Sta.sh
Announcing our Creative Grants recipients
Nov 15, 2012 by $techgnotic
The Comfort of Mindless Obedience
When is information true and useful and when is it just “propaganda?” Why in fact is an image or phrase or animated art sequence “propaganda” rather than it simply being a “lie?” What about acceptable lies that define our society as much as they degrade it - - for example commercials that obviously hype a product with untruths or political advertisements full of unachievable platitudes.
It can be instructive to look back at the early days of “mass society” and the need to impart vital national information before the ubiquitous presence of personal radios, televisions and telephones in every citizen’s home. World War I and World War II provided the framework worldwide for the mass “propaganda poster.” It’s amazing how similar the mass propaganda posters of the warring nations were – in their patriotic images just as much as in their simplistic messages of sacrifice and belief in the cause. Many are familiar with Uncle Sam, born in WWI and Rosie the Riveter from WWI, whose “Yes, we can,” was repurposed in the 60s and again recently as an Obama campaign maxim.
The messages seem simple and quaint today, instilling the glow of some kind of nostalgia. Yes, the point of propaganda was always to get us back in line, onto the straight and narrow for God and country or for country and religion alone, the conundrum that the opposition were doing the same was easily handleable without too much intellectual athleticism. In fact, sometimes mass conformity feels good – like a U2 concert. We’re being sold that something is way more important that it really is, but we don’t mind … so it’s “propaganda” as opposed to being a “lie.”
We’re being sold that something is way more important that it really is, but we don’t mind … so it’s “propaganda” as opposed to being a “lie.”
“Us” vs. “Them”
In researching the subject the Mass Propaganda Poster didn’t make it through the Vietnam War era. If it showed anywhere as a graphic equivalency, it was on anti-war T-shirts. It wasn’t just improved TV technology and the daily coverage of that national struggle (in the jungles of Nam and the streets of American cities). It was also that the war was too confusing, to ambiguous, to be reduced to the simple “us” vs. “them” formula of the two wars that had come before. So iconic poster art of young American men fighting evil devils wasn’t just ineffectual, but insultingly simplistic.
So instead, the mass propaganda art posters of the 60s were the psychedelic rock-n-roll posters promoting the new phenomenon of guitar heroes. The cultural “war” it seems was better suited to the creativity of simple iconic poster art than the complex disaster of war. Of course, the use of mass propaganda in posters was reaching a zenith at the same time in China as part of the Cultural Revolution in every home, every workplace and every government operation.
Today, while “actual” political propaganda posters are still occasionally put out on the street of our cities to vex the establishment by artists like Robbie Conal, there is the new phenomenon, best exemplified by artist Shepard Fairey’s “OBEY” posters and stickers, of “faux (false) propaganda art,” which mocks and comments on the very concept of mass propaganda itself. The artworks often call up classic images from the “loose lips sink ships” days of war era propaganda to stir our patriotic fervor for battling the Sith and joining in other causes. Star Wars and Star Trek are favorite subjects used for the primary context of these fake posters, as well as many video games and movie and TV franchises. Faux propaganda memes are a regular subject for deviantART satirists as can be seen on this page.
Faux propaganda art has an eerie vibe – like playing with fire. Remember, this was the stuff utilized, for real, by feared despots to drive others to countenance the murder of millions. But now it seems so childishly safe in its simple messages. One has a feeling of nostalgia, even – as if any evil has been sapped from the subject, and with the viewer being a survivor of a bygone era. We are no doubt being manipulated and “sold” on more contemporary issues by more sophisticated means of mass propaganda flooding our brains daily – but at least these colorful beasts from the past are easily mastered for our simple enjoyment.
Once again, Do we have any scholars out there who might shed an even more educative light on the subject?
Has anyone been studying or reading extensively about the history of Propaganda Art? Would love to hear opinions, analysis and corrections from those of you even more familiar with the history of propaganda art than I.
CommentaryFrom deviantART's Advisor in Chief
The notion of “faux propaganda” is false because it remains propaganda. When my kids asked me what I did during the Vietnam War, my answer was that I fought the war against the war in Vietnam; and that my side won. The strongest image I have of that movement is, of course, the peace sign. The second strongest is a raised red fist. The first of these symbols was borrowed from the anti-nuclear movement of the very early 1960’s. The second was borrowed from communist propaganda posters of the 1920’s and possibly earlier.
Sheppard Fairey’s Obama poster was propaganda - - for good, I believe, just like the peace sign - - even though it owes its context to posters of Moa Tse Tung and the now high art of Andy Warhol. The red fist was propaganda for bad as it was to become to be understood and then it was used for good, as I believed; and will likely be considered bad or good again in another round of propaganda to come. But what’s interesting to me is that the stylized look of a Moa poster, the peace sign and the raised fist will always be considered propagandistic in a Pavlovian sense. You see them and you know them to be propaganda.
—$makepictures
QuestionsFor the Reader
- Do you like modern faux propaganda art or does anything recalling the Horrors of past wars still seem inappropriate as an art subject – if only because of possible inadvertent trivialization?
- Do you think faux war propaganda posters for movies like Star Wars raise real issues about the danger of war (like in Star Wars) ever being presented, even subconsciously, as “fun?”
- Are there examples of modern mass postering (like the Obama “HOPE” political posters) that still send “real” and effective messages and information?
- What about your own politics drives your feelings on this subject and artform?
Yes, most theist continue to be theists when their beliefs are disproven because (to quote Carl Sagan)
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe."
The fifth quote I made in my previous message, with you being the first and second, if I'm not mistaken.
When I said : "Thus in the end atheism is just a belief that theism isn't wrong."
I meant: "Thus in the end atheism is just a belief that theism is a fallacy."
"You show a blatant disregard for the basis of fact gathering."
You got it all wrong!
My argument wasn't about science versus religion to begin with, it was about atheism and theism.
How can I reject any scientific knowledge when I am in fact a physics student who aspires to venture in the area of aerospace engineering.
I think I have a pretty solid scientific understanding thanks.
You said:
"As I had already stated;
I know the origins of religion, I know why people believe in it, I know why there are more than just Conservative Fundamentalists theists, and I know why theism persists.
If you'd like to know these things, look them up. :/"
I know why religions exist. I also know that such practices persist due to experiences to supernatural occurrences, experiences which occur although people may choose to dispute their incidents: exorcisms are real and I'm not just talking about the movies.
[link]
This is just an example you can look at. I'm sure there is plenty more you can find on exorcisms.
This may not ultimately prove the existence of some sort of deity, one could easily argue some cases may be just people who are mentally disturbed/ are experiencing some sort of mental instabilities. We can go on to argue about how it may just be a psychological thing but the fact that such incidents are amended by prayer set a powerful message on their own. In the least it can reflect that religion is not entirely wrong.
Incidents such as this are reasons why people still follow religions/ have faith in some sort of deity.
At this point in time we still lack the knowledge to explain such phenomena. Perhaps elites would know what is going on but if not for such occurrences there wouldn't be any faith or religions in the world.
I'm sure coming from the christian background (assuming you were christian), you are familiar with the pilgrimages places such as Lourdes.
[link]
These are probably the best records of miracles occurring. For further information one can google the mentioned individuals for more in-depth information.
We can always dispute miracles, or that they may be caused by some kind of deity, but in truth we lack enough knowledge to state whether a deity does or doesn't exist. Thus in the end atheism is just a belief that theism isn't wrong. This is why I was saying atheism cannot be regarded as pure truth just as much as theism cannot be regarded as pure truth.
I will repeat what I said again for the nth time, "It is rather arrogant to claim what you believe to be the white truth. As that will always be relative to you."
Everything still remains in shades of grey till either of them is dismissed by physical evidence (whether that will even be possible or not.)
For the most part globalized religions were used for control of the masses true, but if anything that just made the religions lose their true essence. It has diluted the truths of religions and most people, perhaps you also, lost your faith because you could no longer distinguish between the truths and the lies of religion. After all, religion is man-made, you are quite right, it is an establishment of a system which was then further abused for the gain of power. However, faith has always been there. Long before the distinguished religions of today there was always genuine faith and belief in either some sort of deities/spirits. Had theism been indefinitely proven to be false scientifically or otherwise do you think people would continue to be theists?
You said:
Albert Einstein
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death"
Einstein also said:
"Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things."
[link]
[link]
"Perhaps researching the Scientific Method and the difference between Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, and Law."
I agree my argument about laws being changed was flawed, indeed it is true that theories are the ones that get tested, cross-examined and only when seen to be universally true can laws be deduced from them. I gladly take back what I had said about that.
You said:
"I innately believed everything is untrue, I eventually find enough information to prove one way or another.
I once lived exactly as you.
I know, exactly, your point of view.
However, you currently live as a troglodyte. Only you can teach you, as you only trust yourself and your religion to be true."
When I had said: "In the end what you believe is all that matters, no one can change that for you, and similarly you cannot change what others believe nor have you the right to deem it false without fully understanding their own perceptions." It was in line with what I was talking about with religion.
You cannot just follow blindly, but with faith, you'll have your own experiences, they may not even have to be something that stand out, but in essence such experiences will reaffirm your own beliefs. So in the end it isn't really about the religion/institution/ -ism you follow, it is about you and your experiences. For example your own experiences have led you to believe there is no God. That is your truth, that is what you regard as your own white truth.
However, on the other hand someone else will have experiences that will lead him/her to believe that there is in fact a God. That will become his/her own personal truth, his/her own white truth. Thus your original statement which I was disputing, as it is your own truth, own opinion but isn't an established fact. To level-headed at this point one can claim that everything is a shade of gray, as it is hard to distinguish the truths from the fallacies.
Once again, you said:
"However, you currently live as a troglodyte."
Hmmm... nope, the white truth is that I live in a house that has electricity and internet that I can access to in order to be writing this post. XD
This is why science doesn't actively dismiss religion as a fallacy.
Interesting reads:
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
Books:
How To Relate Science And Religion: A Multidimensional Model
The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion
Theory of science and religion
And there's much more interesting reads about science and religion you can look at.
Please understand that my point of argument wasn't about religion/theism (belief in the supernatural and/or deities) versus science (knowledge acquired by mankind that is through physical evidence, experimentation and observation), but rather about atheism (belief that there is no God whatsoever) being the absolute truth and religion/theism (belief in the supernatural and/or deities) being fallible although not entirely.
Otherwise besides the fairly intolerant response you wrote (well, that is the impression I got anyway) your response was really interesting and am actually going to look into the quotations you gave me. Really interesting especially for me to find out that the 14th Dalai Lama is atheist despite his very stature which is of religious significance. I do know that some eastern religions like Taoism do not believe in a God per say, but very interesting indeed.
"For the most part globalized religions were used for control of the masses true, but if anything that just made the religions lose their true essence. It has diluted the truths of religions..."
Here's a link you can use to educate yourself to the origins of judaism.
History of Cross Shows Ideological Evolution Based on Other Religions
Book "Case For Christ" Vivisected
And the American Conservative Party's War on Education Tells Quite a Bit
You may find it rough, but in cross-referencing information you'll succumb to answers.
You wrote;
"After all, religion is man-made, you are quite right, it is an establishment of a system which was then further abused for the gain of power. However, faith has always been there."
In a discussion on wether atheism is true or not you agree that religion is man made and used to control the masses to acquire power.
You continue;
"However, faith has always been there. Long before the distinguished religions of today there was always genuine faith and belief in either some sort of deities/spirits."
To be fair,
"Religious behaviour is thought to have emerged by the Upper Paleolithic, before 30,000 years ago at the latest,[1] but behavioral patterns such as burial rites that one might characterize as religious - or as ancestral to religious behaviour - reach back into the Middle Paleolithic, as early as 300,000 years ago, coinciding with the first appearance of Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens."
We are Homo Sapiens Sapiens, a sub species of Homo Sapiens. As Wikipedia states, the precursor behaviors that eventually turned into "theism" do predate OUR subspecies, but [religion/spiritualism/animalism] is younger than use.
This means that the one thing you clung to; humanity having constant baseless faith in a deity, is CURRENTLY false BUT the culture and ideologies of humans were not created by us...
But our forerunners...
Belief in deities does not predate the degradation of meaning surrounding behaviors.
This means that a belief in deities evolved from other behaviors.
When it comes to exorcism, perhaps you are ignorant of the Salem Witch Trials?
I recommend you acquaint yourself with the event. It epitomizes exorcism.
--Relevant Articles to Exorcisms:
"Real Exorcisms"
(More Stuff)
(Exorcisms)
(Islam)
(Congo Article)
(YouTube: Channel 4 - Witch Child Documentary)
It is ignorance, the fear of the unknown, a literal fear of what could hide in shadow, that bred religion.
The earliest know for is human culture is devoid of deities and simply dictates were and when to hunt.
Your "Lady of Lourdes" example only further shows the effects of blind, unquestioning faith on human psychology.
You wrote;
"I will repeat what I said again for the nth time, "It is rather arrogant to claim what you believe to be the white truth. As that will always be relative to you."
Everything still remains in shades of grey till either of them is dismissed by physical evidence (whether that will even be possible or not.)"
True, innocent until proven guilt and all that jazz.
But we both have "proof", both of our cases have ended, both with different endings.
That is why were are having a civil discussion.
