by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
Graphic art such as posters, paintings and film can be and often are considered works of art. Can propaganda using these mediums be considered art? Propaganda posters are considered art by many and in the design industry “propaganda” is considered a style all its own. Consider these examples and decide if you think they constitute art as well as propaganda.
Join the Turley Force as we discuss yet another facet of propaganda!
This means you!
As the last instalment in this series discussed, not all propaganda is verbal. Some propaganda images have become iconic parts of our culture. Rosie the Riveter is a perfect example of an image created as propaganda that has moved on to become something else altogether in our cultural subconscious. Images, like words, have both denotative and connotative value. The imagery, iconography and symbolism of the subject matter can influence your thinking on a subject as surely as words do and such choices as color, composition and fonts can have an even subtler but equally profound psychological effect on the viewer.
World War I and World War II were pinnacles in the use of the propaganda poster. Most of these examples come from American, British and Russian propaganda from those eras. One of the first thing that becomes apparent when studying the history of propaganda in this medium is that there are thematic commonalities. Join the military (as the gallery at the beginning of this article illustrates), support the troops/bring them home, commemoration of a date or event, buy war bonds, careful to who you talk to and what about, strength through unity, save materials for use in the war effort, the soldiers are protecting you and/or threatened, the bad guys are really bad (possibly even sub-human). This is not an all inclusive list of themes to be certain, but the following galleries contain examples of propaganda posters grouped by like theme. Some of them are graphically appealing in their design on a purely aesthetic level. Some of them are direct. Some are appeals to emotion. Some are appeals to nationalism. Some work to define “the Other”. They all carry a message.
Commemorative Messages:
Buy War Bonds:
Be Careful What You Say And Who You Talk To:
Save Materials:
Produce To Support The Troops:
These Are Really Bad Guys:
Does the fact that they carry a message negate their artistic merit? If you answered yes, consider the last instalment of this series on architecture as propaganda and ask yourself that question again. Does the propaganda power of the Great Pyramid or Abu Simbel automatically negate their artistic merit? I think the only reasonable answer is no. Both are not only amazing works of architecture, but artfully done as well. Now ask yourself does the content of the message matter in your evaluation? Does remoteness in time change your willingness to see propaganda as art? Consider these examples of Nazi propaganda posters.
Can you consider these works on artistic merit or does the message – and its attendant closeness in time – prevent you?
What if a noted and famous artist produced a propaganda painting? Is that art simply because of the creator’s bona fides in the art world? Consider the work of famous American painter Thomas Hart Benton. Titled “The Sowers”, it is part of an eight piece series of paintings Benton did in the 1940’s depicting the violence and barbarity of fascism. From 1942, it is the portrait of a brutish, monster-like man sowing not seeds, but skulls:
To further demonstrate the style in and of itself, what about propaganda posters designed as a tie-in to entertainment or as direct advertising?
Faux-Propaganda Posters for the (excellent) 2003-2008 television series “Battlestar Galactica”:
Candy Marches On!:
Mass media changed the face of propaganda. Mass produced newspapers, film, radio, television and the Internet all changed the way those with a message they wanted to sell and opinions they wanted to shape went about their mission. In America, some would say in the world, there is no greater producer of media than Hollywood. New York places a strong second, but their speciality since the early days of the industry has been television. In a way, film and television – despite their more transitory nature than something like great works of architecture – have become our modern cultural monuments of choice.
Animation is the nexus of graphic arts and film and it has been used for propaganda both here and abroad. A fair warning, these cartoons feature racist and/or dehumanizing characterizations about whatever “Other” they are trying to portray as the enemy. Although animation is not strictly for children, it holds a strong attraction for them, and these examples can be considered exemplary of one of the lowest tactics of propaganda – that which is aimed at children – and reflecting a maxim in propaganda that it is best to “catch them young”.
Bugs Bunny in Nip the Nips:
Daffy Duck in Daffy the Commando:
A Russian example with subtitles – The Millionaire:
A Nazi war propaganda cartoon aimed at the French to convince them that the Allies were attacking them as well:
In cinema, it is no different. The history of film used officially as propaganda traces its roots to World War II. Before the war, Germany was a hub of European cinema. Exploiting this asset, the Nazis had the Ministry of Propaganda under the leadership of Joseph Goebbels driving the production of antisemitic films like “Jud Süß“, “Die Rothschilds” and “Der ewige Jude“. In addition, the Third Reich was heavily involved in the production of the more nationalistic fare of films like Leni Riefenstahl‘s documentaries. Of her two most famous works, one is considered the most famous propaganda film in history. “Triumph des Willens” or “Triumph of the Will” is about Hitler and the rise of the Nazi Party to power. Her second most famous works are the pair of films known collectively as “Olympia” (“Olympia 1. Teil — Fest der Völker ” (Festival of Nations) and “Olympia 2. Teil — Fest der Schönheit” (Festival of Beauty)) that chronicle the 1936 Olympics in Berlin. The Nazi co-opting of the German film industry had the not so surprising effect of driving out some of their top talent who fled to Hollywood, such as actress Hedy Lamarr (who also aided the Allied war effort in her role as an inventor – a very interesting and insanely beautiful woman) and directors such as Fritz Lang and Otto Preminger.
