What are your thoughts on the statement "All art is propaganda"?

Answer 1

That's a quote from George Orwell, isn't it?

His meaning was that anyone who creates art has a "message" in that they have their own prejudices and beliefs, and their art is going to reflect and convey those prejudices.

By art we can include all artistic works, including literature and performing arts as well as the visual arts; the quote comes from his essay "Charles Dickens" which I link to below.

Here's some context:

"I have been discussing Dickens simply in terms of his ‘message’, and almost ignoring his literary qualities. But every writer, especially every novelist, has a ‘message’, whether he admits it or not, and the minutest details of his work are influenced by it. All art is propaganda. Neither Dickens himself nor the majority of Victorian novelists would have thought of denying this."

Answer 2

If propaganda is a pejorative form of ideological dissemination, then certainly the status of the art object is not immune from those who seek to deconstruct the historical-cultural significance which constitutes the art we see in galleries.

And what better VEHICLE for propaganda, for a system of ideas that are false, than a form of expression which is in stark contrast to logical, scientific modes of rationality?

The propagandic meaning of say, Pollocks painting scribbles, is that life is exactly like this beautiful, yet random mess I have made by conforming to the aleatory forces instead of the modernist pursuit of line and form, and grounded reasoning.

Answer 3

Well...I believe in a way it's true. Most artists don't usually have in their minds 'now what can I do to make this painting sell' unless that's the kind of thing you actually do. That's what the literal response would be. Thinking about it in another way it still is propoganda because they artist is trying to get you to see what their expression is what they ment what they were going through at the time...when an artist paints or sculpts they are pouring everything they've got into their art, feeling and emotion. They are trying to put you where they were at the time in their life and their inspiration for creating that work of art...their trying to get you to believe something or see something (their inspiration whatever that might of been) if they get you to even think about it a little...on a deeper level or even to see it as it is...they have done their job...and definded the phrase 'all art is propoganda'.
Just me.

Answer 4

Real art is the opposite of propaganda. Propaganda exists only for the sake of hammering home a message; art exists for its own sake, and to be enjoyed.

Answer 5

Propaganda carries a negative connotation; implying falsehoods or distorting information. Art is not necessarily about spreading political ideas or promoting a cause (if that was the case, what the heck was Jackson Pollock's cause?).

Answer 6

no its more like all propaganda is art. but if ''all art was propaganda'', that statment, was true then any form of express would be propaganda. i cant evern answer this question would be propagandaish?! ( dont even read other peoples anwswers, jk) good song to lisen to by bob dylan,"its alright ma, its life and life only."

Answer 7

Nonsense!

Art serves many purposes, including, but not limited to, 'persuasion'.

Of course art can serve an agenda--but it isn't the case that art MUST serve an agenda other than its own, whatever that might be. (I favor: "This is beauty," or "This is ugly," but I'm kinda Philistine, from the viewpoint of the professional aesthete.)

Answer 8

try looking up Dadaism