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
Gene H. 1, June 18, 2012 at 1:42 pm
Dredd,
No, I’m not talking about bully worship as Orwell did except perhaps tangentially. However, ask of each and every thing what is it in itself? What is a bully? At its basest description, a bully is a form of predator that relies upon force. To properly understand them, you must first realize that is a fundamental part of their nature. Prey or potential prey species (the bullied) have basically three choice: be content to be fearful prey, adapt to become less attractive prey (passive defense) or adapt to become a threat and/or predator in their own right (active defense). While I think Orwell was on to something, I don’t think he had the complete picture. The reaction of fear to predatory behavior is not always worship although it can be. Sometimes the reaction to fear of predatory behavior is isolation through passive defense or counterattack by active defense. The meek may not inherit a damn thing, but an apex predator has only one way to go: down. The entire process of natural selection (specifically in competitive modes) illustrates this principle. And before you say anything about symbiosis, I’m not saying symbiosis doesn’t play a role in natural selection but rather that competition and predation do as well. I think that in relationship to this topic proper – propaganda (since it can be used to harm or defend in both active or passive defense as well as a purely offensive weapon depending upon the intent of the user) – that it is more useful to consider it in through the lens of that line of thinking about naturalistic behaviors, consequences and adaptations than through Orwell’s arguably incomplete analogy to religion if you are discussing the bully/predator.
======================================
You have a lot of social Darwinism in you, as does Tony C.
It is a product of decades of propaganda which has engendered a dementia we all suffer from (social Darwinism was a propagandist view of Darwin’s theories).
How much is for you folks to determine.
But it is not a universal opinion:
(Diagnosing The Dogs of War, quoting a book). Anyway, war and propaganda work like one hand washing the other.
Tony,
“When I think of “propaganda” I think of it as a special class of tilted or flat out false messaging. I do not think it covers ALL messaging, it has to mean something more specific than that. ”
That is because you see the word “propaganda” with its full negative value load as discussed in the first installment of this series. Which I don’t disagree with that value loading by the way. Propaganda is a tool that has been horribly misused by our species for horrific ends. That’s one of the reasons I decided to write this series: to make people more aware of what constitutes propaganda, both the bad form the word itself has taken on the value load of and the less harmful version of propaganda – “messaging”. You cannot properly understand the bad use without understanding the good use of a tool, let alone formulate a triage strategy for threat assessment or a defense against it.
If a nation creates its independence by declaration, the fact that a bully religion oriented state comes along afterward and destroys that nation does not change the fact that the nation became independent for a time.
Likewise, the length of the time one is free does not determine whether or not one was free.
The degree of freedom one experiences is not determined by those who do not like that freedom.
Short freedom is better than long servitude.
The propagandists of the bully religion evangelizing from the bully pulpit be damned.
“Give me liberty or give me death.”
Dredd,
No, I’m not talking about bully worship as Orwell did except perhaps tangentially. However, ask of each and every thing what is it in itself? What is a bully? At its basest description, a bully is a form of predator that relies upon force. To properly understand them, you must first realize that is a fundamental part of their nature. Prey or potential prey species (the bullied) have basically three choice: be content to be fearful prey, adapt to become less attractive prey (passive defense) or adapt to become a threat and/or predator in their own right (active defense). While I think Orwell was on to something, I don’t think he had the complete picture. The reaction of fear to predatory behavior is not always worship although it can be. Sometimes the reaction to fear of predatory behavior is isolation through passive defense or counterattack by active defense. The meek may not inherit a damn thing, but an apex predator has only one way to go: down. The entire process of natural selection (specifically in competitive modes) illustrates this principle. And before you say anything about symbiosis, I’m not saying symbiosis doesn’t play a role in natural selection but rather that competition and predation do as well. I think that in relationship to this topic proper – propaganda (since it can be used to harm or defend in both active or passive defense as well as a purely offensive weapon depending upon the intent of the user) – that it is more useful to consider it in through the lens of that line of thinking about naturalistic behaviors, consequences and adaptations than through Orwell’s arguably incomplete analogy to religion if you are discussing the bully/predator.
