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
Mike Spindell 1, June 19, 2012 at 5:07 pm
Dredd,
As far as I know there are no rules except civility and as you well know there is even a wide latitude with that. However, I know that you’re certainly more than intelligent enough to follow the thread’s topic as it plays out. I honestly think Gene’s series on propaganda is important and while you may differ, my personal opinion is that microbial influences on propaganda visual or otherwise is far afield. Now the fact that you have your own fine blog actually supports my position, since there you can write on anything you choose.
Please understand that I’m not writing this from any position of authority other than my own thinking. This is JT’s blog and my only privilege here is that he honored me and others to write guest blogs on the weekends and when he’s on vacation. Given that, this is merely my opinion and appeal to your position as a long time denizen here.
=============================================
Whatever.
It is just that I don’t think I can remember any place in the blogosphere where imaginary rules of authority as an adjunct to control-freakism has been so extant in the imaginations of the elite keyboard pounders.
At least without rules to support that insecurity with at least some sort of appearance of authority.
I do not subscribe to “my fangs are bigger than your fangs” as an equal to rule based decency, while at the same time denying social Darwinism and posing as a nice art critic of the proper-gander sort.
It is oids without anything of the uber oid sort to lift up the the only oids by the boot straps.
This has to be a result of the “deep research” of self-authenticating workers at Disney Land, so I can only cite the wondrous authority of Tony “Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Authority” C to support these assertions.
That should peer up the mini-skirts around the plastic barnyard of the current thread-bare thread.
In closing, I will quote guru Shittake: “don’t start no shit and there won’t be no shit.”
CLH,
At least four weeks, probably more like six or eight. The next installment is going to be about print media and/or the Internet. After that I was planning on an entry about language and rhetoric and/or psychology (though I may split them up a bit). So that’s four weeks solid. Beyond that, I have plans certain for entries on propaganda in politics, propaganda for military purposes and the still unresolved in approach propaganda in religion. I’ve also got some ancillary topics I’m holding on to so I can space things out, so really no rush. I’ve got flexibility. Other than the next two which I’d like to do in that order (as I’d like to address the language/rhetoric/psychology aspects before moving into the “in application” discussions), I’m not tied to a fixed order yet. I’ll send you an e-mail in the next couple of weeks to see how you’re progressing. Thanks! This will be a nice addition to the series.
Tony C. 1, June 19, 2012 at 4:36 pm
@Dredd: You are an idiot. I am not relying on my own authority, I am relying on proven science, but I am also not writing a journal or conference paper, I was having a conversation. With an idiot.
=========================================
That would be yourself and the control freak.
Dredd,
As far as I know there are no rules except civility and as you well know there is even a wide latitude with that. However, I know that you’re certainly more than intelligent enough to follow the thread’s topic as it plays out. I honestly think Gene’s series on propaganda is important and while you may differ, my personal opinion is that microbial influences on propaganda visual or otherwise is far afield. Now the fact that you have your own fine blog actually supports my position, since there you can write on anything you choose.
Please understand that I’m not writing this from any position of authority other than my own thinking. This is JT’s blog and my only privilege here is that he honored me and others to write guest blogs on the weekends and when he’s on vacation. Given that, this is merely my opinion and appeal to your position as a long time denizen here.
@Dredd: You are an idiot. I am not relying on my own authority, I am relying on proven science, but I am also not writing a journal or conference paper, I was having a conversation. With an idiot.
Gene, translations are taking a while, I understand and speak arabic a lot better than I read it, and some are in Pastun, the Farsi I’ve already translated. What is your timeframe on your military propaganda article? I’m sending the pictures off to a friend who’s more fluent in Pashtun. Go ahead and use my email I use for posting comments.
“The control freak thinks I was talking about him.
I was talking about Dawkins, who Mike S quoted, and who I rebutted.”
Then the moron should be more specific in whom he addresses.
Tony C. 1, June 19, 2012 at 3:36 pm
@Dredd: I am not an attorney. I am a full time research scientist. My arguments do not require an authority; they stand on their own, they are based on readily available science to those that are interested in it or willing to google for it. As for citations, that is more work than I am willing to do for a person that is going to dismiss it out of hand anyway. I see little point in further conversation; enjoy your magical fantasy. Preferably somewhere else.
=======================================
I am not an attorney either, but I know better than to rely on my own authority.
