Glenn Beck, Art Hysterian

About the Author

—

Steven Heller is the cofounder and the cochair of the MFA Designer as Author program at the School of Visual Arts. He writes the Visuals column for the New York Times Book Review and the Graphic Content blog for T-Style; is editor of AIGA Voice; and is a contributor to Design Observer. He is the author, coauthor, and/or editor of more than 120 books on design and popular culture, including the forthcoming New Ornamental Type (Thames and Hudson). More information can be found at Heller's homepage.

See all Daily Heller posts here.

Glenn Beck, Art Hysterian

by Steven Heller

As one of the many justifications for why the Obama administration is leading us headlong into Socialism and Fascism, Glenn Beck has turned to the history of propaganda art. In a recent broadcast, the resident propagandist at Fox News takes Rockefeller Center's vintage public art and architecture to task for promoting Communism and Fascism through murals, friezes, and engravings bearing symbols that subliminally project vile values. (Watch the video above or here.)

With the verve of Stuart Ewen (author of All Consuming Images) and the symbolic vocabulary of Roland Barthes, Beck deconstructs works that include workers and farmers, hammers and sickles, iron-fisted leaders, and swords beaten into plowshares, equating the "progressive" mass art of the 1930s with the so-called subversive art of Obama.

Discussing Diego Rivera's destroyed mural in the lobby of 30 Rock, Beck notes that through its symbolism the evils of Marxist/Leninism crept into the public's subconsciousness. While Rivera was never shy about calling "all art propaganda," and espousing Communism (and his friendship with Leon Trotsky), Beck neglected to say that Nelson Rockefeller actually covered over and eventually blasted the original mural before the public even saw it (only years later was it recreated in the jewel-like Palace of Art in Mexico City, where it is today).

Oddly, Beck--the art hysterian--neglected to mention the fasces (the symbol of Fascist Italy in the '20s through the '40s) still prominent on the doorway of the Palazzo d'Italia building on Fifth Avenue, perhaps because he'd have to justify the ancient Roman symbol in the halls of Congress and on old U.S. dimes.

Beck's powers of observation are intense (most people do indeed walk by these vintage images without a second glance). But his relentless, desperate effort to tie Obama, in this case alluding to his art and design strategy, to Fascism and Communism is without merit.

As designers, don't we routinely call for smart, sophisticated, not to mention consistent design and branding? Isn't it the cornerstone of our profession? Are we all Communists and Fascists for doing so? It is one thing to criticize bad propaganda; it's another to make propaganda through questionable art criticism.

Reader Comments

I don't understand the defensiveness here, Heller. Too many intellectual folks seems to go gaga over the way that the communists used to use graphics and film as agitprop, propaganda to agitate unrest and revolt, yet here it seems the Daily Heller is offended that someone then suggests that Obama has something in common with communism or socialism? I would be happy if we could just discuss the graphic design itself and forget about taking sides over what they are promoting, whether liberal or conservative. Did Obama use great graphics and internet work for his campaign? Yes. Are the conservatives starting to do likewise? Yes. Does Print magazine only want to rally graphic designers to influence the culture towards left wing values? Is it wrong to use good graphic design while promoting right wing values? As a Print magazine reader, I want to read and see about graphic design itself, not about why this or that source is right or wrong over their political affiliations.

By wRIGHT Brother September 04, 2009

First, readers, there is a glitch that has yet to be fixed, that is erasing comments. So, if any of you who made comments do not see them here, please repost. Second, Mr. wRIGHT, I'll say it one more time. This is a critical and informational blog. I address many things that address visual and popular culture. Politics is one of those subject areas. My personal critique is what makes this The Daily Heller and not the Daily Designer. I write about political and social impact on design and design's impact on political and social issues because discussing aesthetics without context is, well, not very useful. I love good design as much as the next person, but I am more interested in what design does. The Daily Heller is not offended, I am being critical of a self-styled critic who uses my area of expertise to distort facts and issues.

