Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Marxism in Art
From paintings, to music, to protests, to health care--Marxist theory abounds. Let's try applying the Marxist lens to the following paintings.
"Hollywood" by Thomas Hart Benton"Power Games" by Roland Rafael Repczuk
.jpg){kind=link}
"Pigstown Council Annual Meeting" by Jalaini Abu Hassan
"Liberation of Baghdad" by Sandow Birk
"America"
"In Smog and Thunder" by Sandow Birk
"Pyramid of Capitalist System"
"The Garden of Eden"
"A Painting for a Government Poster" by John Falter
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
The portrayal I most identified with was Hollywood by Thomas Hart Benton. The woman in the center would seem to have the power in many eyes, but that is not the case. The men working are the ones actually in power. Even though they are having to work, they are still pushing the woman around. They're telling her how much clothes to take off, how to look "sexy", how to position herself, etc. Although she may be seen as glamorous and one to envy, she most likely feels very boxed in and self conscious. The painting for a government poster by John Falter, is a perfect example of power struggles. It's ironic how there it's four men to one. They could easily dominate the man who is going to bring their impending death. Why don't they? As so many times throughout history, people are dominated without question by those in power. The man in power is wearing nicer clothes, has a good weapon, and by his looks its obvious that he is a fighter. So because of his powerful stance and air, he is not quesyioned or put in his place. I don't think its right, but I have done the same thing before. Even if I have many friends around me and be completely confident in my self, one person, who I don't even know, could say one rude remark and I would let them ruin my day. Its a social power struggle found in all walks of life.
The painting "Hollywood" struck me the hardest through the Marxist lens. To me, it not only displayed Marxism very strongly but also had symbolism of how corrupt our society really is as far as morals and the like are concerened.
The focal point in this work is clearly the woman, she is brightly colored while all other colors are drab and run together. She represents this "perfect" image of what every girl wants to be and what ever guy wants to have. With further observation, you can see all the male onlookers, which appear to be men on a set and the woman the star. This is the belief that I think is the opposite in our society, ironically enough. In the painting, I believe the WOMAN holds the power because of her feminity. The men all lust after her for that reason, thus putting her up onto a pedestal.
Take a second look at the painting (this is where the corruption of society comes into play) and you will notice in the background, across the water, what appears to be a city is on fire. This fire would be a symbol of our civilization in ruins over Marxism, sexism and the exploitation of sex and women; such ideals that divide us.
The piece with which I most related to the Marxist lens was "A Painting for a Government Poster" by John Falter. At the first glance, marxism leaps off of the page and enters ones mind.
The intense, naked chests of the workers show that they have been stripped of all dignity. They are being forced to work (for whatever reason) and are extremely tired from doing so. You can not see a full frontal view of their faces. Perhaps they are turned away in shame. It looks as if they are working in between some sort of construction site and a fence of barbed wire. Whether they work or run, they will be harmed- they don't even have a shot at happiness.
The military man, however, is covered in black apparel. This clothing separates him from the workers and his gun that he is carrying is held above his held as if he is about to strike a worker. His body position, with his leg stepping on a worker, further testifies of how much power he is because he is literally "higher up" than the workers.
The fact that the light is hiding all of their faces shows that perhaps they are all (including the military) ashamed of where they are in life. Also, the illumination of the workers muscles shows their attempt to make a name for themselves, while the illumination of the military person's hands shows his willingness to harm the workers- further exposing his power.
uh pyramid of capitalist system link is broke.
Yo, i noticed in the Liberation of badghdad how it looks all nice with the americans and the iraqis cheering, but in the shadows, or just out of frame there are bodies and skeletons that are over looked, i assume birk is against the war by this painting. Also there home are all destroyed, he thinks they have nothing to celebrate. The americans have the power.
In the painting for a government poster, the workers are enslaved by brute force, not an ideology.
It also uses the colors red white and black. It would be in a community with no religion and where those with the guns rule. This painting is against the idea of fascism/communism.
