How does art created for a dictator differ from art created for a freely elected leader?
How does art created for a dictator differ from art created for a freely elected leader?
Our political world is surrounded by art and images we put together with different meanings, (eg: a good leader). Leaders have used artwork to persuade us in many ways for many many years.
How does art created for a dictator differ from art created for a freely elected leader? In what was is it the same?
Art created for a dictator has only one purpose: it is to present the dictator's policies in such a way as to impress or seduce the viewer into accepting them. In a free society, art has many "purposes" (or no purpose at all), self-expression being one of the main ones. Propaganda art is often inferior in artistic values and creativity--look at some of the crap that was produced in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. This is not always the case, as you would see in the revolutionary and Napoleonic paintings of David. But the artistry in these cases is always secondary to the propaganda. Also, you almost never get anything daring and new in propaganda art.
 |
No items matching your keywords were found.