By Steven Heller September 04, 2009

@ Steven Heller I agree with wRIGHT; and apparently he's made the same observation as I, as I have commented in the past on this blog that your leanings tend to be left and quite subjective, and often deviate from the topic of design ever so slightly. I appreciate that you have qualified that this is in fact the "Daily Heller" and that you are entitled to editorialize, and you are quite right in that. However, may I point out that in two years following your blog, I don't recall ever seeing a critique of any liberal ideology. May I simply suggest that though you are entitled to editorialize, it doesn't necessarily profit you to do so, but only discredits you in the eyes of your readers who might disagree with your analysis. wRIGHT is correct that you could have provided an analysis of the propaganda art and the media's interpretation of it that was a bit less transparent of your bias, if you so desired to, but clearly you didn't desire such. But if I were to give your opinion of Beck the benefit of the doubt, I could point out the same abuses on the part of such personalities as Kieth Olbermann. I would love to see your analysis of his opinions.

By cathartic.creative September 04, 2009

Dear Cathartic.creative, the entire point of having a comments section (assuming the comments do not disappear as they have been doing with this new technology - and for that I apologize), is to comment (pro or con). So, I welcome your critique of my criticism. But please keep in mind. I am, as you note, it is an editorial venue. When I feel something is worthy of critique I offer it. You can refute it. I appreciate your wish that I take on Olbermann, but other than his graphic openers, I don't have anything worth saying about him. Beck stepped on territory I know very well. P.S. One other matter. You know my name (and points of view), I only know your point of view. The notion of hiding behind nicknames, code names, and no-names is not a level playing field. Wouldn't you agree?

By Steven Heller September 04, 2009

This is a blog and it's Heller's blog at that. I don't mind that I don't always agree with him and yes, I also notice that it has a leftist leaning bent, but I read it with that in mind. It doesn't detract from his points when you realize the context and who is writing. But about Beck: I saw the episode and it was pointless blather. Beck had nothing of substance to say about any of the art pieces he was commenting on. I'm not sure that episode is even worth discussing considering the actual lack of information about who the artist's were and the context in which they were creating their pieces. I felt Beck's piece was irresponsible in that it lacked substance and was just a rant about...what exactly? Beck didn't even finish his sentences at times in hopes that his audience would fill in the blank with whatever inflamed idea they had about a particular art piece. It was irresponsible and informationless blather that potentially biases the public against public art.

By Jessicrow September 04, 2009

when i was a kid back in the 60's, we used to have a local extreme tv station owner who used to broadcast endlessly on HIS station about the oncoming political liberal/commie apocalypse. we used to watch him and laugh and laugh. there was also a local john birch society bookstore where they sold pamphlets listing all the "real" meanings behind rock band names (the lovin' spoonful was all about heroin! who knew?). again, it was all entertainment for us and we laughed and laughed. back then, these guys were referred to as "the lunatic fringe" and included people to the right of barry goldwater (phyllis schlafley science fiction books, for instance. joe pyne's 'talk' show was another hilarious example). they were laff riots. now, we have their ideas as part of the national political discourse and we actually don't laugh at them anymore. this is what i don't understand - why do we even pay attention to them? have we become so bored that we really will give our valuable time to listen to the idea of obama's secret republican concentration camps with their shiny new guillotines? we actually pay attention to this stuff? i think we are all the 'lunatic fringe' now. hey, let's talk about alien abductions for a while. i demand equal time! it's only fair!

By art chantry September 04, 2009

Steven, I understand your misgivings about my using an alias. Totally valid. However, I didn't used to have to "register" with Print's website to post comments here. My alias is more of a rebellious catharsis to Print having asked for my "Address" in order to post a comment. So, forgive me if I wish to protect my privacy.

