The Place of Video Games in the World of Art

            Art is a category of objects that is deemed to be creative and evocative of many different emotions, thoughts, and ideas. In some sense the term art is arbitrary, for we have designated what is and is not art from things that already exist and have more or less isolated them into a separate space which receives special attention and consideration. We have come to call certain things art in a very peculiar way, for as philosophers Walter Benjamin and Susan Sontag state: we have dubbed what we call art today in a retrospective process, i.e. well after the beginnings of their existence we have decided that paintings, plays, music, and other such artistic objects be considered art. When a new mode of producing art is established we do not clearly see it as such, but in time as the mode develops past its primitive form we are able to see it for what it is, or rather recognize the potential it has as a new artistic mode of presentation. It is worth noting that the “classic” forms of art we know today probably underwent this process of becoming art at a much slower pace than more modern modes of art such as movies, and this is most likely the result of the mechanical means of production that exist now. Art has become so reproducible and assessable that nearly anyone can view any work of art simply by pressing a few buttons on a tiny screen. This has completely expedited the process of a new form of art becoming recognized, but this is not necessarily a bad thing, in fact it is quite the opposite. If we can recognize a new mode of artistic presentation quickly, then we can avoid political misuse of the works. Works of art serve political functions and have the power and potential to motivate people to change or to manipulate them as propaganda. If people can see a new work of art for what it is capable any damage caused can be mitigated. What more, then, is undergoing the critical moments of this process than video games?

Video games are relatively new, the first ones being created sometime around the early 1970s. Just like paintings, music, and stage plays; video games have undergone an evolution from being primitive modes of presentation to a clearly distinguished and complex mode of artistic presentation. Movies had an easier time of becoming recognized as art, quite possibly because in some sense they resemble plays, an already well-established form of art. They both contain story, plot, and most notably actors. Video games are quite unique in that there had never been anything like them when they were first created. The only similar things would have been “games” like chess, games that held the sole purpose of winning, and for video games this was maybe true in the first years in games like Pong. It did not take long to diverge from that format and games began to develop elements of plot, composers created original music for individual games, and the visual/graphical component of video games became much more sophisticated. What one would question, though, is if games are art or if they simply contain art. In reality both statements are true: a video game both is art and contains other elements of art. As mentioned before, video games contain images and music, and this is akin to the way that plays and movies contain music and images to further the medium being presented: the narrative. How then, is, a video game a work of art? Each of the “classic” forms of art give us an artistic presentation through a certain medium, and this is what makes each art form unique. Paintings use images, music uses sound, and plays use narratives. Video games too, use a medium that is unique and makes them works of art in themselves, and this medium that gives us a mode of artistic representation is interaction.

At the heart of every video game is the idea of “play”. Video games are works of art that are played, and the only way to fully engage in one is to play it or else you are not experiencing the mode of artistic presentation that the video game is providing through the interaction medium. Hans-Georg Gadamer is a philosopher that wrote extensively about the role of play in works of art, “If, in connection with the experience of art, we speak of play, this refers neither to the state of mind of the creator or of those enjoying the work of art, nor to the freedom of a subjectivity expressed in play, but to the mode of being of the work of art itself” (Cahn & Meskin 370). Gadamer suggests that what is critical to works of art are the means by which we experience it, and play is what allows this to happen, “the work of art has its true being in the fact that it becomes an experience changing the person experiencing it” (Cahn and Meskin 371). Art, through play, is an experience that changes the one experiencing it. Works of art contain both players and spectators, and these are the ones who experience art. Gadamer writes that players are not the subject of play but instead the means by which it is presented. This can be seen in the “classical” forms of art (painters, actors, writers, and musicians). The players present the mode of play so that spectators (listeners, viewers, audience) can experience the work of art as well. Video games contain a unique form of play in that the one experiencing the mode of play is both the player and the spectator. The medium of interaction is what allows for this dynamic, for unless a person plays the game (through interacting with it) nothing can be experienced from the video game. The way a game plays out; however, is different for each person. Video games provide the aspect of choice, and different people can choose to play in a way that is completely different than how someone else does. Each player will interact with the game differently, and so, as a spectator will see something different than others. The mode of play within video games is shaped by the individual who simultaneously plays and spectates reality within the game.

We have established that video games are unique because they provide a mode of artistic presentation through a unique medium, interaction, but then how is it that video games function to bring about artistic presentation? In other words what is the artistic experience that video games take us through? This is actually answered in great deal by Gadamer in addressing the way that play works. Video games are immersive, to a much greater degree than other forms of art. First, the world of the video game is a distinct world that is set apart from reality, or rather the world of the game becomes reality. In works of art that use the medium of narrative, the spectator is expected to identify with one or more of the characters. This is how the mode of play works within the medium. In a video game; however, the player/spectator becomes a character that exists in the world of the game. There are rules that exist in this game in the same way that rules exist in the mode of play. One must take the rules quite seriously to succeed in the game and also enjoy it. The idea of a game as Gadamer speaks of is given a set of tasks that are completed using the rules that apply for the sake of completion. This is also what the essence of a video game is: you are presented a world that the player must interact with by becoming a character that exists within the world. This character, and therefore the player, are given set of tasks that are carried out using rules that must be followed in order to proceed in the world of the game and complete the experience. A good video game will immerse the player fully into the world of the game so that they have entered new reality, and once completing the given tasks will create a feeling of relief within the player which they can then recollect on in their dual role as a spectator as well. The nature of video games, in essence, is the nature of play that Gadamer speaks of.

