Graphic design has been used to promote information, concepts and ideologies but also as a form of political propaganda. The following essay aims to discuss graphic design’s relationship with propaganda using the Nazi propaganda as an example.
In the WWII, political parties such as the National Socialism in Germany (Nazi Party) realised how powerful propaganda was and they used it to improve their identity. According to the Website “Critical Media Project” — which studies the politics of identity — identity allowed people to fit in society and it contained the principles that were beyond the ideas exposed. The parties noticed how masses were behaving differently and how they were heading of through a specific direction due to their political design. Baylor graduate student Christine Cabrera explained that using propaganda designers could change or manipulate the way people looked at the world and therefore, they could change their ideologies and beliefs. For instance, Nazi propaganda had completely changed the way people thought by depicting other cultures or races as lower than the German race. In gender terms, Hitler was seen as its Führer or God; following him, men were soldiers — Germany “defenders” — and finally German women had a “big” role in society since not only were seen as stronger than the other women but also they have had a lot of children since soldiers were needed for the war. Political propaganda made people believe in such things. This is why parties saw it as a key of strengthening and empowerment.
In the 30s and 40s, thousands of posters were produced. Focusing on this poster below, we can clearly observe designer’s strategies, why designs were so effective and the effects caused in society. Nazi posters’ were well known for its graphic steadfastness: they used the same symbol, colours and typography. Its identity was so powerful than even nowadays if we use that style it would have connotations (Graphic designer Paul McNeil). Propagandists were playing with people subconsciousness: even though posters elements looked to be organised randomly, in fact, everything was minutely studied.
In this particular example (figure 1)*, the red colour contrasted with the black colour of the swastika, symbol of Nazi’s flag. This symbol comes from India and it means “good-fortune” and “well-being” (according to the Holocaust Memorial Museum). Adolf Hitler, leader of the Nazi Party, adopted it. Its graphic design was so grand and consistent that nowadays the Swastika is no longer recognised by its Indian concept. We can also see that Hitler is taller than the others, which symbolises its leadership nobility. He also rises up a big flag; he is supporting Germany to make it great again. Behind him, German soldiers are following him, rising more flags — helping him to make his ideas of nobility come true— and doing the German greeting. Subconsciously, they are persuading others to glorify Germany again (History teacher Mr Favre and Histoire Géographie et Education Civique, 2011).
Another symbology was the Antiqua-Fraktur, a gothic typeface which was used in every media of communication. In this specific poster it is used to write the slogan, which says “Long Live Germany”. Other important denotations are the eagle and the celestial sun that illuminates them. Behind those symbols their ideologies were hidden. Romans saw the eagle as the bird’s king but also as a symbol of power, independence and beauty (Alan Geal. Aux armes, symbolism blog, 2006). In fact, they used it as their empire’s symbol. In this poster, Hitler is the eagle and Germany his empire. The heavenly light behind them symbolises God as an allusion: God sent Hitler approving his ideas (Mr. Favre).
For many years, Germans have received subliminal messages that had persuaded them to be more patriotic and to hate other races. Graphic design has brainwashed their minds. Hitler founded a way of enlarging his ambition and his “empire” through education and brainwashing the youth. He educated young people with those new ideals. If we see the front cover of this book for our first time (figure 2), I believe that it transmits a negative vibe. Both use of yellow and green, remind me unconsciously of something “rotten” or “poisoned”. Julius Streicher calls this book “The Poisonous Mushroom”; it was a book for children. If I was a German kid, and I see this mushroom with those colours I would have a negative idea of this book. Designers used their abilities to influence youth so they would have the same Nazi ideology and morality (Walt Disney Cartoon, Education for Death, 1943).
