Artworks as symbols in international politics

Abstract

The use of artworks as symbolic carriers, as mediators of politics and as propaganda for secular and religious ideologies (including, of course, the "aesthetic religion" of "art-for-art's-sake") is an old phenomenon. The Sphinx and the Pyramids, for example, symbolized pharaonic power to the Egyptian populace. But it took the imperialism of Alexander and his Roman successors to carry about, import, and install artworks in new contexts to symbolize political power to other than the original audience?i.e., to recognize their ability to transcend socio-cultural limits and stand as "universal symbols." This is quite different than destroying "pagan idols" of the conquered "heathen." Rather, it is a recognition that the aesthetic power of artworks, however it may be defined, transcends their creators by enhancing the identification of the audience with that power. So too, the status of the artworks' sponsor, in a halo effect, is enhanced in the eyes of that audience. If the artworks are of universal significance, speaking across cultural boundaries, so is their discerning patron or owner. That, at least, is the claim. This claim is more difficult to sustain with respect to the performing arts, where the idiosyncracies of the interpreting performer are not altogether subject to the patron's control and, in any case, are not regarded as being "owned." By contrast, such a claim is more acceptable with respect to the visual arts, because the artist's creativity is embodied in a fixed object. In this case, possession is equivalent to control, although, given the perspectival idiosyncracies of any audience, even here the presentation of the artwork must be carefully orchestrated if the patron is to reap the benefits of the desired "halo." Such orchestration has become more complicated and more necessary in recent years as the world's great artworks have been increasingly used in the competition between various "imperial? istic" powers and assigned various roles in international propaganda. The variety of these roles, and the reasons why artworks are considered to be politically useful, are evident in the following comments: