In the article the author considers the problem of using art as the political power instrument. The subject of the study is the analysis of applied arts possibilities as a means of political propaganda and agitation, the necessary qualities and political views formation in a person. The material for the analysis is the Soviet propaganda porcelain of the 1920s. The choice of this material is caused, firstly, by its great visibility in the framework of the discussed problem, and, secondly, by the negative result of its use in real politics (at first sight, paradoxical). At present, Soviet propaganda porcelain is considered to be a “unique phenomenon” of Russian and world art. However, the main reason for its appearance at the beginning of the 20th century was not the search for new art forms. After coming to power in 1917, the Bolshevists faced the need to form political views of the citizens that were compatible with the party course — in general, to form a “new man” capable of living in a new society. On the one hand, porcelain was a random choice at that period of time (1920-s) but, on the other hand, people assigned specific characteristics to it as a type of applied art. And, therefore, they ascribed to it the possibilities of an instrument of political power. But at the same time using it in that capacity is greatly limited due to other specific properties, as well as due to other historical circumstances. The main reason for the failure of Soviet propaganda porcelain as the political propaganda and agitation means is the contradiction between the course of political power and the essence of porcelain as a phenomenon, i.e. inconsistency between the goal and the means to achieve it. In general, the author draws a conclusion that there is a difference between the goals of art and power and, as a consequence, the groundlessness of the power attempts to consider art exclusively as its own tool.
The failure of mainstream parties and the impact of new challenger parties in France, Italy and Spain
