Can we enjoy propagandistic art?

thoughts orangutan

It’s something I’ve been mulling over for a time and I’m not sure I’ve reached any satisfying conclusions. In fact, I’ve been puzzling over what even is propaganda– some definitions seem too narrow and some too broad. I’ve heard some weird things (some that would imply the only way to not be a propagandist is a to be a pantser), yet rather than talk on anecdotal evidence, let’s look at a definition, because I like definitions, as un-definitive as they often are:

information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.”

grapes of wrathOkay now we’re getting somewhere- if we focus on the misleading/biased element of this definition, most artists can be let off the hook. Yet, still there’s room for some, like Steinbeck with his pro-socialism bias. And not just a casual bias (for someone’s certainly going to argue “aren’t we all biased?”) but a conscious bias. There is no doubt, for instance, of the messaging in Grapes of Wrath. Now I’ve often joked that “when you can write like Steinbeck you can write what you like”- but the inescapable truth is he was trying to convey a political message in an emotive and ergo manipulative manner. Maybe the term is apt.

Here we get to the crux of the issue- because stating all of this will make many recoil in disgust. Either from my arguments, with a design to spare poor Steinbeck this label, or from his beautiful work, which is not my intention. It would, however, be a shame that reasoned individuals would fail to see the wood for the trees simply because the term is distasteful. It would be even more of a shame if art was dismissed entirely on these grounds.

Granted, not all propaganda is beautiful or interesting or worth examining- but then nor is a lot of art. I will not make the argument that all propaganda has merit- indeed I have a particular dislike for the Soviet or Nazi brands for instance- yet some, as I’ve mentioned, is very aesthetically pleasing. Take, for instance, the Roman propaganda machine. From the Republic to the last of the Emperors, they constructed divine monuments to display their power and beliefs. One of my favourite ancient monuments, the Ara Pacis, is designed purely to show the peace and prosperity of a new saeculum aureum under Augustus. Its friezes depict scenes of tranquillity and fertility- but make no mistake, this enters into the thorny snare of politicised art. Its very position on the Campus Martius dictated as much.

 

With that, all that remains is to discuss how effective it is. And the truth is I do not profess to know how susceptible people are to propaganda- especially the written kind. I have long held to the view “you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make them drink”. Frankly, unless you have an unformed opinion, books do not subvert entire mind sets, only nudge you in a direction you were probably already headed. My own perspective is that if I’m being clobbered over the head with an idea or thought I don’t hold, I instantly pull back from it…. so maybe potential propagandists should watch out- they don’t realise how many people they’re alienating with their heavy handedness.

And that rambling point leads me to my conclusion– for if it is not effective and potentially beautiful, I cannot discount all propaganda as unartistic. Personally, as curious as I am about where the intersection of propaganda and art lies, I do not think acknowledging that it is propagandistic is the be all and end all. So, yes, I guess you can enjoy propaganda.

What do you think? Do you agree with me? Disagree? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments!

Advertisements

73 thoughts on “Can we enjoy propagandistic art?

  1. raistlin0903 says:

    I think as with pretty much any piece of art that it depends on what is depicted on it, and how it looks. I visited a musuem last year that had propaganda Art on display by a Chinese artist. I unfortunately have forgotten the name at the moment, but it really was quite incredible to behold. And I would definitely call it art, that was for sure. 😊😊

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Winged Cynic says:

    I personally agree with you. People can appreciate art for its merits, hopefully with the awareness that what they’re seeing is propaganda. I mean, even outside the realms of art, people can look at grand things like the Wall of China or the Egyptian pyramids and appreciate it despite the horrible history behind it. As long as we’re able to sieve through the intent/propaganda from the art itself, no reason why we can’t enjoy it. Great post!

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Jessica Triepel says:

    Sure, you can enjoy it, but it is good to know your own mind and know the tricks and recognize it for what it is. Effective propaganda is not obvious. It is a steady but slow trickle of water that wears away mountains. The best method for propaganda to be effective is to target the young and impressionable minds of children. Hence, the effectiveness of christianity and really, even government holds a lot of sway. Every day of our school years we chant the pledge of allegiance. We are too young to ask why we do this, yet still, we are ordered to do so. Reminds me of a documentary I saw about north Korea. We are taught to idolize the founding fathers of the american dream, and pretend this is still the same government that it was back then. How many people grew up to be flag waving, “support our troops” patriots as a direct result of that institutionalised propaganda. Art can work the same way. Music and visual is very effective at altering us on a subconscious level. Would you know if it was happening? And for the record, the Nazis had excellent fashion sense and highly effective symbolism.
    So, form your own conclusions, because to tell you to do otherwise would be trying to manipulate you based upon my own bias. 😉

