Talk:Aestheticization as propaganda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I moved the text from "Aestheticization of violence" as stage one in a rewrite to make the entries more encyclopedic. I have now re-edited this page and await feedback as to whether I have made it more encyclpedic. -David91 18:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is one of the most POV entries I've ever seen, especially down at the bottom where we equate "Shock and Awe" with doublespeak and goodthink. It's perfectly possible to describe this phenomenon without claiming that politicians merely use violence because of a lack of imagination, or claiming that people's natural aversion to violence is a "natural" "moral objection" that is artificially overcome, since arguably both aversion to violence *and* propensity toward violence are behavior patterns constructed by the society we live in.

I know, I know, I should volunteer to do it myself and I don't have time to do it justice, but this needs a serious NPOV rewrite and I would recommend it be marked until that is done.

I agree. The process of aestheticization constructs the values in the discourse by distracting the population from the realities of violence. Perhaps my mistake was in electing to consider an American example. As it is, the page has been hijacked. I have taken the first steps to reconstruct the original intent. --David91 07:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You miss my point. The POV that comes across here is that aestheticization is always an evil, when there are large chunks of our society that would claim it to be if not a necessary evil perhaps a positive good. At the very least it's stretching it to say that a depiction of violence as horrifying and disgusting is depicting the "reality" of violence while a depiction of violence as glorious and exciting is "distracting" from the reality of violence -- both can be considered aspects of what violence is really like, and which one is more real is a matter of *point of view*.

An NPOV approach would be to look at the motivations people have for presenting violence as aesthetically desirable from more than one point of view, rather than constructing the situation simply as one of unscrupulous and lazy politicians manipulating the public.

I have redrafted to cover your particular point. I hope you feel that it is an improvement and that the page no longer assumes that the use of violence is always "evil". But we do have a minor disagreement. This topic is not about the motivations people may have for aestheticizing. It is about the process of aestheticizing. The perceptual problem arises once one gives an example because that immediately establishes a broader context. Thus, even though the example is given purely to demonstrate the methods, there is a temptation to gloss the analysis with consideration of other issues (hence, I am not discussing the causus belli, but simply three words). Suppose, for example, that I switched the example to one of the statements made by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Whatever example I pick, the accusation can be made that it is serving a political agenda, whether for or against the cause adopted by the propagandist whereas my interest would simply be in deconstructing the particular phrase and pointing out how this operates to change the value of the words used. And there you see the problem. I have accused PETA of being a propagandist which has a pejorative connotation that many people might disagree with. It is a no-win situation. So should I retreat into history where the audience may be able to take a more dispassionate view of the material, or risk annoying people by appearing to criticise one of the implicit POVs? --David91 08:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some kind of citation? To me, it looks like complete BS if you don't have actual references to back it up.

[edit] The title of this page should better represent its subject matter

aestheticization as propaganda is the process of presenting violence reads the first sentence

so does "aestheticization as propaganda" equal "presenting violence"? I think this is a logical fallacy. Just what is the subject of this page? About using aesthetics for propaganda purposes? --Jahsonic 23:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The intention is to discuss the use of the techniques of aestheticization by propagandists just as semiotics, rhetoric, narrative and other analytical tools are also used by those who wish to optimize the message. I agree that the title frames the content in a slightly unfortunate way, but I was not convinced that inverting the title produced a better outcome, e.g. propaganda's exploitation/use of. I have made a slight revision of the introduction but it is cosmetic. Your advice would be valued. David91 03:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)