@Dredd: Damn, you were right all the time Tony C.
Thank you. I will leave it at that.
@Gene: Yes, blatant lies irritate me. Sorry, I did not intend to hijack this thread to something else. I will let Dredd stew in his own ignorance.
On your topic, I am not sure where to draw a line between “propaganda” and the dissemination of information. For example, is Rosie the Riveter really propaganda, or an appeal for young women to contribute to the war effort? Is the “Victory Garden” really propaganda, or just disseminating information about how home-grown food could relieve pressure on the food supply for troops?
When I think of “propaganda” I think of it as a special class of tilted or flat out false messaging. I do not think it covers ALL messaging, it has to mean something more specific than that. The government wasn’t lying about the need for Rosie or food or gasoline conservation. Wikipedia references a NY Times article that says five million victory gardens supplied about 40% of all vegetables consumed in America, by the end of the war.
Art is in the eye of the beholder. What’s art to an artist isn’t the same as what my great-aunt Agnes thought was art (which was Norman Rockwell).
On a side-note. Another form of propaganda you could include are novelties and knickknacks. For example, such as racist Mammie cookie jars, boot-jacks that show an African-American woman with legs spread, or the plethora of knickknacks that portray African-Americans as apes and other racist stereotypes that were wildly sold during the antebellum and Jim Crow eras. Also, the numerous sexist knickknacks that are still manufactured that portray women in an objective way. The most recent appalling example I saw was a Hillary Clinton nut-cracker. I actually received a catalog in the mail during the 2008 election season that had this as their cover item. Talk about powerful imagery.
Tony C. 1, June 18, 2012 at 1:12 pm
@Dredd: I have already stated that war is being misused now, I think for profit motives, and not for securing or defending liberty.
=====================================
Ok, so only good wars create freedom, or protect freedom, or whatever.
And of course, then, bad wars don’t do that.
Damn, you were right all the time Tony C.
So when do we invade Iran to create some more freedoms here in das homeland?
The one “TRUE bully religion”, gotta luv it.
Gene H. 1, June 18, 2012 at 1:20 pm
You two have your own tangent going, but I will say this:
Dredd, you are showing a lack of proper understanding of predation. Why does a predator take the easiest prey? Because they stand a lesser chance of injury (and often can expend less energy) in acquiring it. The only way to stop predators is to be able to muster enough active or passive force to make the prospective predatory transaction not worth their while.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled tangent . . .
==============================================
Are you speaking of the bully religion that Orwell wrote about, the one propaganda hides (whose words I quoted upthread)?
I did not use the word predation nor predator.
It sounds like advocating social Darwinism.
Please clarify … it is your pulpit after all.
You two have your own tangent going, but I will say this:
Dredd, you are showing a lack of proper understanding of predation. Why does a predator take the easiest prey? Because they stand a lesser chance of injury (and often can expend less energy) in acquiring it. The only way to stop predators is to be able to muster enough active or passive force to make the prospective predatory transaction not worth their while.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled tangent . . .
@Dredd: I see that you are backing off from your statement that war creates freedoms.
?? No, I believe that. The American Revolution won our freedom, Britain tried to kill us to suppress it, without the aid of France, Spain, and the Dutch as allies and opening up other fronts, Britain might well have succeeded, and we would not be free. The Brits finally surrendered the territory to us in the Treaty of Paris. We lost tens of thousands of men in battle first, so did they. Our liberty was paid for in blood, it was created by war.
The rest of your post is a true straw man, I have already stated that war is being misused now, I think for profit motives, and not for securing or defending liberty. I have already stated that war is a tool that can be used for evil or for good, force in general is absolutely necessary to counter those willing to use force to subjugate, enslave, control and exploit others.
I did not leave India out: Britain was decimated and weak, after WW II it knew it could not maintain its empire by force, and so instead it did the intelligent thing and negotiated independence for its territories that was still favorable to itself and its new post-war position in the world, so it would not be isolated in trade or overrun by further war that might kill it altogether.
I guess you are saying that whether or not a war is sensible, it will axiomatically protect human or civil rights which comprise freedom?
You are either an idiot or a liar.
war is the bully pulpit spreading its doctrine by force.
No it isn’t.
The facts of life are that force works, crime works, murder works. It is possible to control people by force; the Southern slaves were captured from Africa by force, against their will, and were beaten until they died or worked for people that treated them as property. That wasn’t even “war,” it was just raw, brutal force. And it worked, the plantation owners grew rich, the slaves suffered in misery and for generations died without justice. Force works.
The primary thing that stops force is force or the threat of it. It took the North to provide the force that stopped slavery in the South. Gandhi-style non-cooperation in the South by slaves resulted in brutality and death. Gandhi’s non-violent strategy did not work for India, either, until the Brits were nearly crushed by World War and had no energy left.
You do not know what you are talking about, you do not know how to talk about it, you are an extremist thinker. Force and the threat of force is the only thing the psychopaths and sociopaths of the world understand. If you do not understand that, you live in a fantasy world, not the real world.
Tony C. 1, June 18, 2012 at 12:00 pm
@Dredd: It created independence, like the declaration of independence in India did, before any war.
What utter bullshit. No declaration of anything changes reality unless the declaration is accepted by the parties that control you. The Declaration of Independence was a threat, it was a notice to the King that we would no longer abide by his rule. It did not “create” independence, any more than the South became independent by declaring secession, or I could make my home independent of the USA by sending a letter to my state.
No declaration creates independence unless it is accepted by others, and the only way OUR declaration was accepted was by the King’s implicit admission that he could not subdue us by force. Our independence did not occur by Declaration, the Declaration was a fair warning of our intent to fight, our Independence was actually not ours until it was won by force of arms.
My comment on the military was not a straw man, it was the direct consequence of your claim and it was entirely cognizant of current reality. You claimed it is false that the military protects our freedoms; if that were true then no military would be necessary to protect our freedoms, and if there were no military of any kind to respond to invasion then I believe, as do most others in this country, that we would be invaded immediately. Which proves the utter foolishness of your claim that the military does not protect our freedom. It is not a straw man if it springs from your own argument.
=====================================
You are an evangelist for the bully religion Orwell exposed.
I see that you are backing off from your statement that war creates freedoms.
Now war only “protects” freedoms.
You also have not responded to me where I put you to the proofs:
List, then, since you are in a state of backing off, what freedoms not invading Saudi Arabia for doing 9/11 has protected?
The bully pulpit chose to invade an innocent weak nation Iraq, but leave alone the one that did it.
I guess you are saying that whether or not a war is sensible, it will axiomatically
createprotect human or civil rights which comprise freedom?“Create” a response, do not “protect” your avoidance of what I said.
War does not create freedoms, nor protect them, it endangers them, because war is the bully pulpit spreading its doctrine by force.
The war you speak of is the one declared by England against the 13 colonies who were doing fine. Did that war give England its freedoms, or did laws and a constitution give England its freedoms?
You keep leaving India out too.
Bully worship is a social dementia.
While thanks for the encouragement to write a book on this subject, who said anything about trilogy? I’m not Tolkien. I plan on doing one of these every other week until I get tired of the subject or a natural end point is reached. John Irving writes by starting with the last sentence and working to that. I don’t work that way. I’ve got at a minimum another three (although I may split one to make four) installments in mind and others under consideration. The project is in someways an exploration for me as well. For example, although I already knew I was going to do a column on images, it wasn’t until Darren Smith brought it up in public that I started thinking about architecture as image (I also happened to be concurrently reading a book about Frank Lloyd Wright) and the last installment of this series was born.
Unless you’d rather I change the subject.
