IntroductionA

Introduction

What art is has always been one of the most complex questions of our existence. What

defines a work to be art and/or of beauty? What is the purpose of making art? What separates

artworks telling a story from a propagandistic ground and others which are simply made with

artistry intensions? Seeking to find a purpose, we come across another set of questions:

investigating how art serves as a propaganda medium and where we draw the line, if there is one,

between art and propaganda.

The seminar #Not In For This, led by Dr. Sarah Hegenbart, continuously raised similar

questions in discussions. As a group, participants researched and learned how fine arts, performative

arts, and architecture have played roles in different periods and circumstances. Different points of

views were represented in many articles and essays that have been discussed. In this research paper

similar questions will be investigated on a greater spectrum of different time periods. Starting from

cave paintings all the way to contemporary art in 2010’s, crucial examples will be analysed

thoroughly and as detailed as possible with the related imagery presented. These examples will be

examined if they have propagandistic motives and how these motives impact the art works’ value.

Definitions

According to the Cambridge Dictionary; Propaganda is defined as:

“information, ideas, opinions, or images, often only giving one part of an argument, that are

broadcast, published, or in some other way spread with the intention of influencing people's

opinions.” [1]

Propagandais often a tool used by powerful leaders and higher authorities to influence and

promote, and they use different mediums to do so. Parties have used art and architecture to promote

their ideas since the Stone Age. Subtle or more evident traces of propaganda can be found in many

art works. Examples will be given and these works will be analysed in this context throughout this

paper.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines Art as the following:

“the making of objects, images, music, etc. that are beautiful or that express feelings.” [2]

The Oxford Dictionary also offers:

“The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form

such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or

emotional power.” [3]

Defining art has always been a complicated process for many years. But the majority

accepts artworks to be works of creativity that seek to spark many different emotions in the viewer.

Milton Glaser, in his 2008 keynote address at “Where the Truth Lies: A Symposium on Propaganda

Today,” sponsored by the School of Visual Arts in New York City, quotes Horace. The Roman

philosopher and critic wrote: “The purpose of art is to inform and delight.” [4]

Nowadays artists, art critics, and viewers have an even broader definition for art and what

can be counted as artworks. Art is in every small thing in people’s daily lives. It’s in the way lives

are designed: not just in galleries’ white cubes. It is in the cup one drinks coffee from in the

morning, in the billboards cars pass by during commuting; not just in the large frames hung in

offices or classrooms, it is in the media or on the streets in the form of hundreds of people marching

for the causes they believe in.

Coming to the topic of art and propaganda and how related they are; many artists, including

writers, have voiced their opinion on this on-going debate, some more adamant than others. Some

say that art and propaganda go hand in hand. No artwork is ever not trying to tell something and no

“successful” propaganda can be performed without a vision of artistic concerns. In George Orwell’s

book, All Art is Propaganda, he says:

“All art is propaganda; on the other hand, not all propaganda is art.” [5]