I'm writing an article over at
Squidoo about Lord Kitchener. It was spawned by seeing this poster:
I sort of snickered to myself. Kitchener was widely reputed to be gay, right? I could so easily imagine seeing this in the Pride parade. It started me thinking about what I knew and didn't know about Kitchener, so I started researching him, and decided he was interesting enough (and iconic enough) to write an article about him.
Getting back to vintage advertising and propaganda, I also started thinking about the meme where an iconic figure points directly at the viewer. Someone must have found it effective, because a few years after Kitchener tells us that WE are The Man He Wants, Uncle Sam did the same thing:
In Western art, there's a complex relationship between the viewer's gaze and that of the subject. Models, who were from working class backgrounds, were paid to sit for a painter and almost never met the viewer's gaze. Portrait subjects, who were affluent enough to pay someone to record their likeness, gazed out of the painting and met the viewer's gaze directly.
But the interaction stopped there; they didn't point directly at the viewer. And of course, there was no text demanding that the viewer take a certain course of action. Was this a new, and therefore effective method of persuasion in the WWI era? Did anyone see this as offensive or peremptory, or were those sentiments swept away in a tide of jingoism? If a government today used such imagery, how would it be received -- as an ironic statement of nostalgia or big government overstepping its bounds?
If you have a thought, leave it in the comment section. Please keep the discussion limited to the use and effectiveness of propaganda -- don't want to get into partisan bickering here :)