Return to: Home | Culture | Books

Totalitarian recall

Owen Hatherley

Published 31 July 2008

Iron Fists: Branding the 20th-Century Totalitarian State Steven Heller Phaidon, 240pp, £45

What exactly was "totalitarianism"? Purporting to describe regimes that exercised total control over their citizenry, with a seamless apparatus of surveillance and mass conformity, the term was originally coined by Italian anti-fascists, and later taken by Mussolini as self-description. Gradually, it became a convenient Cold War insult, transcending nominal political boundaries: a conceptual version of the conservative canard that the far left and the far right are really just different versions of the same thing. Yet, in its Cold War usage, the totalitarian thesis became palpably absurd: what did the direct democracy of the Petrograd Soviet have in common with the corporatism of Mussolini's Italy? Or the anarchic brutality of the Chinese Cultural Revolution with the coldly efficient killing machine of Nazi Germany?

Here, if nowhere else, we can say: as in politics, so in art. The prolific American designer and critic Steven Heller's Iron Fists: Branding the 20th-Century Totalitarian State lumps these four regimes together, assessing how each created its own propaganda "brand". In the 1930s people talked about a "convergence", wherein corporatist regimes, irrespective of their professed politics, were united by public works, militarism, the use of mass media and the taming of laissez-faire capitalism. Convergence theories encompassed the US of the New Deal, but Heller avoids anything so provocative, sticking to four horror stories of all the bad things that can happen if we reject liberal capitalism. The whiff of cheap thrills given off by the title is carried over into the book's design. Covers of The Little Red Book and a Nazi manifesto are encased in a heavy plastic sheath, with thick black stripes offering just enough of a teasing flash of the fetishistic images below. As if this weren't enough, the text is full of such adjectives as "diabolic" and "heinous".

This is a shame, because Iron Fists initially promises an illuminating angle on images that have mostly lost their power to shock, much less seduce. Heller's introduction sketches a narrative in which branding in the corporate sense was utilised by dictatorships, and his use of marketing terminology puts an adman's spin on the old slogans. This is never really sustained, and it soon becomes a disingenuous picture book with running commentary. Occasionally, Heller can be quite erudite - on Nazi design, he sharply outlines just how eclectic Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels were about their iconography, here taking the form of the festivals of the labour movement (dropping the content) and there borrowing the ideas of Anglo-American First World War propaganda. Yet elsewhere, a certain dilettantism shows through, with historical inaccuracies, oversimplifications and misunderstandings (for instance, conflating Trotsky's notes on formalist literary criticism with the later, Stalinist use of the term "formalism" to refer to all avant-garde art and aesthetics).

So it is as a picture book that this stands or falls. At best, Heller adopts a welcome focus on the everyday objects of the regimes in question, a microhistory of stamps and children's books. The picture research is often excellent, and some of the mundane artefacts Heller finds are extraordinary. There's a spread on the Organisationsbuch der NSDAP, Robert Ley's awesomely anal catalogue of daily iconography, covering everything from epaulettes to pseudo-scientific tables of racial genealogy.

Anyone who expects Nazi aesthetics to match Susan Sontag's percussive analysis of how "the colour is black, the material is leather, the seduction is beauty" (et cetera) will be surprised at just how kitschy and folkish much Nazi ephemera is. However, Sontag's association of fascist art with art deco is far more apposite for the poster and product design of Mussolini's Italy. Powerful, dynamic works were created for Italian Fascist organisations by artists such as Fortunato Depero and Xanti Schawinsky, or the streamline moderne designers of the Fascist youth magazine Gioventù Fascista - smoothing futurism into a superhuman stylishness in which "bodies become logos".

The totalitarian thesis is here undone by the contradictory nature of the book's own artefacts. Soviet examples concentrate mainly on the constructivist avant-garde of the 1920s, dismissing official "socialist realism" with cursory examples. So, absurdly, Soviet culture in its most pluralist phase outweighs the art of the terror. Similarly, the idea that totalitarian art is monolithic looks unconvincing when appraising the tat of the Chinese Cultural Revolution: figurines that are worthy of an advert in the Daily Mail's colour supplement next to the Red Guards' strident, lo-fi lithographs. Meanwhile, one of the images assembled in the "Nazi" section is a poster for a 1936 exhibition of degenerate art, parodying El Lissitzky's "Beat the Whites With the Red Wedge". A few pages on, we find the original (1919) pos ter in the "Soviet" section. Are these both products of "totalitarianism"? Or can one employment of art for political ends be qualitatively different from another?

