01 PREFACE
Soviet revolutionary propaganda posters, as a new artistic genre, emerged during the Russian Revolution in 1917 and continued to influence countries across the socialist bloc until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. As a form of mass medium, Soviet propaganda posters served the revolutionary agenda by disseminating revolutionary ideology to the public. Through accessible and visually engaging means, they interpreted ideological, cultural, and cognitive frameworks, as well as behavioral norms in the spheres of labor, warfare, and social life. Moreover, both the visual form and the conveyed messages of these posters were profoundly shaped by the shifting state ideology.
My research focuses on the visual communication practices within the context of national ideology, examining how propaganda posters employ differentiated visual languages, symbolic systems, and narrative strategies to manifest distinct ideological characteristics, enabling audiences to visually perceive the political positions and value orientations they represent.
Ruben Pater’s The Politics of Design: A (Not So) Global Design Manual for Visual Communication provides a critical perspective for my current project, helping me analyze how visual communication operates within systems of power — especially in countries like the Soviet Union, where graphic design was explicitly used as a tool of ideology.
02 ANALYSIS
In the Soviet propaganda posters I have collected, those from the period between 1920 and 1929 were deeply influenced by Suprematism and Constructivism, guided by figures such as El Lissitzky and Alexander Rodchenko. Most of these works exhibit strong compositional tension, asymmetrical layouts, diagonal structures, and the use of photomontage techniques. From this period onward, visual communication was fully mobilized as a weapon of revolution. This was not merely a matter of aesthetic or experimental pursuit by designers, but rather a force that drove profound ideological transformation. The vivid revolutionary red, the resolute gaze of leaders, and the dynamic typography all served as means of visual rhetoric, transforming the abstract ideals of Marxism-Leninism into realities perceptible in everyday life.
After this period, due to ideological shifts and the restrictive cultural policies of Stalin, Constructivism was gradually replaced by Socialist Realism. Poster design turned toward realism and explicit political communication, characterized by symmetrical compositions, balanced structures, and a narrative use of typography.
Ruben Pater points out in his book that the critique of Western design hegemony bears a certain parallel to the Soviet use of design to resist capitalist ideology. Although their goals were completely opposite, both treated design as a tool to persuade the public and shape consciousness. Western corporate design influenced consumer behavior through branding and advertising, reinforcing capitalist values, while Soviet visual communication sought to construct a collective consciousness beyond individualism, consolidating political power. Yet both systems reveal the deep reliance of ideology on visual form—the shapes of letters, the rhythm of composition, and the emotional temperature of color all became carriers of belief. This closely aligns with the focus of my current project.
Moreover, another argument in the book reveals the fundamental reason behind the differences and changes I observed in the two periods of Soviet posters: design is not only about conveying existing ideas but also actively “produces” ideology by shaping the audience’s visual perception, emotions, and behavior. From this perspective, Soviet propaganda posters were not merely depicting socialist visions but creating a visual and emotional empathy that cultivated socialism in the viewer. As reflected in the two stylistically distinct periods I identified, the asymmetrical compositions rooted in Constructivism express the tremendous momentum of social transformation, while the symmetrical, centralized layouts of the Stalin era visually reinforced hierarchy and order. This shift from experimental dynamism to rigid theatricality mirrors the transition of ideology from revolutionary collectivism to authoritarian stability.
And all of the above, without exception, points to the core idea of Ruben Pater: design is never neutral. Design not only reflects ideology but also constructs and disseminates it.
03 FUTURE WORK
Based on my current research, the analysis of the unique visual characteristics presented in Soviet propaganda posters should not be limited to the deconstruction of visual elements or formal composition. Rather, it should be understood as a localized visual translation of deeper abstract ideologies, political positions, and cultural contexts. At the same time, Soviet propaganda posters can be interpreted not only as products of the ideology of their time, but also as the result of a negotiation between artistic autonomy and political demands. Constructivist artists initially regarded design as a means of integrating art into everyday life, democratizing aesthetics, and communicating directly with the masses. However, as ideology gradually solidified into state propaganda, the experimental potential of design became restricted. Peth’s critique helps to clarify this tension: once design serves power, its political agency risks being absorbed. Yet, even under such constraints, Soviet designers managed to infuse their works with formal innovation—demonstrating that ideology and creativity are not always in opposition, but often interdependent.
Through Pater’s theoretical framework, I have further realized that ideology is not something externally imposed upon design, but rather a co-evolving product that develops alongside it. Design functions as a medium through which ideology becomes visualized, materialized, and enacted. In the Soviet context, visual communication served as a laboratory for ideological experimentation—testing how abstract political ideals could be materialized through form. Similarly, in capitalist democratic societies, design operates as a medium for reproducing the ideology of consumer choice and individual freedom. In either case, visual language constitutes the cultural infrastructure of power.
Moreover, in the context of globalization and visual homogenization, global design standards have largely erased local visual languages and fostered an illusion of universality that aligns with economic and political dominance. The Soviet Union once sought to create an international socialist visual language—a system of imagery capable of uniting workers across the world. However, the pursuit of “universality” and “standardization,” which attempts to eliminate difference, can in fact intensify the centralization of ideology. In this sense, globalization itself becomes a form of control—whether manifested through capitalist branding or socialist propaganda.
Building on this, it also leads me to reconsider the responsibility of the designer. Under authoritarian systems, designers often become agents of power. Soviet designers demonstrated explicit political tendencies, while contemporary designers embody ideology in more subtle and unconscious ways. In both cases, design mediates belief. As Pater writes, design is about deciding “who is included, who is excluded, and whose voice is amplified.”
04 CONCLUSION
After interpreting Peth’s text through the lens of Soviet visual culture, my position has become clearer: the political power of design lies not only in its persuasive capacity but also in its ability to shape perception. Every visual choice—whether under capitalism or communism—participates in constructing the way reality is represented.
Leave a Reply