Andy Warhol used art as a tool of propaganda and as a tool of anti-propaganda - you can see both in his Mao Zedong series and the Flash series (about JFK's assassination). It's still art, it's just art used in a different way.
I'd disagree with Mr Nimoy because one person cannot define art simply because they don't agree with its message. A lot of people think Jackson Pollack is a hack with paintbrush Tourette's, a lot of other people pay a lot of money for his work. A lot of people think graffiti is a public nuisance, a lot of other people think Banksy is a genius with a message and graffiti often has a socio-political message. (Not a fan of graffiti myself, just saying that's a viewpoint.)
I agree - propaganda and art are both such subjective terms. Or in fact is he right if he means co-opting someone else's art for your propaganda. I know if I were the artist I would not be happy if someone appropriated my art for their message. Like sampling in the music business.
Right on, Tina. Wasn't it Fleetwood Mac who sent a cease and desist to the Bush campaign when he was running for President? They didn't want their music to be associated. However, my bf moved to the States a little over a year ago from a very oppressive country. He likes to draw and often times he has drawn pictures that show how he feels about the way girls/women are treated there. The way everyone is in fear of looking at those in control in the streets the wrong way, etc. Is that propaganda? I don't think so. It's the way he saw the world around him. However I'm sure the government in his native country would have it censored and burned.
Art tells multiple stories and ideas when viewed by multiple consumers of it.
My example?
The statue of Lenin in a town square in Russia during the seventies is propaganda.
The same exact statue - relocated to Seattle in the early eighties and placed in the center of a neighborhood known for outre artistic expression is art.
Freemont? I haven't lived in Seattle for ages so the neighborhood escapes me. I just remember the VW with the troll trying to eat it or crush it. Seattle has fantastic art in the most unexpected places.
I completely agree that art is in the eye of the beholder AND it is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. I wouldn't give $2.00 For Warhol's Campbells Soup cans as art, but that's just me. Same with Picasso's abstract stuff. On the other hand I love Chagall and Frida Kahlo so it boils down to what floats your boat.
Thanks Spock. I feel enriched by knowing that.
ReplyDeleteI agree and disagree.
ReplyDeleteAndy Warhol used art as a tool of propaganda and as a tool of anti-propaganda - you can see both in his Mao Zedong series and the Flash series (about JFK's assassination). It's still art, it's just art used in a different way.
I'd disagree with Mr Nimoy because one person cannot define art simply because they don't agree with its message. A lot of people think Jackson Pollack is a hack with paintbrush Tourette's, a lot of other people pay a lot of money for his work. A lot of people think graffiti is a public nuisance, a lot of other people think Banksy is a genius with a message and graffiti often has a socio-political message. (Not a fan of graffiti myself, just saying that's a viewpoint.)
Art is in the eye of the beholder.
I LOVE Banksy. Love love love. Fight the power! ;)
DeleteI agree - propaganda and art are both such subjective terms. Or in fact is he right if he means co-opting someone else's art for your propaganda. I know if I were the artist I would not be happy if someone appropriated my art for their message. Like sampling in the music business.
DeleteAgreed Seven and Tina. Love Banksy and hate the sampling without giving credit where credit is due.
DeleteRight on, Tina. Wasn't it Fleetwood Mac who sent a cease and desist to the Bush campaign when he was running for President? They didn't want their music to be associated.
DeleteHowever, my bf moved to the States a little over a year ago from a very oppressive country. He likes to draw and often times he has drawn pictures that show how he feels about the way girls/women are treated there. The way everyone is in fear of looking at those in control in the streets the wrong way, etc. Is that propaganda? I don't think so. It's the way he saw the world around him. However I'm sure the government in his native country would have it censored and burned.
Agreed. Well said, Seven. Though I love love love graffiti. Not tagging, though.
DeleteHope everyone in Hollywood reads this..of course they'll think it's about someone else..
ReplyDelete"He's wrong, of course. Luckily, my films bear no relation to art."
ReplyDelete--Seth Rogen
"You stop that Seth! YOU STOP THAT RIGHT NOW!
DeleteIt is art..
ART I SAY!!!"
-James Franco
Rogen! Franco! You two, get a room!
Deletelol
DeleteWading in.....
ReplyDeletePropaganda tells a single, unified idea or story.
Art tells multiple stories and ideas when viewed by multiple consumers of it.
My example?
The statue of Lenin in a town square in Russia during the seventies is propaganda.
The same exact statue - relocated to Seattle in the early eighties and placed in the center of a neighborhood known for outre artistic expression is art.
Same object. New setting, New context.
Freemont? I haven't lived in Seattle for ages so the neighborhood escapes me. I just remember the VW with the troll trying to eat it or crush it. Seattle has fantastic art in the most unexpected places.
DeleteFremont it is. The sign that proclaims CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE is just paces away.
DeleteI completely agree that art is in the eye of the beholder AND it is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. I wouldn't give $2.00 For Warhol's Campbells Soup cans as art, but that's just me. Same with Picasso's abstract stuff. On the other hand I love Chagall and Frida Kahlo so it boils down to what floats your boat.
ReplyDelete