To the extent that you rely on your own authority is the extent that you are acting foolishly.
You need to learn to cite authority or you are animating the essence of cultism, which is “trust me.”
That is quite vulgar to competent researchers.
Mike Spindell 1, June 19, 2012 at 3:01 pm
Dredd,
Mentioning Dawkin’s book was irony. As for dealing with 4.5 billion years of evolution, perhaps there would be some value to your points if this was a blog about science and we were trying to guess why propaganda acts as it does. This is a discussion rather on the effect of propaganda on people and not the why of it. There is a good reason for not getting into your theories, interesting as they might be to you, your science does not currently provide the antidotes to propaganda and so we have to struggle with it as best we can by at least identifying its source and purpose.
“We know far more about Mars than we do our own bodies human ecosystem.”
Exactly my point. Perhaps in the future this research may have value, but until then it really is off topic and you know it is.
=======================================
Irony … that makes sense to me cause I see you as a strong man.
I have discussed the effect of propaganda on people in several comments, especially the reason Tony C thinks that war is the source of freedom, and on the worship of bullies prevalent in our society, especially when responding to your statement about most all art being propaganda, wherein I quoted Orwellian “All Art Is Propaganda” wherein he coined the phrase bully worship.
If this was a master class by a master professor at some university, with rules to guide the discourse, then your other point would be well taken.
Cite me the rules of commenting here, posting here, and I will consider or reconsider your argument, seeing as how I respect you.
Gene H. 1, June 19, 2012 at 3:00 pm
“He has never commented on the new revolution in microbiology.”
Because it is irrelevant to the topic of here. If I want to talk you about your off topic pet theories, I’ll come to your blog.
—————————————————
The control freak thinks I was talking about him.
I was talking about Dawkins.
—————————————————–
“His work is based on the 2% of the ‘human genome’, written at a time when the 98% of the human genome was considered junk.”
Straw man.
My work isn’t based on genetics let alone your misunderstandings about genetics. I have not (nor do I intend to) use genetics in the analysis of this issue. Why? Because it is irrelevant to the topic and the goal at hand regarding said topic.
—————————————————–
Same response to the same control freak.
I was talking about Dawkins, who Mike S quoted, and who I rebutted.
————————————————————–
In toto the series is based on linguistics (including etymology), symbology, psychology, sociology, history, politics, law, mass media, cybernetics and neuro-linguistic programming as they relate to propaganda (and all of which are human endeavors in a sociological/psychological context). While that list may not be all-inclusive, it is exclusive of the term and science of genetics.
yawn.
————————————————————–
You apparently have a reading comprehension problem as well as being generally hard of understanding, Dredd.
That is rich.
@Dredd: I am not an attorney. I am a full time research scientist. My arguments do not require an authority; they stand on their own, they are based on readily available science to those that are interested in it or willing to google for it. As for citations, that is more work than I am willing to do for a person that is going to dismiss it out of hand anyway. I see little point in further conversation; enjoy your magical fantasy. Preferably somewhere else.
CLH,
In fact, when you find what you are looking for, get them scanned in and have the translations, if you’ll tell me a good e-mail address to contact you (or I can get the one you post with to WordPress if that’s good for you), I’d like to include them in the forthcoming column on military use of propaganda. If you have no problem with that, of course. I’ll make certain you get attribution (as CLH or your designation of choice) in the article.
CLH,
I look forward to seeing what you come up with.
Dredd,
Mentioning Dawkin’s book was irony. As for dealing with 4.5 billion years of evolution, perhaps there would be some value to your points if this was a blog about science and we were trying to guess why propaganda acts as it does. This is a discussion rather on the effect of propaganda on people and not the why of it. There is a good reason for not getting into your theories, interesting as they might be to you, your science does not currently provide the antidotes to propaganda and so we have to struggle with it as best we can by at least identifying its source and purpose.
“We know far more about Mars than we do our own bodies human ecosystem.”
Exactly my point. Perhaps in the future this research may have value, but until then it really is off topic and you know it is.
“He has never commented on the new revolution in microbiology.”
Because it is irrelevant to the topic of here. If I want to talk you about your off topic pet theories, I’ll come to your blog.
“His work is based on the 2% of the ‘human genome’, written at a time when the 98% of the human genome was considered junk.”
Straw man.
