RATHER THAN STRICTLY DEFENDING OR denouncing propagandistic
elements of art, Burke, as always, seemed inclined to break
through antithetical opposites with a third option. He believed
that art didn’t have to be purely aesthetic, “art for art’s
sake” and it didn’t have to be “a class weapon”; art could be “a
learning tool” that could “effect change in the attitudes of the
masses” (Weiser 13). As usual, Burke refuses to make a definite
statement condemning or extolling propagandistic art. Instead,
he describes propaganda as an essential component of art itself,
contrasts different styles of propaganda and different objects
of propaganda. While we may be hesitant to use the term
“propaganda” to describe a piece of art, Burke used the term in
a non-pejorative sense—propaganda can describe art that
recognizes the capacity to be both influenced by and be an
influence on audience’s attitudes and beliefs. But while
propagandistic art could be a powerful force for good, it had to
be based on a sound moral philosophy a