A little while ago in class, we were talking about different art that was used as propaganda, when one of our teachers posed this question that really made me think: is all art propaganda? My initial thought was of course not- maybe some is but not all because my favorite artists would never create propaganda. I decided to do a little more research before committing myself. According to dictionary.com, propaganda is "information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc." My interpretation of that definition is that propaganda is anything that has an intent to help or harm. So if propaganda is something that has a goal, then wouldn't you hope that all art is propaganda, because shouldn't all good art try to communicate a message? Maybe a better question to pose would have been: is propaganda in the form of art a bad thing?
One of my all-time favorite paintings is Picasso's Guernica, perhaps because I have studied it in Spanish class so many times, or maybe because I appreciate the originality of it. I would definitely call this painting propaganda- it's trying to express "the tragedies of war and the suffering it inflicts upon individuals, particularly innocent civilians." (Wikipedia). How upfront, in your face propaganda is that?!? Yet, so many people, me included, love this painting. When I look at this painting I see the destruction of the innocent people, but I interpret this painting in my own way, which must be different from how Picasso felt about the issue. Picasso is not telling us how to feel about the bombing of Guernica, but rather showing how he feels about it.
I think that all artists have a message they want to convey, but viewers can chose how to interpret the message. Similarly, propaganda may seek to convey a message, but people are free to interpret the message however they want. In my opinion, all good art is propaganda, and propaganda is not necessarily a bad thing when it gets people thinking.
No comments:
Post a Comment