With video games being in the critical stages of being recognized as works of art, debates over their place in the art world has been disputed relentlessly. A prominent film critic, Roger Ebert, made the claim that “video games can never be art” in the mid-2000s. This single claim was met with much backlash from the people that enjoy video games, i.e. gamers, and many have defended that video games should be considered art. Kellee Santiago is a supporter of the claim that video games can be works of art; however, she does not focus on the question of whether video games are or aren’t works of art. She instead recognizes that video games already are works of art which provide a unique medium to experience a unique mode of artistic presentation: interaction. In her TED talk she rejects Roger Ebert’s claim by comparing video games to other forms of art, explaining that all art forms start from basic principles and eventually evolve into something greater. She then provides three examples of games that point to the form of aesthetic activity that video games provide. Ebert, in response to Santiago, responds to her TED talk and (after never doing so) defends his past claim that video games do not have the ability to be works of art. These two opponents capture the reality of any debate between video games and its relation to art, whether or not video games, in and of itself, i.e. in principle, can be works of art. Ebert’s defense is that 1.) The artists that created the primitive works that Kellee speaks of were not in the process of evolving to become the renowned artists of the renaissance that we know today, they were geniuses of their time, 2.) The medium of video games, i.e. interaction, does not fit within the model of art that we accept, and 3.) Video games do not evoke the same intellectual and emotional responses as other works of art. To begin, Ebert fails to understand the medium through which video games present themselves as works of art. He makes the claim (or at least implies) that he has rarely touched a video game, if ever. He critiques games based on 3 aspects of a definition that attempts to unite all video games under a single umbrella, “They tend to involve (1) point and shoot in many variations and plotlines, (2) treasure or scavenger hunts, as in "Myst," and (3) player control of the outcome. I don't think these attributes have much to do with art; they have more in common with sports” (Ebert). The first two aspects of his definition are simply qualities of some video games. If anything they are more related to the narrative of a video game than the actual interactive element. It is not always just about finding a treasure (assuming that is the task given) but how the player finds it, when they find it, or any number of factors. His third aspect actually does address the medium but Ebert is incorrect in his claim that the player freely chooses the outcome. A player cannot will outcome X to happen if it is not present in the video game already. The interactive medium gives choices to how a narrative plays out (which can effect outcomes) but it is limited in what happens. The player does not “choose” an outcome, rather the player guides the actions of the character they become to influence the story to either go down path X or path Y, but ultimately both paths lead to the same destination.

I mentioned earlier that works of art carry a very potent power of influence within them. If we are to consider video games another type of art form then we must consider the influences they have and the resulting consequences that come about. What implications does recognizing this unique form of art have on the real world?  Video games are a form of mass media meaning that they are accessible to millions, if not billions of individuals around the world. The influential power, or message, of a particular game can reach an alarming number of individuals. Since video games are in the middle of becoming recognized as art, it goes without saying that the majority of people that experience (or rather play) video games do not contemplate the artistic mode of presentation given. Most people only believe video games to be for the sake of entertainment and distraction, immersing themselves fully into the world of the game, assuming the role of whatever character the game assigns to them. To not recognize a video game’s artistic ability means reducing oneself to the role of the player only, and ignoring the role of the spectator. The true artistic experience provided through interaction is fully achieved only when one is both player and spectator: the role of the player pulls the individual into the world and presents concepts and ideas that evoke emotions from the player. Once the given tasks are complete the player is removed from the world and is then able to be the spectator, resolving the heightened emotions they had while playing the game and transforming the experience to intellectual activity. If the role as spectator is not taken then the concepts and ideas given while in the role of player remains and can affect the individual. The risk of this varies between games. Games such as Super Mario Bros. are very light and deal with playful themes, some of which could actually be beneficial to remain in the player without any sort of spectator contemplation. The majority of games; however, are made for the sake of entertaining the player, which has demanded a variety of violent and culturally insensitive content. It is not the intention of those who make games to present harmful stimuli, but rather they do not acknowledge the influential weight the games they make have when they present certain events or groups of people in certain ways.

Mary Devereaux is a philosopher who writes about the way that media presents women in a harmful way. Historically women have been oppressed by men and given unequal opportunities, but even after numerous movements to equalize that gap there is still a political system (as well as a belief system) that oppresses women. Devereaux explains importantly that modern media (and all forms of media past) contains a “male gaze” which asserts that expectations (of a film) are “disproportionately affected by male needs, beliefs, and desires”. Video games are looked upon with a male gaze as well. In both film and games female characters play subservient roles to men, such that their subjectivity is renounced and they become mere objects or tools for the purpose of supporting male driven expectations. Many video games portray female characters in such a light as a means to enhance the narrative experience. Most video games add such elements; and this is not harmful on its own, but most games fail to address sensitive topics safely; they will use culturally sensitive themes (such as misogyny, racism, and criminal activity) without providing a safe resolution to the topic discussed. Since most players do not recognize video games as art, and therefore do not take on the spectator role, they will experience the culturally sensitive themes as the player but will not attain relief from the immersive experience.