In the United States during World War II, we had the Office of Wartime Information (OWI). Despite the fact that the overall net effect of propaganda of World War I was negative with many Americans feeling the propaganda from the previous war was not only misinformation, but possibly human rights violations, the Roosevelt administration went forward with a full media blitz from posters to radio to cinema. Some of the films were pure propaganda such as the series of films produced by Frank Capra at the behest of General George C. Marshall. Called “Why We Fight”, the series consisted of seven films made from 1942 to 1945: “Prelude to War” (1942), “The Nazis Strike” (1943), “Divide and Conquer” (1943), “The Battle of Britain” (1943), “The Battle of Russia” (1943), “The Battle of China” (1944), and “War Comes to America” (1945). They made no pretence to be anything other than what they were – propaganda.
Other films, however, worked in to the efforts of the OWI and were more commercial in nature. Did you know that “Casablanca” was propaganda? The hero of the film, Rick Blaine, is a man with an anti-fascist past who despite his personal misgivings and personal motivations to the contrary works to help his former lover and her freedom fighter husband escape the claws of the Nazis. The message is distinctly anti-Nazi and anti-fascism. That the film is art is practically without question as when you mention the very term “classic cinema” it is practically synonymous with “Casablanca”. Other films of the period were similarly slanted in their messages and some, like he 1942 film “Mrs. Miniver” (which told the story of an English housewife during the Battle of Britain and urged the support for the war effort) were even rushed into release at Presidential request. “The Purple Heart” (1944) dramatized Japanese atrocities and the heroics of American flyers. “Hitler’s Children” (1943) told the story of an American girl declared German by the Nazi government and her trials and tribulations with the Hitler Youth. “Dive Bomber” (1941) tells the heroic story of a military surgeon working with a Navy flying ace to develop pressure suits to keep pilots from blacking out in steep dives. These are but a few of many such examples of commercial films made with directed political messages. Even after World War II, the Hollywood/Washington propaganda nexus is alive and well.
The tail-end of Red Scare of the McCarthy era and the burgeoning Cold War brought us the rather unusual movie “Zots!” (1962). “Zots!” tells the story of a language professor who comes into possession of an ancient magic coin that gives him the power to inflict pain, slow down time or kill. In no time at all, Communist spies are out to get him and steal the coin for their own nefarious purposes. Directed by scholck-meister William Castle – best known for his cheesy horror films, “Zotz!” most certainly is a film, but it is so bad I don’t think anyone would mistake it for art. But anti-Communist propaganda? Without a doubt. The 1960’s and early 1970’s brought the United States the very unpopular Viet Nam War. It also brought us films like the highly unrealistic and jingoistic John Wayne fare, “The Green Berets” (1968). Today we are again involved in an unpopular war and again we have pro-war propaganda from Hollywood in the form of 2112’s “Act of Valor” where an elite team of Navy SEALs embark on a covert mission to recover a kidnapped CIA agent. Have you seen a commercial for this film? They are very proud of the fact that it stars not actors, but active duty Navy SEALs. Propaganda at its finest (?).
Television is no better. Much of what passes for entertainment is either direct propaganda or has propagandistic elements. Consider “Dragnet” – possibly the original pro-police propaganda program. A more modern example? Consider the show “NCIS” and its spin-off “NCIS: Los Angeles”, all of the programming on the Military History channel, and the consequential commercial advertising that supports most networks persuading you to buy things you may or most likely do not need. On most networks you are guaranteed at least twenty minutes out of every hour being devoted to persuade your or change your mind based on the interests of those who may or may not have your best interests at heart. I would say that as Americans you are awash in a sea of never ending propaganda, but the reality of the matter is that mass media has become a practically unavoidable global phenomena. Where mass media goes, propaganda surely follows. It is up to you to think for yourself and not succumb to the subliminal and overt efforts of others to think for you. That doesn’t mean you have to live in a cave. That means you have to consider what you see dispassionately even if it is something you enjoy or that entertains you in some way.
Can propaganda be considered art? I think that some of it most certainly can be, but that it is part and parcel of the idea of persuasion to make the idea being presented attractive. It is not art though merely because it is pretty. Something about it must transcend both the intentional message and the method of presentation to reach something universally human to truly be art. The perfect example of this is “Casablanca”. Enjoy it. I know I certainly do. However, I also keep in the back of my mind that it is a form of propaganda. Being aware of and asking the right questions about propaganda is the first step in protecting yourself from its undue influence.
Can propaganda be considered art?
Does intent of the speaker color the artistic merit of the piece?
Does remoteness in time affect the relationship of message to artistic merit?
What do you think?
As a reminder: when carrying on the fight to make sure you understand when propaganda is being used to manipulate you, be vigilant, thoughtful and emotionally detached when considering whether something is or isn’t propaganda. And above all . . .
__________________________
Disclaimer: All images used are either public domain or copyright of their respective copyright holder, used without permission and used for not-for-profit educational/illustrative purposes.
~submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
The Propaganda Series;
Propaganda 105: How to Spot a Liar
Propaganda 104 Supplemental: The Streisand Effect and the Political Question
Propaganda 104 Supplemental: The Sound of Silence
Propaganda 104: Magica Verba Est Scientia Et Ars Es
Propaganda 103: The Word Changes, The Word Remains The Same
Propaganda 102 Supplemental: Holly Would “Zero Dark Thirty”
Propaganda 101 Supplemental: Child’s Play
Propaganda 101 Supplemental: Build It And They Will Come (Around)
Propaganda 101: What You Need to Know and Why or . . .
Related articles of interest;
Mythology and the New Feudalism by Mike Spindell
How about Some Government Propaganda for the People Paid for by the People Being Propagandized? by Elaine Magliaro
bettykath,
When I mentioned The Weavers, I had Pete Seeger in mind. Did you know he was an original member of The Weavers?
———————————–
Yes. Did you know he left The Weavers b/c the others agreed to promote cigarettes? He thought it was selling out and he wouldn’t do it. When he was brought before McCarthy, et al, he steadfastly refused to name others in any way. He agreed to talk about his music but not other people. They only wanted names. His career was forced to take other paths. During the Viet Nam war he wrote the Big Muddy and Bring Them Home.
I think there is plenty of material for artistic antidotes to government propaganda.
Tony C. 1, June 18, 2012 at 9:59 am
@Dredd:
…
War did create our freedoms, it is what made us free to define our own rights and form of government.
===============================
“We” were originally the 13 colonies with a weak federal government, state rights, and the like.
Those 13 colonies, now states, comprise the first 169 years of our history, from 1607 to 1776, when finally the Declaration of Independence was issued.
At that time and the 17 decades before that, much had been done:
(Wikipedia, Thirteen Colonies). One hundred sixty nine years of ongoing prosperity in primitive America, with no war to use by warmongers to make the false claim of war producing a free society.
That success was not all the freedom that the founders wanted. The federalist papers reveal that they wanted some improvements.
So, a while later they created a “Declaration of …”
That declaration was not a Declaration of War, it was a Declaration of Independence.
It created independence, like the declaration of independence in India did, before any war.
Once that independence was created both in America and in India, no one in either place had to invade England to produce their freedoms.
India and America wrote their constitutions to do that.
You also said:
Straw man mixed with more revisionist history, and a denial of current reality to boot.
You seem to be willfully ignorant of the fact that the military has not attacked Saudi Arabia for their participation in 9/11:
(Fighting Terrorism For 200 Years – 3). List the freedoms produced by falsely claiming Iraq did 9/11 and had WMD they were going to use on us, then invading that nation which had nothing to do with 9/11?
List the freedoms produced by not invading Saudi Arabia for doing 79% of 9/11.
@Dredd: On the contrary, yours is revisionist history.
You are apparently claiming we could have won independence simply by declaring it. Well we tried that, we called it the “Declaration of Independence,” and that declaration was contested by the King that owned (by the law of the day) the land we were trying to seize for ourselves.
If we had not met the King’s force with force, we would not be free as we are today, we would have remained subjects of Britain.
As for India, their independence was a direct result of war too, it was the fallout of WW II, and the effective end of the British Empire. After WW II, Britain had to grant most of its territories independence, it had no strength left to keep them.
Your reasoning is extremist and flawed. The military is a tool, war is a tool, and tools can be used for good or evil. I do not argue against the notion that war is being misused and being used as an excuse to infringe upon our rights, that is an example of misusing a tool for evil ends. In our case, the evil ends are the psychopathic profit motives of Exxon and friends.
