Art and Political Propaganda
Miguel Jimenez
Art, among its many qualities, is a tool of expression. A painting’s strokes, a song’s beat, and a building’s texture let the artist portray a message. Today’s culture has given art the role of liberation, as artists employ different media to show their individuality and worldview. But art did not serve this purpose until very recently; up to the recent past, it mostly reflected the messages of those in power. While popular art has always been created by individuals, most famous artworks are the product of this power dynamic.
This reality should not make us doubt the pieces’ morality (whether they are good or bad art works), but rather question their ethics (whether what they are doing is correct). The Egyptian temples, the European palaces, and the pre-Columbian ceremonial centers are some of the most beautiful achievements of human civilization, but the stories they tell reflect the worldview of those in power, which is often falsely constructed.
The paintings, music, and architecture that powerful groups have commissioned embody an agenda. Those in power have often exploited one of art’s greatest advantages: its ability to be unreal. The canvas follows the artist’s brushstrokes; the stone, the mason’s hammer; the music, the player’s hands. Art follows the will of the artist and not necessarily what is real or true. These groups of power have often manipulated reality through art to fit their message to the masses.
While there are numerous artworks where such agendas are evident, the most obvious and outrageous examples are those produced by nationalism. Take the example of the US Capitol rotunda. As the center of the American government, the space features several paintings and sculptures that glorify the country’s past.Trumbull’s Declaration of Independence and Brumidi’s America and History, with their dramatic compositions and large scales, entice the viewer to follow a nationalist narrative. If these artworks accurately depict the nation’s history, then the story is one of triumph, hard work, and a constant quest for freedom, mostly done by European immigrants. Yet we know that this depiction denies the country’s history of abuse, discrimination, and death, none of which are present on any artwork in the Rotonda.
Such nationalist rhetoric is not particular to the United States. I first became aware of it at home in Mexico. The National Palace houses some of muralist Diego Rivera’s most famous art works, but as beautiful as they are, they are blatantly lying about Mexico’s history. Rivera paints an idyllic pre-Hispanic past in which the Mesoamerican peoples live gloriously and in harmony. Yet when he paints the arrival of the Spaniards he only portrays death and destruction. Documents and archeology reveal that neither of these portrayals are accurate, but Rivera was following a historical narrative constructed by a dictatorship which glorified the pre-Columbian past and demonized the Hispanic one, seeking to justify its regime.
For people who have the knowledge about the truth behind these artworks it is not difficult to distinguish art from fiction. Nevertheless, many people take these pieces as factual representations of the past. The use of such artworks in history textbooks continues to perpetuate this belief.
It is time to reconsider the role that art has played during nationalist regimes, and the narratives it has created that we do not question. Such pieces are reflective of a specific mindset during a specific time period, and our goal should be understanding the nuances of both. Art can be beautiful, but it can serve as propaganda. We should just be aware that art carries not only beauty, but also a message, and while both are intertwined, they are not the same.