As an epigraph, Heller misquotes Walter Benjamin's "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction": "Fascism is the aestheticisation of politics." The argument is more complex than this: the danger of Fascism, for Benjamin, is that it takes aesthetic pleasure in humanity's own destruction - something familiar in today's apparently "democratic" art. Naturally, Heller also omits Benjamin's next sentence: "Communism responds by politicising art." To include it would confuse the grisly tale. Intentionally or not, the response of Iron Fists to these conjunctions of design and power is not to politicise, but to reassure. The book is dedicated to the author's son: "may he always live in a democracy". There are a great many people, in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, who would not find this quite so comforting.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

9 comments from readers

Dr. Bakare Tunde
03 August 2008 at 00:01

I really didn't understand this review, or what its central argument was. It read as rather pedantic and snarky to me. More particularly, the link which your reviewer makes between Heller and the prisoners at Guantanamo seems an eccentric and half-baked conclusion. Is the claim here that Heller has somehow contrived to put them there?

Thomas Maughan
03 August 2008 at 21:31

Of course not. Surely the point was that the self-congratulation that he and his son 'lived in a democracy' was a tad smug, given that the human rights abuses and miltaristic aesthetics he ascribes to totalitarian states are common enough in democracies?

Rolex Versace
03 August 2008 at 23:15

This article is smug. The point of "totalitarianism" is it refers to party-states - which the USSR, Nazi Germany, Communist China and Fascist Italy all were, a fact lost in the obfuscating series supplied here. And Heller is a progressive democrat, who has written critically about Bush - his comment about his son, which is, "may he always live in a democracy" is obviously double-edged, and not self-congratulatory at all.

Here is a sample of Heller for interested readers, sounding nothing like the cold warrior which this review ignorantly paints him as: http://www.typotheque.com/articles/graphic_intervention/

Nina Power
06 August 2008 at 01:00

'Totalitarianism' is an outdated and dubious term that obscures far more than it illuminates. Those who have used it, such as Arendt, restrict its usage, and most serious historians have dispensed with it altogether.

Similarly, 'party-states' is unhelpful as a synonym for totalitarianism here. Can we really talk about newly independent African states such as Senegal in the same breath as Nazi Germany?

Rolex Versace
06 August 2008 at 01:15

Here's a serious review if anyone is interested:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/books/review/Benfey-t.html

Owen Hatherley
06 August 2008 at 02:15

Well, it doesn't get much more smug than tossed-off pseudonymous comments...

At no point did I claim that Heller was right-wing, or a Cold Warrior. What I was arguing was that he was well out of his depth in this material, which the apparently 'snarky' listing of errors and oversights was intended to point out. Historians of the Soviet Union, like Moshe Lewin or Sheila Fitzpatrick, or of Fascism, like Robert O Paxton or Ian Kershaw, have for a long time rejected the idea of 'totalitarianism' as a useful historical concept. There are all sorts of reasons for this, from the depoliticisation of the private sphere under the worst period of Stalinist terror to the fact that the state was by no means permanently present in the lives of all the people in all these countries all the time - control was never total, no matter how much it wanted to be. And is anyone really suggesting that a single term can encompass the regimes of Franco or Castro, Salazar and Tito, or Dubcek and Pol Pot?

It would be nice if Heller acknowledged this, or indeed seemed to have any idea of these debates at all. I'm aware, by the way, of Heller's anti-Bush activities and all power to him for that, but he still perpetuates a neat dichotomy between 'totalitarianism' and 'democracy' which is pretty useless as politics. Italy under Berlusconi and the USA under Bush have managed to do some horrendous things while still keeping representative democracy ticking along nicely.

My point was that if this is dubious as history then it's even worse for art history, as it overlooks so much. For instance, what Italian art in the 20s really looks like is French Art Deco; and Russian art in the same period is remarkably similar to German and Dutch currents like the Neue Typographie and De Stijl. Meanwhile, the bombastic styles of the 30s can be found in Washington and London almost as much as in Rome and Moscow.

Finally, whatever the merits of the book as an aesthetic object - it is very pretty, I'll give it that - as scholarship it's very poor indeed, as the Benjamin misquote makes very clear. There are many, many interesting and illuminating books on this subject, and Heller's just isn't one of them.

alex
11 August 2008 at 17:48

Owen - so what other books would you recommend on this subject?

Owen Hatherley
11 August 2008 at 23:02

Well, the following are all a damn sight better, and all are fairly non-academic and well illustrated:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Art-Power-Europe-Under-Dictators/dp/...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Three-New-Deals-Reflections-Roosevel...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Propaganda-Dreams-Photographing-1930...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Art-Literature-Under-Bolsheviks-Revo...

alex
12 August 2008 at 13:28

Thanks, Owen (actually I am an academic, but I'm ordering books for my 1st year undergrads, so your suggestions are most welcome). I remember the Art-Power exhibition being excellent.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website

Read More

Vote!

Will Baroness Ashton be an effective EU foreign minister?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker