1. If art is meant to communicate a specific emotion, then wouldn't propaganda be considered art? Propaganda may communicate thoughts, but it can scare people as well.
Based off of what I talked about in my Q&A and question last week, I started thinking of Tolstoy's possible opinion on propaganda as art. In his opinion, art is a communication of an emotion. In theory, art could be propaganda in possible circumstances. For example, if a piece of propaganda art succeeds in making people feel distrustful, or maybe fearful even, of a certain group of people, then I think that could be "art" in Leo Tolstoy's mind. Because if is a successful communication, doesn't that make it art? However, I'm not sure if propaganda successfully communicating thoughts or feelings telling people how to think can be considered art. Even if propaganda can be considered art, I don't think Tolstoy would agree. Art trying to convince people how think about others (and etc.) in my opinion, would disagree with Tolstoy's idea of universal brotherhood. Art should be bringing people together, not spreading hateful ideals. If someone is trying to use art to convince people to distrust others, then it is not real art.
No comments:
Post a Comment