The Fabrication of Public Image

It took two years but I finally got around to reading The Fabrication of Louis XIV by Peter Burke over the past week. My only regret is that I hadn't read it sooner. Like before I wrote my thesis sooner. Burke's monograph is a wonderfully written, engaging, and informative account of the fabricated publicity of Louis XIV. To a large extent, it covers similar themes as my thesis, but with a focus on Louis' French court as opposed to the Spanish court of Philip IV. The final chapter even contains a section that specifically mentions the influence Philip's court had its French counterpart.

Aside from justifying some of the claims in my thesis, it also provides new insight into those areas space restrictions prevented me from exploring in depth. The most memorable of which was something which even Burke only discussed briefly, but eloquently penned: "One might therefore speak of a 'war of images,' or of art as the continuation of war by other means." Spoken in reference to the artistic arms race that occurred throughout Renaissance and Early Modern Europe, this one sentence concisely sums up one of the principle reasons behind each monarch's continual effort to out-shine each other. Although Burke only briefly discusses it, this concept is still at play in the publicity and propaganda campaigns of modern, democratic leaders.

A few months ago I watched a great documentary series on CBC called Love, Hate and Propaganda. Through six installments, it analyzed the various forms of propaganda employed by both the Allies and the Axis, as well as the various groups each side targeted. Aside from motivating their own troops and vilifying the enemy, both sides also utilized propaganda in an effort to intimidate their opponent. More recently, we have seen footage of ICBM tests performed by North Korea, and videos of Osama bin Laden denouncing the West and proclaiming the impending dominance of Islam and Al-Queda. Nothing could better exemplify a modern interpretation of Burke's quotation.

On the other side of the coin, the world is rife with modern examples of the more positive publicity Louis XIV fabricated. Anyone who has ever followed a political campaign has seen examples of crafted press ranging from George Bush's "Mission Accomplished" fabrication, Steven Harper's sweater ads, or the more recent G20 photo-op bonanza. All of these echo artistic campaigns launched by Louis and his ministers: the exaggeration of military successes in the war of War of the Spanish Succession, the donning of symbolic regalia in state portraits to emphasize dynasty and legitimacy, and the various media that demonstrate Louis visits to the Academies and Gobelins factory. Although there is insufficient evidence to precisely determine the ultimate reception of Louis' message, any current campaign or PR manager for a politician is unlikely to question the importance of modern propaganda.

In the end, in my opinion, it doesn't really matter whether or not Louis XIV's artistic endeavors influenced contemporary Europeans. What matters is that its usefulness was so highly regarded that every major leader undertook similar artistic programs, and that art as propaganda is a practice deemed so politically integral that it has continued down to this day. For even though the specific form has changed, the same principles and methods are, if anything, more prevalent today than in Louis' time. What does this ultimately boil down to? Another example of the importance of historical study. While knowing the origins of modern publicity might not save lives, it can certainly help us to understand the intricacies of modern political imagery. Perhaps this understanding will help us to delve beyond the headlines and see past the picture of the handshake. Perhaps we might even begin to question why our leaders deem it so necessary to live behind a cloak of deception.