One of the working definitions that I use for describing good art is suggested by Cal Seerveld -- that it is allusive and imaginative. The artist's worldview is always present -- but is usually muted or subordinate to the work itself. Sometimes, though, the artwork is weighed down by its heavy-handed ideas. Works of art created by Marxists and evangelicals are two common examples of this approach. The artwork becomes more of a sermon, a form of propaganda. The imaginative becomes blunt and the allusive becomes didactic.
And yet.... there are examples of people like Rivera who embrace the idea of art as propaganda. And their work is strengthened because of their commitment.
And so, given what Seerveld says about art and propaganda -- what do you think about this use/abuse of art? Is it ok the create propaganda? Is there a fine line between art and propaganda? Thoughts, ideas, opinions?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that one difference between good works of art like Rivera's and most propaganda is that propaganda is usually being pushed by a group of people, an organization, or an institution who go and get artists to work for them. Is it still propaganda if a single artist (or even a group of artists) has something they strongly believe in and wants to portray that idea to the viewers of their art, without the direct influence of a political group or institution?
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, I do think that art that is allusive and suggestive is OFTEN more powerful than art that just "hits you on the head with a two-by-four" (I think is how Seerveld has put it). Maybe not always, maybe there are more exceptions like Rivera. However, most of the time I think it is most important to learn how to make good art first, and then your worldview or what you strongly believe in will permeate it.
One other thought I had is that the main purpose of propaganda is to influence the actions and thoughts of a mass of people. I don't think a Christian artist should be creating art with that goal in mind. Maybe God will use an artwork by one of us to speak to only one person... God works in small ways. The kingdom of God rises from the bottom up as it slowly permeates all things - it does not seek political or social power. I think Christian artists who are truly led by the Spirit will have this Kingdom vision naturally penetrate their work. Like Momma T said: We can do no great things, only small things with great love.
I should hope Christians artists are not trying to witness the gospel intentionally with propaganda. Its like Christians who go out into public places shouting at people that they're going to hell if they don't repent and believe in Jesus. It just doesn't work well. Perhaps there are exceptions, in art as well.
Overall, I think that often the most powerful way to reach people is to stimulate the imagination. Propaganda is very blunt and leaves no room for imagination. Perhaps that is the line between art and propaganda.
I think that there is definitely a fine line between art and propaganda. An artist always brings his or her experiences and worldview into their work and I think that if an artist is passionate about a specific issue, then this will be reflected in their work. I have been recently struggling with questions similar to this trying to figure out what I want to portray in my senior student exhibition next fall. I agree with Denise's comment about art being more powerful when subtle and allusive and think that it is important not to hit your viewer over the head with a 2x4. I think that the viewer also brings their experiences and worldview to art and that they should be free to interpret the work as they see it. I think that when art is produced as propaganda it limits the potential of the art in question to speak to the viewer. I think that as Christians, we also need to be confident that God can reach people through any means. It does not need to be completely up to the artist to get the point across. I think as artists we need to be mindul of how obvious our message is and give the viewer a little more credit in discovering that message.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the fine line between art and propaganda… it’s hard to define. But then again, art is hard to distinguish from many things—it seems to creep into many aspects of life. Does it need to be separated? Maybe that’s an influence of our “post-modernist” world or something, I’m not sure.
ReplyDeleteI think there is definitely value in not clearly demonstrating every idea you’re portraying in an artwork. It’s important for people to be able to explore a work and find their own interpretation and understanding of the piece, hopefully realizing the intended potential the artist has attempted to place within it. However, if they’re not ready to see it, they won’t. Self-understanding (rather than being directly told) can be critical in the amount of attitudinal change one actually experiences (sorry… my psych background is creeping in).
I resonate with much of what's been said. Something perhaps worth adding is that the perceived boundaries between art and propaganda are always culturally and historically situated, and so the lines shift. Sometimes the cultural worlds of art and "propaganda" overlap, as Riviera identifies.
ReplyDeleteIn my view, artworks ought to be most primarily allusive and suggestive. Strong sentiment (what some might call propaganda) can still be depicted with nuance. When this artfulness of a work suffers and becomes secondary to its message, it has cross over the boundary of art into the realm of two-by-fours. Still legitimate, but not primarily art.
I have been wondering about propaganda; another reason why I don’t like it within Christian circles is that it is often cliché. Christian propaganda may abide by the "rules" of the article but is still overused, stale.
ReplyDeleteI’m thinking of the street corner evangelist's sandwich-board saying "repent or you will burn in hell"... or maybe a bumper sticker saying "Jesus is the answer". Agree or disagree with the message, but either way recognize that its been done, and done again, and then done again.
I wonder if during our lives we may run into situations which have not been addressed before, or find new ways to address the same old situations with a propaganda which abides by the "rules" of not being overbearingly ideological, manipulative, or misleading, with the addition of not being cliché and repetitive.
Can an artist be creative with propaganda?
I think there is some room for creativity and allusiveness in propaganda which addresses new and relevant issues.
There is creativity in being able to use the option of propaganda once in a while along with more nuanced and in-depth work.