Art as Soft Power. The concept of soft power is often misused to refer to anything other than military power. In actuality, soft power is far more nuanced, referring to the attractiveness of a country’s culture, ideals, and politics. As the ability to attract rather than coerce, soft power is distinctly different from propaganda. The shared attractiveness of soft power has the ability to legitimatize a state’s behavior in the eyes of its citizens and other states. The notion of art as a soft power resource has been largely neglected, and to this end International Relations has missed the opportunity to wield artistic combat in the ideological battle against terror.
In the realm of cultural diplomacy, art figures as a modest, but symbolically and tangibly significant, soft power resource. It has the ability to transmit knowledge and values across both individual and collective levels. Art is communicative in moral and ideological terms, and importantly, it can trigger emotional responses which activate agency, mobilize communities, and shape political relations. The intersubjective nature of art makes its status as a soft power resource paradoxical. On the one hand, art can invoke emotional responses and mobilize political agency through shared attractiveness. On the other hand, art can promote controversy and debate—art is contestable. This paradox reinforces the relevance of art for International Relations, indicating the multiple ways in which art can affect all things “international.”
Art and the War on Terror. “Terror” and the War on Terror are fluid concepts, which are equally premised on shifting political, social, and ideological phenomena. As a type of new war, the War on Terror is founded on the aim of disarming terrorism both physically and psychologically. The role of soft power must be acknowledged as an influential factor in achieving the disarmament of human minds by attracting those susceptible to terrorism towards alternate values, liberties, and alliances. Furthermore, the ways in which visual art responded to 9/11 and the subsequent War on Terror are particularly revealing to understand the role of art and visual culture as soft power resources.
Art and visual culture have affected the War on Terror in two discernable ways. First, art was influential in co-opting support for the War on Terror. After 9/11 terrorism became highly optical. Images of planes crashing into the twin towers in New York took on an iconic status, representing evil, and prompting highly emotive responses on both individual and collective scales. The exhibition Here is New York epitomized the canonical fashion in which these images flooded the visual age. Beginning in a small gallery in New York, the exhibition showcased over 3,000 photographs of 9/11 and its aftermath. Described as a democracy of photography, the exhibition received over one million visitors during 2001 before travelling around America and onto London, Tokyo, Berlin, and Zurich. Created with the intent of memorializing 9/11, the exhibition provided a way for people from different countries to look, think, and reflect. However, Here is New York did more than memorialize 9/11—it rendered politics into aesthetics, and in doing so mobilized American and international masses, co-opting support for the fight against terrorism.
Similarly, Joe McNally’s Faces of Ground Zero (2004)—a series of larger-than-life photographic portraits of 9/11 survivors and rescue workers—were exhibited throughout America and the United Kingdom, and received widespread international media coverage. The photographs functioned not only as a memorial to survivors of 9/11, but their wide dissemination meant that they became emblematic of America’s struggle against terrorism. The photographs took on symbolic agency, generating soft power appeal for the plight of the American people, and in turn, the American government’s decision to go to war against terror. Here is New York and Faces of Ground Zero functioned on dual civic levels: on one level, they acted as images of survival and hope; on another level, they helped cement anti-terror sentiment, galvanizing support for war and retribution.
Secondly, art and visual culture have been prominent in representing and co-opting anti-war sentiment. In 2004 images emerged of American soldiers torturing detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. These images flooded the media and quickly began to be appropriated by artists. Richard Serra’s Stop Bush (2004) print depicts the now iconic image of a hooded prisoner, with the words "Stop Bush" written clearly in capitals. Widely reproduced on billboards and in international print media, Serra’s print is one of many works of art to explicitly oppose the War on Terror. In particular, anti-War on Terror sentiment has been documented in the street art of America, Canada, the Middle East, Europe, Australia, Japan, and South-East Asia. The visual commonalities displayed by the street art of these countries, implicates visual culture as an important public forum in which soft power can attract away from government policy and state behavior. In contrast to the way in which photography attracted support for the War on Terror, visual culture has played a part in reversing this support by fostering public debate.
Art and International Relations. While it has been a decade since 9/11, the role of art and visual culture as soft power resources in the War on Terror remains a significant issue to the practice of International Relations in an optical age. Since war can now be fought against metaphors such as terror, the battle for hearts and minds must necessarily be fought using equally complex resources such as art and visual culture.
Eliza Garnsey has a Masters in Art History and Visual Culture from the University of Oxford and is currently completing a Masters in International Affairs at the Australian National University.
This article was originally published in the Diplomatic Courier's January/February issue.