Pigtown meeting, the government are lying pigs. the lying can be inferred from the mans Pinocchio nose, it is a comment on capitalism
andhow only a few weak individuals get the wealth. This reminds me of "Animals" by pink floyd.
Hollywood, the men have the power because i dont think the main woman is able to say know to what they ask. The woman i do not think is being put up on a pedestal. she is simply being used to make money for the men producing the movie. again the three main colors are white black and red.
In smog and thunder im sure its poor people doing the fighting for rich peoples ideas.
In the hollywood painting I think the artist is saying in general Hollywood has a power normal society doesn't. Hollywood is full of the young, beautiful, and rich while the rest of us are working hard to earn a fraction of what they make. The background is a building on fire and it looks like chaos, but they are all wrapped up in their own little world that they don't even notice what is going on around them.
I also think the America picture is really good. It shows that a piece of paper with some words on it took away the freedom of native americans and africans. And those words were just scribbles because they couldn't even read the language so basically we took lives, freedom, and their entire lifestyle with just some scribbles on a piece of paper. That is definately marxism because europeans, when they came here, believed they were so superior to everyone. They had money, they had guns, and they had religion. Thats everything they needed to make the natives and africans feel powerless.
The last one I'll do is the liberation of baghdad. This one is kind of funny because these Americans are so blind to what they have actually done to this city. They have left it in chaos and destruction and they think they are riding in like knights in shining armor. The way that these soldiers are standing on their tank shows the marxism in this painting. They look like they are proud that they have been able to "save" these people and they have spread democracy. That sounds kind of like imperialism to me which comes from one country thinking they are above another and forcing their beliefs on them.
I like "Power Games" by Roland Rafael Repczuk, There is a lot to cover, Starting from the bottom of the picture, I noticed that the lower-most figures were depicted as children made of wax, and there is a hand in the lower left that seems to be molding the child, which could resemble the lower class and how easily they are manipulated, I also noticed that this picture is set up in a vertical motif, with all the objects being in register, that is to say that they all have a different tier that they set on, to me this screams Marxism, like a social tier or class. The figures up top have nice clothing and armor, while the wax children are unclothed, the figures are also using toothpaste airplanes to apply toothpaste, I drew two things from this, one, the high figure use sophisticated plane to do something trivial like apply toothpaste, representing laziness in high society, or two, the planes represent war and how the elitists are ready to easily use war as an option, easy as applying toothpaste. I also noticed, that the two figures have two faces above them, emerging out of their open minds, minds not open downward, but upward toward the higher class, each has two faces, like being two faced, but what caught my eye was that the tallest figure is in red, which is associated with communism, and this figure has no head but a few sections of what appears to be a red face, which could mean the corruption and disfigurement that comes with being in the elite ranks, the figure in red also has eyes oozing out of it, which could portray power and control through observation. Finally I noticed that there are women on each side turning away from the chaos at the center, but they are still above the wax children, which think relates to Macbeth, because Lady Macbeth has no power, and is considered not to be in league with the men, but she still has the desire to be above everyone, and have power, maybe even more than Macbeth himself, like when she begs to be de-sexed, I think she believes that androgyny will bestow more power than being a woman, I think in the picture the women represent the power loss for females, which is why they are turned away, because they feel they have no business there, their heads are also closed, but they are still high class, but they were made that way by the power of men.
First of all did anyone notice Mickey Mouse in the paintings by Sandow Birk? I found that Mickey Mouse could be a symbol of liberation due to the fact that in "The Liberation of Baghdad" there has obviously been a group who now possesses freedom that they didn't hours before and in "Smog and Thunder" another group looks to be fighting for independence of some kind as well.
