How is the concept of beauty applicable to possibly “shallow” works of pop culture and propaganda today?

   

    In hindsight, this question kind of answers itself...the key to beauty, as far as Nehemas is concerned, is the promise of greater value, the suspicion of new lessons and possiblilities within the object of observation.  

    By stipulating pop culture and propaganda as "shallow" I have already shown how and why Nehemas would not classify these works as beautiful.  Catchy, interesting, annoying, and repetitively memorable are a few adjectives one might assign to propaganda, but not beautiful.  Propaganda especially lacks this depth, for a few reasons, but reasons that are actually quite logical.  In art specifically, artwork is created (usually) to convey a theme, themes, an idea, or convey the emotions, mindset, inispiration, etc, of the artist.  How can something with one specific goal be considered to have beauty or depth?  If uncle sam wants YOU, then you either accept or decline, or maybe think about it for a few seconds, until you have to open a door, tie your shoe, or engage in conversation, to name a few occupying tasks.   I would say that the circumstances behind the production of propaganda are its own limitations.  Even the biggest patriot, according to Nehemas' theory, would never consider this to be beautiful, unless they are constantly engaged and drawn into the boundless realm of entering the service or buying government bonds.