Ramifications of this process has manifested in the controversial movement known as #Gamergate. This is a movement that claims to be concerned with the journalism ethics surrounding video games, but its origin and underlying goal has been an attack against women within the video game industry. The first attack was on a woman named Zoe Quinn, who was accused of sleeping with several men while in a relationship. This accusation was posted online which sparked a very long and degrading discussion about Quinn’s sex life and the quality of her video game, Depression Quest. During this time one of the men was said to be an editor for a game review magazine, and once this information was revealed the community of people (gamers) created the #Gamergate movement to criticize the relationship between game developers and game reviewers. This is really more of a façade to mask the many misogynistic attacks on multiple women over the last few months. Another notable victim of the #Gamergate movement is Anita Sarkeesian, creator of the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games series. Her series brings to light the sexist and misogynistic themes that exist within many video games, and how they have the ability to degrade women in the real world. She, as well as Quinn and many others, were the target of copious amounts of animosity: reaching to the point where their lives were threatened with some of them having to leave their homes. What makes gamers so defensive? Why do they consistently suggest that video games are art when someone says otherwise? Why do they attack women so relentlessly? This is the result of perceived threat to their shared identity.

What is probably the most unique thing about video games other than its use of interaction as a mode of artistic presentation is the creation of the “gamer” identity. No other form of art has led to the creation of a specific group of people that identify with the form of the art as a whole. Originally this community consisted of almost exclusively males, and more likely than not white males due to the fact that gaming consoles were expensive for the time. As games evolved the developers began branching off bit by bit to attract a larger consumer base than the gamer community, and once consoles became more affordable the gamer identity began to incorporate more people of different demographics. Obviously there are no racial disputes over the gamer identity, but the inclusion of women in the community has been met with resistance, but has also contributed to the expansion of video game themes to incorporate culturally sensitive issues in responsible ways. The target consumer of large video game developers, males, have responded with hostility to the evolving and more inclusive identity of the gamer. The identity that the typical “gamer” associates with is being changed because 1.) The community is becoming more diverse, specifically incorporating women into the new target consumer, and 2.) The kinds of games being made no are no longer just for entertainment but now tackle culturally sensitive issues. It is not only a threat to the gamer identity that they face, but also an awareness of their own privilege,

“Whether they realize it or not, they've just had what's probably their first real encounter with the concept of "privilege." For a very long time, being part of the "target demo" has meant being able to enjoy games made for (and, for the most part, by) people like you, without ever seeing those games interrogated from another perspective.” (Hathaway)

The gaming community of the past is being faced with the realization that the games they appreciate contain sexist, racist, and misogynistic themes. These reactions are so potent and hostile because most gamers identify strongly with the characters that are portrayed in games. They may claim that video games are art but do not fully understand how art is presented in video games, they lack the understanding to fully experience the medium of interaction. This lack of understanding is what allow major game developers to produce harmful games. Big companies are more concerned about the profits to be made from games, not the influence that the games they create have on an uninformed consumer base. They address culturally sensitive subjects and immerse the player in the interactive aspect of the game, but ultimately fail to safely incorporate such topics in a way that is positive. The gamer is not able to switch from the role of the player into the spectator role, which is the appropriate way to experience art within a video game, and therefore are stuck with the residual emotional ties to the characters that they become when playing video games. The failure of the gamer to understand the artistic process of video games, and the failure of video game developers to address controversial topics safely, enable to kinds of hostile movements like #Gamergate. Video games must, then, be acknowledged as art if not by the mass public than at least by the ones who play them. If we linger too long in our recognition of the art produced by video games we will be susceptible to a community that degrades not only women but other groups of people or places that have become the narrative tools of many video games. 

Political art is propaganda

From the definition that we set up in class for propaganda, it seems to me that art cannot serve a legitimate moral or political function without being reduced to propaganda. In our discussion on Friedrich Schiller, we defined propaganda as any material that attempts to motive action or to persuade. While we did put certain caveats on our definition, that it is propaganda especially when it manipulates facts and tries to motivate without giving good reasons, but I think that to some degree that is what art does. It does not really show you “facts” and often it tries to motivate you without any particular reason you can point to. Of course, there are degrees to which art demonstrates its political or moral goals, but if it attempts to teach you a particular lesson than it is a form of propaganda. One of the barriers to thinking about art as propaganda is that people often think of propaganda as government-produced or just simply bad art. This is not entirely the case, however. Some political art certainly is the stereotypically bad state-created art, but there are actual private artists that want to make a political statement with their art that is truly considered good art.

Art that is something like a poster produced by the government, for instance the posters created by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to convince people of the good qualities of the ‘New Deal,’ is not very good art, but it serves a specific function. These works of art have a specific purpose to persuade and motivate Americans to do certain things like go to the zoo or to get a job. A majority of these posters describe things that were good or neutral actions, but they were intended to help motivate people to kick-start the economy. They “manipulated” facts to try and make a point and motivate action. This, I consider, is the stereotypical construction of propaganda. It is simple, overtly political, and fairly easy to understand. Political does not, however, simply mean that it must come from the government or the state. Political can mean anything that dictates or influences our political frameworks.

The work of someone like Kara Walker, although it is much better art, also serves particular political and social functions. In one of her most recent installations A Subtlety or the Marvelous Sugar Baby an Homage to the unpaid and overworked Artisans who have refined our Sweet tastes from the cane fields to the Kitchens of the New World on the Occasion of the demolition of the Domino Sugar Refining Plant, Walker created a giant statue of a black female figure using stereotypical images about race and gender. There are so many intricacies to her artwork that it would be impossible to totally explain in this blog post, but needless to say it is an amazing sculpture with many different meanings and purposes. Without a doubt, Walker is trying to persuade and motivate. One way to understand that she is trying to influence people is by looking at the images and history she is drawing upon in her work. Another way to recognize this is by looking at the recent news that she recorded the faces and reactions of people viewing her art as a way to capture the negative and offensive reactions people had to her art. Here she reversed the gaze of the viewers to her sculpture and made them a part of the artwork to challenge them.

Kara Walker is not a politician, in the governmental sense of the word, and from what I know the government does not primarily fund her. This does not mean, however, that she cannot produce political works of art. Her magnificent sculpture serves many political and social functions and in doing so attempts to motivate people to action. Although it is a great sculpture artistically and it does not compare to the posters created by the WPA, it is just as much propaganda. As we have discussed many times in this class, the power of artworks is something that you cannot specifically point to or totally understand. Any work that is political is therefore inherently propaganda. It does not need the work of “facts” to generate its power; it is just an essential function of artwork to motivate. I do not think that all artwork necessarily is political, however. There are certainly issues of the male gaze and other such gazes that promote a sort of hidden political project, but I think there is abstract art that can avoid that issue and is therefore outside the realm of politics and propaganda.

Defending Political Art in the Face of Propaganda

My initial, and very strong, reaction to the question of whether art can serve a political purpose without being reduced to propaganda is a resounding yes. As an artist (for now disregarding the pretensions of identifying oneself as such) whose work in the past has been explicitly political, I have a vested interest in preserving the status of my works as something more worthy than mere propaganda (for now disregarding the pretensions of claiming that any such artwork made by me could be considered “worthy”). An example: I wrote a song which decries the hypocrisy of social conservatives in the face of the set of values espoused by their god in the New Testament by invoking grotesque lyrical imagery and mechanistic musical stylings reminiscent of the Slavic myth of Baba Yaga. (No adequate recording of this exists currently, otherwise I would link to it; but perhaps we are better off for it by not being seduced by the lesser artifact of the “definitive version of the musical artwork” rather than the “ideal performance,” as Wollheim would advise). I do not wish to dwell on my own experience with this issue any longer than necessary, but one experience of mine is particularly relevant. A conservative listener to this song once commented after the performance that, though she knew my intention by creating this song was to criticize her beliefs, she enjoyed it nonetheless, and preferred to think of it as a one-dimensional narrative of general witchery. She said this, under the guise of protecting me, because in her words, to acknowledge the political message would make the song no longer art, but something lesser. I don’t feel the need here to defend against this accusation of poor craftsmanship, other than to point out what has been referred to as a counter to my critic’s claims time and time again: real, widely accepted examples of artworks with political dimensions alongside their aesthetic ones (sometimes even informing and accentuating their aesthetic dimensions)– paintings such as Picasso’s cubist, anti-war art or Rivera’s vibrant, socialist murals. This exchange brings up a point not addressed directly in the readings though, that of the systems of power promoting a narrative that legitimate artworks which criticize them are actually “mere propaganda” and should be disregarded just as readily. This technique has been employed by homophobic organizations to diminish the effect of The Satanic Temple of New York’s “Pink Mass for Fred Phelps,” by the Soviet Regime to diminish the effect of Shostakovich’s Fourth Symphony, or even by the Bush administration’s implicit acknowledgement of Guernica’s power and subsequent decision to reduce it to a message rather than art at the press conference presenting a case for the war in Iraq, veiling its depiction on display at the UN headquarters.

For all of Benjamin and Adorno’s attempts to put readers on guard against propaganda presented as art (an extremely noble cause), art presented as propaganda can be equally if not more devastating. Schiller anticipates this danger indirectly by showing the incredible benefit of art as political. He claims throughout that art is the means to action– that moments of aesthetic reflection convert potentiality to actuality– going so far as to resolve that no good can come without the influence of beauty (which implies art, or at least nature). In a way, he asserts that all art is therefore political, inasmuch as it provokes changes in individuals and thereby societies.

