I thought that both the articles, “Mass executions, slavery... and copyright infringement: ISIS stole artist's photo and used it as propaganda to recruit new members via Twitter,” and “Champions of Socialist Realism are seeking to restore it to what they see as its rightful place in Russian art history. But even as it attracts billionaire collectors and appears in prominent exhibitions, some ask whether the official style of Stalin can overcome its past” were very interesting. They brought up unique issues about art being used as propaganda, and provided me with more perspectives into the issue.
The ISIS propaganda article talked about how Isis stole a piece by California artist Brian McCarty, an artist known around the world for his photos depicting toy characters in real life situations. His original photo was of a small toy cinderella with missiles falling over her head in a war zone. For its own use, ISIS swapped the Cinderella for its black flag. What I find especially sad was that the original image was inspired by a drawing by a young girl from Gaza, who lived in fear of missile strikes, and was meant to promote peace. McCarty said, “This project is about children’s experiences of war and is anti-war. It’s very insulting to me and insulting to the intentions of the project.” Further, McCarty is not the only victim of the cyber campaign. According to the Mail, jihadis have hijacked tens of thousands of Twitter accounts after a drone attack killed a British Islamic State extremist. The group called Cyber Caliphate was set up by Junaid Hussain, from Birmingham, England, to spread Islamic State propaganda. Hussain led the terror group's computer hacking campaign until he was killed in a drone strike last August. I think this is an absolutely terrible consequence of social media. Social media is a way to connect globally, but it can also cause people to get involved in things they do not want to be involved in.
The Social Realism revival article discussed the different opinions about and the controversy surrounding the rejuvenation of Social Realism art. The Soviet state launched the Socialist Realism style in 1932. It was to be for and about workers and depict an idealized version of everyday life. It had to be representational (no bourgeois abstraction), and advance the Communist Party line. Artists either complied with the style or were wiped from history. Later, in the former Soviet Union, Socialist Realist art was thought of as a relic of a vanished civilization and it was considered kitsch. However, recently, there has been a resurgence. Two Russian oligarchs have founded collections dedicated to Socialist Realist art, such as the show, “Soviet Art. Soviet Sport,” which has caused a large stir in Moscow. Socialist Realist works are now selling at auctions for increasingly high prices. Some people want to restore Socialist Realism to what they see as its rightful place in the history of art. Some see it is a viable alternative to Western modernism, unfairly overshadowed by the Iron Curtain. Others think it is mere propaganda, destined to remain on history’s back pages. The Filatov Fund’s Lavery said, “When you’re born is when you’re born; if you have a gift you have a gift,” she said. “I don’t see how the history matters.” I agree with this to some extent. Russian artists at the time were forced to paint propaganda, it was their only choice if they wanted to be an artist. Even though today we don’t agree with the sentiments, the artists had great talent and a lot of the pieces are very beautiful. Some of the pieces are obvious propaganda, but a lot of them, such as Alexander Laktionov’s “Visiting My Grandmother,” which was made in 1930 and sold at Sotheby’s London in 2011 for $400,000, look very similar to American and European art. I do not see anything wrong with appreciating the artists’ talent and buying their pieces. I also agree with Olesya Ostrovska-Lyuta, curator, art manager, and head of programs and projects of the oligarch Rinat Akhmetov’s Foundation for Development of Ukraine, who said, “We might not be very happy that the avant-garde died and was replaced by Socialist Realism, but this is the art we had. We need to examine all the material, without exclusion.” Socialist Realist art was part of their history and I do not think it should be disregarded. I think it is important to educate people about it what it meant at the time. If people want to look at the art in galleries and enjoy it in their homes, I do not think it is a problem as long as they understand the context. I think it is not a problem as long as it is a celebration of the artist’s talent and the beauty of the work rather than a celebration or promotion of the way Russia was under Stalin.
The ISIS propaganda article talked about how Isis stole a piece by California artist Brian McCarty, an artist known around the world for his photos depicting toy characters in real life situations. His original photo was of a small toy cinderella with missiles falling over her head in a war zone. For its own use, ISIS swapped the Cinderella for its black flag. What I find especially sad was that the original image was inspired by a drawing by a young girl from Gaza, who lived in fear of missile strikes, and was meant to promote peace. McCarty said, “This project is about children’s experiences of war and is anti-war. It’s very insulting to me and insulting to the intentions of the project.” Further, McCarty is not the only victim of the cyber campaign. According to the Mail, jihadis have hijacked tens of thousands of Twitter accounts after a drone attack killed a British Islamic State extremist. The group called Cyber Caliphate was set up by Junaid Hussain, from Birmingham, England, to spread Islamic State propaganda. Hussain led the terror group's computer hacking campaign until he was killed in a drone strike last August. I think this is an absolutely terrible consequence of social media. Social media is a way to connect globally, but it can also cause people to get involved in things they do not want to be involved in.
The Social Realism revival article discussed the different opinions about and the controversy surrounding the rejuvenation of Social Realism art. The Soviet state launched the Socialist Realism style in 1932. It was to be for and about workers and depict an idealized version of everyday life. It had to be representational (no bourgeois abstraction), and advance the Communist Party line. Artists either complied with the style or were wiped from history. Later, in the former Soviet Union, Socialist Realist art was thought of as a relic of a vanished civilization and it was considered kitsch. However, recently, there has been a resurgence. Two Russian oligarchs have founded collections dedicated to Socialist Realist art, such as the show, “Soviet Art. Soviet Sport,” which has caused a large stir in Moscow. Socialist Realist works are now selling at auctions for increasingly high prices. Some people want to restore Socialist Realism to what they see as its rightful place in the history of art. Some see it is a viable alternative to Western modernism, unfairly overshadowed by the Iron Curtain. Others think it is mere propaganda, destined to remain on history’s back pages. The Filatov Fund’s Lavery said, “When you’re born is when you’re born; if you have a gift you have a gift,” she said. “I don’t see how the history matters.” I agree with this to some extent. Russian artists at the time were forced to paint propaganda, it was their only choice if they wanted to be an artist. Even though today we don’t agree with the sentiments, the artists had great talent and a lot of the pieces are very beautiful. Some of the pieces are obvious propaganda, but a lot of them, such as Alexander Laktionov’s “Visiting My Grandmother,” which was made in 1930 and sold at Sotheby’s London in 2011 for $400,000, look very similar to American and European art. I do not see anything wrong with appreciating the artists’ talent and buying their pieces. I also agree with Olesya Ostrovska-Lyuta, curator, art manager, and head of programs and projects of the oligarch Rinat Akhmetov’s Foundation for Development of Ukraine, who said, “We might not be very happy that the avant-garde died and was replaced by Socialist Realism, but this is the art we had. We need to examine all the material, without exclusion.” Socialist Realist art was part of their history and I do not think it should be disregarded. I think it is important to educate people about it what it meant at the time. If people want to look at the art in galleries and enjoy it in their homes, I do not think it is a problem as long as they understand the context. I think it is not a problem as long as it is a celebration of the artist’s talent and the beauty of the work rather than a celebration or promotion of the way Russia was under Stalin.