A Response to Cultures of Resistance

Last Thursday, my class watched a documentary directed by Iara Lee at the Beloit International Film Festival (BIFF) called Cultures of Resistance. The film interviewed a variety people in several locations across the globe, their one common factor being their active resistance to an aspect of society. Some resisted through violence, such as in the Congo, while some through peaceful activism, like the Burmese monks. A majority of those interviewed in the film, however, express their discontentment with their cultures through art.

In Brazil, musicians turn machine guns into guitars and play for the kids in the slums. Lebanese refugees use photography, film-making and music tell their stories. And in Iran, the story that intrigued me most, street artists use graffiti as a weapon against suppression.

The duo in the film call themselves Tehran Ratz. Because of the uncontrollable nature of their art (graffiti is outlawed in Iran), and the highly political messages they create in their pieces, the pair's work is trying to be stifled by the Ahmadinejad Regime. Despite the illegality of their actions, they continue their actions in hopes of portraying a different view of Iran citizens to other countries, and to relay messages regarding politics to their fellow Iranians.

Here is a clip from Cultures of Resistance in which the Tehran Ratz talk about their work and their country:

Graffiti artists create some of the truest expressions of self expression and political statements since, unlike most artists, their aim is usually not to be shown in galleries or museums. Instead, their main intent is simply to get a statement out. Because these artists don't have to worry about getting their name into highly selective circles in the art world (which is extremely, extremely difficult to do, even for the most talented artists), they are free to convey whatever message they wish without worrying about their reputation or financial repercussions. In my next post, I will continue my discussion on graffiti and it's highly political nature. I also hope to touch upon legal graffiti and rarities in the field, such as the extremely famous and successful street artist Banksy.

Soviet Posters

"We'll Execute the Plan of Great Works"

  Soviet states during the Communist Era promoted their cause through the careful collaboration  between artists and party members. The artwork was meant to create a strong reaction in all the citizens of these countries, combining mental triggers with emotional reactions. This meant using propaganda tricks, like those discussed in my last post.

The poster above employs the propaganda techniques of bandwagon, by showing a large group in the poster seemingly in support of the ideas depicted (the many raised hands); and glittering generalities, by using the words 'great works.'

"Every Day Life is Getting Better"

 This poster employs the techniques of plain folks and asserting an opinion as an overarching truth.

"We'll Raise a Generation Selflessly Loyal to Communism"

 This piece uses bandwagon by its inclusion of the word 'we,' and also employs plain folks.

"For the Motherland, for Stalin, for World Peace, for Communism"

 This poster uses glittering generalities is employed, with the references to the 'Motherland' and 'World Peace;' and transfer, by using the reputation of Stalin.

Art in Propaganda?

The seventeenth century marked an important shift in history. Settlers from England had reached Plymouth Rock, and were beginning to colonize what would one day become the superpower of a global economy. The East India Trading Company had just put footholds in distant lands, and access to foreign cultures and goods was increasing dramatically. Protestantism was growing rapidly in European countries and spreading across borders. The increasing numbers of this branch of Christianity, combined with the heightened contact with the rest of the world, pushed the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Catholic Church to combine and form a specialty school in 1622. The "College of the Propaganda" was formed to train missionaries to spread Catholic doctrine and increase attendance to the the church. This is where the term "propaganda" was officially coined.

The College of the Propaganda most likely believed they had righteous intentions, but in today's society the term propaganda has negative connotations. This word usually brings to mind images of brain-washing, deceit, and suppression. More relevantly to this blog, propaganda often brings to mind "poster art" like Rosie the Riveter:

Artist J. Howard Miller was commissioned to create this poster in 1942
by the Westinghouse Company's War Production Coordinating Committee.

What is the relationship between artists and politics in relation to propaganda? Is there an inherent difference between an artist who creates landscape paintings and one that creates posters like Rosie the Riveter?

The definition of propaganda varies from one source to the next, but most agree that it is "... a form of communication that attempts to influence the behavior of people by affecting their perceptions, attitudes and opinions" (http://www.answers.com/topic/propaganda-uses-and-psychology). One could argue that both paintings and propaganda posters attempt to convey a message to a perceived audience by "affecting their perceptions, attitudes and opinions." The artist who creates a still-life painting employs the same elements of art that a 1950s Soviet poster artist does: line, color, texture, form, space, value, and shape. So, where do we draw the line between art used as "brainwashing" and a "pure expression" of art?

It seems the main difference comes in the "attempts to influence the behavior of people," or the use of power and control, that propaganda pieces employ. A propaganda poster is trying to incite a particular action or belief in all members of the public, while art is an attempt on the part of the artist to convey their own beliefs or views. In simple black-and-white terms, propaganda's aim is control and suppression while art's aim is enlightenment and self-expression.

The line separating the two is more easily recognized when a piece is commissioned by a second party. Artists who are hired by another individual or company are being used as tools to promote a certain image for the second party. However, even this isn't a perfect definition. Consider commissioned portraits; could these be considered propaganda? Though the artist will want to portray the individual they are painting in a flattering light in order to receive payment, the artist will try to do this while keeping the features of the subject as realistic as possible. Is this more truth or more lie?

The example of the portrait artist falls in a grey area. However, there are clearer examples of propaganda, and they are often linked to political agendas.

Soviet propaganda poster by unknown artist.
Translation: "The People and Army are One!"