By cathartic.creative September 04, 2009

cathartic.creative, does that mean you would use your real name if you didn't have to register? Hmmmm. Interesting logic. We all want privacy, but then why enter the blogosphere? And once in should anonymous comments be taken seriously? Its a paradox isn't it? I understand the extenuating reasons for anonymity. But the registration process for Print, while cumbersome, is to avoid ad hominem, false, and counterfeit posts and comments. I appreciate your response and readership in any case.

By Steven Heller September 04, 2009

i want to point out something in that last little discussion between steve and cathartic.creative. in this new internet world, the idea of actually placing a real name at the bottom of a comment is not the norm. the blogosphere is a community of anonymous critics blazing away without responsibility - even the responsibility of authorship. it's akin to a the broadside world of the last century that evolved into the newspaper media world of today. basically, the blogoshpere is an irresponsible non-factual world of exaggerated opinion and fiction that is slowly slowly evolving into a new media form. but it still has a way to go. until we all have the honest GUTS to sign our names to what we are willing to shout out in the dark, the blogosphere has no credibility . we shouldn't give it so much authority in our information system. how else can you explain this crazy crap we call "news" these days?

By art chantry September 04, 2009

It seems weird that oddball but charismatic TV talents like Glenn Beck attract and persuade so many people, but I guess it demonstrates the dominance of style over substance. If someone is attractive or mesmerizing they are believed even if the material is disprovable or stupid. I mean people smoked Marlboros because cowboys did, never mind the actuarial tables. The talent is paid by people with big money and a dubious or dangerous or stupid product. Right wing paranoia doesn't taste better but it does make people high, somewhat like nicotine. And it does serve somebody's purposes to sell it. And no matter how phony it is people will buy it. It isn't a monopoly held by right or left, though. Beck resembles the charlatans of both fringes more than Rockefeller or his hired artists do. Rockefeller was a conservative. He hired the best artists. Some happened to subscribe to left of center philosophies, but so did Jesus. Maybe next week you could examine the symbolism of Christian religious art and teachings. It's communist through and through.

By Eric Hanson September 04, 2009

Regarding the critique of steve's liberal p.o.v. critiques: c.c, can you say "ad hominem"? You can find a further critique (hammer & sickle, etc.) of Beck's dimwitted and deceptive art/design history lesson here... http://www.artsjournal.com/man/2009/09/glenn_beck_debuts_as_fox_news.html

By michaeldooley September 07, 2009

When it comes to interpreting art, anyone can put their own spin on it if there is no expert around to provide a historical perspective, the artist's interpretation, and weed out any personal agenda, political or otherwise. Certainly there is art that has always been propaganda, but there is art that is simply 'sometimes just a cigar' or insight into the artist's psyche. With regard to the biblical reference of 'beating their swords into plowshares, it is a terrible misinterpretation of the entire reference -- historically, metaphorically, and prophetically. The verse itself has nothing to do with the Communist movement; it had to do with nations eventually deciding to be at peace and lay down arms. It is a far harder decision to choose peace than war. It is easier to wish for peace on earth as so many do once a year. I resent someone who quotes the Bible to have such an item on his desk and use that as a tool against his own, Mormon, Christian, or otherwise. Talk about propaganda.

By urbanegypsy September 08, 2009

Wow, now this is ironic. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0909/NEA_in_politics_flap.html

By cathartic.creative September 11, 2009

The Yosi Seargent/NEA reach out to artists is not unusual in NEA's history. Nor is it unusual for government to sponsor social or narrative art. The WPA's Federal Arts Programs supported "unemployed" artists to produce materials used to raise awareness in public health, interstate travel, and cultural pursuit. Artists are often solicited on behalf of Federal Design projects to create work that benefits the citizenry. While Seargent may have pushed the envelope, there is precedent dating back to when Nixon founded the NEA.

By Steven Heller September 14, 2009

Featured Event: Print Webcast

Everything We Didn't Know When We Left School

Presented by: G. Dan Covert and