I have another paradox to throw at you--after reading this article, on the one hand I thought that censored or propogandized art is not art at all. Art, after all, is meant to be an individualized form of self-expression--even if a class full of students is meant to draw from the same model, they will likely all render a different end result.
But, at the same time, art--whether it is visual, musical, or otherwise, is ultimately meant to please a mass audience, or else, the artist will fail to make a profit, so there must be a certain degree of conformity in the production process. As I was saying in class today, "50 million Nickelback fans can't be wrong."
So what are your thoughts? To what extent is art already censored to a certain degree, thus making the propoganda process unnecessary?
I have to respectfully disagree that art is to please the masses. I think art has no demographic, art is meant to be interpreted by an individual and also judged by individuals. My sister could look at a still life and think its stupid and meaningless, but I could look at that same piece and it could change my life by its beauty and meaning. I think the best kind of art has no descriptive meaning or message, the best art leaves the meaning and message to the viewer, and everyone will perceive it differently. Those 50 million nickelback fans aren't wrong, but their not right either and thats the beauty of art. No matter your perception, you can't be wrong and you can't be right. I don't believe art is censored at all and censoring it would truly ruin the beauty of it.
ReplyDeleteI think in many cases art can be done to please the masses but it can hardly be called what our country perceives to be art. Art if produced to express one's emotions and thought through an image or writing, and the art produced that people relate to the most becomes the most popular and celebrated among the masses while the other artists tend to sort of float below the surface. Perhaps this is simply a difference in culture, however. perhaps, in communist russia, to produce art was to influence others in order to convince them how truly "altruistic" their government was. either way art is a means of expression and i'd hope that even if we now think of what they produced as bull s*** that the artist, at the very least, believed in what they produced.
ReplyDeleteIt's completely ludicrous to believe that art is meant to please the masses. An overwhelming majority of people who produce art, or artists, don't do so commercially. Also, art does not have to conform to be commercially successful. If anything, non conformist find more success in the art world (e.g Basquait, Manet)
ReplyDeleteI think the purpose of art is to express emotion that can be interpreted in many different ways. I don't believe there is a such thing as art being "censored" because you can't conrol what people feel when they look at a piece of artwork or the effect that artwork has on the person. To me, propoganda was used to try to force people to feel a certain emotion, and that is why propoganda is unnecessary; it takes away from the true meaning of art. Art is supposed to allow people to feel free about their judgement and have a different outlook than everyone else, but propoganda wants everyone to feel the same exact way.
ReplyDeleteI definitely do not think that art was already censored. Art is a free form of expression that does not have any boundaries. However, I think it is the leaders and the propagandists that work to control which kinds of art are seen or listened to. This action ultimately limits the people's exposure to art because if things are deliberately excluded from a show or deliberately showcased then the people are just seeing what the leaders think (or what they want you to think) art is. For example, out of the 15,000 of submissions to the Exhibition of German Art, only 884 were specifically chosen by Hitler himself. The reading describes how he deliberately chose those that weren't too modern or too traditional and mainly choose the ones that showcased Germany's glory under the Fuhrer at the time. Another example is the when Eugen Hadamowsky, organizer of the German national radio programming, bluntly states that radio was "a propaganda instrument 'to mold the character and will of the German nation'".
