ARTiculation: Feel Good Ink
This week's ARTiculation column features
a special guest writer, Will McCormick.
The ARTiculation column suggested in an earlier article that art should have some sort of aim towards reformation of the current order; it should have a dissident ethic about it. However, we look around and we see myriad media, which inundates us every day. It envelopes our consciousness when we wish to veg out on the couch, and screams for our attention when we might have other things at hand, but it all tends to be done rather artistically.
Most general definitions of the word “art” encompass the whole spectrum of creative output, regardless of inclination. From the TV dramas that preach the traditional values of family to the neo-traditional values of consumption and competition of risqué cable programs to the flag-waving individualist movies to the barrage of advertisements from which we find no quarter to the din of pop music, which relieves us of our own inner-monologue, a form of art which does not conform to the specialized qualification endorsed by this column appears far more prevalent than any sort of polemic or critical message. This form of art can be categorized as pop-propaganda.
Such propaganda feeds on the feel-good ethos of our culture, lionizing its traits and building them into moral certainties. Patriotism, good. Atomic family, good. Capitalism, good. Questioning these, bad. It is clear cut; the simplification of complicated situations and themes to black and white, all in splendid technicolour.
Even the news fits this mould. September 12, 2001, the cries for war and retribution started their steady rise to a bombastic crescendo; from the pundits not a peep asking, “Why would such devastation be wrought upon us?” That question leads to reflection upon our activities in the Middle East, and ultimately to moral uncertainty, perhaps even guilt. It is much easier to play the righteous victim. Fittingly, the only time “Why?” was heard was in emotional cameos of childless mothers shrieking “WHY!?” to the heavens.
Such simplification is reinforced in the most popular artistic imagery. We see movies come out about the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, making heroes of soldiers who are portrayed as under siege, though they are the ones on foreign soil. Our boys are good, they are threatened, but they are strong, and we will prevail. Simple.
This sort of bolstering of an overly simplistic morality is seen in nearly everything that constitutes our popular culture. It is so well received in part because of confirmation bias. It is easy and comforting to be exposed to things which say we are clearly on the side of Good. Feeling rather innocent, the individual viewer is more likely to enjoy something that reinforces such delusion than messages that suggest there may be something more sinister about our culture and, consequently, our own lives.
Pop propaganda finds us in every facet of our cultural lives, masquerading as just another drama about petty family problems or reality show about backstabbing competition or song about narcissistic love or ad for the latest cellphone that connects us all; just another thing to tell you to keep on doing what you're doing and believe that we are working towards commendable ends — that you are commendable when you embody such traits.
So, is this art? While it was suggested (in the article) that art should have a sort of revolutionary approach, it was also said that the meaning of art is in the eye of the beholder. The act of viewing is as important as that of creation (if no one hears an artist's tree fall, it truly makes no sound). The artist's intended meaning and the viewer's received one do not have to match in order for art to be successful. With this caveat, even popaganda turns into art. The subtle affirmation of the status quo of pop propaganda never fully disguises itself, and in endlessly repeating the goodness of things, even in the face of obvious moral ambiguity, it belies itself as that which it truly is: a mental Trojan Horse. However, the critical viewer does not simply take up the intended message, but sees the wolf beneath the wool, and such viewership leads to questions. And questioning is the most fundamentally revolutionary act anyone can take.
Editorial opinions or comments expressed in this online edition of Interrobang newspaper reflect the views of the writer and are not those of the Interrobang or the Fanshawe Student Union. The Interrobang is published weekly by the Fanshawe Student Union at 1001 Fanshawe College Blvd., P.O. Box 7005, London, Ontario, N5Y 5R6 and distributed through the Fanshawe College community. Letters to the editor are welcome. All letters are subject to editing and should be emailed. All letters must be accompanied by contact information. Letters can also be submitted online by clicking here.
The ARTiculation column suggested in an earlier article that art should have some sort of aim towards reformation of the current order; it should have a dissident ethic about it. However, we look around and we see myriad media, which inundates us every day. It envelopes our consciousness when we wish to veg out on the couch, and screams for our attention when we might have other things at hand, but it all tends to be done rather artistically.
Most general definitions of the word “art” encompass the whole spectrum of creative output, regardless of inclination. From the TV dramas that preach the traditional values of family to the neo-traditional values of consumption and competition of risqué cable programs to the flag-waving individualist movies to the barrage of advertisements from which we find no quarter to the din of pop music, which relieves us of our own inner-monologue, a form of art which does not conform to the specialized qualification endorsed by this column appears far more prevalent than any sort of polemic or critical message. This form of art can be categorized as pop-propaganda.
Such propaganda feeds on the feel-good ethos of our culture, lionizing its traits and building them into moral certainties. Patriotism, good. Atomic family, good. Capitalism, good. Questioning these, bad. It is clear cut; the simplification of complicated situations and themes to black and white, all in splendid technicolour.
Even the news fits this mould. September 12, 2001, the cries for war and retribution started their steady rise to a bombastic crescendo; from the pundits not a peep asking, “Why would such devastation be wrought upon us?” That question leads to reflection upon our activities in the Middle East, and ultimately to moral uncertainty, perhaps even guilt. It is much easier to play the righteous victim. Fittingly, the only time “Why?” was heard was in emotional cameos of childless mothers shrieking “WHY!?” to the heavens.
Such simplification is reinforced in the most popular artistic imagery. We see movies come out about the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, making heroes of soldiers who are portrayed as under siege, though they are the ones on foreign soil. Our boys are good, they are threatened, but they are strong, and we will prevail. Simple.
This sort of bolstering of an overly simplistic morality is seen in nearly everything that constitutes our popular culture. It is so well received in part because of confirmation bias. It is easy and comforting to be exposed to things which say we are clearly on the side of Good. Feeling rather innocent, the individual viewer is more likely to enjoy something that reinforces such delusion than messages that suggest there may be something more sinister about our culture and, consequently, our own lives.
Pop propaganda finds us in every facet of our cultural lives, masquerading as just another drama about petty family problems or reality show about backstabbing competition or song about narcissistic love or ad for the latest cellphone that connects us all; just another thing to tell you to keep on doing what you're doing and believe that we are working towards commendable ends — that you are commendable when you embody such traits.
So, is this art? While it was suggested (in the article) that art should have a sort of revolutionary approach, it was also said that the meaning of art is in the eye of the beholder. The act of viewing is as important as that of creation (if no one hears an artist's tree fall, it truly makes no sound). The artist's intended meaning and the viewer's received one do not have to match in order for art to be successful. With this caveat, even popaganda turns into art. The subtle affirmation of the status quo of pop propaganda never fully disguises itself, and in endlessly repeating the goodness of things, even in the face of obvious moral ambiguity, it belies itself as that which it truly is: a mental Trojan Horse. However, the critical viewer does not simply take up the intended message, but sees the wolf beneath the wool, and such viewership leads to questions. And questioning is the most fundamentally revolutionary act anyone can take.
Editorial opinions or comments expressed in this online edition of Interrobang newspaper reflect the views of the writer and are not those of the Interrobang or the Fanshawe Student Union. The Interrobang is published weekly by the Fanshawe Student Union at 1001 Fanshawe College Blvd., P.O. Box 7005, London, Ontario, N5Y 5R6 and distributed through the Fanshawe College community. Letters to the editor are welcome. All letters are subject to editing and should be emailed. All letters must be accompanied by contact information. Letters can also be submitted online by clicking here.
