An Analysis of, "In Reification and Utopia in Mass Culture" by Frederick Jameson

What do you see when you think about the Holocaust? What are things you associate with it? Personally I think about the absolute evil of the Nazis and the horrible things that the Jews had to endure. I think about how gut wrenchingly terrible of a life style every one of those people had to live through and what it would be like to have been in their place. What I don’t think about and had never even considered before reading the book Ordinary Men is what it was like to be a member of one of the police battalions that had to do all these gut wrenchingly terrible crimes toward innocent human beings. I saw them as trained cold-blooded killers, robots under Hitler’s command, and nothing else. While reading this book I began to realize that these people were living human beings too, that at first felt disgusted by what they were instructed to do too and that’s what I think the author, Christopher Browning, was trying to do. He is saying that these men were just regular people that were trained to kill and that if we’re not aware of this phenomena that it could happen again.

In his book Utopia, Thomas More examines a society that seems to be the ideal living situation for human beings. The main thesis of Utopia is his solution to many of the problems that are being faced in English society in the early 16th century.

During the 1930’s when Fascism was at it height, populist art fought against the domination of fascism by diverting the fashionable ideals of fascism with the ideas of populism. The US was producing popular art in its populous country to share the rest of the world as an attempt to ward off the Fascists. They decided to distract everybody from Fascism by art, film, dance, etc. that appealed to the similar but different enough ideals of populism and democracy.

Indeed, in an era where news of all kinds is only a click away, it seems odd that the simple cartoon could once have been the most influential form of media in the nation. However, one must realize that the target audience of these cartoons were illiterate immigrants and the impoverished masses; before exposure to Nast’s cartoons, they had no way to know that their beloved Tweed was corrupting politics at all. In addition,these comics were published at a time when the United States had the highest newspaper circulation per capita in the world; everyone had access to these cartoons (Leepson 54). Therefore, Nast could use his illustrations to turn politics into a tangible, understandable topic for the American masses; in doing this, Nast paved the way for future illustrators and journalists, such as Homer Davenport, who went on to caricaturize corruption just as his predecessor had (Wang,

Miller explores the basis of the overwhelming support for imperialism in the Caribbeans and Pacific, showing how the nation’s leading media makers—editorialists, cartoonists, filmmakers, photographers, and stage performers—captured the public’s interest in the Cuban crisis with heart-rending depictions of Cuban civilians, particularly women, brutalized by bloodthirsty Spanish pirates. She asserts that “As instruments of persuasion, images communicate differently than words do, reach broader audiences, and may or may not be overly political.” Similar to Painter, Kramer, and Williams, Miller alludes to and comments about “The White Man's Burden”. She proclaims that “Americans leading cartoonists constituted a white Anglo-Saxon male figure of the empire and subordinated his counterparts through visual gradations of age, gender, and color.” Through the use of images and cartoons, Miller examines the shifting media portrayals of U.S. actions for the duration of the conflict, from liberation to conquest.

The only thing more powerful in mobilizing symbols, sentiments, and sensibilities than popular culture, is personal and shared experiences. What is so potent about pop culture however, is the ability of its participants to share their personal experiences to audiences than can both empathize and relate to the realities these artists present. This extended period of the civil rights and black power era can arguably be defined as the mobilization of the larger public by popular black figures whose individual charismas and drive inspired collective action. Some of these figures were exclusively political, many of which prominent intellects of race academia and/or known for their discourses that captivated thousands. And then there were figures that used their influence as musicians or writers who, with access beyond those with a conscious interest in politics, could incite people to think and reevaluate their lived realities through song and performance. Nina Simone is perhaps the most politically significant figure of the latter group, as she not only actively participated as a proponent of civil rights efforts, but became a pioneer in black power and feminist ideology.

One of the most prominent influences of art throughout history has been politics. The 50s through 70s in America are a great example of this, for so many of this era’s songs were arguments against America’s involvement in the Vietnam War and criticisms of American politics at the time. However, this phenomenon was prominent long before the Vietnam War and was not just an American trend; in fact, two of the most influential and famous pieces of the early 20th century were products of political oppression on the other side of the world. Both Paul Hindemith, under the Nazi Regime, and Dmitri Shostakovich, under the communist reign of Stalin, managed to fight political oppression through their music. The two composers had very different ways of doing so. Hindemith wrote two separate pieces, one that directly opposed the Nazi regime, and another that was so nationalistic he was forgiven for his previous ‘mistakes’, whereas Shostakovich wrote a single piece which seemed just as nationalistic as Hindemith’s symphony yet it had a deeper, much more rebellious underlying message. Even though their methods’ differed, both Hindemith and Shostakovich were able to express their true feelings about the totalitarian governments that were repressing their artistic ability.