But I was dismissive earlier of those Frankfurt school theorists, while as an artist with a political bent, I aught to embrace them. Benjamin, as a reaction to the dangers of propaganda being portrayed as art, posits a new aesthetics which sacrifices the “aura” (artificial in most cases anyway) for a radical freedom on behalf of artists. Once freed from the mindset of the cult of the genius, the act of creation no longer becomes one of waiting for inspiration, but of vast autonomy of choice and action. Older mediums are declared decrepit and new mediums can be celebrated; accessibility is enhanced for artists and for art appreciators; and the keys to artistry, once guarded by layers of elitism, artifice, and pretension, are now within the grasp of any and all. Or at least, if Benjamin’s notions were taken to their logical conclusions, that is how I think it would be.

Themes

            One thread we see in this section’s readings is a question: is art free from the political world, and if not, what is its relationship? In Plato’s Symposium, we saw addressed art’s potential to be a motivating factor. This, we recognized, can lead to two conclusions: first, art can motivate us to work towards whatever we find beautiful about it; and second, we may be manipulated by artworks, and in turn by artists or other agents—we may face propaganda. The possibility of manipulation may be reduced by contemplation of an artwork, but even then there is no guarantee that one will escape without fulfilling some aspect of someone else’s agenda. If art has the potential to make us the objects of someone else’s will, is it a good thing? I think the risk is worth taking, especially if we train ourselves to be contemplative and aware when we approach artworks.

            Schiller viewed art as necessarily involved in politics, since politics itself lacked the means to achieve its ends. This lack existed due to what Schiller believed to be politics’ primarily imaginary existence—it could posit new ends, make new laws, but could not change what people wanted. There is a sense in which Schiller is simply wrong—many people will obey laws for reasons that have nothing to do with art, and both tyranny and just government may rely on the threat of force to ensure adherence to law (desegregation, for example, required the presence of the national guard). What these conditions imply, however, is the lack of understanding and desire on the part of the citizen, which we hope they would generally have. Of course, understanding all laws is beyond us unless we make it our profession, but a general sense is not outside our grasp. Art, Schiller suggests, helps us to desire a different world and thereby manifest and use the motivation to make it that way.

            Benjamin was concerned with the “aura” of art and the effect of art on the viewer; but to say ‘the viewer’ is misleading, as Benjamin argued that art had moved away from the realm of individual contemplation and into a ‘mass’ possession, something divested of its sacred aura turned into a popular plaything. Benjamin certainly saw the potential for manipulation in film, of the sort we saw in Plato and can imagine in Schiller. Camera work, especially, delimits our view into the movie, but if a movie is working properly, we think only about what is on the screen, not about the fact that it is on the screen because of a choice, that this is a shot, and that this is not an aperspectival view of the world. His suggestion that film invites, indeed causes, distracted attention explains not only many of our problems in the modern world, but how we can easily be manipulated in ways we do not understand. That we become used to engaging in only distracted attention is itself problematic in that it limits our ability to engage contemplatively and intelligently with the problems of the real world and puts the average member of ‘the mass’ at the mercy of someone who has those skills—or at least has the skills to put together a film that manipulates the viewer.

Sontag noted similar issues in his analysis of photography, particularly of framing and the problem of non-intervention—in order to be photographing, one must choose not to intervene in what takes place. Yet the possibility of preparing a shot also exists. The sheer volume of photos available also diminishes the effect of each one, and as eras pass, once-seminal, moving photographs become important only historically, and moving only indirectly or intellectually, but not sentimentally—we gain layers of distance. This problem makes photography self-destruct; it cannot preserve what makes it special and evocative, it is claimed. This is not, I think, true as an extreme; we have seen that photos still do affect people. As far as relevance goes, this, too, is true, and we can see the same issue at stake in the adjustment required for one to really enjoy many older works of literature, that had different horizons of expectations, and even, I would argue, for one to enjoy older paintings, like the unrealistic and somewhat bland paintings that adorn so many religious sites throughout history. Each of these is made more powerful by understanding and contextual awareness; each effect diminishes with the distance between us and it.

Not least among these, Adorno recognized the originally ritual function of art and its role as a sacred object, and discussed art as a kind of ‘negative’ in the sense of photo negativity. The demystification of the artwork via knowledge about it (and perhaps rules of taste, or something similar—a point I must investigate) allows us to justify claims about its artistry. Art is dependent on the world, but the question arises: if art is a negative, does not reality depend on art? To me this suggests the degree to which we shape our world by contemplative fictions, in the intellectual and psychological realm, and the way in which we live according to principles and constructs that are identifiable—even if they are merely a macroscopic picture of what can be defined more mechanically and perhaps without account of agency at a lower level. Art is, at all accounts, tied into reality and truth, but in a way that suggests it both produces interpretation and is itself, of course, produced. Whether or not its interpretation is truthful, or truth-conducive, at any rate, or not is a question all of these authors raise. Another is whether art might not be something to the side of truth—related to it, but not limited to truth or untruth at all.

Reflection 6

Can Art serve a legitimate Moral or Political function without being Propaganda?

