True. But what if it does? Then it would only be bad art. That is true, but then again, advertisement or not, I don't think it makes a difference. It's commercial role doesn't change the fundamental issue.
The billboard is trying to tap into cultural ideas about the female body, women and prostitution and does so in the totally crass, inane and offensive way that is the bedrock of so much of modern advertising. Remember the billboard is selling a product, a product which is not related in any way to what I just mentioned. They do this because they believe it will be effective (and judging from many of the comments here, it probably is). That's the important part - sexuality as a form of consumption to be played for 'irony'.
I don't disagree with this at all, but to me, if it comes down to trivializing, or exploiting sexuality (which I would go as far as to say is it's number one societal use), or exploiting authoritarian imagery that's tied to the massive injustices in China, I'd much rather sexuality be the victim here.
Fair enough. But I do think the example is silly because the example is not particularly strong. The poster strikes me as too inconquestial. It is basically nothing but irony.But what makes the poster more inconsequential than the billboard?
The irony I see in this artwork (Meow) is the ignorance of it's importance within history juxtaposed with Mao's historical importance, if it has any irony to begin with.
Okay you might be right with debatable. But irrelevant?I mean it's witticism, and imagination is irrelevant in determining the 'faux pas', or offensiveness, in regards to the thread's topic.
The best way to deal with propaganda is to laugh at it often by underlining it's particular self-importance (I'm only talking about what we traditionally define as propaganda here.
I agree, but then I would have to split hairs because of the very real possibility that this piece of artwork functions more as a piece of commerce than any genuine critique; it became kitsch instead of critique. That capitalism ended up erasing any possibility that we have to laugh at the actual piece of propaganda by the parody being the object of discussion instead of the propaganda it parodies.
But it's a whole other kettle of chinese fish.
I would argue that the billboard would count as propaganda too.
I agree. Economic propaganda if not political.
Perhaps a more insidious one because we don't think of it as propaganda and thus dismiss it as much. Ever read The Space Merchants? It has some good stuff on this).
I haven't read it, but I'll check it out now.
I don't think it's more insidious, partly because of what I was saying earlier; that sexuality has been rendered an exploitative tool in modern business, maybe fulfills it's role just as intended, to entice. It has bigger implications, but the billboard has no history compared to everything tied to the original Mao propaganda. Once again, if it's sexuality or history that needs to be trivialized, or denigrated, take the former.
If I did a parody of North Korean propaganda right now (and many people on this forum have done so) would that be me trivalizing all that is happening in North Korea right now?
It could be. That could be your intention, or maybe not; I wouldn't know. What makes a big difference is the character that your art would take when disseminated, it's cultural use. Because the Mao poster was reduced to kitsch through parody, I think it stands as a bigger ethical failure than the billboard.
Poll
