regarding your comment that non-propaganda art is pretty low impact, my first reaction was to disregard it because I'm an artist, but I know that's not a good way to engage with stuff and I'm genuinely curious as to your reasoning. I haven't been able to form a coherent rebuttal but I'd like to think about it more.
By 'low-impact' do you mean impact on the material reality of people's lives, of politics, of marxism? Do you think that someone can make art that is effective propaganda without meaning to?
I agree that people especially on the 'art appreciation' website will have strong reactions to that statement as did I when reading it, I think it would be silly to expect otherwise, but I think it's something worth thinking about. I'm not super well-read even though I'm trying to fix that and I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter if you have a moment.
i mean, like, any individual media object just has an extremely low impact on the world, materially and politically. when art or even specifically directed propaganda has influence on the world, it is in aggregate, as the manifestation of a cultural trend or the characteristics of mass media production--for instance, i don't think gears of war or top gun are individually very influential on the world in a vacuum, they are simply individual examples of the very influential billion-dollar mass culture imperialist propaganda industry.
and like, in case where a particular work or piece of propaganda can be singlehandedly influential, the properties of the work itself are secondary to the material factors propagating it and the political factions adopting and appropriating it. like, to take a very extreme example, the protocols of the elders of zion became a hugely important pillar of global antisemitism because of its usage by the black hundreds and later by white russian emigres, not because of some remarkably convincing element of its own rhetoric
and yknow, artists like to flatter themselves that they can change the world with their art, and it is a nice story, but it's just not true. it's a liberal conception of history, where it's driven by ideas, and if the right Ideas are simply released into the world they will drive history on the correct path. but history is not driven by ideas. at best, a piece of art or propaganda can contribute to a broader cultural context which shapes and is in turn shaped by the material basis of society. but if you are not attached to any actual material movement, if you are just throwing helium balloons up into the superstructure, i simply don't think it matters a lot at the end of the day. you can't heal the world with comedy