As I’ve discussed offline with OS already, I’ve kind of fundamentally changed the way I approach writing articles for this blog. With a finite number of topical stories to choose from each week (and as Nal noted, the Prof grabs many of the good ones himself), I’ve switched from that mode of story generation (although I’ll still do it from time to time as opportunity and appeal presents itself) to focus on topics that can be presented in a multi-part thematically linked manner that gives me both a broader choice in topics than restricting myself to current events and yet still allows for me to incorporate and/or otherwise address current events. A more “essayist” approach if you will. Judging by the generally positive response, I intend to keep writing this way unless the Prof tells me to stop, the masses rise up against me or I get crushed by a falling starlet, er, satellite. Or its time to feed the feline overlords, but really, how much time does that take? So I’m happy for the positive feedback, but there is indeed more to come.
Don’t touch that dial!
@Dredd: It created independence, like the declaration of independence in India did, before any war.
What utter bullshit. No declaration of anything changes reality unless the declaration is accepted by the parties that control you. The Declaration of Independence was a threat, it was a notice to the King that we would no longer abide by his rule. It did not “create” independence, any more than the South became independent by declaring secession, or I could make my home independent of the USA by sending a letter to my state.
No declaration creates independence unless it is accepted by others, and the only way OUR declaration was accepted was by the King’s implicit admission that he could not subdue us by force. Our independence did not occur by Declaration, the Declaration was a fair warning of our intent to fight, our Independence was actually not ours until it was won by force of arms.
My comment on the military was not a straw man, it was the direct consequence of your claim and it was entirely cognizant of current reality. You claimed it is false that the military protects our freedoms; if that were true then no military would be necessary to protect our freedoms, and if there were no military of any kind to respond to invasion then I believe, as do most others in this country, that we would be invaded immediately. Which proves the utter foolishness of your claim that the military does not protect our freedom. It is not a straw man if it springs from your own argument.
Consider the Bully Pulpit as a description of the pulpit of one of the most popular secular religions in current U.S. culture.
George Orwell wrote about it in prescient prose:
(Wikipedia, George Orwell). His work is not propaganda, it is counter-propaganda, in the sense that the state has no innate right to propagandize the public.
Don’t we realize that state propaganda is vastly different from non-state propaganda?
It is not a mystery how is all this hidden in plain sight:
(Warriors Press For Propaganda). Bully worship is a religion all will deny, especially those who are evangelists within its inner sanctum.
Gene this is excellent….(haven’t read all the responses yet…) but i second what Mike S. said (and Lottakatz…)…consider a book! This is not just really good research it is timely information….
As to the questions you asked, my first response is that ‘Art’ is in the eyes of the beholder….Great art elicits a response in the viewer, a response that says more about the viewer than the art itself….Good art elicits a response that is a shoring up of the ‘piece’ itself…..Propaganda is Art that elicits a specific and desired response…but it’s all still art….
Mike Spindell 1, June 18, 2012 at 10:40 am
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 …
================================
That unique phrase, in this stream of comments, caught my eye.
Are you aware of the book by George Orwell:
(All Art Is Propaganda, Orwell, Amazon books). That quote is from a professinal review of his book.
Bully worship is a great description of the secular religion that at least one commenter on this blog glaringly reveals.
Bullies are the authoritarians (A) that the sub-authoritarians (B) worship in this “secular religion” dominated exclusively via propaganda.
Gene H.@ Blouise
“I have been mulling an installment on religion and propaganda, but I haven’t settled on an approach to it yet that I think will yield the maximum critical discussion while minimizing the number of zealots coming out of the woodwork.”
We can’t use logic (and caustic, savage sarcasm) to accost said zealots if they’re all in hiding! Bring em on!
Tony C. @ 9:59 am
What you said!
Tony C. 1, June 18, 2012 at 9:59 am
@Dredd:
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.
===================================
I quoted only one founding father in the comment you responded to.
He wrote the Bill of Rights, is called “The Father of the Constitution”, was a cabinet member, a member of congress, and was the 4th President of the United States.
If you have any specific critique of him, other than your abstract and useless “blind faith”, “not infallible”, “every quotation or assertion”, and “this blog is not for you”, then you would be saying something, possibly even something meaningful.
Previous post was response to Otteray Scribe.