Art is more than capable of serving both a political and moral purpose. It is true that some works of art that attempt such a feat can be used as mere propaganda but it is also possible to be used as a political and moral instrument of change. What is it that such artworks do? Artworks that are not used as propaganda but serve a political or moral purpose serve as bridges to get from where one is to where one wants to be. Art is an instrument of change. When societies make laws and when individuals make goals to alter his/her character, there is a current state that is incorrect or wrong and a desire to change to a different/better state. How can the society and the individual make such a transition, and also what methods of transition will actually work? Friedrich Schiller suggests that art is a medium in which to successfully bring about a revolution. He comments the flaws of the French Revolution in particular, stating that it was the correct movement but it was executed poorly in such a way that the original ideals did not stick to the people. What was missing, says Schiller, was art: a peaceful medium that can bring into focus the goals of a movement. Through art one can safely transition between where they are now and where they want to be. The French Revolution, and others like it, implemented force to transition between states which is an ineffective method.

It can be said, then, that art contains a great deal of power and influence. This holds especially true for communities during times of critical political importance and for individuals during sensitive periods of their life. In his Critique of Judgment Kant explains that the experience of art is a subjective one, which can be influenced by outside influences. Art and human thought has evolved in such a way that art cannot be understood in itself. Both philosophers, Benjamin and Adorno, comment on the way that in the past objects which we now call art were enveloped in an “aura”. This aura presents itself as a godlike presence, absorbing the viewer and affecting their beliefs. Both philosophers also discuss the modern age of media and how it has changed the way people interact with art, and this change is not an improvement.

Today’s modern media consists of three unique things which have altered the way people interact with art: Movies/Television, Photographs, and Internet. Photographs are quite interesting because they produce images almost instantly and which such ease. This, combined with the social connectivity of the internet, has changed what could be called the nature of art. The aura that Benjamin and Adorno spoke of does not exist today because of how easy it is to view works of art, literally at the push of a button. Even though this aura is no longer present the average viewer still looks upon art as if that aura, or godlike presence, is there. Our current method of viewing and interpreting art does not match how art is today, and this leaves the viewer vulnerable to manipulation from people that seek to use images and art as propaganda. Such people are also victim to misinterpreting an image or work of art very easily if they look and interpret in on their own. Since most people are stuck in the old mode of viewing and interpreting art they are not able to receive the intended political message a work of art might be trying to convey, such people need others to guide them to the correct mode of viewing and interpreting so that they can make the transition between where they are and where they want to be. Without a guide, people in power can turn art into propaganda by distorting facts and shaping opinions.

To conclude what has been mentioned before, art can serve a political or moral function by allowing either a society or an individual to transition between where they are now and where they want to be. If such a movement is done by force the change will not take or will result in an even worse state than what existed before. Today most people need a guide, or enlightenment, to understand the political or moral components that an artist may be trying to communicate. This is because, historically, art has had in it an aura because works of art were very unique and hard to view. Modern technology, photography especially, has shifted the way that art works such that the same aura that used to be no longer exists; however, most people still regard art as if it contains such an aura. The aura of old art was present because there was a godlike presence manifested in the art, and this has shifted over the years as well to the point that mere humans are treated in the same godlike manner by common people within social media. Such people are vulnerable to the manipulations of propaganda that is created by people seeking to control others; however, art can escape this fate if a person can be shown the appropriate way to regard art in the modern age. 

Political Art and Propaganda

Referenced Artworks:

Leon Golub, Napalm Head and Mercenaries IV

Peter Saul, Saigon

Pablo Picasso, Guernica

Art Workers Coalition, Q.  And babies? A. And babies.

Robbie Conal, Contra Diction

When first addressing the question of art’s ability to function in the political sphere without being reduced to propaganda, I was conflicted on how I felt. In a previous class on contemporary art, I studied a lot of art that was politically charged. All of these works were held to the standard of high art; indeed many of these works I saw later on the walls of the Smithsonian and the National Gallery. Initially, I didn’t really see a problem or the potential for propaganda in art. At the onset, art was a completely separate sphere than propaganda in my mind. In my mind I thought of propaganda as specific calls to action, things that encouraged or degraded wars or political stances outright. I thought of crass, poorly put together things that told you that your political views were either right or wrong. I use the word thing because they were somewhere between plain statements on a page and art - they were drawings or paintings, yes, but they didn’t quite feel like art.

Political art, on the other hand, was a clear idea for me - or so I thought. It was the Napalm series Leon Golub created in response to the Vietnam war. It was Peter Saul’s Saigon. It was Guernica by Pablo Picasso. Pablo Picasso certainly would never create something so base as propaganda. These were works of art, they were masterful paintings that had depth - so much depth - and a clear display of talent. But I continued to contemplate these political works that I had encountered in this sphere of fine art. I found that alongside Picasso was Robbie Conal and forces such as the Art Workers Coalition. Now there is no denying the artistic capabilities that are evident in Robbie Conal’s works. However, there is also no denying that a large image of Ronald Reagan with the text “CONTRA DICTION” on it is clearly pointed and dare I say leaning far more towards the realm of propaganda. Just the same, the Art Workers Coalition took war images of dead children and plastered over it excerpts from an interview with an American war official in which he admits that babies were also massacred in My Lai, Vietnam. In this image, Q.  And babies? A. And babies. there is a damning effect that can’t be misread. Upon reflecting on works like this that were clearly acknowledged and some even canonized as art, I began to question where exactly the line was drawn.

