Propaganda vs. Art

Paper Summary:

This paper argues that, while separating the art from the artist in an analysis of his work is generally a healthy practice, we should question to what extent we should make this separation and why some artists are allowed more leeway than others. The paper also attempts to answer the question, concerning propaganda versus art, about how much we can hold the artist responsible for the use and application of his art for other, possibly nefarious, purposes. The author of the paper argues that the answer lies in intentionality through an understanding of the intent of the artist in the production of the work of art. The paper uses artist Leni Riefenstahl and her work to illustrate the complexity and importance of addressing these questions.

From the Paper:

"In debating the difference between art and propaganda one may enter into a minefield of contentious terms and complex ethical issues. The central concern that will be the focus of this paper is the intentionality of art in determining whether it is propaganda or art. If an artist is aware of and complicit in the manufacture and production of art for a specific political agenda, especially one that has been universally condemned, then he or she may be seen to be a propagandist rather than an artist. It is this qualitative and intrinsic difference in the artist and not in the use made of the art that is the central concern. Therefore, the criteria that will be used to ascertain the difference between art and propaganda is the underlying intention of the artist."

More papers on Propaganda vs. Art:

• Analytical Essay # 13142 : "Films of Zhang Yimou"
• Research Paper # 101918 : "National Socialist Art and Architecture"
• Term Paper # 131837 : "Art and Politics in American Society"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: