Lots of change this week. Built it all up, dislikes d it. Took EVERYTHING apart, restarted. Busy week but i think i like it more now?
These articles were an interesting look into tow very different aspects of propaganda art. I had never really known or thought about either of these article ideas before, and I thought it was really great to get to think about this situation from multiple sides of Propaganda art. The little I know about art which is considered Propaganda mainly came from history classes, focusing on the political ideas being expressed rather than the art itself.
This concept of separating art from the politics and time period it was originally made to fit was an interesting one. The article about Socialist Realism was really striking to me due to this. This is art which was mainly made and accepted when it was made. Unlike many painters, the rules were set and in place and as long as you followed those rules you were good. Rather than making a work that breaks some rules and then is accepted once you're dead, these artists were accepted in their time while other artists of the time period were rejected and essentially erased because they didn't meet political standards.
The idea that art had to fit a certain rule, made by the government was very unsettling. I wasn't aware that propaganda culture was so strict and harsh. However, once the war was over, the art was then hidden away. This art received no critique or praise for how well a work could be made, or how realistic, but rather it fell into a yes or no ranking, destroying art and critic culture for years. Since the art wasn't given a chance to be critiqued on the talent of the artist and rather the effectiveness of getting across a political message, it fell into a grey category when people began to re look at Socialist Realism.
What standards and rules should be put in place for "good" work or gallery worthy work when the emphasis at the time when the work was being made was on a political statement. Should it continue to be judged and viewed with those ideas of how well does this get across a message?
The second article about ISIS stealing the man's picture also falls into interesting territory. How do you contact and reprimand an organization which has no morals, which is so inhumane? Is it right to get money from a terrorist organization? What bothered me most is the contrast between what the piece was supposed to be about and what it was being used for. In a way, Socialist Realism art also fits in this category of being made for one purpose, but now being re-purposed without consent to stand for something different. Socialist Realism works were originally made with the idea of sticking to the rules politically, but now they are viewed and judged on their content, with people only getting surface meaning of the images painted.
The ISIS article was so interesting because while both articles dealt with propaganda, this was on a more harmful level. In this situation rather than being propaganda turned into a pretty picture to hang on a wall, a piece as made to make a statement, then it was stolen to be used as propaganda completely going against what the original morals of the piece were about. Theft in art is a difficult topic, whether it be theft of ideas, of physical work, of meaning, it all has a negative effect on the artist and the community.
Lots of work done. I think im likeing it but not really sure. Still trying to figure out best way to do ll of this/ what shape works best for structure. Took it all part and restarted.
Started new project. Going to try working with premade/precolored "fabric" aka= carpet padding. I think it could make a really neat floor installation both because of the way it looks visually as well as the idea of the material interacting with the floor. Here's what I've done so far, its going pretty fast.
Charlotte Wilmouth, born and raised in Richmond, VA. This site is for my work and things which inspire me to try something new. This is a blog for my art.