Several times W.E.B. Du Bois expresses the opinion that if art’s not propaganda, “it has no purpose.” What did you think of this? Is all art propaganda of some sort?

Book Clubs Harlem Rhapsody Discussion
1

Several times W.E.B. Du Bois expresses the opinion that he’s “not interested in any kind of literature that isn’t propaganda…Art must serve to change more than minds, art must change hearts.” Later he says that if art’s not propaganda, “it has no purpose.” What did you think of this? Is all art propaganda of some sort?

2

There is quite a bit of art that is propaganda and I think it has its place. Sometimes, that is what is needed. I don’t think all art has to be propaganda in order to have a purpose. Sometimes, I think, the purpose is just to bring emotion and allow us to be aware of those feelings.

1 Like
3

I think Karen said it best in that all art is not propaganda, some is expressing the artist’s emotions, not trying to tell a story.

4

I had not heard of this viewpoint before. Ultimately, I don’t believe that all art is or should be propaganda, but I do find this to be an interesting viewpoint. It certainly does make sense that one of the early civil rights leaders would have this view.

5

I think it can be both. After all, art will always reflect the POV of the artist, and the artist may be expressing an opinion, attempting to sway his audience (i.e., propaganda). I’m thinking of art like Picasso’s Guernica - a work I love. It’s his emotional response to the bombing of a village, but at the same time an anti-war piece.

6

I don’t agree that all art is propaganda. Art has varied purposes and is very personal. I think some art can be very important propaganda, but it can also be simply for an individual’s private enjoyment.

7

Often art, music, & poetry are just expessions of the creator’s personality or vision. Contrary to critics (and English teachers and book discussion participants), it doesn’t have to mean anything although people will try to find a message. But there are times when art can be used for propaganda by either or both sides of an issue. Protest songs during the Civil Rights and Vietnam eras played a large role in gaining attention and bringing folks together to work towards their common goal. Books can be powerful in telling the world at large about injustices but some are just fun reads. I think that with the way things are currently that people on both sides are quick to judge something as propaganda but sometimes a pig is just a pig.

8

I find it difficult to believe that allism statement. There are so many different forms of art: books, paintings, dance, music. I am not fond of calling it “propaganda,” as that is a word that seems to connote almost a dictatorial image. I would rather say that much art is a comment on the times or past times but not all art. As I look at an abstract painting of an artist like Kandinsky or many architectural designs, I find it difficult to figure out what kind of propaganda they may contain. Perhaps it is a lack of sophistication on my part, but I would disagreee with WEB DuBois.

1 Like
9

I think art should create an emotional or powerful reaction in you. You should be moved by art, but not all art does this, and not all art is propaganda. But many artists use their art to make political statments that are quite powerful, like Banksy, Basquiet, and Frida Kahlo. I like provocative art vs. looking at a still life. Art should move you, shock you, and make you feel something.

10

Looking at Merriam Webster’s definition of propaganda:

1-ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause

2-the spreading of ideas, information, or rumors for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

I agree with Rita_H and totally disagree with W.E.B. DuBois. In fact I was offended when I read his opinion in the book. I don’t think artists create their work with the intention of angering those who view it negatively. I think those that see art as propaganda come to that conclusion because the manner in which they interpret the art is contrary to their beliefs. As far as the positive part of the definition, I do believe that some art gives the viewer an opportunity to consider an “issue” differently than they might have over wise. Or am I just being naive.

11

I would not necessarily use the word “propaganda.” Post WW 1 and 2, it has taken on a negative connotation. I believe art has a purpose, yes to help change lives and hearts, but also to bring a new joy and grace into the world.

12

I think art is a personal expression, and reducing it to propaganda can diminish its beauty and meaning. I don’t have a problem with art being made for a social statement, but it is so much more than that.

13

I do not agree that art has no purpose if it is not propaganda. I believe that all art does typically express the author’s viewpoint. However, I do not think that a portrait or a landscape (or other categories) would usually be interpreted as a form of “propaganda”. In my opinion, that does not negate the value of those pieces.

14

I haven’t heard that art is a form of propaganda. I do think it is to an extent. People create art based on their feelings. I think our feelings can be a type of propaganda.

15

I disagree with W.E.B.Dubois. All art is not propaganda,nor should it be. Art ,no matter the format, can be user for political statements or it can just be art for art’s sake.

16

I don’t think art displays propaganda - but just the opposite - I think propaganda uses art. So some art is linked to propaganda, but not all art. Some art is there to just further an agenda. But some art is more gentle and kind and soothing and just there for pure enjoyment - not to further some other agenda.