As for the painting "Hollywood" I agree with Elizab in that the men have the power over the woman. To me, the woman represents a puppet whose every move is controlled by the ignorant men around her. Marxism qualities present themselves when it comes to the inequality of men and women in society. Masculine symbols dominate the art and are scattered throughout the work to prove this is a male empowered scene. For example the columns, towers in the distance, and the boat in the water placed behind the woman. However, I believe this was painted many years ago before women overthrew the gender inequality and created their own equal power (like today).
As for the "Liberation of Baghdad" I see an equality in power between the soldiers and the citizens through their handshake. I also noticed how the palace of the rich is positioned higher in the painting and away from all the havok below.This could signify how the wealthy don't care what is going on below them (literally and theoretically). I also noticed the smoke avoids touching the towers of the palace as if to say nothing terrible can touch or affect this place of wealth. The painting also consists of multiple bright colors which signify the people's rejoice for their new found independence.
I just thought of another point referring to the Hollywood painting. The woman offers sign exchange value to the men. The men are just using her beauty in exchange for their own profit of money. They do not really care how she feels in this stuation they only care about getting their money shot in which they came there for.
I thought it was intriuging in the painting "hollywood" how the woman is holding what looks like a scepter. This of course usually symbolizes power as it is normally held by kings. This might be a little bit of a stretch but maybe the author is trying to comment on how the kings of ancient times had power only superficially. They were just a figurehead while the generals and religous figures made the decisions that influenced the people. This is imperative on seeing the girl in the painting possesing no power. I believe this because of the little clothing that she is wearing. I'm sure that if she could decide what to wear on her own that would not be her choice. In this painting the male has the power.
Power games is a very abstract painting and i had to struggle to get something out of it. I enjoyed reading R's interpretation and i thought he/she did a very nice job especially with their idea with the airplanes. The first thing that i noticed was that the woman on the left has a man's hand. Could this be saying that the woman has just as much strength as the queen has just as much power over the people as the king? At the same time though i see a couple things that contradict this. One, the "King" is higher than the queen and it looks like he is almost programming her, since he has his hand above her head pushing something. Another thing that i noticed was the people in the bottom of the painting being kept down by the king's hand. They also look like they are being pushed under a table. This is like what people do when they present themselves to others. They just push anything bad about themselvs underneath a table cloth. This way all the outsiders can see is the glamerous or superficial side. This could also be connected to macbeth when we talk about certain characters putting up a facade.
sorry pressed the worng button i wasn't done. Some other objects that i saw that i could not find any symbolism in but seemed important were: The two blonde women, the eyes, the two faced people, and the background behind the two central figures. Does anyone have any ideas with these.
Wow--all of the posts so far have been thought provoking. It seems that as people continue posting, more and more elements of the paintings are dissected. I hope everyone is reading each other's posts--kudos to patick who references R's words in his own post--and builds upon them.
I am elated to hear that you enjoyed my piece, patrick, Thank You, I have to say that androgyny is is a big part of this painting, I can see where this painting relates to Macbeth, as for the background, I think it might show the freedom and aesthetics given to the higher class, I mean at the bottom it is crowded and not many different colors, but above we see abstract architecture, some of which is floating, and hot air balloons and even a hot air balloon boat! These wonders are all over the upper bound of the painting, and they are so colorful, I noticed there was no ceiling, and the entire structure of the walls are not contained in this picture, so maybe there is something even higher? Above the high class depicted in this picture. Also, I noticed everything mobile in this picture is flying, the planes, the balloons, the figures do not have visible legs, so maybe it is stating that to be high class or elite you can climb, like the wax children, but you must be able to fly, or have the intellect to create a flying machine, which brings up the issue of power by intelligence, if you have information that increases you worth, and increases your power. That is my opinion on the background, what does everyone else think?
Yes, I see what you are saying R and I agree. However, I also see different symbols when it comes to the eyes and the background behind the two central figures. I see the eyes as a symbol of someone watching the people at all times.
It could either represent the higher power meaning God or the higher power meaning the king and queen of the picture. The mystery to me comes from the shape the eyes make next to the king. Does anyone know what that could represent.
As for the structures in the background I believe it possesses masculine symbols. It looks as if when you put the pieces together it could form a couple of towers (being masculine). It goes along the thought of the king programming hte queen's brain... the towers show a male dominated environment.
My favorite piece was "The Liberation of Baghdad." There were dead just sprawled around the whole town but no one seemed to notice because the Americans were there to save the "good guys". I also found it interesting when the people were cheering for the Americans, and the Americans were standing on the tank thinking that they were gods gift to earth. It shows that America thinks that it has a higher power over other countries. Also in the painting there were two dogs biting each together, which I thought represented Baghdad as a dog-eat-dog type of world.
In "Pigstown Council Annual Meeting" I noticed that the pig and the human had long noses that could represent lying kind of like in Pinnochio. There was also a ladder, and at the top of the ladder were the letters, "GVRMT", which I saw as that the government dominates the rest of the people under the ladder. Even though there are more people in everyday society than there is in government there is still a power struggle.
I liked Patrick's comments on the Hollywood piece and the idea that her power is superficial while people in the background are making all the decisions and really running the show. She's simply just a symbol of power, a commodity, because of her good looks which represent her sign exchange value. She doesn't have any real power, her job is simply to look good. I guess it somewhat relates, but like how England still has a king and queen. The king and queen don't hold any true power, they're both just symbols of power and tradition. They hold a sign exchange value in their royalty and wealth.
In the liberation of Iraq painting, it seems that as you move up from the bottom to the top, a hierarchy of classes can be seen. At the very bottom, two dogs are fighting (side note: a dog eat dog world?) and there are people dying in the streets. Those people are also cast in the shadows and somewhat hard to see, the painting almost oppresses them, like society oppresses the weak and poor. Then as you move up, the more common people appear and they interact with some of the soldiers and a blend begins to form. On the top and held in the center of the painting are soldiers on top of a tank holding up their weapons, showing their power over the Iraqi people. The painting even almost has a triangular shape to it. The soldiers seem oblivious to the destruction around them, I guess as the higher class with power, as long as they have accomplished their goals, they don't feel a need to look after the needs of others.
The 'Pigtown Council Annual Meeting' was the piece that really struck my eye the most out of them because of the pig. The animal reminded me of the pig from the story/movie Animal Farm. The story is one about a group of opressed animals living on a farm who go through a revolution. The pigs, being the smartest animals on the farm, begin to establish rules and basic needs for all animals. The pigs created their own government called Animalism where everyone would do the work equally and be fed equally. The pigs eventually became corrupt and took over the whole government and became more like dictators who made rules and stole all of the food and money.
Both the idea of Marxism and Animalism believed in the idea of working hard and sharing the wealth and basic needs. Also, both the idea of Animalism and Marxism were thought of by single men who in the end ended up having all of the power and took it away from the common man. They both also involved revolutions of the middle working class, the majority of the people.
I think this story completly represents and depicts perfectly the ideas of Marxisms' oppression through a cartoon movie. The hidden undertones show the corruption of the ideas of this style of government.
I also thought the 'Painting for a government poster' was interesting in how the four men kind of represented the "common men" who were all working hard and doing their jobs so they could all share the wealth and food. The man standing over them represented the "higher government" power and how they were corrupt and ended up taking the wealth and power away from the people.
In "Liberation of Baghdad" I believe the Americans celebrating with the Iraqis shows a bery Marxist component. It could be said that the Americans used their bigger more advanced weapons to take down a dictator, but then keep themselves in power above all the Iraqis. I hope I worded that clearly...It's like the Americans giving the Iraqis a false hope to feedom, yet not really allowing them to make their own governmental decisions.