The readings which addressed this question started to clear up some of my issues. For me the most convicting and certainly most helpful arguments were that of Schiller; Schiller’s claims that art should be involved in politics helps to further my ideas of political art in fact being fine art. His ideas, however, that politics necessarily need art to further their goals initially bewildered me. Yet, I found that his claims, in their complexity, were in fact supporting my ideas on the political artwork. For example, Q.  And babies? A. And babies. and Saigon both work to show and uncover political ideas and atrocities in a way that words simply could not. By giving an image and deeper meaning to these political situations, I feel that they do have a way of furthering a political cause. And in fact, they way in which they do it is so essential because it is distinct from and more universally resonant than political writing or statistics. Furthermore the part of his analysis which deals with the way things are and ought to be was particularly important to me. The way in which he ascribes art as the releasing or reconciliation of the tension between what things are and what things ought to be is key. In the political art I’ve mentioned so far, the artists are representing the way things are in order to highlight the problematic nature of it and imply the way things ought to be. Through Schiller’s analysis I found that there is certainly a place for political non-propaganda art.

Art's Role in Politics

Can art serve a legitimate moral or political function without being reduced to propaganda?

I think art can serve a moral and political function without being reduced to propaganda. However, I think that when art is employed for solely political goals, its power becomes more known to others and it becomes susceptible to being used for the wrong reasons, namely to mislead and manipulate people. Thus, I think that art should stay far away from politics but be used as a motivator to act morally and to encourage people to create beautiful things in the world. 

In The Symposium, Plato claims that art persuades us without us being able to interrogate it. The beautiful thing is something that appears to us as good or noble, but it appears to us as good without us being able to give reasons as to why we think that it is good. Art produces a belief without reasons for those beliefs. Even though we don’t know why the thing itself is beautiful or produces certain feelings, the beautiful thing motivates us to act. It produces a kind of conviction that makes us think we ought to do something. For Plato, this push to action is reproduction. Why do we reproduce beautiful things or mate with a beautiful person? To make more beautiful things. Schiller sees art’s power to incite certain feelings as well, but because he recognizes arts usefulness or power seems to think that it owes something to politics. 

Schiller thinks that there is a necessary relationship between art and politics because only art can allow politics to achieve its goals, or rather, politics needs art because its incapable of realizing its own ends by political means. He argues that political laws alone can never bring about the good that they intend. They can posit the goal but the actual change has to come about from other means. Even the best intentioned laws aren’t fulfilled because people don’t buy into it. A good example of this was the French Revolution. They had a good goal in mind and it was right for the whole but the vision failed because they didn’t have a way to move toward the end they sought. Art however, can make us want a particular end. Art can be the transition from where a group is politically and where they want to be, and Schiller argues that it must be that transition. What is problematic here in my opinion is that art can transition to the wrong goals and to the wrong ends. Yes, it can do good, and it can motivate us and encourage us to do better and be better, but it can also do the opposite. Because, as we’ve discussed numerous times before, the beautiful things leave us with conviction that we can’t explain, I think it’s dangerous in the hands of politicians because it leaves room for people to be convicted without knowing what they’re fighting for. 

Schiller argues that the artist shouldn’t serve its age or not be a mignon to political wills but how can it be involved in politics and not do that? Art can be a great tool for the good and can be a positive mode of motivation, but it can also mislead us. A good example of this is the “Be Essential” posters on campus, and overall I would say that the posters are a positive, good thing. However, are all of those posters the picture of reality at Rhodes college? No. Art is a great tool, but it can be used on both ends of the spectrum to encourage good or bad behavior. The other end of the spectrum here is propaganda. Propaganda is by definition, material that attempts to motivate action or to persuade with the intention of motivating actions, particularly when that involves manipulation or deception. Now all art can be manipulative, but it’s when that manipulation motivates someone by deception that it becomes problematic. 

Adorno and Benjamin both see art’s power, as does Schiller; however, Benjamin and Adorno seem to think that likelihood of art being reduced to propaganda is increasing with modern technology, particularly film. Because of our ever increasing technological capabilities, it’s becoming easier and easier to manipulate people and mass audiences at that. Film manipulates scenes to suggest a reality or to evoke feeling in its viewers. However, the total shot can be changed by a twist of the camera. Devereaux was very hesitant of film because she argued that a male gaze was projected onto the viewer. Benjamin and Adorno seem to be recognizing the capability that film has to project anything at all onto the viewer, positive or negative. 