One of use is right, one wrong. Both of us are failing to properly communicate information to the other.
So, you know, welcome to the conversation... :3
That's why I quoted the 14th Dalai Lama.
We must adhere to what we have proven, not ignorance.
A guideline to live by.
The result is still the same.
(Atheism: the belief that there are no deities)
In the end, there either is or isn't deities.
Atheism is either a Black statement or a White statement.
Right now, it is either one or the other.
You have linked me things you can't explain and claimed them proof of a deity.
•Exorcism: the age old way of dealing with the undesirables
•Miracles: the age old way of blaming deities for good outcomes rather than trying to even think
•Einstein saying how he is neither a Atheist nor a Pantheist because he's agnostic...
You've cited information and arguments LITERALLY based on ignorance.
Cool. Totally great to Argue From Ignorance...
Doesn't go horribly at all..
Totally sure that a scientific fact doesn't agree and reproves other facts, making a highly interconnected web of learned knowledge that grows with a exponential rate because of the ease of disproving falsities, making it quickly so that one man CAN understand the universe....
Totally (my irony muscle has gotten tired)
This Link
The author clearly picks-and-chooses things they like from their preferred religious text purely by preference, (they also don't know anything about Islam, but whatever) they're starting to see the different types of Atheist (people who've had atheism proven to them and have chosen to live by facts [educated atheist], people that just hate and ignorantly bash theism [grumpy dumbfucks]), and he goes on to not realise the Einstein was infatuated with the consept of pantheism.
Still, he did write;
"...only ask in return that Atheists accept that Atheists have done terrible things in the name of their various utopian, Godless faiths."
(click the above link!)
I don't know about you, but any society that glorifies a person as a deity isn't atheist.
Nor someone who claims themselves to be a deity.
Still, atheist MUST have killed people... somewhere out there... in large numbers...
(Those ignorant dumbass Atheist need further education and slapping.)
As well, the comments below your linked post are educational too.
You second Einstein link really just needed to say,
"Albert was a agnostic who was infatuated with Spinoza's Pantheism!"
SO, I have mistaken agnostic for a atheist.
It happens quite often. Still, sorry about that!
""Perhaps researching the Scientific Method and the difference between Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, and Law."
I agree my argument about laws being changed was flawed, indeed it is true that theories are the ones that get tested, cross-examined and only when seen to be universally true can laws be deduced from them. I gladly take back what I had said about that."
INTERNET FIVE!
*I proceed to swing at the air*
"You cannot just follow blindly, but with faith, you'll have your own experiences, they may not even have to be something that stand out, but in essence such experiences will reaffirm your own beliefs. So in the end it isn't really about the religion/institution/ -ism you follow, it is about you and your experiences."
I know, you pick-and-choose things you like and create your own theist ideology. You're not the first person like this in my life.
I, in fact, quite personally know what you mean.
The "...desire to believe..." quote is quite relivant still.
Your message went on to give your "...our own truth..." argument which, if you've read this, I've already tried to point out the illogical nature of this statement in a early part of this same reply.
""However, you currently live as a troglodyte."
Hmmm... nope, the white truth is that I live in a house that has electricity and internet that I can access to in order to be writing this post. XD"
Troglodyte has two definition.
You don't live in a cave, so you must have chosen the wrong definition.
Mistakes happens.
In the end, when all of the facts have been accumulation, either Deism or Atheism it be true.
ONLY these two.
"Otherwise besides the fairly intolerant response you wrote (well, that is the impression I got anyway)..."
I was quite grumpy, as I had repeatedly stated...
Totally understandable for you to point it out.
As of writing this; I was at home from work ill with something. It has taken me MORE THAN 12 hours to write this!
*joke here*
But on a serious note,
the "Democratic Party" differs little from the "Republican Party".
The most notible contrast being that republicans are our extremist religious group, comparable to Islamists (but then, "fundamentalists" Catholics and Muslims differ little anyways).
I'd never willingly be a propagandist for any of the two political parties; the Dems are whores and the Reps are slavers.
Welcome to the Brit-err the American Empire...
I want to know of my world, so that I may live in it.
It took time, but I learned that people regularly lie to me.
Who fucking knew, right? :/
I wouldn't say it is inappropriate, because after all parody has been with us a long time... But if you want to understand the history of China or the Soviet Union, then actual posters etc from those countries will definitely give you more clues than you'll get from an "Animal Farm" faux poster with faux cyrillic lettering.
Examples of effective modern propaganda... How about those TV images of prowling wolves, used to re-elect George W. Bush in 2004?