Support |
Nice post, Stephen. It reminds me of the old saying "If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." Personally, I feel that music & art in general have the ability to move people, to alter their emotions, to stir them up or calm them down. (It also has the ability to make people think, but that is not as relevant here as politicos don't want thinkers, they want followers.) As an emotional tool, art can be used and misused to influence large masses of people. Movie soundtracks are the obvious example. Watch a love scene with no music and it feels less powerful than it does with the strings swelling behind the action. When it's well done the music's influence is almost subconcious. It's so powerful an influence that it must be rule #2 in the propagandists handbook right after the rule of repition. So, even if there is no inherent political intent in an artist's work, as Mark says, it's all too easy to incorporate the emotional strength of a piece into a larger message of propaganda. (Hell, look at all the car commercials in the past few years that use Led Zeppelin & Rolling Stones songs to sell SUVs. These songs aren't about selling cars, they're about a freedom of the spirit, about Rock & Roll, but if that's the image you want to attach to your product you've got a powerful propaganda tool.) Ultimately, it doesn't matter what the artist intends. Todd On 4/3/06, Stephen Goodman <spgoodman@earthlight.net> wrote: > I continue to have little patience for anyone who needs to define their > universe as "political", because it is these folks who want everyone to > operate on that basis, involving "deals" and "transactional >relationships". > Great for the medium of know-nothing middlemen and career politicos with > nowhere else to go, not so great for everyone else.... >