So, incase you haven't noticed Obama's face has been plastered everywhere. This alone does not concern me, prominent celebrity and political faces are seen all over the place. What concerns me is how Obama's face is being plastered. But first, let me draw your attention to these eye catching images that I found on google. The one below is of the Russian Bolshevik leaders. It is painted on the side of a large building somewhere in Russia. Note the bold use of color and the commanding black and white contrast in their faces. Impressive, forbidding, and moving
Next is this Russian propaganda poster of Lenin. I don't know the translation of the Russian, maybe Joel can tell us, but look at the simplicity, again the bold chiseled lines--Iconic!
This poster of Che shares similar attributes in the depiction of his face to those above. Simple, and easily recognizable. Again the use of chromatic negative-film type color (I am sure there is a professional pop art term to for this, if someone knows please tell me) 
What would be a line up of revolutionary posters without Mr. Castro of Cuba. Now, I am no pop art scholar or a history of revolutions guru, but I do have eyes and I did take several world history classes through out my academic career,
and what is pictured below, the face of our new president depicted in pop art, revolution fashion, is for me, a little freighting. It is my belief that this pop art poster is no naive accident. It bares to close a resemblance to its forerunners to be innocent "get out the vote" propaganda. I am not inferring in any way that Obama is the antichrist or that America is soon to become a socialist regime (as those ideas are unwarranted, outlandish fear based assumptions), but I just feel that we should be aware and critical of the sensationalism surrounding our new President. 
Note, just as in all the other propaganda posters, the pop art style and simplicity, the bold lines, the use of color. Why now at this juncture in American history? Just some observations, let me know what you think.
7 comments:
hey doomsdayist, that poster is supposed to be like propaganda, that's what they modeled it after. It's no coincidence. On another topic, that photo of Che is one of the most recognized images in the world, so says wikipedia.
I know it is no coincidence, that is half of my point, the other half is that they did not just choose that genre of propaganda because it was eye catching and cool looking. I hold to the position that they are knowingly connecting Obama's image to a history and lineage of revolution--genius marketing considering their slogan of change--I just get nervous when it is an authority, a government leader that is being marketed in this manner. Maybe I am to much of an Orwell fan or something. I am no doomsdayist, just one who is aware of the power an iconic image can have, and one who is cautious around total sensationalism. If is was Palin's picture all over I would be just as suspicious.
if it was palin's picture all over, i would consider leaving this country.
You have been listening to far too much conservative talk radio, which, I believe, contains far less actual "news" and contains far more sensationalist agendas than the daily show with Jon Stewart. Why are we not talking about the frightening implications that the vast majority of one of our nations political parties is being informed soley by bombastic editorials of fundamentalist vitriole?
I include the above statement because I believe that it sheds some light on the reason why you skipped over the artistic implications and lept on a socialist iconic agenda. I believe that this poster, which is found under the "artists for Obama" link on his offical web site, is influenced more by Andy Warhol than anything else. Warhol's introduction or popularization of pop art can be interpreted as one of the most recognizably american visual artistic genres. But of course we don't view this poster as overtly american (forget that it's red white and blue, his middle name is hussein). And perhaps there is some reminiscent themes of past political posters. Many changes in culture and art come from a rejection of the past and are seen in the appropriation and adaptation of art, literature, rhetoric, etc. All of this could just as easily be put into terms of some sort of political santification. Furthermore, if you look into the work of the artist who created this poster, Shepard Fairey, you will also see that he does simiar things to the image of Martin Luther King Jr. Does the movement towards social justice imply a movement towards socialism?
Also, the argument of sensationalism (and, more importantly, the argument of experience though that is another discussion) is negated by McCain's choice of Palin. She is far more sensationalist than Obama ever could be. Her lack of experience and moronic ignorance in the realms of federal and world polotics show the singular reason she was chosen for the GOP ticket: McCain wanted his ticket to get more coverage. I obviously have no love for Palin and will refrain from detailing the myriad reasons she would be the worst thing to happen to our country since Richard Nixon (seriously, it would be on the level of McCarthy and his Comunist witch hunt running our nation), but I kind of hope that she does run in 2012 because Obama will get an even more desicive victory and perhaps the GOP will realize that the more fundamentally conservative it becomes, the more antequated and useless it becomes as a governing body. And here is a fantastic quote I read recently "We are pleased that polotics are getting more liberal and equal, so that African Americans and women can now run for president. But with Palin, we are forced suddenly and violently to realize that not only minorities, but also blatantly incompetent people can run."