I strongly agree with whoever it was that said the woman in "Hollywood" represented sign exchange value. Do you really think fashion designers and Hollywood producers genuinly care about the people that make their money? I sincerly doubt it. They use the actresses and actors for their own paychecks, no matter what the explotaition makes the person feel. All of these men are milling about this nude woman against a burning city backdrop (possibly a symbol of her dignity? How her dignity is burning until nothing will be left?)but not a hint of concern or care is on their faces. Just a few thoughts.
One thing about all the pictures with women in them, the women seemed to be in lower power or looking up to the males. In hollywood, all the men were surrounding the women, and even though she was up on the stage, they were directing her moves and telling her what to do. She couldnt leave her position without being yelled at, and the males got to decide how much clothes she should take off, where to stand, and how to look. It shows marxism very well because alot of times men are looked at to be more in power then women. Even in todays society where its supposed to be equal, men still get paid more. If you look at some jobs, like teachers for example, mos the teachers are women and the princibles tend to be male. It just shows how even in 2009 men still have more power in most situations.
I see what you are saying, Fishie. And I agree, the higher-ups in fashion probably dont give a rat's about the people, as long as they get that paycheck, they will do whatever it takes.
But I cannot help but think that if these women really wanted to do something to help their situation, they would. I do think that there is that viewpoint that women are not as capable as men (which can go hand-in-hand with marxism and the gender lens) but I think too often, women use the whole "damsel in distress" image to draw attention to themselves. If this woman, in the picture for example, wanted a change, it wouldnt be THAT far from her reach, you know? Just takes a little extra effort.
I liked the liberation of baghdad painting. I thought Between the bars comments about were very interesting. The army is riding in there like they are going to "save" these people and really they are makeing a huge mess. The troops obviously have the power and according to most americans are liberating baghdad. But it also looks oddly like they are conquering it and "spreading democracy" like Between the bars said. You can see toward the bottom of the pictures where a few people look like they have been trampled. Also I noticed the dogs fighting down in the bottom left and the mickey mouse picture on the right. I was wondering what those mean or what they could be symbolizing?
Looking there the Marxist lens of these paintings you ask many questions of powers and class.
“Liberation of Baghdad”
The powerful in the picture of “Liberation of Baghdad” are the solders in the green. The powerless are the people that are in the bright colors. In this picture the people that receives the most attention are the people on the tank. I think this because your eyes almost automatically because that’s where everyone is facing and the colors all tend to blind into one at the base of the tank. I think that the powerful have the power because they have the weapons and they truly have power behind them. In the painting here they show the powerless holding flowers waving to the solders. In this picture you automatically see a conflict of classes. The powerless have their buildings crumbles, even burning and the people with the power still have their palace intact. In this it seems that the people manly values their friends and family.
“A Painting for a government Poster”
“A Painting for a government Poster” shows the powers right away. The powerful in this picture is the solder. In this picture you can clearly see that the powerless is the men being beaten. In the picture your attention is called to the blankness of the solder because there is nothing, he has no eyes or facial fetchers. In this picture the person that has the power is the man that is not tied up. The powerless are the people that have their hands bound and are being beaten. There is defiantly a class struggle in this painting. You can see the way the solder is standing over the prisoners and how behind him the solder there are barbed wire to keep the prisoners bound and behind there bars. You can see right off the bat there is a distribution of wealth in the painting. The wealthy has the power and the ones that don’t have power are shirtless and helpless.
The pitcher that caught my eye that most was "A Painting for a Government Poster" by John Falter. It held my attention because it shows that the only way to hold power is to use force, like the man with the gun. The man has the power because he has the ability and the tools to control the others. Also as I’m looking at this pitcher I see that the men who are “slaves” or the lesser power are struggling to lift red wood, or poles. I believe that this have something to do with them struggling to ether break free, to reach the point where the lower class is not longer lower than the man with the gun.
Mickey Mouse is an American icon. I think the his presence may denote that the wars fought on other countries' soils are not real in any sense to Americans--they are just "Mickey Mouse" or child's play. Of course for those directly affected, these wars are grim realities.
Post a Comment