A common question in art is whether a certain thing is considered art or not. When it comes to propaganda, we generally consider it propaganda when it is first created, yet over time our perception of what something is can change. With soviet realism, it was originally known as propaganda, yet with the way it is being treated today, I consider it art rather than simply a means to spread a Soviet message. Yet art is also a means to spread a message,be it a generally emotional message rather than one that precipitates a specific action. In the same way, the appropriation by ISIS of Brian McCarty’s photo changes the message that it sends, yet it still sends a message. They changed his art into propaganda by making its emotional and semi-ambiguous message into one that was expressly active. Yet even with this analysis, it comes back to what I consider propaganda and what I consider art. After analyzing both situations the only conclusion is an expansion of the original question; can something be considered art if at one time it held a different meaning altogether? Furthermore, should something still be considered art if its presentation or connotations have changed with time or modification?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Jimmy HowertonContact me: |