But the idea that wars are inherently evil is ludicrous, we would not be able to even discuss that notion if it weren’t for wars being fought for just cause.
Yep…. Propaganda….we don’t all know it when we see it….but it’s still there…. Or here….
Gene,
An excellent conclusion to an excellent trilogy. You should consider expanding this into a book, because I’m certain it would be an important book. As to your central question vis-a-vis art and propaganda, my feeling is that almost all art is propaganda of one sort or another. This would include Warhol’s “Campbell Soup Can”. The artist is trying to portray how they see the world and in the process advocating for their vision. As you pointed out in your 2nd article, architecture has been propaganda for thousands of years. In that same vein so was sculpture.
Your contribution with this series has been to let us understand the sensory inputs we sometimes absorb unconsciously in the world around us. I learned for instance to view TV critically listening to my Father’s caustic comments about commercials, TV shows and even sports broadcasting. He awakened me to critically viewing propaganda efforts I would normally absorb if I didn’t appraise their meaning and intent. Critical thought/viewing is a skill we should be taught in school, but alas almost all schools prefer absorption by rote.
@Dredd: we hear from the military propaganda engines that war is what created our freedoms, even though our founders said the opposite.
If the founders said that then they were dissembling, in fact they were engaging in propaganda. Our freedoms would not exist without the American Revolution. It is not propaganda to assert the truth, war was a necessity to separate ourselves from a subjugating authority.
================================================
Tony, that is a classic example of revisionist history.
India declared its independence from England and no war ensued. They are the largest democracy now, population wise.
Likewise, the U.S. declared its independence from England, but a war ensued.
That war did not create the freedoms, otherwise the warmonger nations would have the most freedom.
Germany has created much more freedoms for itself since it stopped imperialistic warmongering.
The U.S.A. has lost more freedoms since it began imperialistic warmongering recently.
The nation now increasingly suffers from social dementia since it began the secular war religion, mixed here and there with theistic religion.
Madison was spot on when he said “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because [war] comprises and develops the germ of every other [enemy of public liberty]”, culminating his declaration with “Those truths are well established.”
Those truths are no longer well established in this nation, so public liberty is also less and less well established.
@Dredd: we hear from the military propaganda engines that war is what created our freedoms, even though our founders said the opposite.
If the founders said that then they were dissembling, in fact they were engaging in propaganda. Our freedoms would not exist without the American Revolution. It is not propaganda to assert the truth, war was a necessity to separate ourselves from a subjugating authority. Although physical distance might do that (and helped in our case), force or a credible threat of force is often required to achieve freedom, both on the personal scale (e.g. a woman escaping an abusive husband) or the national scale of a territory achieving independence.
War did create our freedoms, it is what made us free to define our own rights and form of government.
And anybody that thinks we could dismantle the military in its entirety (and all our militias and any other threat of organized retaliation) and retain our freedom is just delusional, we would be overrun by every brutally murderous looting tin pot despot in no time.
The military DOES protect our freedom, claims to the contrary are simply ludicrous.
If anything, the founders warn that any power is amoral and can be used for good or evil. The military is a weapon necessary to protect our freedom, and it is being misused right now, but that misuse does not preclude the necessity of a military. The fact that a hammer can be used as a murder weapon does not mean we should do away with hammers; by that logic we would also be required to do away with fire, knives, rocks, sticks, hands and feet.
The founders were not infallible and not every quotation or assertion holds up to scrutiny. If you are looking for blind faith in the words of any historical figure, this is not the blog for you.
The social environment is also important to propagandists, because certain social environments are more conducive to propaganda than others are.
For example, the environment of this blog would not be as toxic to some episodes of propaganda, but would be quite toxic to other episodes of propaganda.
To give a 1-10 scale of environments, the perfect 10 is war:
(Greatest Source …). Madison’s phrase “means of seducing the minds” is an obvious reference to propaganda.
The lowest on the scale for propaganda environments is the energetic free academic environment, where the intents and purposes of propaganda efforts are placed under a powerful microscope, then analyzed from every angle.
One lingering effect of U.S. propaganda on the U.S. populace is the belief, akin to Orwell’s “war is peace”, that the military protects and creates our freedom.
That notion really is still with us because we hear from the military propaganda engines that war is what created our freedoms, even though our founders said the opposite.
The statesmen said war is an extinguisher of our freedoms.
The increase of war over the past decade, concurrent with the loss of freedoms, is one indication of their foresight.
Wow Gene, that was an awesome post, and certainly the most scholarly I have seen on this blog.
