Art vs. Propaganda

I came across three articles on three different subjects that seem to me to be essentially discussing the same idea: how our individual and collective imagination is captured by the opposing but overlapping forces of art and its sinister cousin, propaganda.

The first one is about "branding," the corporate pull for the hearts and loyalties of consumers that is crafted via compelling visual images and emotional slogans. "Branding resides, first and foremost, in the realm of design.... Every moment is to be infused not just with “style” or “beauty,” but with emotional bonding to a corporate entity.... Art, in its most general sense, serves as an ideal vehicle for connecting human emotions to a material object because it strikes us at a pre-analytic level. We experience it and react to it before we can reflect on it." I'm not sure if consumers are really that gullible and easily seduced, but the advertising images with which we are constantly bombarded, many of them created with impressive style and panache, certainly have staying power, whether they persuade us to buy the product or not, and become a part of our experience and imagination. Which is why I'm also not convinced that we are helpless to reflect on those images and their underlying messages: it seems to me humans have an unending desire to pick apart and scrutinize everything that is brought to our attention.

The second, a book review, bemoans the gaudy dullness of popular culture, because its author feels it suppresses the desire for high culture, which is more challenging and therefore ultimately more satisfying. "The obstacles to unfettered imagination are everywhere: reality TV, memoirs galore, novels propped up by historical 'research' (The Da Vinci Code)—all examples of a culture afflicted by a pernicious 'art-suspicion.' Fewer and fewer people are willing to submit to the genuinely made-up, to put themselves 'in the power of another world—the work of art—and in the power of another person—the artist.'" I tend to agree with that, somewhat, although I think low-brow art can often be very engaging, but I'm somewhat disturbed by the notion that one ought to give oneself over to the artist, apparently uncritically, and that only then will one become open to the "unfettered imagination."

Which brings me to the third article (not actually an article but a speech) by the filmmaker Wim Wenders, which advocates for the role that art can play as propaganda. His argument is that while European cinemas and TVs are being overrun with American product, there is no parallel European vision to inspire people to feel and experience European cultural values on an emotional, visceral level. "Europe prefers to use political and economical arguments, over emotional ones ... while in our most important embassies, in cinemas and on TV, the superpower of imagery, America, is pulling people under its spell.... No one ... will be swept away, enthused and inspired by the OPEN SOCIETY, as long as it remains an ABSTRACT IDEA. Such a vision has to be attached to feelings, to places, to memories. These 'European emotions' are right in front of our eyes, ... but politics is widely ignoring them. The field of images is largely being left to others."

In principle, that sounds fine. If propaganda is used for good, to spread a positive and needed message, one that in this case I essentially agree with, then it's beneficial, right? Well, no. Art is not liberating nor authentically inspiring when it tells you what to think or how to feel. What Wenders seems to be urging is for European culture to "brand" itself, for European filmmakers and artists to create a compelling vision of what Europeans value so the message he has in mind, which is primarily political, can be disseminated in a stealthy, emotional way that bypasses the intellect and goes straight for the heart.

I'm sorry but I don't want propaganda that is good for me, or for society, any more than I want myself or my fellow humans to be intentionally deceived by those messengers whose values I don't share. That may seem like a selfish or anti-populist argument, but I give the people more credit than that. I want genuine inspiration and food for thought, for everyone, not canned sentiments and emotional blackmail. I want an artist to throw open a door, give me a glimpse of something I would not have known or thought to imagine, and then let me make my own way through it. If the artist presumes to hold my hand I'm going to smack it away! It's by having honest experiences, with art that is created to be generous and giving, and approaching those experiences critically and with curiosity, that one builds up resistance to and finds easy to spot the fake, unctuous art that is used in the service of deception and persuasion.