In political discourse, which is more powerful, the idea or the image? While art has always reflected (or rejected) the state of politics surrounding it, graphic art – technically, "commercial" art (remember that term, my fellow aging art directors?), that particular brand of art and commerce – actually intends to shape politics. Communist governments have long understood the power of iconography, and the nature of the singular, undebated, undiscussed, non-negotiable thought.
The Shepard Fairey "Hope" poster (note the candidate at right, looking wistfully left) is a really gorgeous piece of propaganda. But, truthfully, every time I come across one, it always leaves me vaguely... disturbed. I have enormous respect for the icon. Love those little humanoid figures in the skirts that tell me which restroom to use. Dig the peace sign. But can you capture something as complex as a political platform in a single word and a searching look into the middle distance? Are we also starving for icons that simplify our positions, allowing us to demonstrate the enormity of our thinking to each other in shorthand?
Or is the icon intellectually lazy? Does it subvert questions, rather than provoke them? Should our deepest beliefs fit on a t-shirt?
Maybe what bothers me is Jack Welch famously saying, "Hope is not a strategy." But here it is, saying everything, saying nothing. But man, it's beautiful.
No comments:
Post a Comment