    Like

    • theorangutanlibrarian says:

      You’re right about the effectiveness of propaganda on children- I think that feeds into my point about how propaganda is effective on people who have unformed opinions. That’s why it is dangerous in schooling and why so many groups in history (and now) target children. (although I will say, I’m not American, but wouldn’t compare it to NK- no one’s crawling on their hands and knees to get out of the USA).
      That said, after a certain point, I think propaganda either only feeds into existing confirmation biases (so an American patriot sees patriotic symbols and it bolsters their own patriotism- the opposite is true for someone who does not like America). The Nazis propaganda is actually a good example of ideas feeding into existing German biases and high levels of trait orderliness (which results in increased disgust sensitivity)- it worked, but only because the German people were willing to accept the narrative Hitler offered (for instance a lot of the imagery was based on thousands of years of blood libel imagery- so it fed into that- it didn’t come out of nowhere). To answer your final question, if it confirmed my world view, I would presume I’m like everyone else and wouldn’t notice- but at the same time I do try to *pay attention* 😉 – how good I am at that is debatable. And lol- I’m not going to compliment Nazi fashion sense- I wouldn’t describe it as “excellent”.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jessica Triepel says:

        I don’t mean to compare American propaganda to all of north Korean propaganda. It was just one thing with school children and kids in preschool. At a certain time each day they had to all stand and sing a song, much like how Americans have to stand for the pledge or the star spangled banner.
        But I mostly agree with what you are saying. Sometimes people aren’t self aware enough to see their plan biases and how that makes them more influenced by propaganda than others. But ya, it largely comes down to know in your own mind. Even if y don’t have formed opinions, you can choose to look at multiple perspectives before making an informed opinion, but that takes effort. Easy to swallow sound bites and quick assessments from the soap box are so much easier than actually thinking. 😂
        As for fashion, to each his own. It’s not the fashion that it good or evil, only the person wearing it. 😉

        Liked by 1 person

        • theorangutanlibrarian says:

          Fair enough, I do understand where you’re coming from- I still see the distinction as important- ie no one’s holding a gun to your head for it in the US (no matter how strong the social stigma) But I see your point and largely agree- sorry to get bogged down in the analogy, I just see some things as worth saying. And yes very true.
          I see your point- however I think somethings are hard to disassociate- Nazi fashion will forever bring images of Bergen Belsen and the like to mind (which incidentally feeds our discussion about internal biases- that said, even looking at this in the most clinical way, I can’t see bias against mass murderers as being bad).

          Liked by 1 person

          • Jessica Triepel says:

            I can see your point as well. In my case, though, it is very easy for me to look at things objectively and move beyond the emotional triggers. We’ve had images branded into our subconscious/consciousness for so long and associated with certain concepts. The analogy of Nazis and their fashion and symbolism is a perfect example, because it affects so many people. But I can separate these things. I can also detach my emotions so that I can try to figure out the man behind the curtain, so to speak. In middle school I remember looking at Hitler’s picture in school and wondering what could have made this man, who looked so normal, want to do such horrible things. The emotional reactions make us want to fixate on the acts and not think beyond that. It’s funny, Hitler criticised the objective thinking of German and Austrian people prior to WWI in his book mein Kampf, but thinking objectively is something I’m rather good at. I want to know why, to understand what drives a person to such extremes. Of course it was very nearly a whole party and many other accomplices in the case of the Nazis… But I’m rambling now. Haha! The point is that the fashion is nothing but fashion without the emotions we attach to it.

            Liked by 1 person

            • theorangutanlibrarian says:

              You make really good points. I think it’s perfectly fair for you to feel that way and I can relate. I do believe in taking an objective approach and examining the psychology of evil, including understanding that normal humans are capable of such things (and yes, far from it being one man). I do understand the effectiveness and purpose of a lot of Nazi symbolism- however, even objectively I would say a lot of this has negative connotations (the fire imagery as exterminating vermin or the inverted Buddhist swastika for instance). There was a lot of deliberate play with some pretty demonic imagery- for instance have you seen that Mitchell and Web sketch where they talk about how they’ve got skulls on their uniform and one says to the other “maybe we’re the bad guys?”. I think that there’s a lot of reasons why people are repulsed by it- not just connotations (though connotations in this case are enough). And I wouldn’t say this is true just about Nazi imagery- I mentioned Soviet art in the piece for the same reason. I do think there are added implications and the quality of art is always debatable- but I would say that in this instance, it’s fair that strong emotions are attached. It doesn’t mean everyone has to react the same way, but there are logical reasons for such reactions. And now I’m rambling! Sorry!