Benjamin, feels that art has moved from being authentic to something that is reproducible and almost devalued. He argues that art used to have an aura, a certain authenticity because you could only see it then and there. Now, art is more technical and we don’t need artistic genius, yet we’re still treating art as if it still possessed that special aura. He argues that with film and new age art, the picture is broken into pieces. Where as in theatre, you needed the whole, with film you can break it into parts to manipulate it. He goes on to say that there is a loss of identification between the spectator and the actor, and that all of this produces a destruction of the aura of the image because there is no distance in film as there is in theatre. Adorno sees film similarly, and sees modern art as a move from ritual to free-floating power. Because it is free, art is now free to take on anything it wants. Adorno and Benjamin are afraid that political agendas will manipulate us because we still see art as god-like things when really, genius no longer exists. Anybody can create dazzling spectacles, and we need to recognize this and think of art differently. 

I tend to agree with both Benjamin and Adorno. Because we have the ability to manipulate images even more so than we ever have before, art is particularly susceptible to being used for negative purposes such as propaganda. Thus, I think it is imperative that as Devereaux said, we keep in mind that we’re being manipulated as we watch something, analyze the manipulation and make our own decisions. The problem is that not many people have the time or even think to analyze a piece of art or a movie, and often take it at face value. Because of this, art can be a very dangerous tool if used politically because people might be brainwashed into following a particular idea without pausing to analyze what their viewing or to account for the manipulation of the piece they are seeing. Thus, I think it’s very difficult for artwork to be used politically without negatively impacting people and deceiving a mass audience for pure political goals. 

Can art serve a legitimate moral or political function without being reduced to propaganda?

As Schiller notes, art has the power to bridge the gap between the factical world as it is and the ethical ideal of the world as it ought to be, and it can inspire us to act in ways that mere knowledge or commands. In the modern world, where images and songs are available to us instantaneously through the use and mediation of technology, this power to inspire action takes on a different form than it did in the past. Benjamin and Adorno are right to be wary of technology’s influence on art and subsequently on culture as well, for the eminence of technology in the production and distribution of artworks makes them susceptible to the control and exploitation of those who control the technology of creation and distribution. The fear that these two have is that art’s power to inspire will be manipulated by the media and/or the government to control the population. However, in as much as they are used as propaganda, works cease to be artful, since they are being used as equipment and they are exhaustible. For art to exist as art, it can still serve the exhortative function that Schiller sees while not being totally exhausted.

            The Heideggerian analysis of the nature of artwork reveals how it can come to have this inspirational power. In viewing the Van Gogh painting of the peasant’s shoes which Heidegger analyzes, we are made aware of the essences of things-in-themselves (namely the shoes in this instance) beyond what we are normally capable. In looking at an actual pair of shoes, we try to understand what they are made of and how they appear to our senses. In using a pair of shoes, we have an implicit knowledge of what the shoes are and how they function, but we are not consciously aware of this. In using the shoes, as with all equipment, we do not know them while we use them.

In viewing artful representation, however, we try to grapple with the shoes in a new way. How did they get there? Who used them?  This process of questioning leads us to understand the connection between the factical and the transcendent aspects of the artwork. On the one hand, it calls to mind the thingly nature of the shoes, but on the other, it shows how the shoes are more than just the matter. According to Heidegger, artwork reveals truth, but not through facts about the world. Rather, artwork allows for an “unconcealedness” of being in the world and the tension between the brute matter of the earth and the world which our perceptions construct upon it. This αληθεια aligns with what Schiller sees as the power of artwork, particularly if we allow for the free play of the viewer’s imagination which Kant emphasizes. Artistic truth as unconcealing provides a meeting place for what is and what ought to be that is available for the consideration of the viewer. Simply looking at things as they are is not enough to make this connection from the “is” to the “ought,” nor is the application of equipment and tools able to cause this awareness.

The nature of propaganda, then, is not that of artwork. If artwork opens up the possibilities of the world and Being, propaganda seeks to conceal in order to effect change through deception. If we understand propaganda as “material that attempts to motivate action or to persuade/produce convictions with the intent to motivate to action, particularly where it employs deception or manipulation,” then it defies the nature of art in so much as it is used to push a particular agenda or direct the minds of the audience. If it obscures the relation of the factical earth and the world or attempts to forcibly conceal certain things, then it is not artwork, for it is not an unconcealing. Further, propaganda does not allow for the free play of the imagination, but rather seeks to confine it to a certain method.

The problems of propaganda come from a failure to recognize the intention behind them. Rather than an intention to create (in a general sense), the propagandist intends to convince and control, and in so far as these intentions are not clear to the viewer, then the propaganda is successful. However, if the viewer is aware of the agenda behind it, then the work could be viewed artfully. For instance, in the modern era, we may view “Triumph of the Will” without the feeling that we should accept the Nazi regime. We can view it as an unconcealing; we see the actual events and people of the Nuremburg rallies, and yet we can also understand there is some story coming across to us from the filmmaker, and we can ask ourselves the same sorts of questions as we do before the Van Gogh painting. In this way, propaganda can be diffused, provided that we as viewers are able to understand the ploys used for convincing and then move past them to exercise our own imaginative free play.