Finally, I don't see why you don't support Obama. Neither of us find ourselves in the upper or even middle of the socio-economic scale. His plans are to help the lower and middle classes of this society (what an idea, helping people who need help), and though I know that you want to eventually buy, fix, and flip houses for income beyond teaching, you (and everybody else) do not have that as a feasible option right now. I don't think his plans will hurt that area of the economy but his plans will help you right now. And you know that the economy and political atmosphere is a pendulum so perhaps in ten years when we are both in the upper middle class tax brackets we can both vote our pocketbooks and go republican because they will help us rich folks.
I know I said finally on that last paragraph but I have to say one more thing about the demonization of revolutionaries, specifically a word about Castro. Did you know that Castro championed his revolution because Cuba was in serious danger of becoming a nation run by the american mob? Cuba had become a mob stronghold destination for gambling, drugs, and prostitution frequented and supported by american politicians to the detriment of cubans themselves. Castro purged the cuban system of these evil institutions and though his ideals took him a bit too far perhaps, might it also be a sensationalist political movement funded by the mob and its crooked politicians that forced him to apear to be so contrary to the "american" way of life?
Andrew, great comment. You epitomize the true spirit of the bloggesphere. I will attempt to systematically address each of your points and then conclude with what I hope to be something . . . but I am not sure what, we will see.
Yes, I listen to conservative talk radio, there is that period in the day between 2:30 and 3:30 in which NPR had little to offer, so in an attempt to be a well informed citizen I indulge in the "bombastic editorials of fundamentalist vitriol" Let me briefly say that I loath conservative talk radio. It is poorly produced and fills the air gaps with musical interludes so hideous that my knuckles tighten around the steering wheel in pain. It is clunky, like someone jumping up and down on a pile of tine cans. At any rate, I feel my occasional dip into the AM keeps me critical of NPR and vice versa. The result is not pretty, I am confused and now highly skeptical of all forms of media.
I think your assertion that the artist Shepard Fairey was influence buy Warhol is incorrect (I submit that I am just a novice, but I will make assertions about art none the less)I hold this opinion for several reasons. One is the time line. Warhol began his factory ventures and pop art projects in the 1960's producing images of iconic american products. We have all seen these, they bare no slogan and they comment more on American consumerism and the creation of a product than on a specific ideology (I relies that is a huge generalization of Worhal's work and that I have no right to make such a statement, but go with me). Yes Andrew, Marlin Monroe's portrait could be seen as a political sexual revolution piece, but it also could be a statement about the creation of Marlin as a product to be consumed, suggesting that people, Hollywood stars, no longer have their own identity, their essence is boiled down to consumable, marketable commodity and nothing more, they are no longer human just objects. Bearing this in mind I would argue that Worhal's work is not a proponent of, or a vehicle for a movement, but rather was and is commentary on the swiftly changing culture of the 60's and 70's.
shoot, Carter just woke up and I have to go to work soon I will finish this comment latter.
To finish the comment. The vein of propaganda in which the poster most resembles is not Warhol's work but that of the 40's and 50's. I feel like he circumvents Warhol and draws form, layout and function from early propagandist art. Here you say is were adaptation and appropriation play a critical role in that they allow for the borrowing and reworking of ideas. As you and I both know, thanks to Shakespeare and Film, the role of adaptation and appropriation within the art community is ubiquitous, and permeates every facet. Can an artist ever divorce themselves from the work from which they appropriate their ideas? I posit that they cannot. So much more to say. I wanted to address all you points but I don't have time. I love the comment about Castro by the way.
I wrote a very good and succinct comment yesterday but my internet hicupped when I posted it and it disappeared.
I think that your problem is with the art and the comodification of political ideaology rather than the political ideology itself (or at least the basis of your argument is attacking that comodification through art and doesn't have much weight to attack the polotics). I also think that you are stuck with assumptions about art creating culture or culture creating art. This is problematic because the genesis of a thing is thoroughly difficult to difine when you must look at something so ephemerally amorphous as culture (especially american culture as it is constantly absorbing new cultural ideas). You are saying that this campaign is borrowing from socialist and communist propaganda art but who's to say that it wasn't art first and used as propaganda second.
Propaganda and manipulation tend to be scary words in our society but I will agree that the use of art is obviously manipulative because all comunication is obviously manipulative, and art is the worst culprit of all this because it is not definitive and is comunicating its message in subtle and often times confusing ways as it plays on emotion far more than anything else.
Polotics is a popularity contest. It is about who is more popular as well as whose ideas are more popular. Of course they are going to use art and the media to aid them in this contest. It has almost always been this way and will only continue to be more obvious as we become a more mediacentric society. Your argument isn't agaisnt the Obama campaign, it is against a movement in the polotics of voting.
I will end by saying that Obama used art well in his campaign. McCain made the real attempt at sensationalization by picking a hot librarian with no brain for his running mate. If the Obama campaign was attempting to be sensationalist, Hillary would have been his running mate.
Post a Comment