              Like

              • Jessica Triepel says:

                Haha! Well, I’m glad you understand me, because most would be easily triggered, even though I am not in any way defending or condoning evil. I don’t think I’ve seen the images you mentioned. As for the swastika, it is a pity that it has negative energy upon it, because there is a bind rune that is made of two of the same rune to create the sun wheel. It is a bindrune of victory, but it is the power of the sun. The intent is what makes it good or bad. I don’t think the swastika was intended as a reversal of the Hindu symbol, but actually as the very bindrune of which I speak. As an Odinist, it bothers me that such a powerful symbol can not be used in a public setting without attracting negative attention which would distort the purpose and power of it. (From a mystical/magical use) I’ve never used it even in private, but I sense it’s power. Form that reason, I can understand some of those heathens who want to reclaim it as a heathen symbol and disconnect it from the misuse it was put to in the past. And I’m rambling again! Haha!

                Liked by 1 person

                • theorangutanlibrarian says:

                  hehe not so easily triggered 😉 And don’t worry! That’s an interesting point- I personally think it bears less resemblance to the sun wheel than the Buddhist swastika (plus they share the same name). But it is possible that’s where they co-opted the image from. Good point about intent, but I think symbols carry their own weight and sometimes things are done on a subconscious level- intentionally or not it has a curious meaning (and it does make me wonder what they were upto). Even if it was a massive coincidence, I’d still think that’s curious. But, I can understand why that would be frustrating as an Odinist- because it is terrible that such a symbol would be co-opted, and it would be wrong to have an aversion to the rune. haha no worries- I think I’m doing the same!

                  Like

                  • Jessica Triepel says:

                    I haven’t done a lot of rune work, mostly just reading, meditating on individual runes, and sometimes having dreams about them. But the combined sowillo rune is one I haven’t done. I’m pretty sure I can keep any unwanted subconscious debris out of it, but maybe it’s not worth the risk. If the imagery could stop being used for a generation maybe it could be revived with a fresh start. How would the Jews feel, for example, if someone did that with the Jewish star? How would they react? Would they abandon the symbol for something new? Anyway, the swastika appears on stone engravings in the Germanic/Scandinavian world dating back to the press Christian age at least, so it was already in use in our own culture. Often found on graves, I believe.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    • theorangutanlibrarian says:

                      Well that’s really interesting. And yeah you make a good point- even if I personally see it as a slightly different symbol with a different name, you make an excellent case for it anyway. hehe yes I imagine we’d be pretty pissed about that (I’m Jewish) so I can certainly see your point of view.

                      Like

                    • Jessica Triepel says:

                      Haha! Wow! I never would have guessed! It certainly doesn’t help the case for reclaiming it since some racist idiots still want to misuse the symbol to broadcast their own hateful ignorance. And when a new Holocaust movie comes out almost yearly, that, too, assures it will never be seen as anything else but a symbol of hate. That must irritate the Hindus as well. I used to nanny for a Hindu family back when I was only 20 and knew nothing about all this. One day I saw the husband wearing a shirt with that symbol, and you can probably imagine my shock! Haha! Well, I politely asked about it, and he was very cool about explaining it to me, so all good. 😁

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Jessica Triepel says:

                      Ha, I must have missed it! 😉 Yes, our preconceived notions about subjects we are mostly ignorant about can lead to some pretty awkward or very funny scenarios! Lesson to self: never make assumptions! There i was thinking Hindus were secretly Nazi sympathizers! Haha! I would have been really embarrassed if I would have freaked out, only to find out there was no connection! 😂 I better stop. My imagination is running away with me! That could make for a pretty hilarious sketch, Monty Python style! 😁

                      Liked by 1 person

  4. PerfectlyTolerable says:

    Is the “Rosy the Riveter” posters considered propaganda? I am pretty sure they are? And I think that is a beautiful poster and so important to American History. Also “Keep Calm and Carry On” was propaganda. So both cases, in my opinion, are awesome works of art and have a lot of historical significance.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Briana | Pages Unbound says:

    As I mentioned, I don’t mind it so much in classics. I guess at some point it becomes interesting to me from a historical viewpoint or something. I’m much more annoyed by overt propaganda in contemporary literature, and that’s including viewpoints I actually agree with.

