Seminar Paper; DECEMBER 2016

Abstract: The rise of Communism and Fascism in the first half of the twentieth century led academics to fear the use of mechanically reproduced art for political gain. This created seducible population that could become pliable to a politician’s will. In Europe and the United States, cultural critic Walter Benjamin and art critic Clement Greenberg each theorized that mechanically reproduced art, or ephemeral kitsch objects, could become tools of these authoritarian governments. In order to stop this aestheticization of politics, Benjamin calls for the removal of artwork that does not contain aura while Greenberg heightens the importance of the Avant-Garde artist. As a result, designers and commercial artists who create ephemera often find themselves in opposition to the work of the Avant-Garde artist, who is often motivated by l'art pour l'art, or art for arts sake. Jacques Rancière uses his position as a structural marxist to questions the suppression of mechanically reproduced objects and Critical Theory Historian Martin Jay charts the history of the political aesthetic, ultimately concluding that Benjamin’s dismal view of the aestheticization of politics is not accurate. I intend to challenge the efficacy of aura and kitsch and reassess them as tools for suppression of ephemera. The discourse has been unnaturally biased in the use of theory based in fear that has ultimately led to the suppression of ephemeral works. Through the study of Martin French and Reza Abedini in order to develop a methodological approach, followed by an iconographic examination of Alfons Mucha’s ephemeral art objects I hope to discover the motivations, strategies and elements of his practice and underline how he utilized the system of the aestheticization of politics to disseminate his own narratives and created work that defied Benjamin’s dismal views of ephemera as tools of fascism.