Political parties have used art as a tool for propaganda for centuries. This was a particularly effective tool where country's population was illiterate or only semi-literate. The power of pictures was recognized and taken advantage of, particularly during wartime, to increase patriotism and compliance to the state. Images, however, are rarely the only device used by visual propaganda. Poster art generally uses a combination of key trigger words, images, and associations to create the most effective campaign. The Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA), established in 1936, sites seven standard propaganda techniques:

• Bandwagon: pretty self-explanatory; this technique promotes the importance or veracity of a concept by making the audience believe the majority is acting or thinking in a certain way.
• Card-stacking: the selective omission of certain information.
• Glittering Generalities: the use of vague concepts that are generally seen as "good" and applying them to them to the cause at hand; examples include "democracy," "patriotism," "brotherhood," and "freedom."
• Name-calling: essentially the opposite of glittering generalities, this technique overrides a person's rational thought by employing negative emotional trigger words, such as "terrorist."
• Plain Folks: the attempt to make an individual or group seem like one of the majority, or as promoting the needs of a certain group.
• Testimonial: citing the support of a well-known and respected individual.
• Transfer: taking the the reputation of one concept, group, or person and applying it to another. William Jennings Bryan did this in 1896 when he compared Jesus to labor unions: "You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold!"

Other techniques that have been suggested as propaganda techniques over the years also include: inducing fear, asserting an opinion as truth, presenting the desired action as the lesser of two evils, pinpointing one specific person or group as "the enemy," and oversimplifying a situation (often through the use of stereotypes.) Many of these techniques employ the written word, but others can be applied through the use of images and symbols alone or in conjunction with words. Consider a poster created to promote Barack Obama during his 2008 presidential campaign:

A poster from Obama's 2008 election campaign
employs the use of glittering generalities

The stylized picture shows Obama gazing above the viewer and uses the three colors of the American flag: red, white, and blue. This would likely cause the viewer to associate this image with patriotism and foresight: good qualities in a leader. This, combined with the single word "hope" at the bottom of the poster, causes the audience to associate Obama with loyalty to America, planning, and a better future, even though poster reveals nothing about the man's actual policies or personality.

What is interesting about the Obama poster shown above is that it was not originally commissioned by a second party. The artist, Frank Sheppard Fairy, created the image of his own volition, and was only later endorsed by the official Obama presidential campaign.

While there is a difference between art and propaganda, the examples of the portrait artist and of the  poster above shows that it's important to remember that visual propaganda employ artists. The distinction between an artist's work that is meant to make people think and an artist's work that is meant to make people think in a certain way is often not black-and-white. Truth is subjective, and artists can be swayed by opposing opinions.

The Emperor Is Naked.

The Guy Fawkes mask is now being used by the group Anonymous
to represent their subordinate gang of computer hackers.

This blog is devoted to exploring the lives and works of the artists in regards to suppression. I chose the title of this site, a quote from the popular graphic novel and movie V for Vendetta, because I believe it perfectly shows the dichotomy between artists and the suppressive powers of their societies; an artist creates illusions and lies to reveal a truth about themselves or their environment, while politicians often use lies to mold the environment to their benefit. (However, the line between reality and falsehood, and even between artist and politician, are not always clear. I want to get into that in later posts, but here's a spoiler: propaganda.)

Artists are one of the biggest groups of political commentators. Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, the band Flobots, Pat Bagley's illustrations in the Salt Lake Tribune's opinion section, the graffiti of Banksey, George Orwell's Animal Farm, and the multimedia pieces by Barbara Kruger are all examples of art used to send a political message; they are fictional creations that use their falsehood to expose truth. Adults aren't the only target audience, there are also artists who make political commentary aimed at children. Take, for example, the fairy tale of The Emperor's New Clothes, a short story by Hans Christen Andersen. For those who have lived in a bubble or under a rock, here's the gist of the story:

An emperor, concerned only with his looks, hires two tailors to create the finest suit ever crafted. The tailors decide to take advantage of the emperor's vanity. They assert that they have a beautiful and rare material that is invisible only to those with incredible stupidity. The emperor, not wanting to appear unfit for his position, lies and says he can see this nonexistent fabric. The tailors pretend to dress him and take their payment without having actually done any work. The emperor, proud of his rare purchase, parades naked in front of his people, explaining to the crowd that those who can't see the fabric are stupid. His subjects, not wanting to admit that they see no clothes, don't question the situation until a small girl points out the emperor's nakedness. Immediately after, as though a spell had been lifted, the crowd realizes the hoax and begins mocking their ruler. The emperor returns home naked and ashamed.

Andersen's tale can easily be interpreted as being a commentary about societies who are engaged in (as Vaclev Havel would call it) "a collective lie." The author Theodore Seuss Geisel, affectionately known by  kids in the United States as Dr. Seuss, was also an artist who portrayed political messages to children through poetry and illustration. Maybe you read some of his more famous works:

The one that will always hold a special place in my heart is
The Importance of Environmental Awareness in Industrialized Society.

To round out this post, I just have this to say: art and politics are intricately linked. Perhaps I'll focus more on the works of the artists I mentioned here in future. For now, much of the inspiration for this blog stems from an artist who turned into a key political activist during the post-totalitarian suppression of Czechoslovakia: the playwright Vaclav Havel (who I briefly mentioned above). His views and works, particularly the book The Power of the Powerless, will be used as a common thread to tie the posts of this blog together.

The Prague Spring is usually understood as a clash between two groups on the level of real power: those who wanted to maintain the system as it was and those who wanted to reform it. It is frequently forgotten, however, that this encounter was merely the final act and inevitable consequence of a long drama originally played out chiefly in the theatre of the spirit and the conscience of society. And that somewhere at the beginning of this drama, there were individuals who were willing to live within the truth, even when things were at their worst. These people had no access to real power, nor did they aspire to it. The sphere in which they were living the truth was not necessarily even that of political thought. They could equally have been poets, painters, musicians, or simply ordinary citizens who were able to maintain their human dignity.

- Power of the Powerles