or censor content. The artist remains free to create and the viewer, audience or reader is free to reject it. Art is the work of a talented creator. The viewer and the audience judges it and is free to walk away from it. There is no reason that people must respect Art. Art is not God. It is man's attempt to materialize form and content. The artist is merely a person. Some people are brilliant and some are fools. The artist reflects who he or she is. We do not have to like them or their work.

Von Trier was banned and so should be his film. Imagine thet he wins the competition or any of the additional prizes. The Festival would then inadvertently bestow the stamp of approval on the man himself. If you can not accept the individual , do not give them the forum to build their fame and ,by the same token, legitimize and propagate their views.

I think one has to separate the composition from the composer. Having played piano for 66 years, there would be little to play if i threw out all the music composed by alcholics, adulterers, insane and crazed and tormented and womanizing composers. I wouldn't be able to play Rachmanioff, Chopin, Lizst, Tschaikowsky, etc. Morals? Maybe down the drain. Musically? Their music touches my soul. Would I like them as a friend? maybe yes maybe no....but i sure love the music.

Personally I'm torn between " art " and the person who created it and I will not go and see his movie. He was rightfully expelled and so should have been his "Art " removed.

The author commits a greivous error in his thought process when he states the quote " I do not think it was mere coincidence that the 1930s first saw the creation of "Life is a cabaret" decadence immediately prior to the decline of the moral fabric of German society. Decadent art opened the way to decadent society". This same logic was used by Wagner in his anti-semitic rants against "Jews in music", banning of music in the Soviet Union for "decadent art" and Nazis burning books by Jewish authors. These fascist societies used terminology such as this to remove destroy and ultimately murder artists, authors and philosophers.. The music for Cabaret was written by a Jew (Kurt Weil). As much as we may dislike or avoid distateful art, music and literature, need to use caution when we use the cover of "decadence" to claim that these are the cause of societal destruction . This is a slippery slope that we must avoid.

I know people who destroyed a life as they went about and built up their own lives--or anyhow, what looked like real lives from the outside, though their black hearts couldn't have had them living true lives. People told the young woman who's life they ruined--almost destroyed--that it can't be, that the people are just students, just people with jobs, people with friends and family, people who like music and movies and fun. Her words about these people were finally found to be true, though until they were, she always knew she was right, not only because she knew what she experienced, but, she said, it was because: if nazis committed the most barbaric atrocities to human beings and then went home to listen to opera, have a nice dinner, and play with their children, then certainly a bunch of miscreants could have found a way to do some evil activities to her and then go about their lives as if they were normal human beings. It turns out that this knowing about nazis and being able to understand what people could do saved her (yet it didn't save the jews involved in a crime against her from stopping themselves). so i guess there are many things to be learned from hsitory.

Of course if he had made negative comments about Muhammed, you can bet the film would have been pulled.

Let me open by saying I find von Trier's films morally loathsome. As to the argument that a person's views on Hitler should influence the regard given to that person in his profession: When a child of yours is rushed to an emergency room,do you ask the doctor if she's a Zionist, or do you asknquestions about the business at hand?

David's comment on doctors and art is just not comparable. A peice of art is a vision of the artist's world view - whether we like it or not is our personal opinion. A doctor's worldview should not be present during the time that he is treating a patient - he/she should be focused on the medicine and the situation at hand.

Art is a tool of mankind and often a gift from the L-rd. It does not stand alone or above or is in anyway beyond sound reasonable judgment. Many of the so called 'Art Critics' are more about puffed up egos than good judgment or reason. Most people do not 'need' to be told what is good art. They for the most part, already know. The idea that people must be told what is art is just a lie. Great beauty speaks for itself. Otherwise, is it great beauty?

Why, when people are anti semitic in deed or speech, do we always say "they don't get it" as if we could enlighten them? Maybe they exactly do "get it" and are perfectly acting in the way they intend to.

I cannot believe what has happened to art.. I have been an art student my whole life. Chouinard Art Institute Los Angeles CA '59 - '63. i was taught that art is the search for beauty. What could be more beautiful than the truth.

