Second: the assignment of blame for its (rule by subliminal message) cooptation into to politics is too simple: the marriage (power and mind-science) does not comsummate only because Dictatorships fear the people: it has another pedigree, linking back to the extreme avantgarist Futurism of the very early 20th century. The era of Popova and Rodscenko (Left) as well as Marinella (Right), when it was asserted that Politics/Power was CREATED by symbolic art, and not its owner. There was a certain sense of debt to Art in both Mussolini and Hitler: both these ogres-in-chief, Mr H and Mr S, had a yearning to be surrounding or in personal touch with people of the New arts world. Mr. H with, among others, Albert Speer as dream-architect (add to this); Stalin with Gorky and Lunacharsky and Prokofieff. (check this.):
Those were names that had among the earliest to tinker with the potential of psychocoding but for purposes of artistic innovation or build-past with regard the ponderousness of “Victorian” (Biedermeyer) styles, or simpleminded froth of Merry Widow theater.
So if Korean war era “brainwashing” had been put, in this 1962 film, under the microscope, a sharpening twist would have revealed an underpainting originated by would-be coup-de’etatists active in the world of display arts right when beaux arts and art nouveau were falling victim to the resentment against bourgeois complacency and philistinery one sees first gathering ground from the first Paris Opera uprisings of 1848. Any venue or modality so frictionlessly embedded in visual and stage cultures was ipso facto NON-art: it offered nothing of the dream, no opening to the shaman-call. This very same frustration, it is well known, had driven Wagner from Paris and out into the Madness of King Ludwig; the final realization of his urge to transcend by
investigating Jungian mystery is in many ways a clue that Futurism and Constructivism as theoretical constructs then as “new” advertising configurations were on the way, that ENCODE and semiotics were to follow.