2006-07-31 14:43:50 · 8 answers · asked by LadyRebecca 6 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Other - Arts & Humanities
I would disagree because while art is supposed to provoke feelings in people, the artist doesn't always have control over the effect of his/her work. Plus, the possibility of spontaneous art exists, over which the artist has little or no control.
2006-07-31 16:04:10 · answer #1 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I see propaganda as picture or add, trying to convince us of the creators personal beliefs. I dislike propaganda. Art tries to portray and incite emotion, not a way of life or a choice to be made. All art is NOT propoganda.
2006-07-31 15:27:09 · answer #2 · answered by Marea S 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is a false statement. Art is about expression of emotions through the use of visual elements. Emotions are raw.
Propaganda has a distinctive manipulative message.
Visual elements (color, lines, forms points etc...) can be successfully used as tools for propaganda (or advertisment) but it stops being art.
2006-07-31 15:05:25 · answer #3 · answered by Lumas 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Art is truth. Propaganda seeks to shape opinion in some direction (truth or falsehood matter not). Propaganda could be art in some cases, but only unintentially.
If it's really art it cannot have an agenda.
Pax Tecum
2006-07-31 19:31:40 · answer #4 · answered by Christicide 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This would be true whenever art is used to provoke thought or change a perspective in society.
2006-07-31 14:52:02 · answer #5 · answered by Kenneth H 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It seems like it could be true... since propaganda is a piece of something that delivers a message to many people... and art is also that... how interesting...
2006-07-31 14:53:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree. It's the artist attempting to portray an idea or thought.
2006-07-31 15:03:28 · answer #7 · answered by Ducky S 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it's true, then what is Thomas Kinkade trying to sell us?
(OK, some would say that Kinkade is not true art.)
2006-07-31 15:13:10 · answer #8 · answered by David S 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