Comments on: Belaboring the Representation of History in Maine

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 23:50:55 +0000

Yes, good point. Removing the mural has brought it into a wider public sphere, and to the attention of those, like myself, who would have otherwise never known about its existence. And it is certainly repressive maneuver, and one that will certainly backfire. According to Rachel Maddow, such measures are being undertaken by newly elected governors through the country, and beneath the rhetoric of Libertarian Conservatism is Authoritarian Conservatism as we might have intuitively expected.

By: Jeffrey C. Goldfarb

Jeffrey C. Goldfarb — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 21:39:27 +0000

OK, Vince not too loose but broad, including any art that has a political message, or is it any message? I fundamentally agree with you that art can both be art and serve one instrumental purpose or another. But I think there is a difference between an art that is just an instrument (i.e. mere propaganda) and art that is meaningful as art. I try to make the distinction in my post today. Mine is a position with different emphasis. I think following the position I outline in my post, I can understand Taylor’s murals as fundamentally artistic, and Governor LePage’s response being repressively political.

By: Gary Kulak

Gary Kulak — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 21:34:44 +0000

I think it is interesting so much time is being spent on work that is not only provincial but pedestrian at best.

By: vince carducci

vince carducci — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 21:21:36 +0000

I don't believe that there is a written narrative. However, there is a legend for each panel available at the artist's website. The panels were completed with the consultation of Charles Scontras of the University of Maine, who is arguably the leading authority on the state's labor history. Another thing I think worth noting is that several of the panels actually represent failed efforts in addition to the Jay mill strike. The panel depicting the 1937 women's strike (panel 7) is an example. There is in fact a much larger narrative (AKA social history) that informs these panels, which I doubt the casual viewer would have any idea of. And in response to Jeff, I don't think my understanding of propaganda is at all loose. It's that I think that it is entirely possible for art to have a propagandistic function, for better or worse, in addition to aesthetic. As I said in the post and in my response above, that's neither good nor bad. Every "official" portrait, be it David's portrait of Napoleon crossing the Alps (or as Hegel would have it, "history on horseback") or Kehinde Wiley's spin on it featuring a hip-hopper, has that element to it as part of its reception in the public sphere.

By: Michael Corey

Michael Corey — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 19:56:22 +0000

Is there a narrative on each one of the panels? I’m familiar with the failed strike of the IP mill that took place in 1987. I knew people that worked at another paper mill in Maine at the time and had members of their families who were on strike at the Jay Mill. It tore the family members apart. While IP took a confrontational approach and the unions resisted change; another paper mill owned by another company ultimately chose interest based problem solving to address similar issues. Feedback from customers on quality issues ultimately helped both sides at the competitive mill to engage in an alternative approach to the one used at the Jay mill. The Jay mill ultimately replaced its workforce. Art can be used to explore history. In this case, a closer look at the stories behind the one panel that I am familiar with would reveal the pressures brought on by the globalization of the industry; lack of competitiveness of older facilities and work practices; a battle between a company and union over compensation and work practices; growing concerns over local environmental issues; turmoil in the a small community and among family members; and alternative approaches. Are these types of stories told about each one of the panels, or does the art speak for itself?

By: Jeffrey C. Goldfarb

Jeffrey C. Goldfarb — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 18:35:48 +0000

In a few hours I am going to post a piece on Taylor’s murals and the Orozco frescoes at the New School for Social Research. I think they both are art. Better to have a precise understanding of artistic acheivement, than a too loose understanding of propaganda, I think.

By: vince carducci

vince carducci — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 17:02:58 +0000

Indeed, Bernays literally wrote the book on “Propaganda,” which was published in 1928. My perspective on it is essentially functionalist, that is, propaganda in and of itself isn’t a bad thing. As Laswell noted, propaganda as a form is akin to a faucet, it’s what flows through it not the apparatus that is the issue. For Bernays, advertising was a subset of propaganda, which he believed was a necessary tool of mass democracy. This of course opens up other issues of media and social control. The WPA mural program and FSA photos of the 1930s were propaganda. Abstract expressionism was pressed into service as propaganda in establishing consensus of “the American Way” during the Cold War. The point really is about debate in the public sphere. LePage is attempting to put labor history into the memory hole. The fact that it has backfired is noteworthy. More attention has come to the issue with the removal of the mural than happened in the three years it was up and minding its place.

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 16:19:52 +0000

And if they use the space for advertisements, I suppose that isn’t propaganda? Why not replace it with a mural of the history of union busting; perhaps they can start with the Haymarket Affair. Would that be more “balanced”? Anyways, propaganda is not normally place in a lobby of some government office, its put in a public space where as many people can see it as possible, a la corporate advertising.

La Page’s approval ratings are currently at 43 percent approve, and 48 percent disapprove. When there’s a democratic governor again, perhaps he or she will put the mural back in place again. The whole thing may eventually become comical at one point; in fact Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have already made it so.

(Btw, the analogy between corporate advertising and propaganda is rendered plausible when one considers that the pioneer of modern marketing, Edward Bernays, opted to eventually opted to use the term “public relations” rather than “propaganda” only because the Germans had given the latter term a bad name. He was a master of publicity and many large corporations, such as the American Tobacco Company were his clients. The work he did for corporations was not qualitatively different than the work he did for the US government.)

By: vince carducci

vince carducci — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 16:17:05 +0000

Just wanted to give the photo credits. The image of the full mural at the top of the post was take by James Imbrogno, courtesy of Imbrogno Photography and the artist. The images of the individual vignettes were taken by Judy Taylor, courtesy of the artist.