This piece was created during a time of political and social change. Increased political awareness and a focus on celebrity demanded art that was more

In B.F. Skinner’s novel called “Walden Two” he shows his ideology of a utopian kind of society. The story starts off with Rodge and Steve coming home from service in the Philippines after the end of WWII. Disenchanted with the American Life, they stopped by the office of Professor Burris (a former professor of Rodge) to ask about a certain person named Frazier, and a new society that this certain person Frazier is trying to build. Professor Burris remembers that Frazier is one of his classmates from graduate school. When Rodge mentions his interest in a utopian community that was showed by Frazier, Burris was shocked. He immediately looked up to his old directory and saw that Frazier is living in a place called “Walden Two”. Burris agreed to

Recalling my inability to understand art, you can just imagine how much fun I had in the museum. When I walked into the little area I was immediately stopped by a collection of commemorative plates, each with names of famous civil rights activists on them. The plates looked very elegant, but I couldn’t figure out why the artist would want to create them. “Irony”, I thought, “it must be ironic somehow. Artists love irony – but how is this ironic?” Maybe because the names were in black on white plates? Maybe because they didn’t lead extravagant lifestyles but yet were commemorated on extravagant plates? Or maybe that their names, and all that they have stood for, have been reduced to a cheap souvenir-like object, that may or may not be available at the gift shop. I decided to shake off all the thoughts that were running through my head when I saw a giant sign that described the purpose of the exhibit, and what Brown v Board meant. Beneath it I found a pamphlet describing each work. “Spectacular”, I thought. “Now this is my kind of art museum – one with answers”.

In listening to John F. Kennedy’s remarks at Amherst College and reading Roger Scruton’s article, “Conservatism and the Conservatory,” one gets a few points of view on art and artists in today’s society, both of which are very powerful and interesting. Kennedy uses the example of poetry and how it can be used to keep power in check, saving it from itself, and reminding man of its limitation when power brings man to become arrogant. He speaks to the importance of a nation and a world where we demand respect because of power but also because of the way we handle power, and the place of the artist being to help us keep our perspective and to handle power well. He honors the poet Robert Frost in this speech, using his example for how artists ought

As an essential part of culture, art is arguably at the core of culture, which naturally leads to the importance of art censorship in America’s Culture Wars. Also, decision for selecting art works which could own fellowship and funding reflected the conflict in politics between different parties and groups. So, the significance of censorship would be questioned and the standard of choosing some outstanding works to receive funds would be attacked in this American Culture war.

The later half of the 20th century saw efforts to further “trumpet a message: this object is important. That sculpture is art. These ruins are worth saving. Most of the time we hardly seem aware we have surrounded ourselves with official icons. And when, as occurs from time to time, the issue is thrust upon us…even then the response tends to be a sharply focused debate on racial or free speech issues.” However, during this time another revolution in thought was occurring and people were less content to accept authority figures, namely the government, as regulators of something considered a part of their history and bought by the government with their money. Protests began and the Battle of the Beanfield occurred, yet it was still insisted

Utopia- good place, or in other words, no place. Thomas More, in his work Utopia, describes a nation in a parallel universe free from greed, pride, immorality, poverty, and crime; told as a narrative of a well-traveled explorer Hythloday to Moore himself, Hythloday speaks of a nation founded purely upon rationality, efficiency, and perfect morality. Thomas More’s work is no political or social theory, but rather a social critique and a commentary. In an age experiencing political and social struggle across every aspect of Western civilization along with the flooding of ancient and new ideas, Utopia is More’s way of discovering and exploring man’s and society’s natural structures and tendencies, and expressing his discontent towards them- this is shown in the narrative, as the dialogue of Hythloday and More represent his conflicted view between the ideal and the pragmatic. Acknowledging these flaws, More’s work critiques the utopian society from the perspectives of an imperfect man, but also vice versa.

I plan to answer the following essential question: how can art be used to depict political views? I also hope to address these other questions that follow the essential one: Do “political art” and “propaganda art” mean the same thing? How can I make meaningful art from political perspectives that are not my own? Why do certain political symbols and images spread (the pink “pussy hats”,