    Liked by 2 people

    • theorangutanlibrarian says:

      Yeah I agree with you there and I think that’s a good point about it becoming historical- though in some instances it is still relevant. And I really agree with you- whether I agree with the viewpoint or not (and there’s plenty of both) I’m increasingly shocked by how much exists. I personally don’t want much politics in my fiction anyway (excluding dystopias 😉 )

      Liked by 1 person

      • Briana | Pages Unbound says:

        Yeah, I’m all for “the government is evil for these reasons” in dystopian. But a lot of YA is getting overly preachy or just overly topical for me. I don’t really want to read a book that’s like “I am writing a book about how awful life would be if Trump actually did x, y, and z!” Maybe I just like more escapism in my books than I realized, but I live in the real world with Trump. I don’t want to keep hearing about him in my fiction. I’ve even seen an increasing number of forwards, afterwards, acknowledgements, etc. that directly address American politics, which is interesting, but not what I necessarily expect from a book.

        Liked by 2 people

        • theorangutanlibrarian says:

          Yes I’m really with you on that. I listen to *too much* political stuff- I’m actually trying to cut it down cos it’s not healthy for me personally- the *last* thing I need is politics in fiction. And yeah, I very rarely read those, so I haven’t seen that, but I’m sure I’d find that a tad out of place.

          Like

  6. daleydowning says:

    Almost everything that presents an opinion (whether it be a productive and beneficial opinion, or a very negative and harmful one) can count, to a point, as propaganda, I feel.

    It does depend on what the work is pushing that makes me either support it, shy away from it, or flatout call it crap.

    If picture books are suggesting my children be nice to other children and share toys, sure, I’ll go along with that.

    If picture books are telling my children that all humans are evil and racist and destroying the planet by choosing to drive cars, then, I’ll have an issue with that.

    Same goes for YA fiction that says all teenagers should be having sex, experiment with drugs and liquor, swear, and support gay rights and the pro-choice view. For the record, I don’t like extremely conservative works that pretend a teenager can totally get through life in the 21st century without ever being tempted to try any of these. Like you said, when people don’t yet know how to form an educated perspective, not offering both sides of an issue is INTENSELY dangerous. What happened to YA fic that showed the possible dangers of unprotected sex and drug use?

    The thing I dislike the most about present propaganda in art is the (inaccurate) concept that everybody should feel the same way about these controversial topics. (They’re controversial for a damn good reason.)

    Liked by 2 people

    • theorangutanlibrarian says:

      Fair point, it’s quite possible. Yes I do think there’s a difference- I think we all have moral lines- and there’s certainly books where I feel I have to call out its propagandistic elements. Especially
      if it’s pushing for something I cannot stand.

      I do think it makes a huge difference in something like picture books. I would never want to get my nephews something that had messaging beyond be nice. Aside from not believing in the messages, I just think there’s a level of inappropriateness to that.

      Yeah, I’m not a conservative (not left wing either) but I can understand your perspective and I think the important thing is that parents get to choose what their children are exposed to. Plus there isn’t really a balance of books with different messaging out there. I think there’s often a problem with certain ideas being pushed above others (aka left wing to far left) and no desire to draw a line in the sand and say “x is not suitable”. I was actually having a discussion with a
      friend about this the other day- the line between adult and young adult is increasingly blurred.

      Yes- that does bother me a great deal. It also really surprises me that people are surprised to find other people don’t agree… like you said- it’s controversial for a reason!

      Liked by 1 person

  7. littlebookynook says:

    Hmmm propaganda art is a difficult one. For me, I can definitely enjoy it for what it is, but I don’t want it shoved in my face. I just automatically think of Animal farm when “propaganda” is mentioned, because that’s what that whole book is. I guess I never really appreciated it because I read this book back in highschool and had to pretend to be one of the animals and give a speech (I was the only one who spoke from the pigs point of view for something different, and my teacher called me a Nazi!!). Anyway, I digress. I think propagandistic art can be appreciated, but…cautiously I guess?? Sorry if what I have just said makes no sense whatsoever, you really made me think outside the box with this one!!! Great post, I love posts like this that make me think!!