Graffiti art by Sket.BLT; New Haven, Connecticut
a global affairs media network
The Battle for HeARTs and Minds: Art and the War on Terror
February 14, 2012
Art as Soft Power. The concept of soft power is often misused to refer to anything other than military power. In actuality, soft power is far more nuanced, referring to the attractiveness of a country’s culture, ideals, and politics. As the ability to attract rather than coerce, soft power is distinctly different from propaganda. The shared attractiveness of soft power has the ability to legitimatize a state’s behavior in the eyes of its citizens and other states. The notion of art as a soft power resource has been largely neglected, and to this end International Relations has missed the opportunity to wield artistic combat in the ideological battle against terror.
In the realm of cultural diplomacy, art figures as a modest, but symbolically and tangibly significant, soft power resource. It has the ability to transmit knowledge and values across both individual and collective levels. Art is communicative in moral and ideological terms, and importantly, it can trigger emotional responses which activate agency, mobilize communities, and shape political relations. The intersubjective nature of art makes its status as a soft power resource paradoxical. On the one hand, art can invoke emotional responses and mobilize political agency through shared attractiveness. On the other hand, art can promote controversy and debate—art is contestable. This paradox reinforces the relevance of art for International Relations, indicating the multiple ways in which art can affect all things “international.”
Art and the War on Terror. “Terror” and the War on Terror are fluid concepts, which are equally premised on shifting political, social, and ideological phenomena. As a type of new war, the War on Terror is founded on the aim of disarming terrorism both physically and psychologically. The role of soft power must be acknowledged as an influential factor in achieving the disarmament of human minds by attracting those susceptible to terrorism towards alternate values, liberties, and alliances. Furthermore, the ways in which visual art responded to 9/11 and the subsequent War on Terror are particularly revealing to understand the role of art and visual culture as soft power resources.
Art and visual culture have affected the War on Terror in two discernable ways. First, art was influential in co-opting support for the War on Terror. After 9/11 terrorism became highly optical. Images of planes crashing into the twin towers in New York took on an iconic status, representing evil, and prompting highly emotive responses on both individual and collective scales. The exhibition Here is New York epitomized the canonical fashion in which these images flooded the visual age. Beginning in a small gallery in New York, the exhibition showcased over 3,000 photographs of 9/11 and its aftermath. Described as a democracy of photography, the exhibition received over one million visitors during 2001 before travelling around America and onto London, Tokyo, Berlin, and Zurich. Created with the intent of memorializing 9/11, the exhibition provided a way for people from different countries to look, think, and reflect. However, Here is New York did more than memorialize 9/11—it rendered politics into aesthetics, and in doing so mobilized American and international masses, co-opting support for the fight against terrorism.
Similarly, Joe McNally’s Faces of Ground Zero (2004)—a series of larger-than-life photographic portraits of 9/11 survivors and rescue workers—were exhibited throughout America and the United Kingdom, and received widespread international media coverage. The photographs functioned not only as a memorial to survivors of 9/11, but their wide dissemination meant that they became emblematic of America’s struggle against terrorism. The photographs took on symbolic agency, generating soft power appeal for the plight of the American people, and in turn, the American government’s decision to go to war against terror. Here is New York and Faces of Ground Zero functioned on dual civic levels: on one level, they acted as images of survival and hope; on another level, they helped cement anti-terror sentiment, galvanizing support for war and retribution.
Secondly, art and visual culture have been prominent in representing and co-opting anti-war sentiment. In 2004 images emerged of American soldiers torturing detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. These images flooded the media and quickly began to be appropriated by artists. Richard Serra’s Stop Bush (2004) print depicts the now iconic image of a hooded prisoner, with the words "Stop Bush" written clearly in capitals. Widely reproduced on billboards and in international print media, Serra’s print is one of many works of art to explicitly oppose the War on Terror. In particular, anti-War on Terror sentiment has been documented in the street art of America, Canada, the Middle East, Europe, Australia, Japan, and South-East Asia. The visual commonalities displayed by the street art of these countries, implicates visual culture as an important public forum in which soft power can attract away from government policy and state behavior. In contrast to the way in which photography attracted support for the War on Terror, visual culture has played a part in reversing this support by fostering public debate.
Art and International Relations. While it has been a decade since 9/11, the role of art and visual culture as soft power resources in the War on Terror remains a significant issue to the practice of International Relations in an optical age. Since war can now be fought against metaphors such as terror, the battle for hearts and minds must necessarily be fought using equally complex resources such as art and visual culture.
Eliza Garnsey has a Masters in Art History and Visual Culture from the University of Oxford and is currently completing a Masters in International Affairs at the Australian National University.
This article was originally published in the Diplomatic Courier's January/February issue.
Graffiti art by Sket.BLT; New Haven, Connecticut