As for the questions: I think the founders made a mistake in being so specific about speech being free, I think any form of communication of ideas, opinions, emotions, or state of mind should be free. I really think the core concept is that no matter how negative the emotional reaction to a message might be, we shall not consider that to be harm, the freedom to express oneself trumps any offense taken to that expression. I think that was the intent, and I agree with that intent.
I would put more constraints on government and corporations, but I am not sure precisely how to word those constraints. Something to make them stick to their knitting: government communications should be about the goals of government as determined by the people; corporate communications should be about the commercial goals of the corporation and nothing else (not politics, or social policy, or foreign policy, or taxation, or any other law).
So if the country has decided to go to war, then advertising for recruits, to sell war bonds, to conserve food or fuel, to recruit women to factory work, those are all (to me) legitimate advertising. Racism and other forms of bigotry seem out of bounds to me for the government, for the same reason racism and bigotry in the law is out of bounds.
I put very few restrictions on free expression, only to the truly dangerous expressions of knowledge or recipes quite likely to get somebody (or millions of somebodies) killed. Simple emotional reactions like being offended, insulted or disgusted by an expression is never enough for me to think it should be outlawed. I think that is the price we pay for the right to speak our own mind without censorship.
Can propaganda be considered art?
Does intent of the speaker color the artistic merit of the piece?
Does remoteness in time affect the relationship of message to artistic merit?
What do you think?
===========================================
Very informative post Gene.
I hesitate to conflate propaganda and art.
It is like asking considering war to be an art, which is not only propaganda itself, but is the foundation of current American War College dogma.
It seems to me to be more clear to say that propaganda is promulgated or catapulted as Bush II said, by many formats.
Art is but one format used to spread propaganda, and it is done in the form of painting, poetry, novels, revisionist history, music, and the rest.
“It sends a message” is more akin to the format, while “the message” being sent is where the propaganda is.
For example a soundtrack with a message can be sent via TV, CD, radio, theatrical script, poem, or a novel
Propaganda is in the message, not the medium.
I consider most propaganda to be simply deceit of various degrees, from mild to hard core.
bettykath,
When I mentioned The Weavers, I had Pete Seeger in mind. Did you know he was an original member of The Weavers?
The most daunting part of writing a story about music as propaganda art is the sheer volume of it. Every war and every country has its own patriotic songs, just as every war has its own anti-war songs.
Some great songs came out of the labor movement, one of my favorites being from England, Pound a Week Rise (which means getting a pound a week raise). The most intense version is by Neil Anderson and Rathkeltair. The song was written by Ed Pickford when he was still a teenager. Ed was arrested for performing the song in public.
“You can buy North Korean propaganda posters from Cafepress, and North Korea gets the profits.”
A german shepherd would notice this.
You can buy North Korean propaganda posters from Cafepress, and North Korea gets the profits.
http://www.cafepress.com/kfashop
“Then, in my humble opinion (which we all know ain’t so humble), you have to get the groundwork on religion laid first.”
So true; not the humble part, but the which comes first part.
Good night
Gene,
Yes, but a lot of the money came from the “Hollywood” types and they would never have spent it on someone like Bush. “Act of Valor” is, in my opinion, part of the re-elect Obama strategy and very well done in that it is subtle.
Blouise,
Without a doubt “Act of Valor” is propaganda as simply using active duty personnel (not to mention equipment, locales, etc.) would require massive cooperation from the military. What is interesting, but I just didn’t have a way to work it in to the article, was I read that the Pentagon (although they cooperate in the production of a large number of films such as “Top Gun” and “The Hunt for Red October”) refused to cooperate with the production of “The Avengers” (specifically a scenes involving F-22 Raptors). Apparently they could not figure out where “S.H.I.E.L.D.” fit in the command structure and that “bothered” them.
“gbk,
I plan on at some point doing and installment on propaganda within the context recent American history – probably one focusing on military matters and one on politics.” (Gene)
Then, in my humble opinion (which we all know ain’t so humble), you have to get the groundwork on religion laid first. Then you can bring it all home to the context of recent American history. Military and politics without the color of religion is god damned un-Americana!
“This is the gordion knot of human cultural existence.” (gbk)
Perfect lead in to the subject!
Gene,
It’s a huge subject from the Pope being painted as larger than the Cardinals in a group scene to Christ as the Shepard to Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” and, of course, all the varying Madonnas …. symbolism and propaganda running amok down through the ages.
By the way … would Hollywood have given Bush an “Act of Valor” movie? Yep, I’m suggesting a purposeful political propaganda message also behind the production.