    Liked by 1 person

    • theorangutanlibrarian says:

      I can understand that- I didn’t actually like Animal Farm the first time I read it, for that reason (even though philosophically I largely agree with it) *WOW* at your teacher- not only is that unprofessional and rude, it’s also not even a correct insult- like what?! I think that’s a great way to put it. No it made complete sense! Thank you so much- I’m really glad!!

      Liked by 1 person

  8. blazeofobscurity says:

    I think time is a big factor here as well. As we move away from the era in which propaganda was relevant, it loses some of its sting and immediacy. Sometimes it’s even seen as hokey or cute, even though at the time of its creation it may have inspired very different emotions. I think about the whole “Keep Calm…” meme. It’s a simplistic example, but it was to my understanding, originally going to be used as a message of hope during the Blitz. Now it’s invoked in a cutesy, joking way.

    Leni Riefenstahl helped generate a language of film that is still relevant today, yet the horror of the Nazi regime she worked for create that tension. Yet as someone who works with young people, it is astounding how the period is now viewed with a level of ignorance by the younger generations. In that context (stripped of context) it seems inevitable that it will be easier to enjoy the art for its emotive appeal, and not really give a thought to the assosciations

    Liked by 1 person

    • theorangutanlibrarian says:

      Yeah I completely get that and I do agree with you. A lot of imagery and meaning changes over time, so that’s certainly true and a great example.

      That’s interesting- I hadn’t heard of that and I do want to look into it more. I can understand that though and thanks for sharing. I think you made excellent points and will mull some of that over.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Sophie @ Blame Chocolate says:

    I most definitely have enjoyed this type of art and many times I don’t even know it’s propaganda. Well, the subtle ones anyway. And the really in your face ones, well, I remain open as long as they don’t clash with my core values. That’s where I draw the line and say “nope”. But that’s not to say I won’t enjoy the art itself, I just won’t go for its message.
    Amazing post, as always! I love these interesting discussions 😊

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Naty says:

    Honestly, when I notice a book has propaganda, it annoys me more than other forms of art. Perhaps because in paintings, sculptures etc I would already expect that but, for some reason, I associate books much less as a propaganda vehicle. Any sort of strong moralist/propagandist undertones in a book will put me off – like Brave New World and Fahrenheit 451. While one can still enjoy the works, the message behind those is so clear that I rolled my eyes several times, as I disagreed with much of what they tried to say and convince us of.

    Great discussion!

    Liked by 1 person

    • theorangutanlibrarian says:

      I can really understand that! I think that makes sense- I think it’s more noticeable in books (if that makes sense). Ah fair enough- although I’m curious what about the messaging in those two books put you off? I think they’re generally quite anti-totalitarian books.
      Anyway, thank you!

      Liked by 1 person

    • MichaelK says:

      It is indeed a thorny subject and I can’t say I have any concrete beliefs or arguments. However I totally agree that propaganda can only do so much. And I may sound elitist but I firmly believe that people who read more and broader are less susceptible to it. In many cases propaganda only serves as confirmation of one’s already formed beliefs.
      PS I loved your Roman examples as I have a great affinity to the Graeco-Roman world and I have kind of personal reasons to favour Octavian, a true master of self-promotion.

      Liked by 2 people

      • theorangutanlibrarian says:

        Yeah I agree with you there. I don’t think that sounds elitist, I just think it’s good advice- the best way to inoculate yourself against propaganda is to read wider and read well. And I definitely agree that propaganda can only feed into something you already believe.
        And I’m really glad you said that, because so few other people notice 😉 I actually did half my degree in classical art/literature, so I have a deep seated fondness for the subject. And I happen to favour Octavian above all the other Roman emperors (although some of the more, shall we say, unstable ones like Caligula are fun to read about 😉 ) I agree, he was a master at self-promotion.

        Liked by 1 person

  11. Lydia Tewkesbury says:

    I think propaganda can certainly be artistic. That is perhaps what makes it so pervasive. In the artistic space we aren’t necessarily always analysing everything we come into contact with, which I think makes it easy for us to take on ideas without really interrogating them. If you’re reading characters in a story that you like, then I guess you’re more likely to be aligned with their viewpoint, even if under regular circumstances those viewpoints would be disgusting to you.

    This really got me thinking – great discussion!

    Liked by 1 person

    • theorangutanlibrarian says:

      Yes I think that’s a fair point. I do largely agree- I just find that if a character in particular starts voicing something I find abhorrent, I’m going to stop liking them really fast. I guess it’s cos they’re not real people, so I can quickly go from hate to love.
      Thank you very much- your comment got me thinking!

