3.8 Article

Xanti Schawinsky and the Fascist Plebiscitary Elections of 1934: Everyday Design Practice and Visual Culture in Early 1930's Italy

期刊

JOURNAL OF DESIGN HISTORY
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jdh/epad026

关键词

Italy; emigre European designers; Fascism; graphic design history; propaganda; Bauhaus

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article explores the special position of Xanti Schawinsky as a promoter of modernism in Italian graphic design history and examines his propaganda poster for the plebiscitary elections of 1934. It reveals how fascist ideology was integrated into everyday practice and the blurred line between political and commercial discourses.
With Hitler's seizure of power in 1933, the Bauhausler Xanti Schawinsky sought refuge in fascist Italy until the uncertain political situation and a career choice prompted him to move to the United States in 1936. Identified as the link between Italy and the Bauhaus, Schawinsky holds a special place in the history of Italian graphic design. However, his key role as promoter of modernism has not been subjected to scrutiny by looking at the work he did, networks he established, and design exchange he fostered. Schawinsky's propaganda poster for the plebiscitary elections of 1934 is the focus of this article. Drawing on photographic documents and primary sources-including correspondences, archival documents, and autobiographic accounts-we seek to clarify the circumstances under which someone fleeing Nazi Germany eventually designed works that served as vehicles for fascist propaganda. To this end, we ground the poster 1934-XII SI within the larger sociocultural and professional context, historical and political circumstances of early 1930's Italy. We pair close visual analysis with a contextualized understanding to employ the poster as a case study to explore how fascist ideology was ingrained in everyday practice and show how the line between political and commercial discourses was blurred.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据