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mitch on this one. I dont think that art is intended to any one demographic. i think that when an artist creates a wrok of art, it is meant to make someone feel something about it, what they feel is up to the person. of course the artists has his/her own point for creating the artwork, but at the same time someone else could interpret the piece in a completely different way. I personally think that propaganda is just as important as major works of art if not more important. i think that artists help record history in the way they receive what is going on and create art on what they are feeling/receiving. Propaganda is insight into what the government wanted the people to think, so in a way propaganda is the governments artwork in order to persuade the masses to think/do what they want them to think/do.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, art is a way to display the artist's emotions, and by that I mean ONLY the artist's emotions. Artists don't take other people's opinions into account when producing their work, and that is what makes art so powerful. The fact that they can affect so many people without even catering to them is what separates 'good' work from 'bad' work.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mitch. Art is not an "Opiate for the masses" like religion. Art is quite usually how we interpret reality and infuse it with our emotions/logic, etc. this includes; fantasies, wishes, hopes, despair, fears, and many more. But i contest that some art does have some sort of standard, granted there will always be extreme exceptions, art much like is one of the most subjective experiences of life but much like a bell curve there is usually a distinct commonality between most humans, this tends to vary on culture but still exists. For example i find it very difficult for someone to deny the aesthetic beauty of the Mona Lisa likewise for someone (deemed mentally sane, socially acceptable) to praise an image of rape or murder.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that when an artists creates his or her work, they are not thinking of the audience that will see it. I think they are more motivated by their own passion and thoughts. All they want to do is accurately depict his or her feelings. I think a true artist is not worried in the profit they will make or if it will be accepted. All they want is for themselves to accept it. I think the beauty of art is that everybody will feel a different way of it. Some people may think that it Is meaningless while the person standing next to him may think completly different.
ReplyDeleteArt is for the artist, yes they would like people to see their work, but it's not necessary for them, most make it for themselves. If you go to a museum you aren't going to please anyone else, you're doing it for yourself so you can see and enjoy the art. Like Mitch I agree that most people view art very differently. There is some art that my parents love that I dislike strongly and some that I like that they think are awful. I do think that propaganda artist are doing art for a different purpose, but still art is art. My Grandfather has some postcards of American propaganda from WWII, you can still enjoy the aesthetic without buying into the message (pretty sure he's good with the message though).
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that art was censored to a very high degree in both The Third Reich and the Soviet Union. As a first example, the “Industry of Socialism” exhibition had very strict requirements for the work that could be presented; the regulations were described in an 85-page guide! Pictures of “enemies of the people” were often replaced. I agree with some of the above blog posts which suggest art cannot be controlled; it is held for internal, unique interpretation by each person. However, art of all forms (paintings, music, theatre) was censored immensely by both party regimes. Hitler and Stalin believed “art should reflect social reality rather than personal artistic choice” and artists were “engineers of human souls.” In many cases the art’s purpose was to educate in addition to entertaining. It served as propaganda for the people, especially as it became more popular. Even populist culture became censored shortly after its establishment. Both dictatorships sought to “shelter both populations as far as possible from external cultural influences”.
ReplyDeleteDepending on the artist, I think that people who produce art for the masses heavily censor their own art, while true, independent, non conformist artists, who are not concerned with mass appeal make art for themselves, and for the purpose of expression. Some artists, however, can be swayed very easily once money is involved, and begin to generalize their work so it will appeal to a larger crowd. I think that most art that is viewed in the public eye is much more censored than the audience would think. Many people who achieve the level of success associated with world-wide viewing have motives other than expression or personal satisfaction.
ReplyDeleteI have always thought that there is to much commercial art in this world. There was a time when artists did what they thought was art, today, if you do music, movie, books, a lot of artists look at their audiences liking and shape their work after that. The rpoduct of this process can of course be artistic and entertaining to the audience, but for me, it is definetly not the same, because the creator of this art was less creative and more someone who studied his audience and knows how to give them what they want.
ReplyDeleteWell, i think we need to define "Art" first,in order to resolve the puzzle. Unfortunately, this is hard to answer like"What is the meaning of life?" or "What is god?", there are many type of purpose of art, and art is not just confined to painting or drawing, it could be literature, music, dance,sports, commercial art, architecture and even behavior art. Some of those are utter self-expression of the creator, yet some of them are not just that, economic factor does count undeniably in the case to commercial art and architecture. In short, art is the action that the creator take in order to achieve certain goals creatively. Of course are was immensely censored during the administration of Hitler and Stalin, because art like music and literature could dramatically affect people's thought and that could be catastrophical and destructive, it must be manipulated to adjust and censored to cultivate the mass.
ReplyDelete