I think rather than art being the search for truth, i think it is the release of great pain or great joy. I am talking of music which, lacking words, speaks totally to the emotions. Movies - a different field entirely.

Some arguments can only be debunked by taking them to the absurd. Wagner is undeniably in the musical first division, but evertybody also recognises his personal life was disgraceful and incompetent - as was his politics. Try the argument in reverse - the corollary - with the best of intentions people sometimes acheive apppalling consequences. Chlorofluorocarbons - CFC's - were developed to take ammonia and its dangers out of fridges but very nearly caused disaster with the Ozone Hole ove rthe Antarctic till brought under control. Each case has to be judged within its context by the on balance benefit of the invention or deed; and the on balance relative lack of damage by the character defect. Rousseau was an inadequate as Trier seems to self admit; and Newton and Einstein though brilliant scientists were not entirely nice gentlemen.

I do agree with the author of this article. Art is alawys engaged somehow, and conveys the thoughts and felings of the artist´s mind.

As usual, an excellent analysis by Rabbi Blech. His point of contention reminds me of those that use the phrase "hate the sin, love the sinner". Sorry --one cannot condemn one without condemning the other.

The question isn't whether the artist is a bad apple, but whether the art reflects those feelings. If it doesn't then it is a valid contribution to the art community. Also Von Trier was obviously joking when he said what he said. Does that make it right? No, but it does mean that he isn't really an anti-semite (at least not as big of one as it appeared). He's just an attention seeker, and he said stupid things to get attention. Cannes banning him wasn't about righteousness, but about saving face. Their actions are reprehensible because of the motives behind those actions. They should have just come out and denounced his statements and had him issue an apology, banning him was just a way to take care of the mess quickly.

Let's start with this: history is replete with examples of man's inhumanity to man. The Rape of Nanking, the Roman slaughter of the Carthaginians, the the Spanish destruction of the Incas to name a tiny few. None of these or any other act of inhumanity compare to the Holocaust. It stands alone as the low point in human civilization. But the author's claims that Nazi's separated art from the artist is absurd. They did just the opposite. Remember book burning because the author, not the work was objectionable? Remeber the destruction of masterpieces as decadent. And anything produced by a Jew was automatically verboten. The Nazis absolutely connected art and the artist. Von Trier's marks defy comprehension. Even if one harbors such evil sentiment, why make it public? His thoughts and his expression of them should be the object of the strongest possible condemnation. But unless his film reflects such thinking, to suppress it, to remove it from the festival competition would be wrong.

It's (at least almost) exactly what I have been thinking for many, many years about creating "art" - or "conveying something via several means" ... Be blessed abundantly. Shalom.

Your article is provocative. The question of what the relationship is between an author/artist/creator and the object he creates is of relevance in many fields. For example, Jean Jacques Rousseau was a monster to his own children by his own description in his Autobiography. Yet his philosophy of education for children is widely accepted in schools of education all across North America. This has bothered me for years. I agree with your sentiment in this article, but is there some principle that underlies the relationship between what is created by somebody and the creator of the object? Society seems to believe that a bad person can create good objects.

Toda rabba!! i think the sad thing about art is that many artists, in their misunderstanding of G-d's love for them and for all humanity, endeavor to speak for the 'dark side'; as if the dark side doesn't have enough of a voice. As well, the internat'l film community has a bizarre appetite for the 'free will' aspect of what they would probably term 'creative exploration'; "freedom of speech", etc. In seeming ignorance of the power of the director's gaze, with their eyes always on the producer's $$, they can produce media that are not suitable for human consumption because it incites sin & brings the evil inclination into this world - you're right; just as he has been shown the door, i think his day in the sun is over, and his film should be politely ushered out, at least until he sincerely apologizes to the world for his thoughtless statement. Sadly, in today's economy the powerful at cannes are staying silent: wondering where next year's money for the red carpet will arise? What is needed is a pubic outcry; at least an internet outcry that will incite change. Again, thank you for illuminating the issues. "Buyer beware".

What would you say about the actions of Presidents Truman and Nixon, after their anti-Semitic comments were revealed?