      Liked by 1 person

  12. Nel says:

    Great post! I never really thought about propagandist art in that way. Great horse analogy. I hear that all the time and it’s so true. I also agree with you that while it’s great and my thinking was probably leaning that way anyway, I don’t like to be beaten over the head with it. Then it just ruins the story plus it makes you almost think about switching your thinking cause you’re being slammed and are annoyed.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. sorryless says:

    Totally agree!

    On a similarly different bent, when I watch a favorite actor, I dismiss their political views should they differ from mine because I love the actor and his or her message doesn’t matter nearly as much as enjoying their talent. Same for musicians, authors, etc. BUT, as you so adeptly put it, they better be Steinbeck in the doing . . .

    Great post!

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Lashaan (Bookidote) says:

    Totally agree. I guess it really comes down to how susceptible a person is and how they form their opinions in general. People who tend to switch camps around just for conformism or even those who want to feel special and seek to like what others don’t are definitely putting themselves in a sad spot by not being critical in front of what they are presented. Hopefully with novels that have a propagandist aura around it on whatever political opinion everyone will know to think twice of what they are reading and not just hop onto the wagon and change their mindsets radically! Fantastic post as always. 😉

    Liked by 1 person

  15. mistyjo20 says:

    Very thought provoking post. I enjoyed the read. I think all art can be appreciated even if it doesn’t change our thoughts on a given topic. Sometimes art can help us to change our own minds and see things from a new perspective, but other times it can be nice just to enjoy it at face value.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Dani @ Perspective of a Writer says:

    I think the written word can certainly inspire and convince readers. That includes propaganda like works. Steinbeck is a great American author but I never connected with his overall ideas… probably because he had an agenda that didn’t resonant with me, (I quite loved his bull run book, can’t remember the name!) I think some books DO resonate so strongly with readers BECAUSE of their propaganda nature. I think that may be the question you were really looking for?!

    Liked by 1 person

    • theorangutanlibrarian says:

      I think that’s a fair point. I also consider Steinbeck a great American writer- and there was even a time when I agreed with his ideas (but rest assured it wasn’t because of him that I had them or that I discarded them 😉 ) hehe yes, I think so!!

      Like

  17. lucindablogs says:

    This is so interesting. I think that propaganda can be appreciated on an aesthetic level but only if you’re aware of the political message behind it – art is meant to be about truth after all, and so to subvert that feels like all kinds of wrong. I think in particular that when photography is used as propaganda – especially if images have been unknowingly doctored – then that’s flat out abuse of people’s trust.

    However, if you think of the first images of earth that were beamed back from space, they helped to galvanize the ecological argument because for the first time people could see that the world was actually not a huge limitless resource but a tiny blue blob surrounded by a vast abyss. These pictures were used by ecological pressure groups to force the implementation of environmental legislation into law – a principal which I think most people will agree with (even if we might all argue over the details).

    I suppose it all depends on intent at the point that the art was produced, not what it was necessarily used for? And also whether the artworks message aligns with your own values? (I’m aware that’s a bit of a ramble, hope it makes sense!)

    Liked by 1 person

    • theorangutanlibrarian says:

      Yes I think that’s an excellent point! I think that makes a huge difference! And I love what you just said about truth. And that’s a really good point for sure- especially since that does happen. I think there is an awful lot of photography out there that’s at least misleading and certainly political.

      And that’s something I’d never thought about but an amazing point. I think it comes back somewhat to people showing the truth as opposed to doctoring it? (I don’t know just speculating, but that’s like being confronted with such a huge reality that you can’t really argue someone’s trying to trick you… unless you’re very conspiratorially minded 😉 )

      hmm yes, definitely, that’s another good point. hehe no worries- I think it made a lot of sense and was very thought provoking! Gonna have a think on a lot of it! Thanks very much for your comment!

      Liked by 1 person

      • lucindablogs says:

        Oh good, I’m so glad you got what I was talking about. It goes back to the whole “a picture speaks a thousand words” – sometimes people turn off from a conversation but one picture can turn an argument on its head. Look at how that photo of the little boy washed up on the beach had such an impact on the immigration/asylum seekers debate.

        Obviously I’m only talking about visual art here but my friend did his dissertation on photographic propaganda in the Second World War so it was fresh in my mind!

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s