My work isn’t based on genetics let alone your misunderstandings about genetics. I have not (nor do I intend to) use genetics in the analysis of this issue. Why? Because it is irrelevant to the topic and the goal at hand regarding said topic.
In toto the series is based on linguistics (including etymology), symbology, psychology, sociology, history, politics, law, mass media, cybernetics and neuro-linguistic programming as they relate to propaganda (and all of which are human endeavors in a sociological/psychological context). While that list may not be all-inclusive, it is exclusive of the term and science of genetics.
You apparently have a reading comprehension problem as well as being generally hard of understanding, Dredd.
typo
should be “They would bounce a gavel off his forehead!”
Tony C. 1, June 19, 2012 at 2:39 pm
@Dredd: You do not understand what you are reading.
===========================================
I am reading you relying on your own authority, and I understand that state of mind quite well.
You cite to no authority.
I don’t know if you are a lawyer or not, but what would an appellate court think of a brief by an advocate who cited no authority except his own opinion?
They would bound a gavel off his forehead!
Point out the errors of the top scientists I am quoting, with your citations to other, better, or equal authorities, or you really do not have any credibility on this matter IMO.
@Dredd: You do not understand what you are reading. The non-coding DNA is not junk, it is only “dark” in the sense that we have not yet decoded how it works, but as I said it is clearly being conserved and in evolution that only happens if it is selective.
As for the microbes we host, the recipes for those are not encoded in our DNA and have nothing to do with non-coding DNA.
Symbiotic relationship or not, there is no question of control, you are reading popular science hyperbole; that sounds suspiciously like the June 2012 issue of Scientific American.
Yes, we have symbiotic microbes that help with various functions, including digestion and immune system and hormonal functions. They have DNA. So what? We eat chicken, beef, pork, and thousands of different plant products to survive, all with their own DNA, too. It doesn’t make it our DNA, you do not have all the DNA needed to build a chicken or an apple tree tucked into your non-coding DNA.
The reason we have so many symbiotic microbes is actually interesting, it is often because of their primitive, wasteful and inefficient nature: The microbes do a lot of work in breaking something down to get to the little bit of energy they can use, and the broken down product is left behind by them, but the work they did can then be exploited by other microbes or humans. By analogy it is like they peel, slice and core an apple and leave it behind, because they were after the apple seeds, not the apple.
If microbes were perfectly efficient and did exactly as much work as needed to support themselves and their reproduction, then they really wouldn’t do us any good.
I believe microbiologists and I are in perfect agreement; I think you do not comprehend what you are reading about. When they say 99% of the functional genes in the body are microbial, that does not mean 99% of the human genome, and so what? You have hundreds of types of digestive microbes in your gut, each with an active genome supporting it, so what else would we expect? I do not understand your breathless excitement about this statistic. It is unwarranted.
Mike Spindell 1, June 19, 2012 at 2:30 pm
“Some of the propaganda activities of microbes could have some impact on our tendency to use propaganda.”
Dredd,
Well yes, I won’t discount the possibility, but I respect you too much for me to believe that you’re not purposely trying to hijack this thread into a different direction. Now it could be that your own “selfish genes” are leading you unknowingly in that direction as a survival mechanism as in Dawkin’s book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene , but since a different Gene has really done an impressive piece of work on propaganda, I think that microbes are a real distraction on this thread and definitely off topic in this context.
========================================
I have read his work and the work of those who fully disagree with him.
He has never commented on the new revolution in microbiology.
His work is based on the 2% of the “human genome”, written at a time when the 98% of the human genome was considered junk.
If you want to adhere to the mini-skirt view that only skirts the issue of propaganda, fine.
I like to deal with the whole picture (4.5 billion years of evolution) which looks at the origins, not just first year propaganda that deals with 5-15,000 years of evolution.
Each to his own Dieter’s Monkey.
“Some of the propaganda activities of microbes could have some impact on our tendency to use propaganda.”
Dredd,
Well yes, I won’t discount the possibility, but I respect you too much for me to believe that you’re not purposely trying to hijack this thread into a different direction. Now it could be that your own “selfish genes” are leading you unknowingly in that direction as a survival mechanism as in Dawkin’s book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene , but since a different Gene has really done an impressive piece of work on propaganda, I think that microbes are a real distraction on this thread and definitely off topic in this context.