Art as Ideology: Soviet and American Propaganda Compared

Art and Political Power Through History

Art has always been considered one of the most important means of expression available to a culture and a cultural space. It represents the tool with which a society can develop the practical and symbolic nuances of its cultural identity. However, throughout history, art has also been used as a means of propaganda and as a political tool for instilling a different set of values and morals — ones that society was either forced to identify with or came to embrace over time.

History offers numerous relevant examples. France and its culture were deeply marked by the imagery of its kings, while Russia's architectural character is closely connected to the way its tsars expressed themselves at the cultural level. Among the most significant modern examples, however, are those from the period surrounding the Second World War, when the German Reich and the USSR each used their control over society and culture to impose trends that would tighten their grip on their respective populations.

A particularly instructive comparison concerns the way art was perceived and deployed during the most intense phase of Cold War rivalry. The USSR used art in an attempt to control its population and consolidate the communist regime's power, while the United States used art — and especially art criticism — to cultivate a powerful anti-communist sentiment among the American public.

The use of Soviet art was part of a broader approach to propaganda. Regardless of its specific application, propaganda of this kind "presented an image of society that had successfully manufactured a 'national community' by transcending social and class divisiveness through a new ethnic unity based on 'true' German values." It was used precisely as a means of constructing a new type of society and simultaneously as a tool for controlling the individual. Cases include both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany — and, to a lesser extent, even the United States, which employed propaganda strategies in the early 1950s to highlight the perceived failures of Soviet communist theory in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Propaganda, Identity, and the Soviet Model

While the Soviet case bears some comparison to that of Nazi Germany, important differences exist. The Russian people possess a cultural history spanning many centuries of tsarist influence, along with a long-standing tradition of authoritarian rule. There is a meaningful distinction between the rule of the tsars — who embodied a historical symbol of the Russian empire — and the USSR, which came into being through revolution and without the endorsement of the international community. Nevertheless, the mechanisms of cultural and political control tended to remain similar.

In the early years of the USSR, cultural life still retained elements of its former prestige and glamour relative to other European countries. Over time, however, this gave way to a more rigid mentality. After the end of the Second World War, cultures around the world experienced a certain cultural stiffness and rigidity. For art used in service of propaganda, this climate was ideal: it paved the way for a wholly different collective mentality — one that encompassed the mass of the population and served as an instrument of ideological education.

For the Soviet Union, the relationship between the artistic movement and the broader project of communism was relatively straightforward. The state exercised immense control both over the population and over artistic life. Control over the population served primarily to limit the ability of individuals to think freely and independently. The role of the artist in the communist era was accordingly tied to the needs of propaganda — all the more so given that artists had long occupied an important place in Russian cultural heritage. People looked up to artists, but the respect was no longer directed at the artists themselves; it was redirected toward the ideas of Soviet supremacy and Communist Party doctrine that artists were now expected to promote.

The major themes of Soviet art reflected the priorities of the Communist Party: the struggle against capitalism, the dignity of collective labor, and faith in the socialist future. By 1934, socialist realism had been decreed as the official artistic doctrine. As one source describes it, Soviet authorities ruled "that works of art would be judged primarily on the basis of socialist realism, that is, on how well they portrayed contemporary life to depict the perfection of Communist society; henceforth art was to adhere to the Communist party line and was to appeal to the masses. Early socialist realism concentrated on economic themes such as the struggle and ultimate victory in improving agricultural production, the elimination of lagging productivity in industry, and the glory of monumental construction projects."

Socialist Realism and Communist Artistic Doctrine

This stands in contrast to the German case, where artistic ideology centered on racial purity and ethnic mythology. In both cases, however, the state used art as a mechanism for shaping collective identity and enforcing conformity to official values.

By comparison, American art suffered under increased governmental scrutiny during the same period, though the dynamics differed substantially. The experience must be understood from two angles. On the one hand, there was a growing fear that communist influence would eventually penetrate the United States and discredit the government, thereby winning the ideological battle. This anxiety fueled the McCarthy Commission's years-long campaign of investigating and accusing individuals of anti-American activities. On the other hand, there were artistic movements actively seeking a new cultural direction. Chief among them was Abstract Expressionism, which its adherents championed as "a specifically anti-communist ideology, the ideology of freedom, of free enterprise; non-figurative and politically silent; it was the very antithesis to socialist realism; an American intervention in the modernist canon — an independent self-reliant, a true expression of the national will, spirit, and character."

Despite these aspirations toward innovation, many observers — and government officials — viewed such artistic experiments with suspicion, treating them as potential vehicles for communist infiltration of American culture. The government publicly acknowledged the perceived danger, warning citizens that communists were capable of exploiting American art as a means of entering and subverting American culture. Combined with the McCarthyite campaign against suspected communist members throughout the country, public opinion was steered toward viewing the communist threat as immediate and real — and toward rejecting any art that departed from conventional norms.

Overall, art proved to be a crucial dimension of how political parties and governments shaped their populations' relationship to a given ideology. In the case of the USSR, culture and art were subordinated almost entirely to communist doctrine. Through artistic production, the Soviet state sought to convey the same messages that political discourse delivered through other channels. In the case of the United States, the government moved — rightly or not — to discredit artists who developed unconventional styles, arguing to the public that such work carried communist influence.

Conclusion: Art as an Instrument of Ideology

Joyce Battle, U.S. Propaganda in the Middle East — the Early Cold War Version. National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 78. December 13, 2002.

"Religion, Education, and Cultural Activities during the Communist Period." N.d. Accessed 12 May 2008.