kylemittskus wrote:What is your point then?
The very word "recognizable" makes it subjective. There is no such thing as an objective recognizability (this conversation is forcing me to create a bunch of neologisms which is kind of fun). In fact, the word "style" is also a subjective term. What constitutes a set style versus just a trend? Or a personal predilection or proclivity? What even constitutes "propaganda"? These are all rhetorical questions of course because I don't think any of us (except me) want to get into a huge debate about decontruction and Jaques Derrida. We can though if anyone wants to!
What I am trying to say, and I think Bella is as well if I may speak for her(?), is that you do not understand that what we (you included) are talking about is inherently opinions. My opinion disagrees with yours and is of course affected by my exposure to varying styles, posters, media, etc. as well as literally an insurmountable number of other things; your opinion is as well.
MJ: Thanks for the other links. I can appreciate the minimalist style. I feel like I'm repeating myself, but those "seem" like propaganda to me because I can see them as posters. This is, of course, my own proclivity and isn't really debatable. I nevertheless appreciate your participation.
well, i will repeat again; while you as a person may not recognize it, as a propaganda style it is recognizable. furthermore, the other posters shown in this thread should be enough to educate everyone, so there is no subjective opinion on whether or not it is recognizable. after seeing all 4 or 5 examples, the only way you can say its not recognizable, is if you just want to argue.
so recognizable as defined in this derby, is in fact NOT subjective. you may not recognize it, but if the style exists in old propaganda, then the style can be recognized, or acknowledged if you will, as a classic propaganda style. that is the whole point here: subjective opinion on whether or not it is recognizable does not exist, because if that were the case, nothing would be recognizable, since no one has seen everything. to make it even clearer, and this is yet another repetition, say someone has never seen russian propaganda before, they will then not recognize the style. does this then mean the russian propaganda style isnt recognizable? (being too afraid to leave a rethorical question unanwered when it is directed at you, i can tell you the answer is no). a style exists, whether you know about it or not. it is not my opinion that the style on this shirt follows the style of other propaganda, it is a fact, as proven by the gift of vision.
the fact that you even try to create some issue out of style and trend and what are they and what are they not is just ridiculous. it matters nothing.
same thing with discussing what constitutes "propaganda".... it is clearly defined. i gave you the definition in the other thread. propaganda is what propaganda is, in all its shapes and sizes.
going all philosopher on me isnt going to do any good, cause we all know there is no point in such stuff besides arguing for the arguments sake, which while interesting at times, rarely leads to anything. some things are defined you know.
although, you still dont seem to grasp what propaganda is. propaganda does not have to be in poster form. but if it helps, why dont you imagine a big old square around the design of this shirt, maybe you can "see" the poster and it will "seem" like propaganda