propaganda

Reading some posts on other blogs, as well as taking my cue from current events, I have decided to devote a week's worth of posts to propaganda.

First, let's define what 'propaganda' is supposed to be:

According to the Oxford American Dictionary, propaganda is "chiefly derogatory information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view..."

Nowadays, with everyone going on and on about how there's too much information and that we cannot trust everything we read, I'd like to send out a friendly reminder that not all information is propaganda.

Just because facts can be distorted and twisted to suit the needs of a propagandist does not mean that all facts are propaganda.

Take it from me, a self-avowed propagandist... or rather, don't take it from me!


*/*


I'm not an expert on propaganda in an academic sense. I have no degree and I didn't even finish college. (Some may argue that I never really started)

My first exposure to it, however, was scholastic in nature. In the fourth grade, our teacher Mr. Watnik schooled us on propaganda and advertising techniques. If this seems a little too savvy a topic to be taught to 10 year-olds, then you must peep this older post that sort-of explains what kind of teacher Mr. Watnik was...

Anyway, we learned about different types of propaganda: the Testimonial; the Transfer; the Glittering Generality; the Faulty Cause and Effect; the Comparison, and so on. In later years I would draw parallels between the rules of logic and the rules of propaganda, the main corollary being that propaganda is solely based upon unsound arguments. The Testimonial is related to the "appeal to authority"; Name Calling is the bastard cousin of the ad hominem argument, and so on...

In other words, very rarely does effective propaganda make any logical sense.

This inevitably means that propaganda is a collection of techniques that triggers measurable emotional responses. As I have stated before in regards to subliminal advertising, "Why hide it when you can put it right out in the open and no one would know the difference?"


*/*


So I have stated that I am a propagandist, and yet I have no college degree to prove it. How, then, can I make such a bold declaration?

Because I am an artist. And not just any kind of artist: I draw cartoons, specifically caricatures.

I am not surprised that Tom Toles raised the ire of no less than the Joint Chiefs of Staff with a political cartoon that questioned Donald Rumsfeld's policies; nor am I surprised that most of the Muslim world is up in arms over cartoons in the Danish press that depict the prophet Mohammed in an unflattering light.

That's what cartoonists get paid to do. It is more effective than all of the gonzo filmmakers, writers, stand-up comics and outspoken Hollywood celebrities in the world combined. One savagely-drawn political cartoon contains more explosive weight than all of the collected works of Ann Coulter.

I have no idea why this is so. As the creator of sometimes-inflammatory images, I can only guess that it has to do with the average human's attachment to their own images. But I think vanity is only one reason-- after all, Mohammed has been dead for many centuries. Anyone taking offense to a cartoon about him is certainly overstepping their bounds by speaking for him.

It goes deeper than just wanting to look good. There is also an insistence that a certain reality be maintained. The cartoonist functions as an exaggerator, not a chronicler. If he/she decides to exaggerate upon one reality, it may clash with another person's view of that same reality.

Here's an example: I've never had someone come up to me and say, "James, I want you to draw me in the most awful light you can muster." But I have had people ask me to draw them "badly", almost as if they were trying to prove how humble they could be. In reality, they possessed a self-awareness of themselves that was slightly abnormal, possibly reveling in being a "bad" person or an "outlaw" of some sort, perhaps an "outcast" from acceptable society.

Leave it to me to find a way to infuriate the person who asked me to draw them "warts and all" (as they put it), because my view of that person is not aligned with their view. They had a definite idea of what "bad" could be: a unibrow, a big nose, a booger hanging out of it... BUT if they really don't possess these attributes, then it really isn't a caricature, is it?

No, it would be just as self-serving to them as if I were trying to paint them as a saint.

So what do I do? I take them literally, and draw them as horribly as I can. They don't like what comes out of my pen, but meanwhile everyone else around is cracking up because I captured their essence.


*/*


The only times when I fail to "capture the essence" are when I try too hard to capture it. I find that it is easier to just draw whatever comes into my head, no matter how potentially damaging it can be.

If I try too hard, I feel like I've failed. I feel like I tried to paint someone as a saint. And what's more, the subject themself might be the first person to say so:

"I don't really look like that. You were being nice."

That trips me out. Then, if I get more people echoing this sentiment, I really trip out. I guess some people would rather have the Ugly Truth spelled out for them than to have to bear with the Pretty Lie.

This gives me hope for humanity, that there are still people out there honest enough to know when I am bullshitting them. I tend to want to hang out with these types of people, in order to learn from them, so that my future caricatures will be even more incisive than they already are.


*/*


But, it's all a bunch of talk unless I show you something, isn't it?

Yes.

I have been lagging on getting my scanner hooked up, but this week I am resolving to do so, in order to showcase the more visual aspects of my work. That way, you can see that the words I script here are actually related, as a whole, to my visual idea of what reality is.

It's all propaganda, promoting my view of the Universe.

All art should be like that.

Eve remarked to me last night that I believe that I am the star of the story of my life, and she is right. I would go one further and insist that ALL OF US should feel that way towards our respective works and lives. Eve should be the star of her own life, and in many ways she is. I have nothing against that, because I see her as an ally.

btw: When we were in high school, I caricatured Eve. She didn't think it looked like her, but everyone else did. That seems to be a common pattern with people whom I draw-- they never believe they look like how I draw them, until they hear other people say, "Yeah, you nailed it!"

Everyone has different perceptions of themselves, I guess. Eve recently drew a picture of me, from her memory. It was how I looked while asleep. I think she got it right, but how can I be sure? I am never awake when I am asleep, so how can I know?

Do I think she was bullshitting, trying to make me look better? No, I don't think so. She is a more naturalistic painter. But she did give me some abstract features that I dug: my nose seemed to meld with my mouth, and my porno-style mustache almost appeared like a crooked smile.

All I know is, it looked like me, and I'm going to have to take her word for it. I suppose I could always hold a mirror up to my face while I'm sleeping... or have someone videotape me as I snoozed.

But I won't elect to do that-- otherwise the camera microphone will pick up my loud snoring, and that's way more embarrassing than how I look on any given day...