*All this arguments exposed comes from: my teacher Mr. Favre, the book Histoire Géographie et Education Civique (2011), Histoire et Géographie 2010, Nazi Propaganda Analysis presentation by Pieter Ooms and Nazi Propaganda Posters presentation by Jessica Downs, 2008)
Nazi propaganda has been a resistance to such vivid forms of graphic design that it was expressed everywhere: press, radio, hymns, books, theatres, films and posters. Goebbels was the Minister of Propaganda. He was very well known for his modern methods and well-communicated designs. As the website “Psywarrior Psychological Operations” affirms: “Goebbels used all media of education and communications to further Nazi propagandistic aims, instilling in the Germans the concept of their leader as a veritable god and of their destiny as the rulers of the world”. However, when I was researching for this essay, most of the time was called “The Master Of Lies”. At the time, he had been the “controller” of people’s acts.
However, there were designers who did not believed what they were communicating. For instance, Leni Riefenstahl was part of the Nazi Party and a film director who directed “Olympia”, a German Documentary that recorded the Olympic games in Berlin. Jesse Owens, won the games and he was black — quite a shame for the Nazi Party —. Thus, the Party forced Leni Riefenstahl to manipulate the records but she did not (“Race”, 2016 —“Olympia”, 1938).
It is really interesting to see the correlation that “propaganda” and “lies” have. I wonder, how they did that?
When I read the book “Look Who’s Back” by Timur Vermes, I understood society behaviour. Psychologically, people was not feeling neither responsible nor guilty since they were making them believe that either Hitler was dragging that load of culpability or because it was legal. Legal effects made people feel they were doing things right and correctly in terms of morals and ethics (Playground, 2016). For instance, if they kill a Jewish, it was seen as “correct”. Furthermore, the Law of Reciprocity was also used in order to persuade, “It’s considered by many to be the most powerful law of human nature” said Brian Tracy, a success expert (2015). This Law was used in financial or emotional terms and this last one you can perfectly see it in Goebbel’s designs. Impressively, by using those “hypnotising” techniques he completely changed the entire Germany’s ideology and mentality.
By discussing why fascist propaganda worked, I have understood how it has influenced on contemporary propaganda. Nowadays, we can perfectly see that we still have very much political propaganda taking place and that not much has changed.
I went to a lecture last Thursday called “Designing with Data with Laura Malan and Cat Drew”. Cat Drew is a government designer. My friend asked her: “What is your social responsibility as a designer? Would you ever decline a client in view of their or your own personal alignments?” — she replied: — “You must be impartial if you work for the government”. The motivation behind certain forms of political propaganda via graphic communication can cause problems. As an exposed issue, we have this production of propaganda without the belief of it: people fight for being ethical but, on the other hand, sometimes “financial issues” goes over their own beliefs. I wonder what is our social responsibility as designers.
Our contemporary world is a replica from our past. We are a society mass who imprudently follows everybody without thinking logically. Culture Jamming arose in the 80s as a cultural resistance movement against society commercialisation through guerrillas’ acts. The article Hacking, Slashing and Sniping in the Empire of Signs, which Mark Dery published in 1999, was considerate an important manifesto of the movement.
John Heartfelt (1930) inspired me as well to make the following question: as designers, are we responsible to learn how to attract masses across design by manipulating them and making them believe in something false or unethical? I believe we have to show society how designers see the world so like that they can — by themselves — use their own notions to then discuss their different beliefs. John Heartfelt uses its reality to demonstrate and to explain his way of seeing: ’Whoever reads bourgeois becomes blind and deaf: away with those stultifying bandages!’ says in one of his pieces of art. Designers must not cover reality with lies. This is the essence of a good designer — nobody said it would be easy to create a great design without lying the audience —.
As I have proved, design can make social changes; it is a very powerful leverage when we speak about social innovation. It is fascinating to see how it progresses through years and how “presentation” is becoming more powerful and complex than before because old propaganda intentions and strategies are nowadays very obvious. Nevertheless, society is in “trouble” if designers use propaganda in a bad way. News, Social Networks, or even the Government itself are responsible of lies. Therefore, we are all responsible.