But well it's always been a matter for me that, how can we make a proper distinction between their philosophies/art works and their personalities/choices? So as you mentioned, I can't use Heidegger's philosophy to justify his choices (since I can't trace the differences), but maybe I can try to understand the situation of a man who lived in times of crisis, between two world wars, by seizing his pure ontology apart from any kind of ethics and morality. Maybe that was von Trier's approach as well, but he was not successful to make his point at all, unfortunately.

However, since it is a very thorny question, I feel the need to make some clarifications.

This article was not about whether the philosophers you mentioned “were against Jews” or not, but about how to conciliate art and disquieting political beliefs. I mean, should I close my eyes in front of a work by Speer? Can't I love Pound? Nonetheless I hate them as human beings.

As far as Nietzche is concerned, you are absolutely right, but regarding Heiddeger, I'd not use his philosophy to justify his choices: we are not dealing with just a “mistake” men can come to be open to. And he is one of my favorite philosophers being a real genius, but it remains a fact he could not reply anything to Celan asking him a simple question: “Why?”.

Anyway, in my article I didn't want to judge Trier (that I truly love) saying if we should support or condemn him, but I tried to speak about art and how some understandable historical taboos sometimes confuse us. And I agree about Dunst: yes, she was not laughing because she was understanding deeply, I think.

Hope you enjoyed my article.

Elena