Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/11/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Tina: Great point.... and yes, I had looked at Webster and saw that definition also. I think the way the word is tossed around and used however, is quite different than the Webster definition. Generally speaking, I think most people have a negative reaction to the word propaganda. If something is viewed as being propaganda, people take a cautious or skeptical stance. "Tokyo Rose" was propaganda, but "Bob Hope and the USO shows" were morale builders. But under Webster's definition, both were clearly propaganda... Tokyo Rose wanted to "injure" morale, while Bob Hope wanted to "help" morale. Yet, I doubt anyone would describe the USO efforts of WWII as... propaganda.. because of the negative light attached to the term. So.... in view of the Webster definition... and the loose use of the word.... I will view your, and Lang's work, as simply..... GREAT WORK!!! And leave the labels to those who need them. :-) Jim - --------------------------------------------------- J.A. Gatlin Photography My Work in Black & White http://www.jagatlin.com - --------------------------------------------------- > > Yes, raising money! Here is Webster's definition of propaganda, by the > way: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of > helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. Documentary > photography that only informs and does not try to help or hurt would not be > propaganda. I would rather try to make a difference instead of just > informing even if it is considered propaganda. Dorothea Lange's > photography would fit into the category of helping a cause and be > considered propaganda under Webster's definition. > > We agree in concept but the words are different ;-) > > Tina - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html